[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 55 (Friday, March 20, 2020)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 15960-15982]
[FR Doc No: 2020-04661]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 63

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2016-0447 and EPA-HQ-OAR-2016-0449; FRL-10006-04-OAR]
RIN 2060-AT12

National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Boat
Manufacturing and Reinforced Plastic Composites Production Risk and
Technology Review

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action finalizes the residual risk and technology reviews
(RTR) conducted for the Boat Manufacturing and the Reinforced Plastic
Composites Production source categories regulated under national
emission standards for hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP). In addition,
we are taking final action addressing emissions during periods of
startup, shutdown, and malfunction (SSM) and amending provisions
regarding electronic reporting of performance test and performance
evaluation results and semiannual reports. These final amendments
include removal of regulatory language that is inconsistent with the
requirement that the standards apply at all times, inclusion of
language requiring electronic reporting of performance test and
performance evaluation results and semiannual reports, and an amendment
to the Reinforced Plastic Composites Production NESHAP to clarify that
mixers that route to a capture and control device system with at least
95-percent efficiency overall are not required to have covers. The
numeric emission limits of the standards for both source categories
remain unchanged.

DATES: This final rule is effective on March 20, 2020.

ADDRESSES: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has
established a docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2016-0447 for the Boat Manufacturing NESHAP and Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2016-0449 for the Reinforced Plastic Composites Production NESHAP.
All documents in the docket are listed on the https://www.regulations.gov/ website. Although listed, some information is not
publicly available, e.g., confidential business information or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other
material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the internet
and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly
available docket materials are available either electronically through
https://www.regulations.gov/, or in hard copy at the EPA Docket Center,
WJC West Building, Room Number 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW,
Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room hours of operation are 8:30
a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Eastern Standard Time (EST), Monday through Friday.
The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and
the telephone number for the EPA Docket Center is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For questions about this final action,
contact Dr. Tina Ndoh, Sector Policies and Programs Division (D234-04),
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711;
telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; and email
address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For specific information regarding the risk
modeling methodology, contact Mr. James Hirtz, Health and Environmental
Impacts Division (C539-02), Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle
Park, North Carolina 27711; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax
number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; and email address: hirtz.james @epa.gov. For
information about the applicability of the NESHAP to a particular
entity, contact Mr. John Cox, Office of Enforcement and Compliance
Assurance, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, WJC South Building,
(Mail Code 2221A), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460;
telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; and email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Preamble acronyms and abbreviations. We use multiple acronyms and
terms in this preamble. While this list may not be exhaustive, to ease
the reading of this preamble and for reference purposes, the EPA
defines the following terms and acronyms here:

BMC bulk molding compound
CAA Clean Air Act
CDX Central Data Exchange
CEMS continuous emission monitoring system
CRA Congressional Review Act
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
ERT Electronic Reporting Tool
HAP hazardous air pollutants(s)
HQ hazard quotient
ICR Information Collection Request
MACT maximum achievable control technology
MIR maximum individual risk
NAICS North American Industry Classification System
NESHAP national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants
NTTAA National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
OMB Office of Management and Budget
PRA Paperwork Reduction Act
RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act
RIN Regulatory Information Number
RTR risk and technology review
SSM startup, shutdown, and malfunction
TOSHI target organ specific health index
tpy tons per year
UMRA Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    Background information. On May 17, 2019 (84 FR 22642), the EPA
proposed revisions to the Boat Manufacturing NESHAP and the Reinforced
Plastic Composites Production NESHAP based on our RTR. In this action,
we are finalizing decisions and revisions for the rule. We summarize
some of the more significant comments we timely received regarding the
proposed rule and provide our responses in this preamble. A summary of
all other public comments on the proposal and the EPA's responses to
those comments is available in the Summary of Public Comments and
Responses for the Risk and Technology Reviews for Boat Manufacturing
NESHAP and Reinforced Plastic Composite NESHAP, Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2016-0447 for Boat Manufacturing and EPA-HQ-OAR-2016-0449 for
Reinforced Plastic Composites Production. A ``track changes'' version
of the regulatory language that incorporates the changes in this action
is available in the docket for each rule.
    Organization of this document. The information in this preamble is
organized as follows:

I. General Information
    A. Does this action apply to me?
    B. Where can I get a copy of this document and other related
information?
    C. Judicial Review and Administrative Reconsideration
II. Background
    A. What is the statutory authority for this action?
    B. What are the source categories and how does the NESHAP
regulate HAP emissions from the source categories?
    C. What changes did we propose for the source categories in our
May 17, 2019, proposal?
III. What is included in these final rules?
    A. What are the final rule amendments based on the risk review
for the source categories?
    B. What are the final rule amendments based on the technology
review for the source categories?

    C. What are the final rule amendments addressing emissions
during periods SSM?
    D. What are the final rule amendments for electronic reporting
for the source categories?
    E. What are the effective and compliance dates for the Boat
Manufacturing and Reinforced Plastic Composites Production source
categories?
    F. What are the electronic reporting requirements?
    G. What are the final rule amendments regarding covers for
mixers that route to a control device system?
IV. What is the rationale for our final decisions and amendments for
the Boat Manufacturing and Reinforced Plastic Composites Production
source categories?
    A. Residual Risk Reviews
    B. Technology Reviews for the Boat Manufacturing and Reinforced
Plastic Composites Production Source Categories
    C. SSM Provisions
    D. Electronic Reporting Provisions
    E. Work Practice Standards for Controlled-Spray Training
V. Summary of Cost, Environmental, and Economic Impacts and
Additional Analyses Conducted
    A. What are the affected facilities?
    B. What are the air quality impacts?
    C. What are the cost impacts?
    D. What are the economic impacts?
    E. What are the benefits?
    F. What analysis of environmental justice did we conduct?
    G. What analysis of children's environmental health did we
conduct?
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
    A. Executive Orders 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and
Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
    B. Executive Order 13771: Reducing Regulations and Controlling
Regulatory Costs
    C. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
    D. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
    E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
    F. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
    G. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With
Indian Tribal Governments
    H. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
    I. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
    J. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)
    K. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations
    L. Congressional Review Act (CRA)

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

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

 Table 1--NESHAP and Industrial Source Categories Affected by This Final
                                 Action
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               NAICS \1\
                  NESHAP and source category                      Code
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Boat Manufacturing...........................................     336612
Reinforced Plastic Composites Production.....................     326113
                                                                  326121
                                                                  326122
                                                                  326130
                                                                  326140
                                                                  326191
                                                                  327110
                                                                  327991
                                                                  332321
                                                                  332420
                                                                  333132
                                                                  333415
                                                                  333611
                                                                  333924
                                                                  334310
                                                                  335311
                                                                  335313
                                                                  335932
                                                                  336111
                                                                  336211
                                                                  336213
                                                                  336214
                                                                  336320
                                                                  336413
                                                                  336510
                                                                  337110
                                                                  337125
                                                                  337127
                                                                  337215
                                                                  339920
                                                                  339991
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ North American Industry Classification System.

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

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

    In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of
this final action will also be available on the internet. Following
signature by the EPA Administrator, the EPA will post a copy of this
final action at: https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/boat-manufacturing-national-emission-standards-hazardous-air for the
Boat Manufacturing NESHAP, and https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/reinforced-plastic-composites-production-national-emission for the Reinforced Plastic Composites Production NESHAP.
Following publication in the Federal Register, the EPA will post the
Federal Register version and key technical documents at this same
website.
    Additional information is available on the RTR website at https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/risk-and-technology-review-national-emissions-standards-hazardous. This information
includes an overview of the RTR program and links to project websites
for the RTR source categories.

C. Judicial Review and Administrative Reconsideration

    Under Clean Air Act (CAA) section 307(b)(1), judicial review of
this final action is available only by filing a petition for review in
the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
(the Court) by May 19, 2020. Under CAA section 307(b)(2), the
requirements established by this final rule may not be challenged
separately in any civil or criminal proceedings brought by the EPA to
enforce the requirements.
    Section 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA further provides that only an
objection to a rule or procedure which was raised with reasonable
specificity during the period for public comment (including any public
hearing) may be raised during judicial review. This section also
provides a mechanism for the EPA to reconsider the rule if the person
raising an objection can demonstrate to the Administrator that it was
impracticable to raise such objection within the period for public
comment or if the grounds for such objection arose after the period for
public comment (but within the time specified for judicial review) and
if such objection is of central relevance to the outcome of the rule.
Any person seeking to make such a demonstration should submit a
Petition for Reconsideration to the Office of the Administrator, U.S.
EPA, Room 3000, WJC South Building, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW,
Washington, DC 20460, with a copy to both the person(s) listed in the
preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section, and the Associate
General Counsel for the Air and Radiation Law Office, Office of General
Counsel (Mail Code 2344A), U.S. EPA, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW,
Washington, DC 20460.

II. Background

A. What is the statutory authority for this action?

    Section 112 of the CAA establishes a two-stage regulatory process
to address emissions of hazardous air pollutants (HAP) from stationary
sources. In the first stage, we must identify categories of sources
emitting one or more of the HAP listed in CAA section 112(b) and then
promulgate technology-based NESHAP for those sources. ``Major sources''
are those that emit, or have the potential to emit, any single HAP at a
rate of 10 tons per year (tpy) or more, or 25 tpy or more of any
combination of HAP. For major sources, these standards are commonly
referred to as maximum achievable control technology (MACT) standards
and must reflect the maximum degree of emission reductions of HAP
achievable (after considering cost, energy requirements, and non-air
quality health and environmental impacts). In developing MACT
standards, CAA section 112(d)(2) directs the EPA to consider the
application of measures, processes, methods, systems, or techniques,
including, but not limited to, those that reduce the volume of or
eliminate HAP emissions through process changes, substitution of
materials, or other modifications; enclose systems or processes to
eliminate emissions; collect, capture, or treat HAP when released from
a process, stack, storage, or fugitive emissions point; are design,
equipment, work practice, or operational standards; or any combination
of the above.
    For these MACT standards, the statute specifies certain minimum
stringency requirements, which are referred to as MACT floor
requirements, and which may not be based on cost considerations. See
CAA section 112(d)(3). For new sources, the MACT floor cannot be less
stringent than the emission control achieved in practice by the best-
controlled similar source. The MACT standards for existing sources can
be less stringent than floors for new sources, but they cannot be less
stringent than the average emission limitation achieved by the best-
performing 12 percent of existing sources in the category or
subcategory (or the best-performing five sources for categories or
subcategories with fewer than 30 sources). In developing MACT
standards, we must also consider control options that are more
stringent than the floor under CAA section 112(d)(2). We may establish
standards more stringent than the floor, based on the consideration of
the cost of achieving the emissions reductions, any non-air quality
health and environmental impacts, and energy requirements.
    In the second stage of the regulatory process, the CAA requires the
EPA to undertake two different analyses, which we refer to as the
technology review and the residual risk review. Under the technology
review, we must review the technology-based standards and revise them
``as necessary (taking into account developments in practices,
processes, and control technologies)'' no less frequently than every 8
years, pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6). Under the residual risk
review, we must evaluate the risk to public health remaining after
application of the technology-based standards and revise the standards,
if necessary, to provide an ample margin of safety to protect public
health or to prevent, taking into consideration costs, energy, safety,
and other relevant factors, an adverse environmental effect. The
residual risk review is required within 8 years after promulgation of
the technology-based standards, pursuant to CAA section 112(f). In
conducting the residual risk review, if the EPA determines that the
current standards provide an ample margin of safety to protect public
health, it is not necessary to revise the MACT standards pursuant to
CAA section 112(f).\1\ For more information on the statutory authority
for this rule, see the CAA Section 112 Risk and Technology Reviews:
Statutory Authority and Methodology memorandum (Docket ID Item No. EPA-
HQ-OAR-2016-0447-0080).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

B. What are the source categories and how does the NESHAP regulate HAP
emissions from the source categories?

1. What is the Boat Manufacturing source category and how does the
current NESHAP regulate its HAP emissions?
    The EPA promulgated the Boat Manufacturing NESHAP on August 22,
2001 (66 FR 44218). The standards are codified at 40 CFR part 63,
subpart VVVV (40 CFR 63.5680). The boat manufacturing industry consists
of facilities that manufacture fiberglass and aluminum boats. The
source category covered by this MACT standard currently includes 93
facilities.
    The following processes and operations are found at boat
manufacturing facilities: Fiberglass boat manufacturing and assembly
operations, fabric and carpet adhesive operations, and aluminum boat
surface coating operations. See the proposal for this action for
additional detail on the processes at boat manufacturing facilities (84
FR 22645, May 17, 2019). The Boat Manufacturing NESHAP regulates
organic HAP from sources that manufacture aluminum recreational boats
or any type of fiberglass boats. For the purposes of these standards,
recreational boats are defined as a vessel which, by design and
construction, is intended by the manufacturer to be operated primarily
for pleasure, or to be leased, rented, or chartered to another for the
latter's pleasure (rather than for commercial or military purposes).
The Boat Manufacturing NESHAP applies to the following operations: All
open molding operations including pigmented gel coat, clear gel coat,
production resin, tooling resin, and tooling gel coat; all closed
molding resin operations; resin and gel coat mixing and operations;
resin and gel coat application equipment cleaning operations; carpet
and fabric adhesive operations; aluminum hull and deck coating
operations, including solvent wipe-down operations; and paint spray gun
cleaning operations on aluminum recreational boats. The NESHAP
regulates HAP emissions by setting HAP content limits for the resins
and gel coats used at each regulated open molding resin and gel coat
operation. Regulated entities can comply with the HAP limits by
averaging emissions, using compliant materials, or using add-on
controls.
2. What is the Reinforced Plastic Composites Production source category
and how does the current NESHAP regulate its HAP emissions?
    The EPA promulgated the Reinforced Plastic Composites Production
NESHAP on April 21, 2003 (68 FR 19375) and amended the standards on
August 25, 2005 (70 FR 50118). The standards are codified at 40 CFR
part 63, subpart WWWW (40 CFR 63.5780). The reinforced plastic
composites production industry consists of facilities that manufacture
reinforced and non-reinforced plastic composite products and the
production of plastic molding compounds used in the production of
plastic composites products. The source category covered by this MACT
standard currently includes 448 facilities.
    The Reinforced Plastic Composites Production NESHAP applies to the
following operations: Open molding, closed molding, centrifugal
casting, continuous lamination, continuous casting, polymer casting,
pultrusion, sheet molding compound

manufacturing, bulk molding compound (BMC) manufacturing, mixing,
cleaning of equipment used in reinforced plastic composites
manufacture, HAP-containing materials storage, and repair operations on
manufactured parts (40 CFR 63.5790). Most existing major sources are
required to incorporate pollution-prevention techniques in their
production processes. These techniques include the following: Using raw
materials containing low amounts of regulated HAP; non-atomized resin
application; and covering open resin baths and tanks.

C. What changes did we propose for the source categories in our May 17,
2019, proposal?

    On May 17, 2019, the EPA published proposed rules in the Federal
Register for the Boat Manufacturing NESHAP, 40 CFR part 63, subpart
VVVV, and the Reinforced Plastic Composites Production NESHAP, 40 CFR
part 63, subpart WWWW, that took into consideration the RTR analyses.
In the proposed rule, we proposed that the risks due to emissions of
air toxics from these source categories under the current standards are
acceptable and that the standards provide an ample margin of safety to
protect public health, and, therefore, no additional emission
reductions are necessary. For the technology reviews, we did not
identify any developments in practices, processes, or control
technologies, and, therefore, we did not propose any changes to the
standards under CAA section 112(d)(6). We did, however, solicit
comments on the feasibility and associated cost of revising the NESHAP
to include a work practice standard that would require controlled-spray
operator training.
    Additionally, the EPA proposed amendments to provisions addressing
emissions during periods of SSM and to provisions regarding electronic
reporting of performance test and performance evaluation results and
semiannual reports, and proposed an amendment to the Reinforced Plastic
Composites Production NESHAP to clarify that mixers that route to a
capture and control device system with at least 95-percent efficiency
overall are not required to have covers.

III. What is included in these final rules?

    This action finalizes the EPA's determinations pursuant to the RTR
provisions of CAA section 112 for the Boat Manufacturing and Reinforced
Plastic Composites Production source categories. This actions also
finalizes other changes to the NESHAP, including:
     Amending provisions addressing emissions during periods of
SSM;
     Amending provisions regarding electronic reporting of
performance test and performance evaluation results and semiannual
reports; and
     An amendment to the Reinforced Plastic Composites
Production NESHAP to clarify that mixers that route to a capture and
control device system with at least 95-percent efficiency overall are
not required to have covers.

A. What are the final rule amendments based on the risk review for the
source categories?

    This section introduces the final amendments to the Boat
Manufacturing and Reinforced Plastic Composites Production NESHAP being
promulgated pursuant to CAA section 112(f). Consistent with the
proposed findings for these NESHAP, the EPA is finalizing our
determination that the risks due to emissions of air toxics from these
source categories under the current standards are acceptable and that
the standards provide an ample margin of safety to protect public
health. The EPA proposed no changes to these two subparts based on the
risk reviews conducted pursuant to CAA section 112(f). The EPA received
no new data or other information during the public comment period that
causes us to change that proposed determination. Therefore, we are not
requiring additional controls under CAA section 112(f)(2) for either of
the two subparts in this action, and we are not making any changes to
the existing standards under CAA section 112(f)(2). In other words, we
are readopting the standards for both subparts.

B. What are the final rule amendments based on the technology review
for the source categories?

    Consistent with the proposed findings for these NESHAP, we
determined that there are no developments in practices, processes, and
control technologies that warrant revisions to the MACT standards for
either of these source categories. Therefore, we are not finalizing any
revisions to the MACT standards under CAA section 112(d)(6).

C. What are the final rule amendments addressing emissions during
periods SSM?

    We are finalizing the proposed amendments to the Boat Manufacturing
NESHAP (40 CFR part 63, subpart VVVV) and the Plastic Composites
Production NESHAP (40 CFR part 63, subpart WWWW) to remove and revise
the provisions related to SSM. In its 2008 decision in Sierra Club v.
EPA, 551 F.3d 1019 (D.C. Cir. 2008), the Court vacated portions of two
provisions in the EPA's CAA section 112 regulations governing the
emissions of HAP during periods of SSM. Specifically, the Court vacated
the SSM exemption contained in 40 CFR 63.6(f)(1) and (h)(1), holding
that under section 302(k) of the CAA, emissions standards or
limitations must be continuous in nature and that the SSM exemption
violates the CAA's requirement that some CAA section 112 standards
apply continuously. As detailed in section IV.D and IV.I of the
proposal preamble for these NESHAP (84 FR 22660 and 22668, May 17,
2019), Table 8 to subpart VVVV of part 63 and Table 15 to subpart WWWW
of part 63 (General Provisions applicability tables) are being revised
to require that the standards apply at all times. We also eliminated or
revised certain recordkeeping and reporting requirements related to the
eliminated SSM exemption. The EPA also made other harmonizing changes
to remove or modify inappropriate, unnecessary, or redundant language
in the absence of the SSM exemption. We determined that facilities in
both of these source categories can meet the applicable emission
standards in the Boat Manufacturing NESHAP and the Plastic Composites
Production NESHAP at all times, including periods of startup and
shutdown. Therefore, the EPA determined that no additional standards
are needed to address emissions during these periods. The legal
rationale and explanation of the changes to the SSM requirements are
set forth in the proposed rules. See 84 FR 22660 through 22662 and
22668 through 222669, May 17, 2019.
    Further, the EPA is not implementing standards for malfunctions. As
discussed in sections IV.D and IV.I of the May 17, 2019, proposal
preamble, the EPA interprets CAA section 112 as not requiring emissions
that occur during periods of malfunction to be factored into
development of CAA section 112 standards, although the EPA has the
discretion to set standards for malfunctions where feasible. For these
source categories, it is unlikely that a malfunction would result in a
violation of the standards, and no comments were submitted that would
suggest otherwise. Refer to section IV.D and IV.I of the May 17, 2019,
proposal preamble for further discussion of the EPA's rationale for the
decision not to set standards for malfunctions, as well as a discussion
of the actions a source could take in the unlikely event that a source
fails to

comply with the applicable CAA section 112(d) standards as a result of
a malfunction event, given that administrative and judicial procedures
for addressing exceedances of the standards fully recognize that
violations may occur despite good faith efforts to comply and can
accommodate those situations.
    The EPA is finalizing a revision to the performance testing
requirements at 40 CFR 63.5765 and 63.5912. The final performance
testing provisions prohibit performance testing during SSM for
demonstrating compliance as these conditions are not representative of
normal operating conditions. The final rules also require that
operators maintain records to document that operating conditions during
performance tests represent normal conditions.

D. What are the final rule amendments for electronic reporting for the
source categories?

    The EPA is finalizing electronic reporting requirements that apply
to owners and operators of facilities subject to the Boat Manufacturing
NESHAP and the Plastic Composites Production NESHAP. Owners and
operations are required to submit electronic copies of performance test
reports and performance evaluation reports and semiannual reports
through the EPA's Central Data Exchange (CDX), using the Compliance and
Emissions Data Reporting Interface (CEDRI). A description of the
electronic data submission process is provided in the memorandum,
Electronic Reporting Requirements for New Source Performance Standards
(NSPS) and National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
(NESHAP) Rules, available in the dockets for both rules at Docket ID
Item Nos. EPA-HQ-OAR-2016-0447-0082 and EPA-HQ-2016-0449-0047. The
final rule requires that performance test and performance evaluation
report results collected using test methods that are supported by the
EPA's Electronic Reporting Tool (ERT) as listed on the ERT website \2\
at the time of the test be submitted in the format generated through
the use of the ERT and that other performance test results be submitted
in portable document format using the attachment module of the ERT. For
semiannual reports, the final rule requires that owners and operators
use the appropriate spreadsheet template to submit information to
CEDRI. A draft version of the proposed template for these reports is
included in the dockets for this rulemaking (Docket ID Item Nos. EPA-
HQ-OAR-2016-0447-0082 and EPA-HQ-OAR-2016-0449-0047). Electronic
reporting requirements are discussed further in section IV.D and V.D of
this preamble.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ https://www.epa.gov/electronic-reporting-air-emissions/electronic-reporting-tool-ert.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

E. What are the effective and compliance dates for the Boat
Manufacturing and Reinforced Plastic Composites Production source
categories?

    The revisions to the MACT standards being promulgated in this
action are effective on March 20, 2020.
    The EPA is finalizing rule revisions that require affected sources
in the Boat Manufacturing and Reinforced Plastic Composites Production
source categories that commenced construction or reconstruction on or
before May 17, 2019, to comply with all the amendments, including the
electronic format for submitting performance test and performance
evaluation results and compliance reports, no later than 180 days after
the effective date of the final rule. Affected sources that commence
construction or reconstruction after May 17, 2019, must comply with all
requirements of the subpart, including the amendments being finalized,
no later than the effective date of the final rule or upon startup,
whichever is later, with the exception of the electronic format for
submitting compliance reports. Affected sources that commence
construction or reconstruction after May 17, 2019, must comply with all
requirements for the electronic format for submitting compliance
reports no later than 180 days after the effective date of the final
rule or upon startup, whichever is later. The EPA's rationale for these
compliance deadlines appears in the proposal preamble (84 FR 22664 and
22670, May 17, 2019). All affected facilities for the Boat
Manufacturing source category must continue to meet the current
requirements of 40 CFR part 63, subpart VVVV, and for the Plastic
Composites Production source category must continue to meet the current
requirements of 40 CFR part 63, subpart WWWW, until the applicable
compliance date of the amended rule.

F. What are the electronic reporting requirements?

    The EPA is requiring owners and operators of boat manufacturing and
reinforced plastic composites production facilities to submit
electronic copies of certain required performance test reports,
performance evaluation reports, and periodic reports through the EPA's
CDX using the CEDRI. The final rule requires that performance test and
performance evaluation test results be submitted using the ERT. For the
periodic compliance reports, the final rule requires that owners and
operators use the appropriate spreadsheet template to submit
information to CEDRI. The final version of the templates for these
reports will be located on the CEDRI website (https://www.epa.gov/electronic-reporting-air-emissions/cedri).
    The electronic submittal of the reports addressed in this
rulemaking will increase the usefulness of the data contained in those
reports, is in keeping with current trends in data availability and
transparency, will further assist in the protection of public health
and the environment, will improve compliance by facilitating the
ability of regulated facilities to demonstrate compliance with
requirements and by facilitating the ability of delegated state, local,
tribal, and territorial air agencies and the EPA to assess and
determine compliance, and will ultimately reduce burden on regulated
facilities, delegated air agencies, and the EPA. Electronic reporting
also eliminates paper-based manual processes, thereby saving time and
resources, simplifying data entry, eliminating redundancies, minimizing
data reporting errors, and providing data quickly and accurately to the
affected facilities, air agencies, the EPA and the public. For a more
thorough discussion of electronic reporting, see the memorandum on e-
reporting, available in Docket ID Item No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2016-0447 and
EPA-HQ-OAR-2016-0449.

G. What are the final rule amendments regarding covers for mixers that
route to a control device system?

    In this action, we are finalizing an amendment to Table 4 to 40 CFR
part 63, subpart WWWW, to clarify that mixers that route emissions to a
capture and control device system that is at least 95-percent efficient
overall are not required to have covers. In the 2003 NESHAP rulemaking,
we determined that MACT for existing sources was pollution prevention
measures (for mixing and BMC manufacturing operations) and that MACT
for new sources was 95-percent control. We also considered whether the
new source MACT floor for mixing operations should be incorporation of
the pollution prevention measures (in this case covering the mixers)
combined with 95-percent control. We determined that the best
controlled facilities which route emissions to a 95-percent efficient
control device do not also incorporate the best pollution prevention

techniques. Therefore, we concluded that combining the pollution
prevention requirements with the 95-percent control requirements would
result in an overall control level that exceeds the levels at the best
controlled facilities (66 FR 40332, August 2, 2001). However, the text
in table 4 of the regulation did not directly address whether mixers
that capture and control emissions by 95 percent overall need to have
covers. We have added text in line 6 of table 4 to clarify that covers
are not required for mixers that fully capture and route emissions to a
control device with at least 95-percent efficiency.

IV. What is the rationale for our final decisions and amendments for
the Boat Manufacturing and Reinforced Plastic Composites Production
source categories?

    For each issue, this section provides a description of what we
proposed and what we are finalizing for the issue, the EPA's rationale
for the final decisions and amendments, and a summary of key comments
and responses. For all comments not discussed in this preamble, comment
summaries and the EPA's responses can be found in the comment summary
and response document available in the docket.

A. Residual Risk Review

1. What did we propose pursuant to CAA section 112(f)?
a. Boat Manufacturing (40 CFR Part 63, subpart VVVV) Source Category
    Pursuant to CAA section 112(f), the EPA conducted a residual risk
review and presented the results of this review, along with our
proposed decisions regarding risk acceptability and ample margin of
safety, in section IV.A of the proposed rule preamble (84 FR 22658, May
17, 2019). The results of this review are presented briefly below in
Table 2 of this preamble. Additional detail is provided in the residual
risk technical support document titled Residual Risk Assessment for the
Boat Manufacturing Source Category in Support of the 2018 Risk and
Technology Review Proposed Rule, which is available in the Boat
Manufacturing Docket (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2016-0447).

                                 Table 2--Inhalation Risk Assessment Summary for the Boat Manufacturing Source Category
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Cancer MIR (in 1 million)                                              Population
                                -----------------------------------------------     Cancer        Population     with risk of     Max chronic noncancer
                                                                                incidence    with risk of 1-     10-in-1         hazard index (HI)
                                     Based on actual       Based on allowable     (cases per     in-1 million     million or    (actuals and allowables)
                                        emissions              emissions             year)        or greater        greater
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source Category................  0.2 (nickel compounds,  0.3 (nickel                   0.00001               0               0  HI < 1.
                                  ethyl benzene,          compounds, ethyl
                                  tetrachloroethene).     benzene,
                                                          tetrachloroethene).
Whole Facility.................  0.4 (naphthalene).....  .....................         0.00004               0               0  HI = 1.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA proposed that the risks from the Boat Manufacturing source
category were acceptable based on the health risk information and
factors discussed in section IV.C of the proposal for this rulemaking
(84 FR 22658, May 17, 2019). As explained in section II.A of the
proposal preamble, the EPA sets standards under CAA section 112(f)(2)
using ``a two-step standard-setting approach, with an analytical first
step to determine an 'acceptable risk' that considers all health
information, including risk estimation uncertainty, and includes a
presumptive limit on maximum individual risk (MIR) of approximately 1-
in-10 thousand (84 FR 22644, May 17, 2019).''
    For the Boat Manufacturing source category, the risk analysis
indicates that the cancer risks to the individual most exposed is 0.2-
in-1 million based on actual emissions and is 0.3-in-1 million based on
allowable emissions. These risks are considerably less than 100-in-1
million (or 1-in-10 thousand), which is the presumptive upper limit of
acceptable risk. The Benzene NESHAP explained that ``a MIR of
approximately one in 10 thousand should ordinarily be the upper end of
the range of acceptability. As risks increase above this benchmark,
they become presumptively less acceptable under CAA section 112, and
would be weighed with the other health risk measures and information in
making an overall judgment on acceptability (54 FR 38057, September 14,
1989). The risk analysis also shows very low cancer incidence (0.00001
cases per year for actual emissions and 0.00002 cases per year for
allowable emissions). Based on our analysis, we did not identify
potential for adverse chronic noncancer health effects; all target
organ specific health indexes (TOSHIs) were less than 1. The acute
noncancer risks based on actual emissions are not greater than a hazard
quotient (HQ) of 1 for styrene. Therefore, we find there is little
potential concern of acute noncancer health impacts from actual
emissions. In addition, the risk assessment indicates no significant
potential for multipathway health effects or ecological effects. For
all the reasons stated, the risk from the Boat Manufacturing source
category were found to be acceptable.
    Under the ample margin of safety analysis, we evaluated the cost
and feasibility of available control technologies and other measures
(including the controls, measures, and costs reviewed under the
technology review) that could be applied in this source category to
further reduce the risks (or potential risks) due to emissions of HAP,
considering all of the health risks and other health information
considered in the risk acceptability determination described above. In
this analysis, we considered the results of the technology review, risk
assessment, and other aspects of our MACT rule review to determine
whether there are any cost-effective controls or other measures that
would reduce emissions further and would be necessary to provide an
ample margin of safety to protect public health.
    Our risk analysis indicated the risks from the Boat Manufacturing
source category are low for both cancer and noncancer health effects,
and, therefore, any risk reductions from further available control
options would result in minimal health benefits. As noted in section
IV.C of the proposal preamble,

no additional control measures were identified for reducing HAP
emissions from the Boat Manufacturing source category (84 FR 22660, May
17, 2019). Thus, we proposed that the Boat Manufacturing NESHAP
provides an ample margin of safety to protect health and we are not
making any changes to the existing standards under CAA section
112(f)(2).
b. Reinforced Plastic Composites Production (40 CFR Part 63, subpart
WWWW) Source Category
    Pursuant to CAA section 112(f), the EPA conducted a residual risk
review and presented the results of this review, along with our
proposed decisions regarding risk acceptability and ample margin of
safety, in section IV.F of the proposed rule preamble (84 FR 22664, May
17, 2019). The results of this review are presented briefly below in
Table 3 of this preamble. Additional detail is provided in the residual
risk technical support document titled Residual Risk Assessment for the
Reinforced Plastic Composites Production Source Category in Support of
the 2018 Risk and Technology Review Proposed Rule, which is available
in the Boat Manufacturing Docket (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2016-0449).

                      Table 3--Inhalation Risk Assessment Summary for the Reinforced Plastic Composites Production Source Category
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Cancer MIR (in 1 million)                                              Population
                                -----------------------------------------------     Cancer        Population     with risk of     Max chronic noncancer
                                                                                incidence    with risk of 1-     10-in-1         hazard index (HI)
                                     Based on actual       Based on allowable     (cases per     in-1 million     million or    (actuals and allowables)
                                        emissions              emissions             year)        or greater        greater
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source Category................  4 (formaldehyde, ethyl  4 (formaldehyde,                0.001           1,500               0  HI = 1.
                                  benzene).               ethyl benzene).
Whole Facility.................  20....................  .....................           0.001           4,500             800  HI = 1.
                                 (cadmium,7-12-
                                  dimethylbenz
                                  [a]anthracene,
                                  nickel, formaldehyde).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA proposed that the risks from the Reinforced Plastic
Composites Production source category were acceptable based on the
health risk information and factors discussed in section IV.G of the
proposal for this rulemaking (84 FR 22666, May 17, 2019). As explained
in section II.A of the proposal preamble, the EPA sets standards under
CAA section 112(f)(2) using ``a two-step standard-setting approach,
with an analytical first step to determine an `acceptable risk' that
considers all health information, including risk estimation
uncertainty, and includes a presumptive limit on MIR of approximately
1-in-10 thousand (84 FR 22644, May 17, 2019).''
    For the Reinforced Plastic Composites Production source category,
the risk analysis indicates that the cancer risks to the individual
most exposed is 4-in-1 million based on actual emissions and is 4-in-1
million based on allowable emissions. These risks are considerably less
than 100-in-1 million (or 1-in-10 thousand), which is the presumptive
upper limit of acceptable risk. The risk analysis also shows very low
cancer incidence (0.001 cases per year for actual emissions and 0.001
cases per year for allowable emissions). We did not identify potential
for adverse chronic noncancer health effects; the TOSHIs were equal to
1. The results of the acute screening analysis estimate a maximum acute
noncancer HQ of 3 based on the acute recommended exposure limit for
styrene. The maximum off-site concentration for this HAP was also
compared to EPA's Acute Exposure Guideline Levels (AEGL-1) and
Emergency Response Planning Guideline (ERPG-1) levels and, in all
cases, the HQ was less than 1, below the level at which mild,
reversible effects would be anticipated. This information, in addition
to the conservative (health protective) assumptions built into the
screening assessment, leads us to conclude that adverse effects from
acute exposure to emissions of this HAP from this category are not
anticipated. In addition, the risk assessment indicates no significant
potential for multipathway health effects or ecological effects.
Considering all the health risk information and factors discussed
above, we proposed that the risks from the Reinforced Plastic
Composites Production source category are acceptable.
    Under the ample margin of safety analysis, we evaluated the cost
and feasibility of available control technologies and other measures
(including the controls, measures, and costs reviewed under the
technology review) that could be applied in this source category to
further reduce the risks (or potential risks) due to emissions of HAP,
considering all of the health risks and other health information
considered in the risk acceptability determination described above. In
this analysis, we considered the results of the technology review, risk
assessment, and other aspects of our MACT rule review to determine
whether there are any cost-effective controls or other measures that
would reduce emissions further and would be necessary to provide an
ample margin of safety to protect public health.
    Our risk analysis indicated the risks from the Reinforced Plastic
Composites Production source category are low for both cancer and
noncancer health effects, and, therefore, any risk reductions from
further available control options would result in minimal health
benefits. As noted in section IV.H of the proposal preamble, no
additional control measures were identified for reducing HAP emissions
from sources in the Reinforced Plastic Composites Production source
category (84 FR 22667, May 17, 2019). Thus, we proposed that the
Reinforced Plastic Composites Production NESHAP provides an ample
margin of safety to protect health and we are not making any changes to
the existing standards under CAA section 112(f)(2).
2. How did the risk review change for these source categories?
    The EPA has not changed any aspect of the risk assessment for
either of these two source categories as a result of public comments
received on the May 2019 proposal.

3. What key comments did we receive on the risk review, and what are
our responses?
    The EPA received comments in support of and against the proposed
residual risk review and our determination that no revisions were
warranted under CAA section 112(f)(2) for either source category.
Generally, the comments that did not support the proposed
determinations that the risks are acceptable and that the existing
standards provide an ample margin of safety also asserted that changes
to the underlying risk assessment methodology were needed. For example,
one commenter stated that the EPA should lower the acceptability
benchmark and not assume that risks below 100-in-1 million are
inherently acceptable, include emissions from outside of the source
categories in question in the risk assessment, and assume that
pollutants with noncancer health risks have no safe level of exposure.
Generally, the comments that were supportive of the proposed
determinations of the residual risk review agreed with our underlying
risk assessment methodology and data inputs and asked for the rule to
be finalized as soon as possible to provide regulatory certainty. After
review of all the comments received, we decided not to make any changes
to the residual risk review. The comments and our specific responses
can be found in the document, Summary of Public Comments and Responses
on Proposed Rule (84 FR 22642, May 17, 2019), available in the dockets
for these actions (Docket ID Nos. EPA-HQ-OAR-2016-0447 and EPA-HQ-OAR-
2016-0449).
4. What is the rationale for our final approach and final decisions for
the risk review?
    As noted in our proposal, the EPA sets standards under CAA section
112(f)(2) using ``a two-step standard-setting approach, with an
analytical first step to determine an `acceptable risk' that considers
all health information, including risk estimation uncertainty, and
includes a presumptive limit on the MIR of approximately 1-in-10
thousand (see 54 FR 38045, September 14, 1989).'' We weigh all health
risk factors in our risk acceptability determination, including the
cancer MIR, cancer incidence, the maximum chronic noncancer TOSHI, the
maximum acute noncancer HQ, the extent of noncancer risks, the
distribution of cancer and noncancer risks in the exposed population,
and the risk estimation uncertainties.
    Since proposal, neither the risk assessment nor our determinations
regarding risk acceptability, ample margin of safety, or adverse
environmental effects have changed. For the reasons explained in the
proposed rule, we determine that the risks from the Boat Manufacturing
and Reinforced Plastic Composites Production source categories are
acceptable, and that the current standards provide an ample margin of
safety to protect public health and prevent an adverse environmental
effect. Therefore, we are not revising either subpart to require
additional controls pursuant to CAA section 112(f)(2) based on the
residual risk review, and we are readopting the existing standards
under CAA section 112(f)(2).

B. Technology Reviews for the Boat Manufacturing and Reinforced Plastic
Composites Production Source Categories

1. What did we propose pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6)?
    Based on our review, the EPA did not identify any developments in
practices, processes, or control technologies for the Boat
Manufacturing and Reinforced Plastic Composites Production source
categories, and, therefore, we did not propose any changes to the
standards under CAA section 112(d)(6). Brief summaries of the EPA's
findings in conducting the technology review of Boat Manufacturing and
Reinforced Plastic Composites Production source categories were
included in the preamble to the proposed rule (84 FR 22642, 22660,
22667, May 17, 2019), and detailed discussions of the EPA's technology
review and findings were included in the memorandum, Technology Review
for Boat Manufacturing and Reinforced Plastic Composites Production
Source Category, June 1, 2018, which can be found in the dockets for
both source categories (Docket ID Nos. EPA-OAR-HQ-2016-0447 and EPA-HQ-
OAR-2016-0449).
2. How did the technology reviews change?
    The EPA is making no changes to the conclusions of the technology
review and is finalizing the results of the technology reviews for the
Boat Manufacturing and Reinforced Plastic Composites Production source
categories as proposed.
3. What key comments did we receive on the technology review, and what
are our responses?
    The EPA received one comment on the proposed technology review for
the Boat Manufacturing source category. This commenter supported our
proposed determination that no revisions were warranted under CAA
section 112(d)(6) for the Boat Manufacturing source category. No
comments were received on the technology review for the Reinforced
Plastic Composites source category.
4. What is the rationale for our final approach for the technology
review?
    As we received no adverse comments on our proposed technology
reviews or the proposed determinations based on those reviews, we are
finalizing the reviews as proposed and making no changes to the
standards pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6). The rationale for and
results of our technology reviews are explained in the preamble to the
proposed rules (84 FR 22660 and 22667, May 17, 2019).

C. SSM Provisions

1. What did we propose for SSM?
    In the May 17, 2019, action, the EPA proposed amendments to the
Boat Manufacturing NESHAP and the Reinforced Plastic Composites
Production NESHAP to remove and revise provisions related to SSM that
are not consistent with the requirement that the standards apply at all
times. More information concerning the proposed amendments for the
elimination of SSM exemption provisions is in the preamble to the
proposed rules (84 FR 22660 and 22668, May 17, 2019).
2. What changed since proposal?
    The EPA is finalizing the SSM provisions as proposed with no
changes (84 FR 22660 and 22668, May 17, 2019).
3. What key comments did we receive on the SSM provisions and what are
our responses?
    We received several comments in support of the proposed SSM
amendments for the Boat Manufacturing and Reinforced Plastic Composites
source categories. One commenter also stated that the proposed
amendments will have no impact on the Boat Manufacturing industry.
4. What is the rationale for our final approach for the SSM provisions?
    For the reasons explained in the proposed rule and after evaluation
of the comments on the proposed amendments to the SSM provisions for

the Boat Manufacturing NESHAP and the Reinforced Plastic Composites
Production NESHAP, we are finalizing the proposed revisions related to
SSM that are inconsistent with the requirement that the standards apply
at all times. More information concerning the proposed amendments to
the SSM provisions is in the preamble for each of the proposed rules
(84 FR 22660 and 22668, May 17, 2019).

D. Electronic Reporting Provisions

1. What did we propose?
    In the May 17, 2019, action, we proposed that owners and operators
of facilities subject to the Boat Manufacturing NESHAP and the
Reinforced Plastic Composites NESHAP submit electronic copies of
performance test and performance evaluation results and semiannual
reports through the EPA's CDX, using the CEDRI Interface. A description
of the electronic submission process is provided in the memorandum,
Electronic Reporting Requirements for New Source Performance Standards
(NSPS) and National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
(NESHAP), August 8, 2018, in the dockets for Boat Manufacturing (Docket
ID No. EPA-OAR-HQ-2016-0447) and Reinforced Plastic Composites (Docket
ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2016-0449). The proposed rule requirement would
replace the current rule requirement to submit these notifications and
reports to the Administrator at the appropriate address listed in 40
CFR 63.13. The proposed rule requirement would not affect submittals
required by state air agencies. The proposed compliance schedule
language in 40 CFR 63.5765(c) and 63.5912(c) for submission of
semiannual compliance reports gives facilities 181 days after the final
rule is published to begin electronic reporting or 1 year after the 40
CFR part 63, subparts VVVV and WWWW, semiannual compliance report
template for both source categories is available in CEDRI, whichever is
later.
2. What changed since proposal?
    The EPA is finalizing the electronic reporting provisions as
proposed with no changes (84 FR 22662 and 22669, May 17, 2019).
3. What key comments did we receive on the electronic reporting
provisions and what are our responses?
    The EPA received several comments that were generally supportive of
the proposed electronic reporting requirements. One commenter stated
that the proposed electronic reporting requirements will reduce
``regulatory burden imposed on this sector by helping to minimize waste
of resources and streamline operations.''
    4. What is the rationale for our final approach for the electronic
reporting provisions?
    For the reasons explained in the proposed rule and after evaluation
of the comments on the proposed amendments, the EPA is requiring owners
and operators of facilities subject to the Boat Manufacturing NESHAP
and the Reinforced Plastic Composites Production NESHAP to submit
electronic copies of performance test and performance evaluation
results and semiannual reports through the EPA's CDX, using CEDRI. The
rationale for the proposed amendments to the electronic reporting
provisions is in the preamble to the proposed rule (84 FR 22662 and
22669, May 17, 2019). This rationale also supports our determination to
finalize these requirements as proposed.

E. Work Practice Standards for Controlled-Spray Training

1. What did we propose for a controlled-spray operator training
program?
    The EPA requested comment on the potential costs and benefits of
revising the Boat Manufacturing NESHAP and/or the Reinforced Plastic
Composites Production NESHAP to include a controlled-spray training
program for operations where styrene-containing resins and gel coats
are sprayed onto an open mold. We specifically asked for feedback on
whether this practice is widely used in industry, whether significant
HAP reductions can be achieved industry-wide and whether HAP reductions
could be applicable to all open mold production operations. A more
detailed description of the potential revisions and amendatory rule
text were provided in the dockets for both rulemakings (Docket ID Item
Nos. EPA-OAR-HQ-2016-0447-0079 and EPA-OAR-HQ-2016-0049-0044).
2. What changed since proposal?
    For reasons described below, the EPA has decided not to add
provisions requiring a controlled-spray operator training program for
styrene-containing resins and gel coats sprayed onto an open mold.
3. What key comments did we receive on the work practice standards and
what are our responses?
    Comment: The EPA received mixed comments on the inclusion of a work
practice standard for controlled-spray operator training. Some
commenters argued that EPA was obligated to include a training program,
while other commenters objected to the inclusion of such a program. One
commenter argued that EPA must adopt controlled spray training as a
technological development based on the statutory requirements of CAA
section 112(d)(6). A commenter also argued that the program must be
included in the final rule as a measure for reducing emissions and
therefore reducing health risk to satisfy the `ample margin of safety'
requirements under CAA section 112(f)(2). Other commenters objected to
the inclusion of the controlled spray-training program, arguing that it
would achieve no additional environmental benefit and would impose
unwarranted regulatory burden. Some commenters also asserted that
requirements to weigh overspray of resins and gel coats does not
provide any additional environmental benefit and is overly burdensome.
    Response: The EPA has decided not to add a work practice for
controlled spray operator training to either the Boat Manufacturing
NESHAP and/or the Reinforced Plastic Composites Production NESHAP. The
EPA acknowledges that a controlled-spray training could be considered a
potential development in practices. Even if the agency were to conclude
it is a development, however, no changes to these NESHAP would be
warranted. We do not have enough information at this time to conclude
that a controlled-spray program implemented for boat manufacturing and
reinforced plastic composites production facilities would result in
environmental benefits and we cannot quantify the burden on affected
facilities. The EPA did not receive any additional information
regarding potential environmental benefits or costs associated with
such a program for these source categories during the comment period.
For these reasons, the EPA has concluded, based on the available
information, that even if the spray operator training program were
found to be a development, changes to the standards would not be
required under CAA section 112(d)(6).
    Under the ample margin of safety analysis, the EPA analyzes whether
there are any cost-effective controls or other measures that would
reduce emissions further and would be necessary to provide an ample
margin of safety to protect public health. The EPA is not able, based
on the information currently available to it, to conclude that the
controlled-spray operator training program would be cost effective for
either source category or that it would have any environmental benefit.
As such, the EPA has concluded, based

on the available information on the cost and feasibility of the program
and considering all of the health risks and other health information
considered in the risk acceptability determination, that the program is
not needed to provide an ample margin of safety.
4. What is the rationale for our final decision with regard to the work
practice standards?
    The EPA could not determine that requiring a work practice standard
for controlled-spray operator training in the NESHAP for the Boat
Manufacturing and Reinforced Plastic Composites Production source
categories would provide an environmental benefit, and, therefore,
could not determine if such programs would be cost effective. The EPA
did not receive any information regarding the potential costs of
revising the Boat Manufacturing NESHAP and/or the Reinforced Plastic
Composites Production NESHAP to include controlled-spray training as a
work practice standard during the comment period for both regulatory
actions. Given this uncertainty for program costs and benefits, we have
also determined that the controlled-spray operator training program is
not needed to provide an ample margin of safety.
    For these reasons, the EPA has decided not to add work practice
standards for controlled-spray operator training to either the Boat
Manufacturing NESHAP and/or the Reinforced Plastic Composites
Production NESHAP.

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

A. What are the affected facilities?

    The EPA estimates that there are 93 boat manufacturing facilities
that are subject to the Boat Manufacturing NESHAP affected by the
proposed amendments to 40 CFR part 63, subpart VVVV, and 448 reinforced
plastic composites production facilities subject to the Reinforced
Plastic Composites Production NESHAP, affected by the proposed
amendments to 40 CFR part 63, subpart WWWW. The basis of our estimates
of affected facilities are provided in the memorandum, Emissions Data
for the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for
Boat Manufacturing and the National Emission Standards for Hazardous
Air Pollutants for Reinforced Plastic Composites Production, which is
available in the respective dockets for this action. We are not
currently aware of any planned or potential new or reconstructed
manufacturing facilities in either of the source categories.

B. What are the air quality impacts?

    All major sources in the two source categories would be required to
comply with the relevant emission standards at all times without the
SSM exemption. We were unable to quantify the specific emissions
reductions associated with eliminating the SSM exemption. However,
eliminating the SSM exemption has the potential to reduce emissions by
requiring facilities to meet the applicable standard during SSM
periods.

C. What are the cost impacts?

    The one-time cost associated with reviewing the revised rules and
becoming familiar with the electronic reporting requirements is
estimated to be $446,448 (2016$); the one-time cost is composed of
$75,629 for the Boat Manufacturing source category (93 facilities), and
$370,819 for the Reinforced Plastic Composites Production source
category (448 facilities). The total cost per facility in the Boat
Manufacturing source category is estimated to be $399 per facility to
review the final rule requirements and $414 per facility to become
familiar with the electronic reporting requirements. The total cost per
facility in the Reinforced Plastic Composites Production source
category is estimated to be $414 per facility to review the final rule
requirements and $414 per facility to become familiar with the
electronic reporting requirements. All other costs associated with
notifications, reporting, and recordkeeping are assumed to be unchanged
because the facilities in each source category are currently required
to comply with notification, reporting, and recordkeeping requirements,
and will continue to be required to comply with those requirements. The
number of personnel-hours required to develop the materials in support
of reports required by the NESHAP remain unchanged.

D. What are the economic impacts?

    The cost per facility for all of the facilities in both source
categories to review the proposed rule requirements and to become
familiar with the electronic reporting requirements are less than 1
percent of annual sales revenues. These costs are not expected to
result in a significant market impact, regardless of whether they are
passed on to the purchaser or absorbed by the firms.
    In addition, the EPA prepared a small business screening assessment
to determine whether any of the identified affected entities are small
entities, as defined by the U.S. Small Business Administration. As
result of our small business screening, we have identified 73 out of
the 93 facilities in the Boat Manufacturing NESHAP as small entities,
while 309 out of the 448 facilities in the Reinforced Plastic
Composites Production NESHAP are small entities. For both industries,
the costs associated with becoming familiar with the proposed rule
requirements and to become familiar with the electronic reporting
requirements are less than 1 percent of their annual sales revenues.
Therefore, there are no significant economic impacts on a substantial
number of small entities from these proposed amendments.

E. What are the benefits?

    The EPA does not anticipate reductions in HAP emissions as a result
of the proposed amendments to the Boat Manufacturing NESHAP or the
Reinforced Plastic Composites Production NESHAP. Because these proposed
amendments are not considered economically significant, as defined by
Executive Order 12866, and because no emission reductions were
estimated, we did not estimate any health benefits from reducing
emissions.

F. What analysis of environmental justice did we conduct?

    The EPA performed a demographic analysis for each source category,
which is an assessment of risks to individual demographic groups, of
the population close to the facilities (within 50 kilometers (km) and
within 5 km). In our analysis, we evaluated the distribution of HAP-
related cancer risks and noncancer hazards from the Boat Manufacturing
source category and the Reinforced Plastic Composites Production source
category across different social, demographic, and economic groups
within the populations living near operations identified as having the
highest risks.
    Results of the demographic analysis performed for the Boat
Manufacturing source category indicate that, for seven of the 11
demographic groups, Hispanic or Latino, minority, people living below
the poverty level, linguistically isolated people, adults without a
high school diploma, adults 65 years of age or older, and African
Americans that reside within 5 km of facilities in the source category
is greater than the corresponding national percentage for the same
demographic groups. When examining the risk levels of those exposed to
emissions from boat manufacturing facilities, we find that no one is
exposed to a cancer risk at or above 1-in-1 million or to a chronic

noncancer TOSHI greater than 1, and that risks are acceptable for all
populations.
    The results of the Reinforced Plastic Composites Production source
category demographic analysis indicate that populations residing within
50 km of facilities in the source category for three of the 11
demographic groups; minority populations, people living below the
poverty level, ages 0 to 17, and adults without a high school diploma
is greater than the corresponding national percentage for the same
demographic groups. However, emissions from the source category expose
approximately 1,600 people to a cancer risk at or above 1-in-1 million,
but no cancer risk greater than 4-in-1 million (Docket ID Item No. EPA-
HQ-OAR-2016-0449-0228). When examining the demographics for those
exposed to cancer risks greater than 1-in-1 million from reinforced
plastic composites production facilities, we find that four of the 10
demographic groups; African American, ages 0 to 17, over 25 without a
high school diploma, and people below the poverty level are exposed to
a cancer risk at or above 1-in-1 million. For chronic noncancer risks,
no one is exposed to a chronic noncancer TOSHI greater than 1. A review
of all risks from this source category is considered acceptable for all
populations.

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

    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
IIIA. and IV.A and B of the proposal for this rule (84 FR 22684 through
22660, May 17, 2019) and are further documented in the Residual Risk
Assessment for the Boat Manufacturing Source Category in Support of the
2018 Risk and Technology Review Proposed Rule, and the Residual Risk
Assessment for the Surface Coating of Reinforced Plastic Composites
Production Source Category in Support of the 2018 Risk and Technology
Review Proposed Rule (Docket ID Item No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2016-0447-0035 and
Docket ID Item No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2016-0449-0014).

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

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

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

    This action is not a significant regulatory action and was,
therefore, not submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
for review.

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

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

C. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

    The information collection activities in this rule have been
submitted for approval to OMB under the PRA. The Information Collection
Request (ICR) documents that the EPA prepared has been assigned EPA ICR
number 1966.09 for the Boat Manufacturing source category and 1976.09
for the Reinforced Plastic Composites Production source category. You
can find a copy of these ICR documents in the dockets for these rules,
and they are briefly summarized here. The information collection
requirements are not enforceable until OMB approves them. A brief
summary of the information collection requirements for Boat
Manufacturing and the Reinforced Plastic Composites Production
categories is provided in sections VI.C.1 and VI.C.2 of this preamble.
1. Boat Manufacturing
    We are finalizing changes to the recordkeeping and reporting
requirements associated with 40 CFR part 63, subpart VVVV, in the form
of eliminating the SSM plan and reporting requirements; including
reporting requirements for deviations in the semiannual report; and
including the requirement for electronic submittal of reports. In
addition, the number of facilities subject to the standards changed
since the original ICR was finalized.
    Respondents/affected entities: The respondents to the recordkeeping
and reporting requirements are owners or operators of boat
manufacturing facilities subject to 40 CFR part 63, subpart VVVV.
    Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (40 CFR part 63,
subpart VVVV).
    Estimated number of respondents: 93 facilities.
    Frequency of response: The frequency of responses varies depending
on the burden item. Responses include one-time review of rule
amendments, reports of periodic performance tests, and semiannual
compliance reports.
    Total estimated burden: The annual recordkeeping and reporting
burden for responding facilities to comply with all the requirements in
the NESHAP, averaged over the 3 years of this ICR, is estimated to be
7,914 hours (per year). Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).
    Total estimated cost: The annual recordkeeping and reporting cost
for responding facilities to comply with all the requirements in the
NESHAP, averaged over the 3 years of this ICR, is estimated to be
$816,500 (rounded, per year). There are no estimated capital and
operation and maintenance (O&M) costs.
2. Reinforced Plastic Composites Production
    We are finalizing changes to the recordkeeping and reporting
requirements associated with 40 CFR part 63, subpart WWWW, in the form
of eliminating the SSM plan and reporting requirements; including
reporting requirements for deviations in the semiannual report; and
including the requirement for electronic submittal of reports. In
addition, the number of facilities subject to the standards changed
since the original ICR was finalized.
    Respondents/affected entities: The respondents to the recordkeeping
and reporting requirements are owners or operators of reinforced
plastic composites production facilities subject to 40 CFR part 63,
subpart WWWW.
    Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (40 CFR part 63,
subpart WWWW).
    Estimated number of respondents: 448 facilities.
    Frequency of response: The frequency of responses varies depending
on the burden item. Responses include one-time review of rule
amendments, reports of periodic performance tests, and semiannual
compliance reports.
    Total estimated burden: The annual recordkeeping and reporting
burden for responding facilities to comply with all of the requirements
in the NESHAP, averaged over the 3 years of this ICR, is estimated to
be 38,125 hours (per year). Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).
    Total estimated cost: The annual recordkeeping and reporting cost
for responding facilities to comply with all of the requirements in the
NESHAP, averaged over the 3 years of this ICR, is estimated to be
$3,933,400 (rounded, per year). There are no estimated capital and O&M
costs.

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 include small
businesses engaged in either the Boat Manufacturing or Reinforced
Plastic Composites Production source categories. The Agency has
determined that 73 boat manufacturing facilities and 309 reinforced
plastic composites production facilities are small entities, and that
these small entities may experience an impact of less than 1 percent of
annual sales. Additional discussion of the cost impacts can be found in
section V.D of this preamble.

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 Boat Manufacturing or Reinforced Plastic Composites Production
source categories and would not 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.A and IV.A and B of the proposal for this rule (84 FR
22684 through 22660, May 17, 2019).

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 rulemaking does not involve technical standards.

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

    The EPA has determined that this action does not have
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
effects on minority populations, low-income populations, and/or
indigenous peoples, as specified in Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629,
February 16, 1994). The documentation for this decision is contained in
sections IV.A, IV.B, IV.F, and IV.G of the proposal preamble (84 FR
22658 through 22667, May 17, 2019). For both source categories, the
risks were found to be acceptable for all populations, including
minority pollutions, low-income populations, and/or indigenous people.

L. Congressional Review Act (CRA)

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

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63

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

    Dated: February 25, 2020.
Andrew R. Wheeler,
Administrator.

    For the reasons set forth in the preamble, 40 CFR part 63 is
amended as follows:

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

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

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

Subpart VVVV--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants for Boat Manufacturing

Sec.  63.5764  [Amended]

0
2. Section 63.5764 is amended by removing paragraph (e).

0
3. Section 63.5765 is added to read as follows:

Sec.  63.5765  How do I submit my reports?

    (a) Within 60 days after the date of completing each performance
test required by this subpart, you must submit the results of the
performance test following the procedures specified in paragraphs
(a)(1) through (3) of this section.
    (1) Data collected using test methods supported by the EPA's
Electronic Reporting Tool (ERT) as listed on the EPA's ERT website
(https://www.epa.gov/electronic-reporting-air-emissions/electronic-reporting-tool-ert) at the time of the test. Submit the results of the
performance test to the EPA via the Compliance and Emissions Data
Reporting Interface (CEDRI), which can be accessed through the EPA's
Central Data Exchange (CDX) (https://cdx.epa.gov/). The data must be
submitted in a file format generated through the use of the EPA's ERT.
Alternatively, you may submit an electronic file consistent with the
extensible markup language (XML) schema listed on the EPA's ERT
website.
    (2) Data collected using test methods that are not supported by the
EPA's ERT as listed on the EPA's ERT website at the time of the test.
The results of the performance test must be included as an attachment
in the ERT or an alternate electronic file consistent with the XML
schema listed on the EPA's ERT website. Submit the ERT generated
package or alternative file to the EPA via CEDRI.
    (3) Confidential business information (CBI). If you claim some of
the information submitted under paragraph (a)(1) of this section is
CBI, you must submit a complete file, including information claimed to
be CBI, to the EPA. The file must be generated through the use of the
EPA's ERT or an alternate electronic file consistent with the XML
schema listed on the EPA's ERT website. Submit the file on a compact
disc, flash drive, or other commonly used electronic storage medium and
clearly mark the medium as CBI. Mail the electronic medium to U.S. EPA/
OAQPS/CORE CBI Office, Attention: Group Leader, Measurement Policy
Group, MD C404-02, 4930 Old Page Rd., Durham, NC 27703. The same file
with the CBI omitted must be submitted to

the EPA via the EPA's CDX as described in paragraph (a)(1) of this
section.
    (b) Within 60 days after the date of completing each continuous
monitoring system (CMS) performance evaluation as defined in Sec.
63.2, you must submit the results of the performance evaluation
following the procedures specified in paragraphs (b)(1) through (3) of
this section.
    (1) Performance evaluations of CMS measuring relative accuracy test
audit (RATA) pollutants that are supported by the EPA's ERT as listed
on the EPA's ERT website at the time of the evaluation. Submit the
results of the performance evaluation to the EPA via CEDRI, which can
be accessed through the EPA's CDX. The data must be submitted in a file
format generated through the use of the EPA's ERT. Alternatively, you
may submit an electronic file consistent with the XML schema listed on
the EPA's ERT website.
    (2) Performance evaluations of CMS measuring RATA pollutants that
are not supported by the EPA's ERT as listed on the EPA's ERT website
at the time of the evaluation. The results of the performance
evaluation must be included as an attachment in the ERT or an alternate
electronic file consistent with the XML schema listed on the EPA's ERT
website. Submit the ERT generated package or alternative file to the
EPA via CEDRI.
    (3) Confidential business information. If you claim some of the
information submitted under paragraph (a)(1) of this section is CBI,
you must submit a complete file, including information claimed to be
CBI, to the EPA. The file must be generated through the use of the
EPA's ERT or an alternate electronic file consistent with the XML
schema listed on the EPA's ERT website. Submit the file on a compact
disc, flash drive, or other commonly used electronic storage medium and
clearly mark the medium as CBI. Mail the electronic medium to U.S. EPA/
OAQPS/CORE CBI Office, Attention: Group Leader, Measurement Policy
Group, MD C404-02, 4930 Old Page Rd., Durham, NC 27703. The same file
with the CBI omitted must be submitted to the EPA via the EPA's CDX as
described in paragraph (a)(1) of this section.
    (c) For sources that commence construction or reconstruction before
or on May 17, 2019, you must submit to the Administrator semiannual
compliance reports of the information required in Sec.  63.5764(c) and
(d) beginning on September 16, 2020. For sources that commence
construction or reconstruction after May 17, 2019, you must submit to
the Administrator semiannual compliance reports of the information
required in Sec.  63.5764(c) and (d) beginning on March 20, 2020, or
upon startup, whichever is later.
    (d) If you are required to submit reports following the procedure
specified in this paragraph (d), beginning on September 16, 2020, you
must submit all subsequent reports to the EPA via CEDRI, which can be
accessed through the EPA's CDX (https://cdx.epa.gov/). You must use the
appropriate electronic report template on the CEDRI website (https://www.epa.gov/electronic-reporting-air-emissions/compliance-and-emissions-data-reporting-interface-cedri) for this subpart. The report
must be submitted by the deadline specified in this subpart, regardless
of the method in which the report is submitted. If you claim some of
the information required to be submitted via CEDRI is CBI, submit a
complete report, including information claimed to be CBI, to the EPA.
The report must be generated using the appropriate form on the CEDRI
website or an alternate electronic file consistent with the XML schema
listed on the CEDRI website. Submit the file on a compact disc, flash
drive, or other commonly used electronic storage medium and clearly
mark the medium as CBI. Mail the electronic medium to U.S. EPA/OAQPS/
CORE CBI Office, Attention: Group Leader, Measurement Policy Group, MD
C404-02, 4930 Old Page Rd., Durham, NC 27703. The same file with the
CBI omitted must be submitted to the EPA via the EPA's CDX as described
earlier in this paragraph (d).
    (e) If you are required to electronically submit a report through
CEDRI in the EPA's CDX, you may assert a claim of EPA system outage for
failure to timely comply with the reporting requirement. To assert a
claim of EPA system outage, you must meet the requirements outlined in
paragraphs (e)(1) through (7) of this section.
    (1) You must have been or will be precluded from accessing CEDRI
and submitting a required report within the time prescribed due to an
outage of either the EPA's CEDRI or CDX systems.
    (2) The outage must have occurred within the period of time
beginning 5 business days prior to the date that the submission is due.
    (3) The outage may be planned or unplanned.
    (4) You must submit notification to the Administrator in writing as
soon as possible following the date you first knew, or through due
diligence should have known, that the event may cause or has caused a
delay in reporting.
    (5) You must provide to the Administrator a written description
identifying:
    (i) The date(s) and time(s) when CDX or CEDRI was accessed and the
system was unavailable;
    (ii) A rationale for attributing the delay in reporting beyond the
regulatory deadline to EPA system outage;
    (iii) Measures taken or to be taken to minimize the delay in
reporting; and
    (iv) The date by which you propose to report, or if you have
already met the reporting requirement at the time of the notification,
the date you reported.
    (6) The decision to accept the claim of EPA system outage and allow
an extension to the reporting deadline is solely within the discretion
of the Administrator.
    (7) In any circumstance, the report must be submitted
electronically as soon as possible after the outage is resolved.
    (f) If you are required to electronically submit a report through
CEDRI in the EPA's CDX, you may assert a claim of force majeure for
failure to timely comply with the reporting requirement. To assert a
claim of force majeure, you must meet the requirements outlined in
paragraphs (f)(1) through (5) of this section.
    (1) You may submit a claim if a force majeure event is about to
occur, occurs, or has occurred or there are lingering effects from such
an event within the period of time beginning five business days prior
to the date the submission is due. For the purposes of this section, a
force majeure event is defined as an event that will be or has been
caused by circumstances beyond the control of the affected facility,
its contractors, or any entity controlled by the affected facility that
prevents you from complying with the requirement to submit a report
electronically within the time period prescribed. Examples of such
events are acts of nature (e.g., hurricanes, earthquakes, or floods),
acts of war or terrorism, or equipment failure or safety hazard beyond
the control of the affected facility (e.g., large scale power outages).
    (2) You must submit notification to the Administrator in writing as
soon as possible following the date you first knew, or through due
diligence should have known, that the event may cause or has caused a
delay in reporting.
    (3) You must provide to the Administrator:
    (i) A written description of the force majeure event;
    (ii) A rationale for attributing the delay in reporting beyond the
regulatory deadline to the force majeure event;

    (iii) A description of measures taken or to be taken to minimize
the delay in reporting; and
    (iv) The date by which you propose to report, or if you have
already met the reporting requirement at the time of the notification,
the date you reported.
    (4) The decision to accept the claim of force majeure and allow an
extension to the reporting deadline is solely within the discretion of
the Administrator.
    (5) In any circumstance, the reporting must occur as soon as
possible after the force majeure event occurs.

0
4. Section 63.5767 is amended by revising paragraph (d) to read as
follows:

Sec.  63.5767  What records must I keep?

* * * * *
    (d) If your facility has an add-on control device, you must keep
the records of any failures to meet the applicable standards, including
the date, time, and duration of the failure; a list of the affected
add-on control device and actions taken to minimize emissions, an
estimate of the quantity of each regulated pollutant emitted over any
emission limit, and a description of the method used to estimate the
emissions; control device performance tests; and continuous monitoring
system performance evaluations.

0
5. Section 63.5770 is amended by adding paragraph (e) to read as
follows:

Sec.  63.5770  In what form and for how long must I keep my records?

* * * * *
    (e) 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
6. Section 63.5779 is amended by:
0
a. Removing the definition for ``Deviation''; and
0
 b. Adding definitions for ``Deviation after'', ``Deviation before'',
``Shutdown'', and ``Startup'' in alphabetical order.
    The additions read as follows:

Sec.  63.5779  What definitions apply to this subpart?

* * * * *
    Deviation after September 16, 2020, means 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 limit, operating
limit, or work practice standard; or
    (2) Fails to meet any term or condition that is adopted to
implement an applicable requirement in this subpart and that is
included in the operating permit for any affected source required to
obtain such a permit.
    Deviation before September 17, 2020 means 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 limit, operating
limit, or work practice standard; or
    (2) Fails to meet any term or condition that is adopted to
implement an applicable requirement in this subpart and that is
included in the operating permit for any affected source required to
obtain such a permit; or
    (3) Fails to meet any emission limit, or operating limit, or work
practice standard in this subpart during startup, shutdown, or
malfunction, regardless of whether or not such failure is permitted by
this subpart.
* * * * *
    Shutdown after September 16, 2020, means the cessation of operation
of the add-on control devices.
* * * * *
    Startup after September 17, 2020, means the setting in operation of
the add-on control devices.
* * * * *

0
7. Table 8 to subpart VVVV of part 63 is revised to read as follows:

Table 8 to Subpart VVVV of Part 63--Applicability of General Provisions
(40 CFR part 63, subpart A) to Subpart VVVV

    As specified in Sec.  63.5773, you must comply with the applicable
requirements of the General Provisions according to the following
table:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Citation                       Requirement       Applies to  subpart VVVV       Explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec.   63.1(a)..........................  General Applicability  Yes                       .....................
Sec.   63.1(b)..........................  Initial Applicability  Yes                       .....................
                                           Determination.
Sec.   63.1(c)(1).......................  Applicability After    Yes                       .....................
                                           Standard Established.
Sec.   63.1(c)(2).......................  .....................  Yes.....................  Area sources are not
                                                                                regulated by subpart
                                                                                VVVV.
Sec.   63.1(c)(3).......................  .....................  No......................  [Reserved].
Sec.   63.1(c)(4)-(5)...................  .....................  Yes                       .....................
Sec.   63.1(d)..........................  .....................  No......................  [Reserved].
Sec.   63.1(e)..........................  Applicability of       Yes                       .....................
                                           Permit Program.
Sec.   63.2.............................  Definitions..........  Yes.....................  Additional
                                                                                definitions are
                                                                                found in Sec.
                                                                                63.5779.
Sec.   63.3.............................  Units and              Yes                       .....................
                                           Abbreviations.
Sec.   63.4(a)..........................  Prohibited Activities  Yes                       .....................
Sec.   63.4(b)-(c)......................  Circumvention/         Yes                       .....................
                                           Severability.
Sec.   63.5(a)..........................  Construction/          Yes                       .....................
                                           Reconstruction.
Sec.   63.5(b)..........................  Requirements for       Yes                       .....................
                                           Existing, Newly
                                           Constructed, and
                                           Reconstructed
                                           Sources.
Sec.   63.5(c)..........................  .....................  No......................  [Reserved].
Sec.   63.5(d)..........................  Application for        Yes                       .....................
                                           Approval of
                                           Construction/
                                           Reconstruction.
Sec.   63.5(e)..........................  Approval of            Yes                       .....................
                                           Construction/
                                           Reconstruction.
Sec.   63.5(f)..........................  Approval of            Yes                       .....................
                                           Construction/
                                           Reconstruction Based
                                           on prior State
                                           Review.
Sec.   63.6(a)..........................  Compliance with        Yes                       .....................
                                           Standards and
                                           Maintenance
                                           Requirements--Applic
                                           ability.

Sec.   63.6(b)..........................  Compliance Dates for   Yes.....................  Sec.   63.695
                                           New and                                          specifies compliance
                                           Reconstructed                                    dates, including the
                                           Sources.                                         compliance date for
                                                                                new area sources
                                                                                that become major
                                                                                sources after the
                                                                                effective date of
                                                                                the rule.
Sec.   63.6(c)..........................  Compliance Dates for   Yes.....................  Sec.   63.5695
                                           Existing Sources.                                specifies compliance
                                                                                dates, including the
                                                                                compliance date for
                                                                                existing area
                                                                                sources that become
                                                                                major sources after
                                                                                the effective date
                                                                                of the rule.
Sec.   63.6(d)..........................  .....................  No......................  [Reserved].
Sec.   63.6(e)(1)-(2)...................  Operation and          No......................  Operating
                                           Maintenance                                      requirements for
                                           Requirements.                                    open molding
                                                                                operations with add-
                                                                                on controls are
                                                                                specified in Sec.
                                                                                63.5725.
Sec.   63.6(e)(3).......................  Startup, Shut Down,    No......................  Only sources with add-
                                           and Malfunction                                  on controls must
                                           Plans.                                           complete startup,
                                                                                shutdown, and
                                                                                malfunction plans.
Sec.   63.6(f)..........................  Compliance with        Yes                       .....................
                                           Nonopacity Emission
                                           Standards.
Sec.   63.6(g)..........................  Use of an Alternative  Yes                       .....................
                                           Nonopacity Emission
                                           Standard.
Sec.   63.6(h)..........................  Compliance with        No......................  Subpart VVVV does not
                                           Opacity/Visible                                  specify opacity or
                                           Emissions Standards.                             visible emission
                                                                                standards.
Sec.   63.6(i)..........................  Extension of           Yes                       .....................
                                           Compliance with
                                           Emission Standards.
Sec.   63.6(j)..........................  Exemption from         Yes                       .....................
                                           Compliance with
                                           Emission Standards.
Sec.   63.7(a)(1).......................  Performance Test       Yes                       .....................
                                           Requirements.
Sec.   63.7(a)(2).......................  Dates for performance  No......................  Sec.   63.5716
                                           tests.                                           specifies
                                                                                performance test
                                                                                dates.
Sec.   63.7(a)(3).......................  Performance testing    Yes                       .....................
                                           at other times.
Sec.   63.7(b)-(h)......................  Other performance      Yes                       .....................
                                           testing requirements.
Sec.   63.8(a)(1)-(2)...................  Monitoring             Yes.....................  All of Sec.   63.8
                                           Requirements--Applic                             applies only to
                                           ability.                                         sources with add-on
                                                                                controls. Additional
                                                                                monitoring
                                                                                requirements for
                                                                                sources with add-on
                                                                                controls are found
                                                                                in Sec.   63.5725.
Sec.   63.8(a)(3).......................  .....................  No......................  [Reserved].
Sec.   63.8(a)(4).......................  .....................  No......................  Subpart VVVV does not
                                                                                refer directly or
                                                                                indirectly to Sec.
                                                                                63.11.
Sec.   63.8(b)(1).......................  Conduct of Monitoring  Yes                       .....................
Sec.   63.8(b)(2)-(3)...................  Multiple Effluents     Yes.....................  Applies to sources
                                           and Multiple CMS.                                that use a CMS on
                                                                                the control device
                                                                                stack.
Sec.   63.8(c)(1)(i) and (iii)..........  CMS Operation and      No......................  References to
                                           Maintenance.                                     startup, shutdown,
                                                                                malfunction are not
                                                                                applicable.
Sec.   63.8(c)(1)-(4)...................  CMS Operation and      Yes.....................  Except those
                                           Maintenance.                                     provisions in Sec.
                                                                                63.8(c)(1)(i) and
                                                                                (iii) as noted
                                                                                above.
Sec.   63.8(c)(5).......................  Continuous Opacity     No......................  Subpart VVVV does not
                                           Monitoring Systems                               have opacity or
                                           (COMS).                                          visible emission
                                                                                standards.
Sec.   63.8(c)(6)-(8)...................  CMS Calibration        Yes                       .....................
                                           Checks and Out-of-
                                           Control Periods.
Sec.   63.8(d)..........................  Quality Control        Yes.....................  Except those
                                           Program.                                         provisions of Sec.
                                                                                63.8(d)(3) regarding
                                                                                a startup, shutdown,
                                                                                malfunction plan as
                                                                                noted below
Sec.   63.8(d)(3).......................  Quality Control        No......................  No requirement for a
                                           Program.                                         startup, shutdown,
                                                                                malfunction plan.
Sec.   63.8(e)..........................  CMS Performance        Yes                       .....................
                                           Evaluation.
Sec.   63.8(f)(1)-(5)...................  Use of an Alternative  Yes                       .....................
                                           Monitoring Method.
Sec.   63.8(f)(6).......................  Alternative to         Yes.....................  Applies only to
                                           Relative Accuracy                                sources that use
                                           Test.                                            continuous emission
                                                                                monitoring systems
                                                                                (CEMS).
Sec.   63.8(g)..........................  Data Reduction.......  Yes                       .....................
Sec.   63.9(a)..........................  Notification           Yes                       .....................
                                           Requirements--Applic
                                           ability.
Sec.   63.9(b)..........................  Initial Notifications  Yes                       .....................
Sec.   63.9(c)..........................  Request for            Yes                       .....................
                                           Compliance Extension.
Sec.   63.9(d)..........................  Notification That a    Yes                       .....................
                                           New Source Is
                                           Subject to Special
                                           Compliance
                                           Requirements.
Sec.   63.9(e)..........................  Notification of        Yes.....................  Applies only to
                                           Performance Test.                                sources with add-on
                                                                                controls.
Sec.   63.9(f)..........................  Notification of        No......................  Subpart VVVV does not
                                           Visible Emissions/                               have opacity or
                                           Opacity Test.                                    visible emission
                                                                                standards.
Sec.   63.9(g)(1).......................  Additional CMS         Yes.....................  Applies only to
                                           Notifications--Date                              sources with add-on
                                           of CMS Performance                               controls.
                                           Evaluation.
Sec.   63.9(g)(2).......................  Use of COMS Data.....  No......................  Subpart VVVV does not
                                                                                require the use of
                                                                                COMS.
Sec.   63.9(g)(3).......................  Alternative to         Yes.....................  Applies only to
                                           Relative Accuracy                                sources with CEMS.
                                           Testing.
Sec.   63.9(h)..........................  Notification of        Yes                       .....................
                                           Compliance Status.
Sec.   63.9(i)..........................  Adjustment of          Yes                       .....................
                                           Deadlines.
Sec.   63.9(j)..........................  Change in Previous     Yes                       .....................
                                           Information.

Sec.   63.10(a).........................  Recordkeeping/         Yes                       .....................
                                           Reporting--Applicabi
                                           lity.
Sec.   63.10(b)(1)......................  General Recordkeeping  Yes.....................  Sec.  Sec.   63.567
                                           Requirements.                                    and 63.5770 specify
                                                                                additional
                                                                                recordkeeping
                                                                                requirements.
Sec.   63.10(b)(2)(i), (iii), (vi)-(xiv)  General Recordkeeping  Yes                       .....................
                                           Requirements.
Sec.   63.10(b)(2)(ii), (iv), (v).......  Recordkeeping          No                        .....................
                                           Relevant to Startup,
                                           Shutdown, and
                                           Malfunction Periods.
Sec.   63.10(b)(3)......................  Recordkeeping          Yes.....................  Sec.   63.5686
                                           Requirements for                                 specifies
                                           Applicability                                    applicability
                                           Determinations.                                  determinations for
                                                                                non-major sources.
Sec.   63.10(c)(1)-(14).................  Additional             Yes.....................  Applies only to
                                           Recordkeeping for                                sources with add-on
                                           Sources with CMS.                                controls.
Sec.   63.10(c)(15).....................  Additional             No......................  No requirement for a
                                           Recordkeeping for                                startup, shutdown,
                                           Sources with CMS.                                malfunction plan.
Sec.   63.10(d)(1)......................  General Reporting      Yes.....................  Sec.   63.5764
                                           Requirements.                                    specifies additional
                                                                                reporting
                                                                                requirements.
Sec.   63.10(d)(2)......................  Performance Test       Yes.....................  Sec.   63.5764
                                           Results.                                         specifies additional
                                                                                requirements for
                                                                                reporting
                                                                                performance test
                                                                                results.
Sec.   63.10(d)(3)......................  Opacity or Visible     No......................  Subpart VVVV does not
                                           Emissions                                        specify opacity or
                                           Observations.                                    visible emission
                                                                                standards.
Sec.   63.10(d)(4)......................  Progress Reports for   Yes                       .....................
                                           Sources with
                                           Compliance
                                           Extensions.
Sec.   63.10(d)(5)......................  Startup, Shutdown,     No......................  Applies only to
                                           and Malfunction                                  sources with add-on
                                           Reports.                                         controls.
Sec.   63.10(e)(1)......................  Additional CMS         Yes.....................  Applies only to
                                           Reports--General.                                sources with add-on
                                                                                controls.
Sec.   63.10(e)(2)......................  Reporting Results of   Yes.....................  Applies only to
                                           CMS Performance                                  sources with add-on
                                           Evaluations.                                     controls.
Sec.   63.10(e)(3)......................  Excess Emissions/CMS   Yes.....................  Applies only to
                                           Performance Reports.                             sources with add-on
                                                                                controls.
Sec.   63.10(e)(4)......................  COMS Data Reports....  No......................  Subpart VVVV does not
                                                                                specify opacity or
                                                                                visible emission
                                                                                standards.
Sec.   63.10(f).........................  Recordkeeping/         Yes                       .....................
                                           Reporting Waiver.
Sec.   63.11............................  Control Device         No......................  Facilities subject to
                                           Requirements--Applic                             subpart VVVV do not
                                           ability.                                         use flares as
                                                                                control devices.
Sec.   63.12............................  State Authority and    Yes.....................  Sec.   63.5776 lists
                                           Delegations.                                     those sections of
                                                                                subpart A that are
                                                                                not delegated.
Sec.   63.13............................  Addresses............  Yes                       .....................
Sec.   63.14............................  Incorporation by       Yes                       .....................
                                           Reference.
Sec.   63.15............................  Availability of        Yes                       .....................
                                           Information/
                                           Confidentiality.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Subpart WWWW--National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants: Reinforced Plastic Composites Production

0
8. Section 63.5835 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraph (b); and
0
b. Removing paragraph (d).
    The revision reads as follows:

Sec.  63.5835  What are my general requirements for complying with this
subpart?

* * * * *
    (b) You must be in compliance with all organic HAP emissions limits
in this subpart that you meet using add-on controls at all times.
* * * * *

0
9. Section 63.5900 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraph (c); and
0
b. Removing paragraphs (d) and (e).
    The revision reads as follows:

Sec.  63.5900  How do I demonstrate continuous compliance with the
standards?

* * * * *
    (c) You must meet the organic HAP emissions limits and work
practice standards that apply to you at all times.

0
10. Section 63.5910 is amended by:
0
a. Removing and reserving paragraph (c)(4); and
0
b. Revising paragraphs (d) introductory text and (e) and (h).
    The revisions read as follows:

Sec.  63.5910  What reports must I submit and when?

* * * * *
    (d) For each deviation from an organic HAP emissions limitation or
operating limit and for each deviation from the requirements for work
practice standards that occurs at an affected source where you are not
using a CMS to comply with the organic HAP emissions limitations or
work practice standards in this subpart, the compliance report must
contain the information in paragraphs (c)(1) through (3) of this
section and in paragraphs (d)(1) and (2) of this section.
* * * * *
    (e) For each deviation from an organic HAP emissions limitation
(i.e., emissions limit and operating limit) occurring at an affected
source where you are using a CMS to comply with the organic HAP
emissions limitation in this subpart, you must include the information
in paragraphs (c)(1) through (3) of this section and in paragraphs
(e)(1) through (6) of this section.
    (1) The date and time that each malfunction started and stopped.
    (2) The date and time that each CMS was inoperative, except for
zero (low-level) and high-level checks.
    (3) The date, time, and duration that each CMS was out of control,
including the information in Sec.  63.8(c)(8).
    (4) The date and time that each deviation started and stopped.
    (5) A summary of the total duration of the deviation during the
reporting period and the total duration as a percent of the total
source operating time during that reporting period.
    (6) A breakdown of the total duration of the deviations during the
reporting period into those that are due to control equipment problems,
process problems, other known causes, and other unknown causes.
* * * * *
    (h) Submit compliance reports based on the requirements in
Sec. Sec.  63.5910 and 63.5912 and table 14 to this subpart, and not
based on the requirements in Sec.  63.999.
* * * * *

0
11. Section 63.5912 is added to read as follows:

Sec.  63.5912  How do I submit my reports?

    (a) Within 60 days after the date of completing each performance
test required by this subpart, you must submit the results of the
performance test following the procedures specified in paragraphs
(a)(1) through (3) of this section.
    (1) Data collected using test methods supported by the EPA's
Electronic Reporting Tool (ERT) as listed on the EPA's ERT website