National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Surface Coating of Metal Cans and Surface Coating of Metal Coil Residual Risk and Technology Reviews, 25904-25973 [2019-10068]

Download as PDF 25904 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 107 / Tuesday, June 4, 2019 / Proposed Rules ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 63 [EPA–HQ–OAR–2017–0684, EPA–HQ–OAR– 2017–0685; FRL–9993–45–OAR] RIN 2060–AT51 National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Surface Coating of Metal Cans and Surface Coating of Metal Coil Residual Risk and Technology Reviews Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Proposed rule. AGENCY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing amendments to address the results of the residual risk and technology reviews (RTRs) that the EPA is required to conduct in accordance with the Clean Air Act (CAA) with regard to the National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for the Surface Coating of Metal Cans and the NESHAP for the Surface Coating of Metal Coil. The EPA is proposing to find the risks due to emissions of air toxics from these source categories under the current standards to be acceptable and that the standards provide an ample margin of safety to protect public health. We are proposing no revisions to the numerical emission limits based on these analyses. The EPA is proposing to amend provisions addressing emissions during periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction (SSM); to amend provisions regarding electronic reporting of performance test results; to amend provisions regarding monitoring requirements; and to make miscellaneous clarifying and technical corrections. SUMMARY: Comments. Comments must be received on or before July 19, 2019. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), comments on the information collection provisions are best assured of consideration if the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) receives a copy of your comments on or before July 5, 2019. Public hearing. If anyone contacts us requesting a public hearing on or before June 10, 2019, we will hold a hearing. Additional information about the hearing, if requested, will be published in a subsequent Federal Register document and posted at https:// www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-airpollution/surface-coating-metal-cansnational-emission-standards-hazardous and https://www.epa.gov/stationarysources-air-pollution/surface-coating- khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2 DATES: VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:09 Jun 03, 2019 Jkt 247001 metal-coil-national-emission-standardshazardous. See SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for information on requesting and registering for a public hearing. You may send comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– OAR–2017–0684 for 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 63, subpart KKKK, Surface Coating of Metal Cans, and Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR– 2017–0685 for 40 CFR part 63, subpart SSSS, Surface Coating of Metal Coil, as applicable, by any of the following methods: • Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov/ (our preferred method). Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. • Email: a-and-r-docket@epa.gov. Include Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR– 2017–0684 or EPA–HQ–OAR–2017– 0685 (specify the applicable docket number) in the subject line of the message. • Fax: (202) 566–9744. Attention Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2017– 0684 or EPA–HQ–OAR–2017–0685 (specify the applicable docket number). • Mail: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Docket Center, Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2017– 0684 or EPA–HQ–OAR–2017–0685 (specify the applicable docket number), Mail Code 28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20460. • Hand/Courier Delivery: EPA Docket Center, WJC West Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20004. The Docket Center’s hours of operation are 8:30 a.m.–4:30 p.m., Monday–Friday (except Federal holidays). Instructions: All submissions received must include the applicable Docket ID No. for this rulemaking. Comments received may be posted without change to https://www.regulations.gov/, including any personal information provided. For detailed instructions on sending comments and additional information on the rulemaking process, see the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For questions about this proposed action, contact Ms. Paula Hirtz, Minerals and Manufacturing Group, Sector Policies and Programs Division (D243–04), Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711; telephone number: (919) 541–2618; fax number: (919) 541–4991; and email address: hirtz.paula@epa.gov. For specific information regarding the risk modeling methodology, contact Mr. Chris ADDRESSES: PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 Sarsony, 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: (919) 541– 4843; fax number: (919) 541–0840; and email address: sarsony.chris@epa.gov. For questions about monitoring and testing requirements, contact Mr. Ketan Patel, Sector Policies and Programs Division (D243–04), Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711; telephone number: (919) 541– 9736; fax number: (919) 541–4991; and email address: patel.ketan@epa.gov. For information about the applicability of any of these 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 2227A), 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: (202) 564–1395; and email address: cox.john@epa.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Public hearing. Please contact Ms. Nancy Perry at (919) 541–5628 or by email at perry.nancy@epa.gov to request a public hearing, to register to speak at the public hearing, or to inquire as to whether a public hearing will be held. Docket. The EPA has established two separate dockets for this rulemaking. Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2017– 0684 has been established for 40 CFR part 63, subpart KKKK, Surface Coating of Metal Cans, and Docket ID No. EPA– HQ–OAR–2017–0685 has been established for 40 CFR part 63, subpart SSSS, Surface Coating of Metal Coil. All documents in the dockets are listed in Regulations.gov. Although listed, some information is not publicly available, e.g., Confidential Business Information (CBI) 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. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically in Regulations.gov or in hard copy at the EPA Docket Center, Room 3334, WJC West Building, 1301 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566–1744, and the telephone number for the EPA Docket Center is (202) 566– 1742. E:\FR\FM\04JNP2.SGM 04JNP2 khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 107 / Tuesday, June 4, 2019 / Proposed Rules Instructions. Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2017– 0684 for 40 CFR part 63, subpart KKKK, Surface Coating of Metal Cans (Metal Cans Docket), or Docket ID No. EPA– HQ–OAR–2017–0685 for 40 CFR part 63, subpart SSSS, Surface Coating of Metal Coil (Metal Coil Docket), as applicable to your comments. The EPA’s policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change and may be made available online at https:// www.regulations.gov/, including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through https:// www.regulations.gov/ or email. This type of information should be submitted by mail as discussed below. The EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary submission (i.e., on the Web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets/ commenting-epa-dockets. The https://www.regulations.gov/ website allows you to submit your comment anonymously, which means the EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email comment directly to the EPA without going through https:// www.regulations.gov/, your email address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the internet. If you submit an electronic comment, the EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any digital storage media you submit. If the EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, the EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should not include special characters or any form of encryption and be free of any defects or viruses. For additional information VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:09 Jun 03, 2019 Jkt 247001 about the EPA’s public docket, visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at https:// www.epa.gov/dockets. Submitting CBI. Do not submit information containing CBI to the EPA through https://www.regulations.gov or email. Clearly mark the part or all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information on any digital storage media that you mail to the EPA, mark the outside of the digital storage media as CBI and then identify electronically within the digital storage media the specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one complete version of the comments that includes information claimed as CBI, you must submit a copy of the comments that does not contain the information claimed as CBI directly to the public docket through the procedures outlined in Instructions above. If you submit any digital storage media that does not contain CBI, mark the outside of the digital storage media clearly that it does not contain CBI. Information not marked as CBI will be included in the public docket and the EPA’s electronic public docket without prior notice. Information marked as CBI will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. Send or deliver information identified as CBI only to the following address: OAQPS Document Control Officer (C404–02), OAQPS, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711, Attention Docket ID No. EPA– HQ–OAR–2017–0684 for 40 CFR part 63, subpart KKKK, Surface Coating of Metal Cans (Metal Cans Docket), or Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2017– 0685 for 40 CFR part 63, subpart SSSS, Surface Coating of Metal Coil (Metal Coil Docket), as applicable. 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: ACA American Coatings Association AEGL acute exposure guideline level AERMOD air dispersion model used by the HEM–3 model ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials BACT best available control technology BPA bisphenol A BPA–NI not intentionally containing BPA CAA Clean Air Act CalEPA California EPA CBI Confidential Business Information CDX Central Data Exchange CEDRI Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface CEMS continuous emissions monitoring systems PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 25905 CFR Code of Federal Regulations DGME diethylene glycol monobutyl ether ECHO Enforcement and Compliance History Online EPA Environmental Protection Agency ERPG Emergency Response Planning Guideline ERT Electronic Reporting Tool FR Federal Register GACT generally available control technology gal gallon HAP hazardous air pollutant(s) HCl hydrochloric acid HEM–3 Human Exposure Model, Version 1.1.0 HF hydrogen fluoride HI hazard index HQ hazard quotient HQREL hazard quotient recommended exposure limit IBR incorporation by reference ICAC Institute of Clean Air Companies ICR Information Collection Request IRIS Integrated Risk Information System kg kilogram km kilometer LAER lowest achievable emission rate lb pound MACT maximum achievable control technology mg/m3 milligrams per cubic meter MIR maximum individual risk mm millimeters NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards NAICS North American Industry Classification System NEI National Emission Inventory NESHAP national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants NSR New Source Review NTTAA National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act OAQPS Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards OCE overall control efficiency OMB Office of Management and Budget OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration PB–HAP hazardous air pollutants known to be persistent and bio-accumulative in the environment PDF portable document format POM polycyclic organic matter ppmv parts per million by volume PRA Paperwork Reduction Act PTE permanent total enclosure RACT reasonably available control technology RBLC RACT/BACT/LAER Clearinghouse REL reference exposure level RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act RfC reference concentration RfD reference dose RTO regenerative thermal oxidizer RTR residual risk and technology review SAB Science Advisory Board SSM startup, shutdown, and malfunction TOSHI target organ-specific hazard index tpy tons per year TRIM.FaTE Total Risk Integrated Methodology.Fate, Transport, and Ecological Exposure model UF uncertainty factor mg/m3 micrograms per cubic meter UMRA Unfunded Mandates Reform Act E:\FR\FM\04JNP2.SGM 04JNP2 25906 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 107 / Tuesday, June 4, 2019 / Proposed Rules URE unit risk estimate VCS voluntary consensus standards VOC volatile organic compound 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? II. Background A. What is the statutory authority for this action? B. What are the source categories and how do the current NESHAP regulate their HAP emissions? C. What data collection activities were conducted to support this action? D. What other relevant background information and data are available? III. Analytical Procedures and Decision Making A. How do we consider risk in our decision-making? B. How do we perform the technology review? C. How do we estimate post-MACT risk posed by these source categories? IV. Analytical Results and Proposed Decisions A. What are the analytical results and proposed decisions for the Surface Coating of Metal Cans source category? B. What are the analytical results and proposed decisions for the Surface Coating of Metal Coil source category? V. Summary of Cost, Environmental, and Economic Impacts A. What are the affected sources? B. What are the air quality impacts? C. What are the cost impacts? D. What are the economic impacts? E. What are the benefits? VI. Request for Comments VII. Submitting Data Corrections VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews A. Executive Order 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) and 1 CFR Part 51 K. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations I. General Information A. Does this action apply to me? Table 1 of this preamble lists the NESHAP and associated regulated industrial source categories that are the subject of this proposal. Table 1 is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding the entities that this proposed action is likely to affect. The proposed standards, once promulgated, will be directly applicable to the affected sources. Federal, state, local, and tribal government entities would not be affected by this proposed action. As defined in the Initial List of Categories of Sources Under Section 112(c)(1) of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 (see 57 FR 31576, July 16, 1992) and Documentation for Developing the Initial Source Category List, Final Report (see EPA–450/3–91–030, July 1992), the Surface Coating of Metal Cans source category includes any facility engaged in the coating of metal cans, including: One- and two-piece draw and iron can body coating, sheet coating, three-piece can body assembly coating, or end coating. We estimate that five major source facilities engaged in metal can coating would be subject to this proposal. The Surface Coating of Metal Coil source category includes any facility engaged in the surface coating of metal coil that is a major source of hazardous air pollutant (HAP) emissions. Metal coil is defined as any continuous metal strip (with a thickness of 0.15 millimeters (mm) or more) that is packaged in a roll or coil prior to coating. We estimate that 48 major source facilities engaged in metal coil coating would be subject to this proposal. TABLE 1—NESHAP AND INDUSTRIAL SOURCE CATEGORIES AFFECTED BY THIS PROPOSED ACTION NESHAP and source category NAICS code 1 Regulated entities 2 Surface Coating of Metal Cans .......................... 332431, 332115, 332116, 332812, 332999 .... Surface Coating of Metal Coil ............................ 332431 ............................................................. 332812 ............................................................. 325992 ............................................................. Two-piece Beverage Can Facilities, Threepiece Food Can Facilities, Two-piece Draw and Iron Facilities, One-piece Aerosol Can Facilities. Can Assembly Facilities. End Manufacturing Facilities. Photographic Film, Paper, Plate, and Chemical Manufacturing. All Other Plastics Product Manufacturing. Iron and Steel Mills and Ferroalloy Manufacturing. Rolled Steel Shape Manufacturing. Aluminum Sheet, Plate, and Foil Manufacturing. Other Aluminum Rolling, Drawing, and Extruding. Copper Rolling, Drawing, Extruding, and Alloying. Prefabricated Metal Building and Component Manufacturing. Fabricated Structural Metal Manufacturing. Sheet Metal Work Manufacturing. Metal Coating, Engraving (except Jewelry and Silverware), and Allied Services to Manufacturers. All Other Miscellaneous Fabricated Metal Product Manufacturing. Other Industrial Machinery Manufacturing. 326199 ............................................................. 331110 ............................................................. 331221 ............................................................. 331315 ............................................................. 331318 ............................................................. khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2 331420 ............................................................. 332311 ............................................................. 332312 ............................................................. 332322 ............................................................. 3 332812 ........................................................... 332999 ............................................................. 333249 ............................................................. VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:09 Jun 03, 2019 Jkt 247001 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\04JNP2.SGM 04JNP2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 107 / Tuesday, June 4, 2019 / Proposed Rules 25907 TABLE 1—NESHAP AND INDUSTRIAL SOURCE CATEGORIES AFFECTED BY THIS PROPOSED ACTION—Continued NAICS code 1 NESHAP and source category Regulated entities 2 337920 ............................................................. Blind and Shade Manufacturing. 1 North American Industry Classification System. 2 Regulated entities are major source facilities that apply surface coatings to these parts or products. 3 The majority of coil coating facilities are included in NAICS Code 332812. B. Where can I get a copy of this document and other related information? In addition to being available in the dockets for this action, an electronic copy of this action is available on the internet. Following signature by the EPA Administrator, the EPA will post a copy of this proposed action at https:// www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-airpollution/surface-coating-metal-cansnational-emission-standards-hazardous and https://www.epa.gov/stationarysources-air-pollution/surface-coatingmetal-coil-national-emission-standardshazardous. Following publication in the Federal Register, the EPA will post the Federal Register version of the proposal and key technical documents at these same websites. Information on the overall RTR program is available at https://www3.epa.gov/ttn/atw/rrisk/ rtrpg.html. Redline versions of the regulatory language that incorporates the proposed changes in this action are available in the Metal Cans and the Metal Coil Dockets (Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR– 2017–0684 and Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– OAR–2017–0685, respectively). khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2 II. Background A. What is the statutory authority for this action? The statutory authority for this action is provided by sections 112 and 301 of the CAA, as amended (42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.).1 Section 112 of the CAA establishes a two-stage regulatory process to develop standards for emissions of HAP from stationary sources. Generally, the first stage involves establishing technology-based standards and the second stage involves evaluating those standards that are based on maximum achievable control technology (MACT) to determine whether additional standards are needed to address any remaining risk associated with HAP emissions. This second stage is commonly referred to as the ‘‘residual risk review.’’ In addition to the residual risk review, the CAA also requires the EPA to review standards set 1 In addition, section 301 of the CAA provides general authority for the Administrator to ‘‘prescribe such regulations as are necessary to carry out his functions’’ under the CAA. VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:09 Jun 03, 2019 Jkt 247001 under CAA section 112 every 8 years to determine if there are ‘‘developments in practices, processes, or control technologies’’ that may be appropriate to incorporate into the standards. This review is commonly referred to as the ‘‘technology review.’’ When the two reviews are combined into a single rulemaking, it is commonly referred to as the ‘‘risk and technology review.’’ The discussion that follows identifies the most relevant statutory sections and briefly explains the contours of the methodology used to implement these statutory requirements. A more comprehensive discussion appears in the document titled CAA Section 112 Risk and Technology Reviews: Statutory Authority and Methodology, in the dockets for each subpart in this rulemaking (Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– OAR–2017–0684 for Metal Cans Coating and Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR– 2017–0685 for Metal Coil Coating). In the first stage of the CAA section 112 standard setting process, the EPA promulgates technology-based standards under CAA section112(d) for categories of sources identified as emitting one or more of the HAP listed in CAA section 112(b). Sources of HAP emissions are either major sources or area sources, and CAA section 112 establishes different requirements for major source standards and area source standards. ‘‘Major sources’’ are those that emit or have the potential to emit 10 tons per year (tpy) or more of a single HAP or 25 tpy or more of any combination of HAP. All other sources are ‘‘area sources.’’ For major sources, CAA section 112(d)(2) provides that the technology-based NESHAP must reflect the maximum degree of emission reductions of HAP achievable (after considering cost, energy requirements, and non-air quality health and environmental impacts). These standards are commonly referred to as MACT standards. CAA section 112(d)(3) also establishes a minimum control level for MACT standards, known as the MACT ‘‘floor.’’ The EPA must also consider control options that are more stringent than the floor. Standards more stringent than the floor are commonly referred to as beyond-the-floor standards. In certain instances, as provided in CAA section 112(h), the EPA may set work practice PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 standards where it is not feasible to prescribe or enforce a numerical emission standard. For area sources, CAA section 112(d)(5) gives the EPA discretion to set standards based on generally available control technologies or management practices (GACT standards) in lieu of MACT standards. The second stage in standard-setting focuses on identifying and addressing any remaining (i.e., ‘‘residual’’) risk according to CAA section 112(f). For source categories subject to MACT standards, section 112(f)(2) of the CAA requires the EPA to determine whether promulgation of additional standards is needed to provide an ample margin of safety to protect public health or to prevent an adverse environmental effect. Section 112(d)(5) of the CAA provides that this residual risk review is not required for categories of area sources subject to GACT standards. Section 112(f)(2)(B) of the CAA further expressly preserves the EPA’s use of the two-step approach for developing standards to address any residual risk and the Agency’s interpretation of ‘‘ample margin of safety’’ developed in the National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Benzene Emissions from Maleic Anhydride Plants, Ethylbenzene/Styrene Plants, Benzene Storage Vessels, Benzene Equipment Leaks, and Coke By-Product Recovery Plants (Benzene NESHAP) (54 FR 38044, September 14, 1989). The EPA notified Congress in the Risk Report that the Agency intended to use the Benzene NESHAP approach in making CAA section 112(f) residual risk determinations (EPA–453/R–99–001, p. ES–11). The EPA subsequently adopted this approach in its residual risk determinations and the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (the Court) upheld the EPA’s interpretation that CAA section 112(f)(2) incorporates the approach established in the Benzene NESHAP. See NRDC v. EPA, 529 F.3d 1077, 1083 (D.C. Cir. 2008). The approach incorporated into the CAA and used by the EPA to evaluate residual risk and to develop standards under CAA section 112(f)(2) is a twostep approach. In the first step, the EPA determines whether risks are acceptable. This determination ‘‘considers all health E:\FR\FM\04JNP2.SGM 04JNP2 25908 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 107 / Tuesday, June 4, 2019 / Proposed Rules information, including risk estimation uncertainty, and includes a presumptive limit on maximum individual lifetime [cancer] risk (MIR) 2 of approximately 1-in-10 thousand.’’ 54 FR 38045, September 14, 1989. If risks are unacceptable, the EPA must determine the emissions standards necessary to reduce risk to an acceptable level without considering costs. In the second step of the approach, the EPA considers whether the emissions standards provide an ample margin of safety to protect public health ‘‘in consideration of all health information, including the number of persons at risk levels higher than approximately 1-in-1 million, as well as other relevant factors, including costs and economic impacts, technological feasibility, and other factors relevant to each particular decision.’’ Id. The EPA must promulgate emission standards necessary to provide an ample margin of safety to protect public health. After conducting the ample margin of safety analysis, we consider whether a more stringent standard is necessary to prevent, taking into consideration costs, energy, safety, and other relevant factors, an adverse environmental effect. CAA section 112(d)(6) separately requires the EPA to review standards promulgated under CAA section 112 and revise them ‘‘as necessary (taking into account developments in practices, processes, and control technologies)’’ no less often than every 8 years. In conducting this review, which we call the ‘‘technology review,’’ the EPA is not required to recalculate the MACT floor. Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) v. EPA, 529 F.3d 1077, 1084 (D.C. Cir. 2008). Association of Battery Recyclers, Inc. v. EPA, 716 F.3d 667 (D.C. Cir. 2013). The EPA may consider cost in deciding whether to revise the standards pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6). B. What are the source categories and how do the current NESHAP regulate their HAP emissions? khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2 1. What is the Surface Coating of Metal Cans source category and how does the current NESHAP regulate its HAP emissions? a. Source Category Description The NESHAP for the Surface Coating of Metal Cans source category was promulgated on November 13, 2003 (68 FR 64432), and is codified at 40 CFR part 63, subpart KKKK. Technical 2 Although defined as ‘‘maximum individual risk,’’ MIR refers only to cancer risk. MIR, one metric for assessing cancer risk, is the estimated risk if an individual were exposed to the maximum level of a pollutant for a lifetime. VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:09 Jun 03, 2019 Jkt 247001 corrections and clarifying amendments were promulgated on January 6, 2006 (71 FR 1386). The Surface Coating of Metal Cans NESHAP applies to the surface coating and related operations at each new, reconstructed, and existing affected source of HAP emissions at facilities that are major sources and are engaged in the surface coating of metal cans and ends (including decorative tins) and metal crowns and closures. The Surface Coating of Metal Cans NESHAP (40 CFR 63.3561) defines a ‘‘metal can’’ as ‘‘a single-walled container manufactured from metal substrate equal to or thinner than 0.3785 mm (0.0149 inch)’’ and includes coating operations for the four following subcategories: • One- and two-piece draw and iron can body coating—includes one-piece aerosol cans, defined as an ‘‘aerosol can formed by the draw and iron process to which no ends are attached and a valve is placed directly on top’’ and two-piece draw and iron cans, defined as a ‘‘steel or aluminum can manufactured by the draw and iron process.’’ These include two-piece beverage cans manufactured to contain drinkable liquids, such as beer, soft drinks, or fruit juices, and two-piece food cans designed to contain edible products other than beverages and to be hermetically sealed. • Sheetcoating—includes all the flat metal sheetcoating operations associated with the manufacture of three-piece cans, decorative tins, crowns, and closures. • Three-piece can body assembly coating—includes three-piece aerosol cans, defined as a ‘‘steel aerosol can formed by the three-piece can assembly process manufactured to contain food or nonfood products,’’ and three-piece food cans, defined as a ‘‘steel can formed by the three-piece can assembly process manufactured to contain edible products and designed to be hermetically sealed.’’ • End coating—includes the application of end seal compounds and repair spray coatings to metal can ends and includes three distinct coating type segments reflecting different end uses: Aseptic end seal compounds, nonaseptic end seal compounds, and repair spray coatings. The Surface Coating of Metal Cans NESHAP defines a ‘‘decorative tin’’ as ‘‘a single-walled container, designed to be covered or uncovered that is manufactured from metal substrate equal to or thinner than 0.3785 mm (0.0149 inch) and is normally coated on the exterior surface with decorative coatings. Decorative tins may contain foods but are not hermetically sealed and are not subject to food processing PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 steps such as retort or pasteurization. Interior coatings are not usually applied to protect the metal and contents from chemical interaction.’’ The Surface Coating of Metal Cans NESHAP also defines a ‘‘coating’’ as ‘‘a material that is applied to a substrate for decorative, protective, or functional purposes. Such materials include, but are not limited to, paints, sealants, caulks, inks, adhesives, and maskants.’’ Fusion pastes, ink jet markings, mist solutions, and lubricants, as well as decorative, protective, or functional materials that consist only of protective oils for metals, acids, bases, or any combination of these substances, are not considered coatings under 40 CFR part 63, subpart KKKK. Based on our search of the National Emission Inventory (NEI) (www.epa.gov/ air-emissions-inventories/nationalemissions-inventory-nei) and the EPA’s Enforcement and Compliance History Online (ECHO) database (echo.epa.gov) and a review of active air emissions permits, we estimate that five facilities are subject to the Surface Coating of Metal Cans NESHAP. A complete list of facilities subject to the Surface Coating of Metal Cans NESHAP is available in Appendix 1 to the memorandum titled Technology Review for Surface Coating Operations in the Metal Cans Category, in the Metal Cans Docket (Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2017–0684). b. HAP Emission Sources The primary HAP emitted from metal can surface coating operations are organic HAP and include glycol ethers, formaldehyde, xylenes, toluene, methyl isobutyl ketone, 2-(hexyloxy) ethanol, ethyl benzene, and methanol. These HAP account for 99 percent of the HAP emissions from the source category. The HAP emissions from the metal cans category occur from coating application lines, drying and curing ovens, mixing and thinning areas, and cleaning of equipment. The coating application lines and the drying and curing ovens are the largest sources of HAP emissions. The coating application lines apply an exterior base coat to two- and three-piece cans using a lithographic/ printing (i.e., roll) application process. The inside, side seam, and repair coatings are spray applied using airless spray equipment and are a minor portion of the can coating operations. As indicated by the name, repair spray coatings are used to cover breaks in the coating that are caused during the formation of the score in easy-open ends or to provide, after the manufacturing process, an additional protective layer for corrosion resistance. E:\FR\FM\04JNP2.SGM 04JNP2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 107 / Tuesday, June 4, 2019 / Proposed Rules khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2 Inorganic HAP emissions were considered in the development of the Surface Coating of Metal Cans NESHAP. Inorganic HAP, including chromium and manganese compounds, are contained in some of the coatings used by this source category. However, the EPA determined that no controls were needed because the coatings used that may contain inorganic HAP were not spray applied. Instead, these coatings were roll applied through direct contact (similar to lithographic printing) with the surface to which they were being applied, and the inorganic HAP became part of the cured coating.3 No inorganic HAP were reported in the NEI data used for this RTR for surface coating operations at major source metal can coating facilities. c. NESHAP Requirements for Control of HAP We estimated that the Surface Coating of Metal Cans NESHAP requirements would reduce the emissions of organic HAP from the source category by 71 percent or 6,800 tpy (68 FR 2110, January 15, 2003). This estimate included two HAP that were since delisted. The delisting of ethylene glycol monobutyl ether occurred in 2004, and the delisting of methyl ethyl ketone occurred in 2005. The NESHAP specifies numerical emission limits for existing sources and for new and reconstructed sources for organic HAP emissions according to four can coating subcategories. The organic HAP emission limits for existing sources conducting: (1) One- and twopiece draw and iron can body coating (includes two-piece beverage cans, twopiece food cans, and one-piece aerosol cans) ranges from 0.07 to 0.12 kilogram (kg) HAP/liter of coating solids (or 0.59 to 0.99 pound/gallon (lb/gal)); (2) sheet coating is 0.03 kg HAP/liter of coating solids (or 0.26 lb/gal); (3) three piece can assembly (includes inside spray, aseptic, and non-aseptic side seam stripes on food cans, side seam stripes on general line non-food cans, and side seam stripes on aerosol cans) ranges from 0.29 to 1.94 kg HAP/liter of coating solids (or 2.43 to 16.16 lb/gal); and (4) end coating (includes aseptic and nonaseptic end seal compounds and repair spray coatings) ranges from zero to 2.06 kg HAP/liter of coating solids (or zero to 17.17 lb/gal). The organic HAP emission limits for new and reconstructed sources conducting: (1) One and twopiece draw and iron can body coating 3 National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Surface Coating of Metal Cans Background Information for Final Standards. Summary of Public Comments and Responses. EPA 453/R–03–009. August 2003. Section 2.5.4. VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:09 Jun 03, 2019 Jkt 247001 ranges from 0.04 to 0.08 kg HAP/liter of coating solids (or 0.31 to 0.65 lb/gal); (2) sheet coating is 0.02 kg HAP/liter of coating solids (or 0.17 lb/gal); (3) three piece can assembly ranges from 0.12 to 1.48 kg HAP/liter of coating solids (or 1.03 to 12.37 lb/gal); and (4) end coating ranges from zero to 0.64 kg HAP/liter of coating solids (or zero to 5.34 lb/gal). The specific organic HAP emission limits for each can coating subcategory are listed in Table 3 of the memorandum titled Technology Review for Surface Coating Operations in the Metal Cans Category, in the Metal Cans Docket (Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR– 2017–0684). Compliance with the Surface Coating of Metal Cans NESHAP emission limits can be achieved using several different options, including a compliant material option, an emission rate without add-on controls option (averaging option), an emission rate with add-on controls option, or a control efficiency/outlet concentration. For any coating operation(s) on which the facility uses the compliant material option or the emission rate without add-on controls option, the facility is not required to meet any work practice standards. If the facility uses the emission rate with add-on controls option, the facility must develop and implement a work practice plan to minimize organic HAP emissions from the storage, mixing, and conveying of coatings, thinners, and cleaning materials used in, and waste materials generated by, the coating operation(s) using that option. The plan must specify practices and procedures to ensure that a set of minimum work practices specified in the NESHAP are implemented. The facility must also comply with site-specific operating limits for the emission capture and control system. 2. What is the Surface Coating of Metal Coil source category and how does the current NESHAP regulate its HAP emissions? a. Source Category Description The NESHAP for the Surface Coating of Metal Coil source category was promulgated on June 10, 2002 (67 FR 39794), and is codified at 40 CFR part 63, subpart SSSS. A technical correction to the final rule was published on March 17, 2003 (68 FR 12590). The Surface Coating of Metal Coil NESHAP applies to owners or operators of metal coil surface coating operations at facilities that are major sources of HAP. The Surface Coating of Metal Coil NESHAP (40 CFR 63.5100) applies to the collection of all coil coating lines at a facility and defines a coil coating line PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 25909 as the process for metal coil coating that includes the web unwind or feed station, a series of one or more coating stations, associated curing ovens, wet sections, and quench stations. A coil coating line does not include ancillary operations such as mixing/thinning, cleaning, wastewater treatment, and storage of coating material. The Surface Coating of Metal Coil NESHAP (40 CFR 63.5110) defines a coil coating operation as the collection of equipment used to apply an organic coating to the surface of any continuous metal strip that is 0.006 inch (0.15 millimeter (mm)) thick or more that is packaged in a roll or coil. The Surface Coating of Metal Coil NESHAP also defines a coating material as the coating and other products (e.g., a catalyst and resin in multi-component coatings) combined to make a single material at the coating facility that is applied to metal coil and includes organic solvents used to thin a coating prior to application to the metal coil. Based on our search of the NEI and EPA’s ECHO database and a review of active air emission permits, we estimate that 48 facilities are subject to the Surface Coating of Metal Coil NESHAP. A complete list of facilities we identified as subject to the Surface Coating of Metal Coil NESHAP is available in Appendix 1 to the memorandum titled Residual Risk Assessment for the Surface Coating of Metal Coil Source Category in Support of the 2019 Risk and Technology Review Proposed Rule (hereafter referred to as the Metal Coil Risk Assessment Report), in the Surface Coating of Metal Coil Docket (Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR– 2017–0685). b. HAP Emission Sources The primary HAP emitted from metal coil coating operations are organic HAP and include xylenes, glycol ethers, naphthalene, isophorone, toluene, diethylene glycol monobutyl ether (DGME), and ethyl benzene. The majority of organic HAP emissions are from the coating application and the curing ovens. Inorganic HAP emissions were considered in the development of the Surface Coating of Metal Coil NESHAP. Based on information reported in survey responses during the development of the 2002 proposed NESHAP, inorganic HAP were present in the pigments and film-forming components of some coatings used by this source category. However, we concluded that inorganic HAP are not likely to be emitted from these sources because of the application techniques used (67 FR 46032, July 11, 2002). The data obtained from the NEI and the Toxics Release Inventory for E:\FR\FM\04JNP2.SGM 04JNP2 25910 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 107 / Tuesday, June 4, 2019 / Proposed Rules this RTR included low quantities of inorganic HAP for major source facilities that conduct metal coil operations. Further investigation of these sources concluded that these inorganic emissions were reported in error. khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2 c. NESHAP Requirements for Control of HAP We estimated that the Surface Coating of Metal Coil NESHAP requirements would reduce the emissions of organic HAP from the source category by approximately 55 percent or 1,318 tpy (65 FR 44616, July 18, 2000). The NESHAP specifies numerical emission limits for organic HAP emissions from the coating application stations and associated curing ovens. The Surface Coating of Metal Coil NESHAP provides options for limiting organic HAP emissions to one of the four specified levels: (1) Use only individually compliant coatings with an organic HAP content that does not exceed 0.046 kg/ liter of solids applied, (2) use coatings with an average organic HAP content of 0.046 kg/liter of solids on a rolling 12month average, (3) use a capture system and add-on control device to either reduce emissions by 98 percent or use a 100-percent efficient capture system (permanent total enclosure (PTE)) and an oxidizer to reduce organic HAP emissions to no more than 20 parts per million by volume (ppmv) as carbon, or (4) use a combination of compliant coatings and control devices to maintain an average equivalent emission rate of organic HAP not exceeding 0.046 kg/ liter of solids on a rolling 12-month average basis. These compliance options apply to an individual coil coating line, to multiple lines as a group, or to the entire affected source. Compliant coatings must contain no organic HAP (each organic HAP that is not an Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA)-defined carcinogen that is measured to be present at less than 1 percent by weight is counted as zero). The NESHAP also sets operating limits for the emission capture and add-on control devices. C. What data collection activities were conducted to support this action? For the risk modeling portion of these RTRs, the EPA used data from the 2011 and 2014 NEI. The NEI is a database that contains information about sources that emit criteria air pollutants, their precursors, and HAP. The database includes estimates of annual air pollutant emissions from point, nonpoint, and mobile sources in the 50 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands. The EPA VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:09 Jun 03, 2019 Jkt 247001 collects this information and releases an updated version of the NEI database every 3 years. The NEI includes data necessary for conducting risk modeling, including annual HAP emissions estimates from individual emission points at facilities and the related emissions release parameters. We used NEI emissions and supporting data as the primary data to develop the model input files for the risk assessments for each of these three source categories. Detailed information on the development of the modeling file for the Surface Coating of Metal Cans source category can be found in Appendix 1 to the Residual Risk Assessment for the Surface Coating of Metal Cans Source Category in Support of the 2019 Risk and Technology Review Proposed Rule (hereafter referred to as the Metal Cans Risk Assessment Report), in the Metal Cans Docket (Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– OAR–2017–0684). Detailed information on the development of the modeling file for the Surface Coating of Metal Coil source category can be found in Appendix 1 to the Metal Coil Risk Assessment Report, in the Metal Coil Docket (Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR– 2017–0685). For both the risk modeling and technology review portion of these RTRs, we also gathered data from facility construction and operating permits regarding emission points, air pollution control devices, and process operations. We collected permits and supporting documentation from state permitting authorities through statemaintained online databases. The facility permits were also used to confirm that the facilities were major sources of HAP and were subject to the NESHAP that are the subject of these risk assessments. In certain cases, we contacted industry associations and facility owners or operators to confirm and clarify the sources of emissions that were reported in the NEI. No formal information collection request (ICR) was conducted for this action. For the technology review portion of these RTRs, we also used information from the EPA’s ECHO database as a tool to identify which facilities were potentially subject to the NESHAP. The ECHO database provides integrated compliance and enforcement information for approximately 800,000 regulated facilities nationwide. Using the search feature in ECHO, the EPA identified facilities that could potentially be subject to each of these two NESHAP. We then reviewed operating permits for these facilities, when available, to confirm that they were major sources of HAP with PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 emission sources subject to these NESHAP. Also for the technology reviews, we collected information from the reasonably available control technology (RACT), best available control technology (BACT), and lowest achievable emission rate (LAER) determinations in the EPA’s RACT/ BACT/LAER Clearinghouse (RBLC).4 This is a database that contains casespecific information on air pollution technologies that have been required to reduce the emissions of air pollutants from stationary sources. Under the EPA’s New Source Review (NSR) program, if a facility is planning new construction or a modification that will increase the air emissions by a large amount, an NSR permit must be obtained. This central database promotes the sharing of information among permitting agencies and aids in case-by-case determinations for NSR permits. We examined information contained in the RBLC to determine what technologies are currently used for these surface coating operations to reduce air emissions. Additional information about these data collection activities for the technology reviews is contained in the technology review memoranda titled Technology Review for Surface Coating Operations in the Metal Cans Category, May 2017 (hereafter referred to as the Metal Cans Technology Review Memo), and the Technology Review for Surface Coating Operations in the Metal Coil Category, September 2017 (hereafter referred to as the Metal Coil Technology Review Memo), available in the respective Metal Cans and Metal Coil Dockets. D. What other relevant background information and data are available? We also reviewed the NESHAP for other surface coating source categories that were promulgated after the Surface Coating of Metal Cans and the Surface Coating of Metal Coil NESHAP as part of the technology review for these source categories. We reviewed the regulatory requirements and/or technical analyses associated with these later regulatory actions to identify any practices, processes, and control technologies considered in those rulemakings that could be applied to emission sources in the Surface Coating of Metal Cans and the Surface Coating of Metal Coil source categories, as well as the costs, non-air impacts, and energy implications associated with the use of those technologies. We also reviewed 4 https://www.epa.gov/catc/ractbactlaerclearinghouse-rblc-basic-information. E:\FR\FM\04JNP2.SGM 04JNP2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 107 / Tuesday, June 4, 2019 / Proposed Rules information available in the American Coatings Association’s (ACA) Industry Market Analysis, 9th Edition (2014– 2019).5 The ACA Industry Market Analysis provided information on trends in coatings technology that can affect emissions from the Surface Coating of Metal Cans and the Surface Coating of Metal Coil source categories. Additional details regarding our review of these information sources are contained in the Metal Cans Technology Review Memo, and the Metal Coil Technology Review Memo, available in the respective Metal Cans and Metal Coil Dockets. khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2 III. Analytical Procedures and Decision Making In this section, we describe the analyses performed to support the proposed decisions for the RTRs and other issues addressed in this proposal. A. How do we consider risk in our decision-making? As discussed in section II.A of this preamble and in the Benzene NESHAP, in evaluating and developing standards under CAA section 112(f)(2), we apply a two-step approach to determine whether or not risks are acceptable and to determine if the standards provide an ample margin of safety to protect public health. As explained in the Benzene NESHAP, ‘‘the first step judgment on acceptability cannot be reduced to any single factor’’ and, thus, ‘‘[t]he Administrator believes that the acceptability of risk under section 112 is best judged on the basis of a broad set of health risk measures and information.’’ 54 FR 38046, September 14, 1989. Similarly, with regard to the ample margin of safety determination, ‘‘the Agency again considers all of the health risk and other health information considered in the first step. Beyond that information, additional factors relating to the appropriate level of control will also be considered, including cost and economic impacts of controls, technological feasibility, uncertainties, and any other relevant factors.’’ Id. The Benzene NESHAP approach provides flexibility regarding factors the EPA may consider in making determinations and how the EPA may weigh those factors for each source category. The EPA conducts a risk assessment that provides estimates of the MIR posed by the HAP emissions from each source in the source category, the hazard index (HI) for chronic exposures to HAP with the potential to cause noncancer health effects, and the 5 Prepared for the ACA, Washington, DC, by The ChemQuest Group, Inc., Cincinnati, Ohio. 2015. VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:09 Jun 03, 2019 Jkt 247001 hazard quotient (HQ) for acute exposures to HAP with the potential to cause noncancer health effects.6 The assessment also provides estimates of the distribution of cancer risk within the exposed populations, cancer incidence, and an evaluation of the potential for an adverse environmental effect. The scope of the EPA’s risk analysis is consistent with the EPA’s response to comments on our policy under the Benzene NESHAP where the EPA explained that: ‘‘[t]he policy chosen by the Administrator permits consideration of multiple measures of health risk. Not only can the MIR figure be considered, but also incidence, the presence of noncancer health effects, and the uncertainties of the risk estimates. In this way, the effect on the most exposed individuals can be reviewed as well as the impact on the general public. These factors can then be weighed in each individual case. This approach complies with the Vinyl Chloride mandate that the Administrator ascertain an acceptable level of risk to the public by employing his expertise to assess available data. It also complies with the Congressional intent behind the CAA, which did not exclude the use of any particular measure of public health risk from the EPA’s consideration with respect to CAA section 112 regulations, and thereby implicitly permits consideration of any and all measures of health risk which the Administrator, in his judgment, believes are appropriate to determining what will ‘protect the public health’.’’ See 54 FR 38057, September 14, 1989. Thus, the level of the MIR is only one factor to be weighed in determining acceptability of risk. The Benzene NESHAP explained that ‘‘an 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. Or, the Agency may find, in a particular case, that a risk that includes an MIR less than the presumptively acceptable level is unacceptable in the light of other health risk factors.’’ Id. at 38045. Similarly, with regard to the ample margin of safety analysis, the EPA stated 6 The MIR is defined as the cancer risk associated with a lifetime of exposure at the highest concentration of HAP where people are likely to live. The HQ is the ratio of the potential exposure to the HAP to the level at or below which no adverse chronic non-cancer effects are expected; the HI is the sum of HQs for HAP that affect the same target organ or organ system. PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 25911 in the Benzene NESHAP that the: ‘‘EPA believes the relative weight of the many factors that can be considered in selecting an ample margin of safety can only be determined for each specific source category. This occurs mainly because technological and economic factors (along with the health-related factors) vary from source category to source category.’’ Id. at 38061. We also consider the uncertainties associated with the various risk analyses, as discussed earlier in this preamble, in our determinations of acceptability and ample margin of safety. The EPA notes that it has not considered certain health information to date in making residual risk determinations. At this time, we do not attempt to quantify the HAP risk that may be associated with emissions from other facilities that do not include the source categories under review, mobile source emissions, natural source emissions, persistent environmental pollution, or atmospheric transformation in the vicinity of the sources in the categories. The EPA understands the potential importance of considering an individual’s total exposure to HAP in addition to considering exposure to HAP emissions from the source category and facility. We recognize that such consideration may be particularly important when assessing noncancer risk, where pollutant-specific exposure health reference levels (e.g., reference concentrations (RfCs)) are based on the assumption that thresholds exist for adverse health effects. For example, the EPA recognizes that, although exposures attributable to emissions from a source category or facility alone may not indicate the potential for increased risk of adverse noncancer health effects in a population, the exposures resulting from emissions from the facility in combination with emissions from all of the other sources (e.g., other facilities) to which an individual is exposed may be sufficient to result in an increased risk of adverse noncancer health effects. In May 2010, the Science Advisory Board (SAB) advised the EPA ‘‘that RTR assessments will be most useful to decision makers and communities if results are presented in the broader context of aggregate and cumulative risks, including background concentrations and contributions from other sources in the area.’’ 7 7 Recommendations of the SAB Risk and Technology Review (RTR) Panel are provided in their report, which is available at: https:// yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/ 4AB3966E263D943A8525771F00668381/$File/EPASAB-10-007-unsigned.pdf. E:\FR\FM\04JNP2.SGM 04JNP2 25912 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 107 / Tuesday, June 4, 2019 / Proposed Rules In response to the SAB recommendations, the EPA incorporates cumulative risk analyses into its RTR risk assessments, including those reflected in this proposal. The Agency (1) Conducts facility-wide assessments, which include source category emission points, as well as other emission points within the facilities; (2) combines exposures from multiple sources in the same category that could affect the same individuals; and (3) for some persistent and bioaccumulative pollutants, analyzes the ingestion route of exposure. In addition, the RTR risk assessments consider aggregate cancer risk from all carcinogens and aggregated noncancer HQs for all noncarcinogens affecting the same target organ or target organ system. Although we are interested in placing source category and facility-wide HAP risk in the context of total HAP risk from all sources combined in the vicinity of each source, we are concerned about the uncertainties of doing so. Estimates of total HAP risk from emission sources other than those that we have studied in depth during this RTR review would have significantly greater associated uncertainties than the source category or facility-wide estimates. Such aggregate or cumulative assessments would compound those uncertainties, making the assessments too unreliable. khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2 B. How do we perform the technology review? Our technology review focuses on the identification and evaluation of developments in practices, processes, and control technologies that have occurred since the MACT standards were promulgated. Where we identify such developments, we analyze their technical feasibility, estimated costs, energy implications, and non-air environmental impacts. We also consider the emission reductions associated with applying each development. This analysis informs our decision of whether it is ‘‘necessary’’ to revise the emissions standards. In addition, we consider the appropriateness of applying controls to new sources versus retrofitting existing sources. For this exercise, we consider any of the following to be a ‘‘development’’: • Any add-on control technology or other equipment that was not identified and considered during development of the original MACT standards; • Any improvements in add-on control technology or other equipment (that were identified and considered during development of the original VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:09 Jun 03, 2019 Jkt 247001 MACT standards) that could result in additional emissions reduction; • Any work practice or operational procedure that was not identified or considered during development of the original MACT standards; • Any process change or pollution prevention alternative that could be broadly applied to the industry and that was not identified or considered during development of the original MACT standards; and • Any significant changes in the cost (including cost effectiveness) of applying controls (including controls the EPA considered during the development of the original MACT standards). In addition to reviewing the practices, processes, and control technologies that were considered at the time we originally developed the NESHAP (i.e., the 2003 Surface Coating of Metal Cans NESHAP; and the 2002 Surface Coating of Metal Coil NESHAP) we review a variety of data sources in our investigation of potential practices, processes, or controls that may have not been considered for each of the two source categories during development of the NESHAP. Among the sources we reviewed were the NESHAP for various industries that were promulgated after the MACT standards being reviewed in this action (e.g., NESHAP for Miscellaneous Metal Parts and Products (40 CFR part 63, subpart MMMM)). We also reviewed the results of other technology reviews for other surface coating source categories since the promulgation of the NESHAP (e.g., the technology reviews conducted for the Shipbuilding and Ship Repair (Surface Coating) NESHAP (40 CFR part 63, subpart II) and the Wood Furniture Manufacturing Operations NESHAP (40 CFR part 63, subpart JJ)). We reviewed the regulatory requirements and/or technical analyses associated with these regulatory actions to identify any practices, processes, and control technologies considered in these efforts that could be applied to emission sources in the Surface Coating of Metal Cans and the Surface Coating of Metal Coil source categories, as well as the costs, non-air impacts, and energy implications associated with the use of these technologies. Finally, we reviewed information from other sources, such as state and/or local permitting agency databases and industry-sponsored market analyses and trade journals, to research advancements in add-on controls and lower HAP technology for coatings and solvents. For a more detailed discussion of our methods for performing these technology reviews, refer to the Metal Cans Technology PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 Review Memo and the Metal Coil Technology Review Memo, which are available in the respective Metal Cans and Metal Coil dockets. C. How do we estimate post-MACT risk posed by these source categories? In this section, we provide a complete description of the types of analyses that we generally perform during the risk assessment process. In some cases, we do not perform a specific analysis because it is not relevant. For example, in the absence of emissions of HAP known to be persistent and bioaccumulative in the environment (PB–HAP), we would not perform a multipathway exposure assessment. Where we do not perform an analysis, we state that we do not and provide the reason. While we present all of our risk assessment methods, we only present risk assessment results for the analyses actually conducted (see section IV.B of this preamble). The EPA conducts a risk assessment that provides estimates of the MIR for cancer posed by the HAP emissions from each source in the source category, the HI for chronic exposures to HAP with the potential to cause noncancer health effects, and the HQ for acute exposures to HAP with the potential to cause noncancer health effects. The assessment also provides estimates of the distribution of cancer risk within the exposed populations, cancer incidence, and an evaluation of the potential for an adverse environmental effect. The seven sections that follow this paragraph describe how we estimated emissions and conducted the risk assessments in this action. The dockets for this rulemaking contain the following documents which provide more information on the risk assessment inputs and models: Metal Cans Risk Assessment Report and the Metal Coil Risk Assessment Report. The methods used to assess risk (as described in the seven primary steps below) are consistent with those described by the EPA in the document reviewed by a panel of the EPA’s SAB in 2009; 8 and described in the SAB review report issued in 2010. They are also consistent with the key recommendations contained in that report. 8 U.S. EPA. Risk and Technology Review (RTR) Risk Assessment Methodologies: For Review by the EPA’s Science Advisory Board with Case Studies— MACT I Petroleum Refining Sources and Portland Cement Manufacturing, June 2009. EPA–452/R–09– 006. https://www3.epa.gov/airtoxics/rrisk/ rtrpg.html. E:\FR\FM\04JNP2.SGM 04JNP2 khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 107 / Tuesday, June 4, 2019 / Proposed Rules 1. How did we estimate actual emissions and identify the emissions release characteristics? The actual emissions and the emission release characteristics for each facility were obtained primarily from either the 2011 NEI or the 2014 NEI. The 2011 version of the NEI was the most recent version available during the data collection phase of this rulemaking; therefore, most data were obtained from the 2011 NEI. The 2014 NEI was used to supplement the dataset with HAP data for emission units or processes for which the 2011 NEI included only volatile organic compounds (VOC) or particulate matter. In some cases, the industry association or the specific facilities were contacted to confirm emissions that appeared to be outliers, that were otherwise inconsistent with our understanding of the industry, or that were associated with high risk values in our initial risk screening analyses. When appropriate, emission values and release characteristics were revised based on these facility contacts, and these changes were documented. Additional information on the development of the modeling file for each source category, including the development of the actual emissions estimates and emissions release characteristics, can be found in Appendix 1 to the Metal Cans Risk Assessment Report, in the Metal Cans Docket and Appendix 1 to the Metal Coil Risk Assessment Report, in the Metal Coil Docket. data are available, in both steps of the risk analysis, in accordance with the Benzene NESHAP approach. (54 FR 38044, September 14, 1989.) For both the Surface Coating of Metal Cans and the Surface Coating of Metal Coil source categories, the EPA calculated allowable emissions by developing source category-specific multipliers of 1.1 that was applied to the current emissions for each category to estimate the allowable emissions. The multipliers were based on information obtained from the facility operating permits and the add-on control device control efficiencies for metal can and metal coil coating operations. Both categories have facilities that employ the use of add-on controls with efficiencies that are slightly above the control efficiency level required by the respective NESHAP, which suggests that the actual emissions are slightly lower than the NESHAP allowable levels. For more details on how the EPA estimated the MACT allowable emissions for the Surface Coating of Metal Cans source category, please see Appendix 1 to the Metal Cans Risk Assessment Report, in the Metal Cans Docket (Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR– 2017–0684). For more details on how the EPA calculated the MACT allowable emissions for the Surface Coating of Metal Coil source category, please see Appendix 1 to the Metal Coil Risk Assessment Report, in the Metal Coil Docket (Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR– 2017–0685). 2. How did we estimate MACTallowable emissions? The available emissions data in the RTR emissions dataset include estimates of the mass of HAP emitted during a specified annual time period. These ‘‘actual’’ emission levels are often lower than the emission levels allowed under the requirements of the current MACT standards. The emissions allowed under the MACT standards are referred to as the ‘‘MACT-allowable’’ emissions. We discussed the consideration of both MACT-allowable and actual emissions in the final Coke Oven Batteries RTR (70 FR 19998–19999, April 15, 2005) and in the proposed and final Hazardous Organic NESHAP RTRs (71 FR 34428, June 14, 2006, and 71 FR 76609, December 21, 2006, respectively). In those actions, we noted that assessing the risk at the MACT-allowable level is inherently reasonable since that risk reflects the maximum level facilities could emit and still comply with national emission standards. We also explained that it is reasonable to consider actual emissions, where such 3. How do we conduct dispersion modeling, determine inhalation exposures, and estimate individual and population inhalation risk? VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:09 Jun 03, 2019 Jkt 247001 Both long-term and short-term inhalation exposure concentrations and health risk from the source categories addressed in this proposal were estimated using the Human Exposure Model (HEM–3).9 The HEM–3 performs three primary risk assessment activities: (1) Conducting dispersion modeling to estimate the concentrations of HAP in ambient air, (2) estimating long-term and short-term inhalation exposures to individuals residing within 50 kilometers (km) of the modeled sources, and (3) estimating individual and population-level inhalation risk using the exposure estimates and quantitative dose-response information. 25913 EPA’s preferred models for assessing air pollutant concentrations from industrial facilities.10 To perform the dispersion modeling and to develop the preliminary risk estimates, HEM–3 draws on three data libraries. The first is a library of meteorological data, which is used for dispersion calculations. This library includes 1 year (2016) of hourly surface and upper air observations from 824 meteorological stations, selected to provide coverage of the U.S. and Puerto Rico. A second library of U.S. Census Bureau census block 11 internal point locations and populations provides the basis of human exposure calculations (U.S. Census, 2010). In addition, for each census block, the census library includes the elevation and controlling hill height, which are also used in dispersion calculations. A third library of pollutant-specific dose-response values is used to estimate health risk. These are discussed below. b. Risk From Chronic Exposure to HAP In developing the risk assessment for chronic exposures, we use the estimated annual average ambient air concentrations of each HAP emitted by each source in the source categories. The HAP air concentrations at each nearby census block centroid located within 50 km of the facility are a surrogate for the chronic inhalation exposure concentration for all the people who reside in that census block. A distance of 50 km is consistent with both the analysis supporting the 1989 Benzene NESHAP (54 FR 38044, September 14, 1989) and the limitations of Gaussian dispersion models, including AERMOD. For each facility, we calculate the MIR as the cancer risk associated with a continuous lifetime (24 hours per day, 7 days per week, 52 weeks per year, 70 years) exposure to the maximum concentration at the centroid of each inhabited census block. We calculate individual cancer risk by multiplying the estimated lifetime exposure to the ambient concentration of each HAP (in micrograms per cubic meter (mg/m3)) by its unit risk estimate (URE). The URE is an upper-bound estimate of an individual’s incremental risk of contracting cancer over a lifetime of exposure to a concentration of 1 microgram of the pollutant per cubic meter of air. For residual risk a. Dispersion Modeling The air dispersion model AERMOD, used by the HEM–3 model, is one of the 9 For more information about HEM–3, go to https://www.epa.gov/fera/risk-assessment-andmodeling-human-exposure-model-hem. PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 10 U.S. EPA. Revision to the Guideline on Air Quality Models: Adoption of a Preferred General Purpose (Flat and Complex Terrain) Dispersion Model and Other Revisions (70 FR 68218, November 9, 2005). 11 A census block is the smallest geographic area for which census statistics are tabulated. E:\FR\FM\04JNP2.SGM 04JNP2 25914 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 107 / Tuesday, June 4, 2019 / Proposed Rules khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2 assessments, we generally use UREs from the EPA’s Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS). For carcinogenic pollutants without IRIS values, we look to other reputable sources of cancer dose-response values, often using California EPA (CalEPA) UREs, where available. In cases where new, scientifically credible doseresponse values have been developed in a manner consistent with EPA guidelines and have undergone a peer review process similar to that used by the EPA, we may use such doseresponse values in place of, or in addition to, other values, if appropriate. The pollutant-specific dose-response values used to estimate health risk are available at https://www.epa.gov/fera/ dose-response-assessment-assessinghealth-risks-associated-exposurehazardous-air-pollutants. To estimate individual lifetime cancer risks associated with exposure to HAP emissions from each facility in the source category, we sum the risks for each of the carcinogenic HAP 12 emitted by the modeled facility. We estimate cancer risk at every census block within 50 km of every facility in the source category. The MIR is the highest individual lifetime cancer risk estimated for any of those census blocks. In addition to calculating the MIR, we estimate the distribution of individual cancer risks for the source category by summing the number of individuals within 50 km of the sources whose estimated risk falls within a specified risk range. We also estimate annual cancer incidence by multiplying the estimated lifetime cancer risk at each census block by the number of people residing in that block, summing results for all of the census blocks, and then 12 The EPA’s 2005 Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment classifies carcinogens as: ‘‘carcinogenic to humans,’’ ‘‘likely to be carcinogenic to humans,’’ and ‘‘suggestive evidence of carcinogenic potential.’’ These classifications also coincide with the terms ‘‘known carcinogen, probable carcinogen, and possible carcinogen,’’ respectively, which are the terms advocated in the EPA’s Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment, published in 1986 (51 FR 33992, September 24, 1986). In August 2000, the document, Supplemental Guidance for Conducting Health Risk Assessment of Chemical Mixtures (EPA/630/R–00/002), was published as a supplement to the 1986 document. Copies of both documents can be obtained from https:// cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/risk/recordisplay. cfm?deid=20533&CFID=70315376&CFTOKEN= 71597944. Summing the risk of these individual compounds to obtain the cumulative cancer risk is an approach that was recommended by the EPA’s SAB in their 2002 peer review of the EPA’s National Air Toxics Assessment (NATA) titled NATA— Evaluating the National-scale Air Toxics Assessment 1996 Data—a SAB Advisory, available at https://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/ 214C6E915BB04E14852570CA007A682C/$File/ ecadv02001.pdf. VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:09 Jun 03, 2019 Jkt 247001 dividing this result by a 70-year lifetime. To assess the risk of noncancer health effects from chronic exposure to HAP, we calculate either an HQ or a target organ-specific hazard index (TOSHI). We calculate an HQ when a single noncancer HAP is emitted. Where more than one noncancer HAP is emitted, we sum the HQ for each of the HAP that affects a common target organ or target organ system to obtain a TOSHI. The HQ is the estimated exposure divided by the chronic noncancer dose-response value, which is a value selected from one of several sources. The preferred chronic noncancer dose-response value is the EPA RfC, defined as ‘‘an estimate (with uncertainty spanning perhaps an order of magnitude) of a continuous inhalation exposure to the human population (including sensitive subgroups) that is likely to be without an appreciable risk of deleterious effects during a lifetime’’ (https:// iaspub.epa.gov/sor_internet/registry/ termreg/searchandretrieve/glossaries andkeywordlists/search.do?details=& vocabName=IRIS%20Glossary). In cases where an RfC from the EPA’s IRIS is not available or where the EPA determines that using a value other than the RfC is appropriate, the chronic noncancer dose-response value can be a value from the following prioritized sources, which define their dose-response values similarly to the EPA: (1) The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) Minimum Risk Level (https:// www.atsdr.cdc.gov/mrls/index.asp); (2) the CalEPA Chronic Reference Exposure Level (REL) (https://oehha.ca.gov/air/ crnr/notice-adoption-air-toxics-hotspots-program-guidance-manualpreparation-health-risk-0); or (3) as noted above, a scientifically credible dose-response value that has been developed in a manner consistent with the EPA guidelines and has undergone a peer review process similar to that used by the EPA. The pollutant-specific dose-response values used to estimate health risks are available at https:// www.epa.gov/fera/dose-responseassessment-assessing-health-risksassociated-exposure-hazardous-airpollutants. c. Risk From Acute Exposure to HAP That May Cause Health Effects Other Than Cancer For each HAP for which appropriate acute inhalation dose-response values are available, the EPA also assesses the potential health risks due to acute exposure. For these assessments, the EPA makes conservative assumptions about emission rates, meteorology, and exposure location. We use the peak PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 hourly emission rate,13 worst-case dispersion conditions, and, in accordance with our mandate under section 112 of the CAA, the point of highest off-site exposure to assess the potential risk to the maximally exposed individual. To characterize the potential health risks associated with estimated acute inhalation exposures to a HAP, we generally use multiple acute doseresponse values, including acute RELs, acute exposure guideline levels (AEGLs), and emergency response planning guidelines (ERPG) for 1-hour exposure durations, if available, to calculate acute HQs. The acute HQ is calculated by dividing the estimated acute exposure by the acute doseresponse value. For each HAP for which acute dose-response values are available, the EPA calculates acute HQs. An acute REL is defined as ‘‘the concentration level at or below which no adverse health effects are anticipated for a specified exposure duration.’’ 14 Acute RELs are based on the most sensitive, relevant, adverse health effect reported in the peer-reviewed medical and toxicological literature. They are designed to protect the most sensitive individuals in the population through the inclusion of margins of safety. Because margins of safety are incorporated to address data gaps and uncertainties, exceeding the REL does not automatically indicate an adverse health impact. AEGLs represent threshold exposure limits for the general public and are applicable to emergency exposures ranging from 10 minutes to 8 hours.15 They are guideline levels for 13 In the absence of hourly emission data, we develop estimates of maximum hourly emission rates by multiplying the average actual annual emissions rates by a factor (either a categoryspecific factor or a default factor of 10) to account for variability. This is documented in the Metal Cans Risk Assessment Report and the Metal Coil Risk Assessment Report and in Appendix 5 of the report: Analysis of Data on Short-term Emission Rates Relative to Long-term Emission Rates. These documents are available in the Metal Cans Docket and the Metal Coil Docket. 14 CalEPA issues acute RELs as part of its Air Toxics Hot Spots Program, and the 1-hour and 8hour values are documented in Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Risk Assessment Guidelines, Part I, The Determination of Acute Reference Exposure Levels for Airborne Toxicants, which is available at https://oehha.ca.gov/air/general-info/oehha-acute-8hour-and-chronic-reference-exposure-level-relsummary. 15 National Academy of Sciences, 2001. Standing Operating Procedures for Developing Acute Exposure Levels for Hazardous Chemicals, page 2. Available at https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/ files/2015-09/documents/sop_final_standing_ operating_procedures_2001.pdf. Note that the National Advisory Committee for Acute Exposure Guideline Levels for Hazardous Substances ended in October 2011, but the AEGL program continues to operate at the EPA and works with the National E:\FR\FM\04JNP2.SGM 04JNP2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 107 / Tuesday, June 4, 2019 / Proposed Rules khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2 ‘‘once-in-a-lifetime, short-term exposures to airborne concentrations of acutely toxic, high-priority chemicals.’’ Id. at 21. The AEGL–1 is specifically defined as ‘‘the airborne concentration (expressed as ppm (parts per million) or mg/m3 (milligrams per cubic meter)) of a substance above which it is predicted that the general population, including susceptible individuals, could experience notable discomfort, irritation, or certain asymptomatic nonsensory effects. However, the effects are not disabling and are transient and reversible upon cessation of exposure.’’ The document also notes that ‘‘Airborne concentrations below AEGL–1 represent exposure levels that can produce mild and progressively increasing but transient and nondisabling odor, taste, and sensory irritation or certain asymptomatic, nonsensory effects.’’ Id. AEGL–2 are defined as ‘‘the airborne concentration (expressed as parts per million or milligrams per cubic meter) of a substance above which it is predicted that the general population, including susceptible individuals, could experience irreversible or other serious, long-lasting adverse health effects or an impaired ability to escape.’’ Id. ERPGs are ‘‘developed for emergency planning and are intended as healthbased guideline concentrations for single exposures to chemicals.’’ 16 Id. at 1. The ERPG–1 is defined as ‘‘the maximum airborne concentration below which it is believed that nearly all individuals could be exposed for up to 1 hour without experiencing other than mild transient adverse health effects or without perceiving a clearly defined, objectionable odor.’’ Id. at 2. Similarly, the ERPG–2 is defined as ‘‘the maximum airborne concentration below which it is believed that nearly all individuals could be exposed for up to one hour without experiencing or developing irreversible or other serious health effects or symptoms which could impair an individual’s ability to take protective action.’’ Id. at 1. An acute REL for 1-hour exposure durations is typically lower than its corresponding AEGL–1 and ERPG–1. Even though their definitions are slightly different, AEGL–1s are often the same as the corresponding ERPG–1s, and AEGL–2s are often equal to ERPG– Academies to publish final AEGLs (https:// www.epa.gov/aegl). 16 ERPGS Procedures and Responsibilities. March 2014. American Industrial Hygiene Association. Available at: https://www.aiha.org/get-involved/ AIHAGuidelineFoundation/EmergencyResponse PlanningGuidelines/Documents/ERPG% 20Committee%20Standard%20Operating %20Procedures%20%20-%20March%202014% 20Revision%20%28Updated%2010-22014%29.pdf. VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:09 Jun 03, 2019 Jkt 247001 2s. The maximum HQs from our acute inhalation screening risk assessment typically result when we use the acute REL for a HAP. In cases where the maximum acute HQ exceeds 1, we also report the HQ based on the next highest acute dose-response value (usually the AEGL–1 and/or the ERPG–1). For these source categories, we did not have short term emissions data; therefore, we developed source category-specific factors based on information about each industry. We request comment on our assumptions regarding hour-to-hour variation in emissions and our methods of calculating the multiplier for estimating the peak 1-hour emissions for each source category and any additional information that could help refine our approach. The Surface Coating of Metal Cans source category process is a continuous (non-batch) coating application and curing process that results in consistent emission rates. The sources in this category primarily roll-apply coatings onto the surface of the metal cans. The sources employ the use of various compliance options, which include the use of compliant coatings, coatings when averaged meet the emission limits, and for facilities that cannot use these options, they employ the use of add-on controls. We expect that the hourly variations in emissions from these processes during routine operations to be minimal. Thus, applying the default emission factor of 10 to estimate the worst-case hourly emission rate is not reasonable for this category. We expect that minimal variations in emissions occur due to variations in the organic HAP content of the coatings. We calculated acute emissions by developing a source category-specific multiplier of 1.1 that was applied to the actual annual emissions, which were then divided by the total number of hours in a year (8,760 hours). A further discussion of why this factor was chosen can be found in Appendix 1 to the Metal Cans Risk Assessment Report in the Metal Cans Docket. Similarly, for the Surface Coating of Metal Coil source category, we expect to see minimal hour-to-hour variation in emissions during routine operations because coil coating operations rollapply coating onto a moving metal strip (coil) in a continuous coating process. The coil ends are seamed together in a continuous (non-batch) process that achieves a consistent emission rate. Thus, the default emission factor of 10 to estimate the worst-case hourly emission rate is not reasonable for this category. We expect that minimal PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 25915 variation in emissions occur due to variations in the organic HAP content of the coatings from batch to batch. We calculated acute emissions by developing a source category-specific multiplier of 1.1 that was applied to the actual annual emissions, which were then divided by the total number of hours in a year (8,760 hours). A further discussion of why this factor was chosen can be found in Appendix 1 to the Metal Coil Risk Assessment Report in the Metal Coil Docket. In our acute inhalation screening risk assessment, acute impacts are deemed negligible for HAP for which acute HQs are less than or equal to 1 (even under the conservative assumptions of the screening assessment), and no further analysis is performed for these HAP. In cases where an acute HQ from the screening step is greater than 1, we consider additional site-specific data to develop a more refined estimate of the potential for acute exposures of concern. For both source categories in this action, the data refinements employed consisted of plotting the HEM–3 polar grid results for each HAP with an acute HQ value greater than 1 on aerial photographs of the facilities. We then assessed whether the highest acute HQs were off-site and at locations that may be accessible to the public (e.g., roadways and public buildings). These refinements are discussed more fully in the Metal Cans and Metal Coil Risk Assessment Reports, available in the respective Metal Cans and Metal Coil Dockets. 4. How do we conduct the multipathway exposure and risk screening assessment? The EPA conducts a tiered screening assessment examining the potential for significant human health risks due to exposures via routes other than inhalation (i.e., ingestion). We first determine whether any sources in the source categories emit any HAP known to be persistent and bioaccumulative in the environment (PB–HAP), as identified in the EPA’s Air Toxics Risk Assessment Library (see Volume 1, Appendix D, at https://www.epa.gov/ fera/risk-assessment-and-modeling-airtoxics-risk-assessment-referencelibrary). For the Surface Coating of Metal Cans source category, we did not identify emissions of any PB–HAP. Because we did not identify PB–HAP emissions, no further evaluation of multipathway risk was conducted for this source category. For the Surface Coating of Metal Coil source category, we identified PB–HAP emissions of lead, so we proceeded to the next step of the evaluation. In this E:\FR\FM\04JNP2.SGM 04JNP2 khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2 25916 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 107 / Tuesday, June 4, 2019 / Proposed Rules step, we determine whether the facilityspecific emission rates of the emitted PB–HAP are large enough to create the potential for significant human health risk through ingestion exposure under reasonable worst-case conditions. To facilitate this step, we use previously developed screening threshold emission rates for several PB–HAP that are based on a hypothetical upper-end screening exposure scenario developed for use in conjunction with the EPA’s Total Risk Integrated Methodology.Fate, Transport, and Ecological Exposure (TRIM.FaTE) model. The PB–HAP with screening threshold emission rates are arsenic compounds, cadmium compounds, chlorinated dibenzodioxins and furans, mercury compounds, and polycyclic organic matter (POM). Based on the EPA estimates of toxicity and bioaccumulation potential, the pollutants above represent a conservative list for inclusion in multipathway risk assessments for RTR rules. (See Volume 1, Appendix D at https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/ files/201308/documents/volume_1_ reflibrary.pdf). In this assessment, we compare the facility-specific emission rates of these PB–HAP to the screening threshold emission rates for each PB– HAP to assess the potential for significant human health risks via the ingestion pathway. We call this application of the TRIM.FaTE model the Tier 1 screening assessment. The ratio of a facility’s actual emission rate to the Tier 1 screening threshold emission rate is a ‘‘screening value.’’ We derive the Tier 1 screening threshold emission rates for these PB– HAP (other than lead compounds) to correspond to a maximum excess lifetime cancer risk of 1-in-1 million (i.e., for arsenic compounds, polychlorinated dibenzodioxins and furans and POM) or, for HAP that cause noncancer health effects (i.e., cadmium compounds and mercury compounds), a maximum HQ of 1. If the emission rate of any one PB–HAP or combination of carcinogenic PB–HAP in the Tier 1 screening assessment exceeds the Tier 1 screening threshold emission rate for any facility (i.e., the screening value is greater than 1), we conduct a second screening assessment, which we call the Tier 2 screening assessment. In the Tier 2 screening assessment, the location of each facility that exceeds a Tier 1 screening threshold emission rate is used to refine the assumptions associated with the Tier 1 fisher and farmer exposure scenarios at that facility. A key assumption in the Tier 1 screening assessment is that a lake and/ or farm is located near the facility. As part of the Tier 2 screening assessment, VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:09 Jun 03, 2019 Jkt 247001 we use a U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) database to identify actual waterbodies within 50 km of each facility. We also examine the differences between local meteorology near the facility and the meteorology used in the Tier 1 screening assessment. We then adjust the previously-developed Tier 1 screening threshold emission rates for each PB–HAP for each facility based on an understanding of how exposure concentrations estimated for the screening scenario change with the use of local meteorology and USGS waterbody data. If the PB–HAP emission rates for a facility exceed the Tier 2 screening threshold emission rates and data are available, we may conduct a Tier 3 screening assessment. If PB–HAP emission rates do not exceed a Tier 2 screening value of 1, we consider those PB–HAP emissions to pose risks below a level of concern. There are several analyses that can be included in a Tier 3 screening assessment, depending upon the extent of refinement warranted, including validating that the lakes are fishable, considering plume-rise to estimate emissions lost above the mixing layer, and considering hourly effects of meteorology and plume rise on chemical fate and transport. If the Tier 3 screening assessment indicates that risks above levels of concern cannot be ruled out, the EPA may further refine the screening assessment through a sitespecific assessment. In evaluating the potential multipathway risk from emissions of lead compounds, rather than developing a screening threshold emission rate, we compare maximum estimated chronic inhalation exposure concentrations to the level of the current National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for lead.17 Values below the level of the primary (health-based) lead NAAQS are considered to have a low potential for multipathway risk. For further information on the multipathway assessment approach, see the Metal Coil Risk Assessment Report, 17 In doing so, the EPA notes that the legal standard for a primary NAAQS—that a standard is requisite to protect public health and provide an adequate margin of safety (CAA section 109(b))— differs from the CAA section 112(f) standard (requiring, among other things, that the standard provide an ‘‘ample margin of safety to protect public health’’). However, the primary lead NAAQS is a reasonable measure of determining risk acceptability (i.e., the first step of the Benzene NESHAP analysis) since it is designed to protect the most susceptible group in the human population— children, including children living near major lead emitting sources. 73 FR 67002/3; 73 FR 67000/3; 73 FR 67005/1. In addition, applying the level of the primary lead NAAQS at the risk acceptability step is conservative, since that primary lead NAAQS reflects an adequate margin of safety. PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 which is available in the Metal Coil docket for this action. 5. How do we conduct the environmental risk screening assessment? a. Adverse Environmental Effect, Environmental HAP, and Ecological Benchmarks The EPA conducts a screening assessment to examine the potential for an adverse environmental effect as required under section 112(f)(2)(A) of the CAA. Section 112(a)(7) of the CAA defines ‘‘adverse environmental effect’’ as ‘‘any significant and widespread adverse effect, which may reasonably be anticipated, to wildlife, aquatic life, or other natural resources, including adverse impacts on populations of endangered or threatened species or significant degradation of environmental quality over broad areas.’’ The EPA focuses on eight HAP, which are referred to as ‘‘environmental HAP,’’ in its screening assessment: Six PB– HAP and two acid gases. The PB–HAP included in the screening assessment are arsenic compounds, cadmium compounds, dioxins/furans, (POM, mercury (both inorganic mercury and methyl mercury), and lead compounds. The acid gases included in the screening assessment are hydrochloric acid (HCl) and hydrogen fluoride (HF). HAP that persist and bioaccumulate are of particular environmental concern because they accumulate in the soil, sediment, and water. The acid gases, HCl and HF, are included due to their well-documented potential to cause direct damage to terrestrial plants. In the environmental risk screening assessment, we evaluate the following four exposure media: Terrestrial soils, surface water bodies (includes watercolumn and benthic sediments), fish consumed by wildlife, and air. Within these four exposure media, we evaluate nine ecological assessment endpoints, which are defined by the ecological entity and its attributes. For PB–HAP (other than lead), both community-level and population-level endpoints are included. For acid gases, the ecological assessment evaluated is terrestrial plant communities. An ecological benchmark represents a concentration of HAP that has been linked to a particular environmental effect level. For each environmental HAP, we identified the available ecological benchmarks for each assessment endpoint. We identified, where possible, ecological benchmarks at the following effect levels: Probable effect levels, lowest-observed-adverse- E:\FR\FM\04JNP2.SGM 04JNP2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 107 / Tuesday, June 4, 2019 / Proposed Rules effect level, and no-observed-adverseeffect level. In cases where multiple effect levels were available for a particular PB–HAP and assessment endpoint, we use all of the available effect levels to help us to determine whether ecological risks exist and, if so, whether the risks could be considered significant and widespread. For further information on how the environmental risk screening assessment was conducted, including a discussion of the risk metrics used, how the environmental HAP were identified, and how the ecological benchmarks were selected, see Appendix 9 of the Metal Cans Risk Assessment Report and the Metal Coil Risk Assessment Report, in the Metal Cans Docket and the Metal Coil Docket, respectively. khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2 b. Environmental Risk Screening Methodology For the environmental risk screening assessment, the EPA first determined whether any facilities in the Surface Coating of Metal Cans and Surface Coating of Metal Coil source categories emitted any of the environmental HAP. For the Surface Coating of Metal Cans source category, we identified emissions of HCl and HF. For the Surface Coating of Metal Coil source category, we identified emissions of HF and lead. Because one or more of the environmental HAP evaluated are emitted by at least one facility in the source categories, we proceeded to the second step of the evaluation for both the Surface Coating of Metal Cans and the Surface Coating of Metal Coil source categories. c. PB–HAP Methodology The environmental screening assessment includes six PB–HAP: Arsenic compounds, cadmium compounds, dioxins/furans, POM, mercury (both inorganic mercury and methyl mercury), and lead compounds. With the exception of lead, the environmental risk screening assessment for PB–HAP consists of three tiers. The first tier of the environmental risk screening assessment uses the same health-protective conceptual model that is used for the Tier 1 human health screening assessment. TRIM.FaTE model simulations were used to backcalculate Tier 1 screening threshold emission rates. The screening threshold emission rates represent the emission rate in tons per year that results in media concentrations at the facility that equal the relevant ecological benchmark. To assess emissions from each facility in the category, the reported emission rate for each PB–HAP was compared to the Tier 1 screening VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:09 Jun 03, 2019 Jkt 247001 threshold emission rate for that PB–HAP for each assessment endpoint and effect level. If emissions from a facility do not exceed the Tier 1 screening threshold emission rate, the facility ‘‘passes’’ the screening assessment, and, therefore, is not evaluated further under the screening approach. If emissions from a facility exceed the Tier 1 screening threshold emission rate, we evaluate the facility further in Tier 2. In Tier 2 of the environmental screening assessment, the screening threshold emission rates are adjusted to account for local meteorology and the actual location of lakes in the vicinity of facilities that did not pass the Tier 1 screening assessment. For soils, we evaluate the average soil concentration for all soil parcels within a 7.5-km radius for each facility and PB–HAP. For the water, sediment, and fish tissue concentrations, the highest value for each facility for each pollutant is used. If emission concentrations from a facility do not exceed the Tier 2 screening threshold emission rate, the facility ‘‘passes’’ the screening assessment and typically is not evaluated further. If emissions from a facility exceed the Tier 2 screening threshold emission rate, we evaluate the facility further in Tier 3. As in the multipathway human health risk assessment, in Tier 3 of the environmental screening assessment, we examine the suitability of the lakes around the facilities to support life and remove those that are not suitable (e.g., lakes that have been filled in or are industrial ponds), adjust emissions for plume-rise, and conduct hour-by-hour time-series assessments. If these Tier 3 adjustments to the screening threshold emission rates still indicate the potential for an adverse environmental effect (i.e., facility emission rate exceeds the screening threshold emission rate), we may elect to conduct a more refined assessment using more site-specific information. If, after additional refinement, the facility emission rate still exceeds the screening threshold emission rate, the facility may have the potential to cause an adverse environmental effect. To evaluate the potential for an adverse environmental effect from lead, we compared the average modeled air concentrations (from HEM–3) of lead around each facility in the source category to the level of the secondary NAAQS for lead. The secondary lead NAAQS is a reasonable means of evaluating environmental risk because it is set to provide substantial protection against adverse welfare effects which can include ‘‘effects on soils, water, crops, vegetation, man-made materials, PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 25917 animals, wildlife, weather, visibility and climate, damage to and deterioration of property, and hazards to transportation, as well as effects on economic values and on personal comfort and wellbeing.’’ d. Acid Gas Environmental Risk Methodology The environmental screening assessment for acid gases evaluates the potential phytotoxicity and reduced productivity of plants due to chronic exposure to HF and HCl. The environmental risk screening methodology for acid gases is a singletier screening assessment that compares modeled ambient air concentrations (from AERMOD) to the ecological benchmarks for each acid gas. To identify a potential adverse environmental effect (as defined in section 112(a)(7) of the CAA) from emissions of HF and HCl, we evaluate the following metrics: The size of the modeled area around each facility that exceeds the ecological benchmark for each acid gas, in acres and km2; the percentage of the modeled area around each facility that exceeds the ecological benchmark for each acid gas; and the area-weighted average screening value around each facility (calculated by dividing the area-weighted average concentration over the 50-km modeling domain by the ecological benchmark for each acid gas). For further information on the environmental screening assessment approach, see Appendix 9 of the Metal Cans Risk Assessment Report and Metal Coil Risk Assessment Report, which are available in each respective docket for this action. 6. How do we conduct facility-wide assessments? To put the source category risks in context, we typically examine the risks from the entire ‘‘facility,’’ where the facility includes all HAP-emitting operations within a contiguous area and under common control. In other words, we examine the HAP emissions not only from the source category emission points of interest, but also emissions of HAP from all other emission sources at the facility for which we have data. For these source categories, we conducted the facility-wide assessment using a dataset compiled from the 2014 NEI. The source category records of that NEI dataset were removed, evaluated, and updated as described in section II.C of this preamble: ‘‘What data collection activities were conducted to support this action?’’ Once a quality assured source category dataset was available, it was placed back with the remaining records from the NEI for that facility. E:\FR\FM\04JNP2.SGM 04JNP2 25918 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 107 / Tuesday, June 4, 2019 / Proposed Rules khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2 The facility-wide file was then used to analyze risks due to the inhalation of HAP that are emitted ‘‘facility-wide’’ for the populations residing within 50 km of each facility, consistent with the methods used for the source category analysis described above. For these facility-wide risk analyses, the modeled source category risks were compared to the facility-wide risks to determine the portion of the facility-wide risks that could be attributed to the source categories addressed in this proposal. We also specifically examined the facility that was associated with the highest estimate of risk and determined the percentage of that risk attributable to the source category of interest. The Metal Cans Risk Assessment Report and the Metal Coil Risk Assessment Report, available respectively in the Metal Cans Docket and the Metal Coil Docket, provide the methodology and results of the facility-wide analyses, including all facility-wide risks and the percentage of source category contribution to facilitywide risks. 7. How do we consider uncertainties in risk assessment? Uncertainty and the potential for bias are inherent in all risk assessments, including those performed for this proposal. Although uncertainty exists, we believe that our approach, which used conservative tools and assumptions, ensures that our decisions are health and environmentally protective. A brief discussion of the uncertainties in the RTR emissions datasets, dispersion modeling, inhalation exposure estimates, and dose-response relationships follows below. Also included are those uncertainties specific to our acute screening assessments, multipathway screening assessments, and our environmental risk screening assessments. A more thorough discussion of these uncertainties is included in the Metal Cans Risk Assessment Report and the Metal Coil Risk Assessment Report, available respectively in the Metal Cans Docket and the Metal Coil Docket. If a multipathway site-specific assessment was performed for this source category, a full discussion of the uncertainties associated with that assessment can be found in Appendix 11 of that document, Site-Specific Human Health Multipathway Residual Risk Assessment Report. a. Uncertainties in the RTR Emissions Datasets Although the development of the RTR emissions datasets involved quality assurance/quality control processes, the VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:09 Jun 03, 2019 Jkt 247001 accuracy of emissions values will vary depending on the source of the data, the degree to which data are incomplete or missing, the degree to which assumptions made to complete the datasets are accurate, errors in emission estimates, and other factors. The emission estimates considered in this analysis generally are annual totals for certain years, and they do not reflect short-term fluctuations during the course of a year or variations from year to year. The estimates of peak hourly emission rates for the acute effects screening assessment were based on an emission adjustment factor applied to the average annual hourly emission rates, which are intended to account for emission fluctuations due to normal facility operations. b. Uncertainties in Dispersion Modeling We recognize there is uncertainty in ambient concentration estimates associated with any model, including the EPA’s recommended regulatory dispersion model, AERMOD. In using a model to estimate ambient pollutant concentrations, the user chooses certain options to apply. For RTR assessments, we select some model options that have the potential to overestimate ambient air concentrations (e.g., not including plume depletion or pollutant transformation). We select other model options that have the potential to underestimate ambient impacts (e.g., not including building downwash). Other options that we select have the potential to either under- or overestimate ambient levels (e.g., meteorology and receptor locations). On balance, considering the directional nature of the uncertainties commonly present in ambient concentrations estimated by dispersion models, the approach we apply in the RTR assessments should yield unbiased estimates of ambient HAP concentrations. We also note that the selection of meteorology dataset location could have an impact on the risk estimates. As we continue to update and expand our library of meteorological station data used in our risk assessments, we expect to reduce this variability. c. Uncertainties in Inhalation Exposure Assessment Although every effort is made to identify all of the relevant facilities and emission points, as well as to develop accurate estimates of the annual emission rates for all relevant HAP, the uncertainties in our emission inventory likely dominate the uncertainties in the exposure assessment. Some uncertainties in our exposure assessment include human mobility, PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 using the centroid of each census block, assuming lifetime exposure, and assuming only outdoor exposures. For most of these factors, there is neither an under nor overestimate when looking at the maximum individual risk or the incidence, but the shape of the distribution of risks may be affected. With respect to outdoor exposures, actual exposures may not be as high if people spend time indoors, especially for very reactive pollutants or larger particles. For all factors, we reduce uncertainty when possible. For example, with respect to census-block centroids, we analyze large blocks using aerial imagery and adjust locations of the block centroids to better represent the population in the blocks. We also add additional receptor locations where the population of a block is not well represented by a single location. d. Uncertainties in Dose-Response Relationships There are uncertainties inherent in the development of the dose-response values used in our risk assessments for cancer effects from chronic exposures and noncancer effects from both chronic and acute exposures. Some uncertainties are generally expressed quantitatively, and others are generally expressed in qualitative terms. We note, as a preface to this discussion, a point on dose-response uncertainty that is stated in the EPA’s 2005 Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment; namely, that ‘‘the primary goal of EPA actions is protection of human health; accordingly, as an Agency policy, risk assessment procedures, including default options that are used in the absence of scientific data to the contrary, should be health protective’’ (the EPA’s 2005 Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment, pages 1– 7). This is the approach followed here as summarized in the next paragraphs. Cancer UREs used in our risk assessments are those that have been developed to generally provide an upper bound estimate of risk.18 That is, they represent a ‘‘plausible upper limit to the true value of a quantity’’ (although this is usually not a true statistical confidence limit). In some circumstances, the true risk could be as low as zero; however, in other circumstances the risk could be greater.19 Chronic noncancer RfC and 18 IRIS glossary (https://ofmpub.epa.gov/sor_ internet/registry/termreg/searchandretrieve/ glossariesandkeywordlists/search.do?details=& glossaryName=IRIS%20Glossary). 19 An exception to this is the URE for benzene, which is considered to cover a range of values, each end of which is considered to be equally plausible, E:\FR\FM\04JNP2.SGM 04JNP2 khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 107 / Tuesday, June 4, 2019 / Proposed Rules reference dose (RfD) values represent chronic exposure levels that are intended to be health-protective levels. To derive dose-response values that are intended to be ‘‘without appreciable risk,’’ the methodology relies upon an uncertainty factor (UF) approach,20 which considers uncertainty, variability, and gaps in the available data. The UFs are applied to derive dose-response values that are intended to protect against appreciable risk of deleterious effects. Many of the UFs used to account for variability and uncertainty in the development of acute dose-response values are quite similar to those developed for chronic durations. Additional adjustments are often applied to account for uncertainty in extrapolation from observations at one exposure duration (e.g., 4 hours) to derive an acute dose-response value at another exposure duration (e.g., 1 hour). Not all acute dose-response values are developed for the same purpose, and care must be taken when interpreting the results of an acute assessment of human health effects relative to the dose-response value or values being exceeded. Where relevant to the estimated exposures, the lack of acute dose-response values at different levels of severity should be factored into the risk characterization as potential uncertainties. Uncertainty also exists in the selection of ecological benchmarks for the environmental risk screening assessment. We established a hierarchy of preferred benchmark sources to allow selection of benchmarks for each environmental HAP at each ecological assessment endpoint. We searched for benchmarks for three effect levels (i.e., no-effects level, threshold-effect level, and probable effect level), but not all combinations of ecological assessment/ environmental HAP had benchmarks for all three effect levels. Where multiple effect levels were available for a particular HAP and assessment endpoint, we used all of the available effect levels to help us determine whether risk exists and whether the risk could be considered significant and widespread. Although we make every effort to identify appropriate human health effect dose-response values for all pollutants emitted by the sources in this risk and which is based on maximum likelihood estimates. 20 See A Review of the Reference Dose and Reference Concentration Processes, U.S. EPA, December 2002, and Methods for Derivation of Inhalation Reference Concentrations and Application of Inhalation Dosimetry, U.S. EPA, 1994. VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:09 Jun 03, 2019 Jkt 247001 assessment, some HAP emitted by this source category are lacking doseresponse assessments. Accordingly, these pollutants cannot be included in the quantitative risk assessment, which could result in quantitative estimates understating HAP risk. To help to alleviate this potential underestimate, where we conclude similarity with a HAP for which a dose-response value is available, we use that value as a surrogate for the assessment of the HAP for which no value is available. To the extent use of surrogates indicates appreciable risk, we may identify a need to increase priority for an IRIS assessment for that substance. We additionally note that, generally speaking, HAP of greatest concern due to environmental exposures and hazard are those for which dose-response assessments have been performed, reducing the likelihood of understating risk. Further, HAP not included in the quantitative assessment are assessed qualitatively and considered in the risk characterization that informs the risk management decisions, including consideration of HAP reductions achieved by various control options. For a group of compounds that are unspeciated (e.g., glycol ethers), we conservatively use the most protective dose-response value of an individual compound in that group to estimate risk. Similarly, for an individual compound in a group (e.g., ethylene glycol diethyl ether) that does not have a specified dose-response value, we also apply the most protective dose-response value from the other compounds in the group to estimate risk. e. Uncertainties in Acute Inhalation Screening Assessments In addition to the uncertainties highlighted above, there are several factors specific to the acute exposure assessment that the EPA conducts as part of the risk review under section 112 of the CAA. The accuracy of an acute inhalation exposure assessment depends on the simultaneous occurrence of independent factors that may vary greatly, such as hourly emissions rates, meteorology, and the presence of humans at the location of the maximum concentration. In the acute screening assessment that we conduct under the RTR program, we assume that peak emissions from the source category and worst-case meteorological conditions co-occur, thus, resulting in maximum ambient concentrations. These two events are unlikely to occur at the same time, making these assumptions conservative. We then include the additional assumption that a person is located at PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 25919 this point during this same time period. For these source categories, these assumptions would tend to be worstcase actual exposures as it is unlikely that a person would be located at the point of maximum exposure during the time when peak emissions and worstcase meteorological conditions occur simultaneously. f. Uncertainties in the Multipathway and Environmental Risk Screening Assessments For each source category, we generally rely on site-specific levels of PB–HAP or environmental HAP emissions to determine whether a refined assessment of the impacts from multipathway exposures is necessary or whether it is necessary to perform an environmental screening assessment. This determination is based on the results of a three-tiered screening assessment that relies on the outputs from models—TRIM.FaTE and AERMOD—that estimate environmental pollutant concentrations and human exposures for five PB–HAP (dioxins, POM, mercury, cadmium, and arsenic) and two acid gases (HF and HCl). For lead, we use AERMOD to determine ambient air concentrations, which are then compared to the secondary NAAQS standard for lead. Two important types of uncertainty associated with the use of these models in RTR risk assessments and inherent to any assessment that relies on environmental modeling are model uncertainty and input uncertainty.21 Model uncertainty concerns whether the model adequately represents the actual processes (e.g., movement and accumulation) that might occur in the environment. For example, does the model adequately describe the movement of a pollutant through the soil? This type of uncertainty is difficult to quantify. However, based on feedback received from previous the EPA SAB reviews and other reviews, we are confident that the models used in the screening assessments are appropriate and state-of-the-art for the multipathway and environmental screening risk assessments conducted in support of RTR. Input uncertainty is concerned with how accurately the models have been configured and parameterized for the assessment at hand. For Tier 1 of the multipathway and environmental 21 In the context of this discussion, the term ‘‘uncertainty’’ as it pertains to exposure and risk encompasses both variability in the range of expected inputs and screening results due to existing spatial, temporal, and other factors, as well as uncertainty in being able to accurately estimate the true result. E:\FR\FM\04JNP2.SGM 04JNP2 25920 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 107 / Tuesday, June 4, 2019 / Proposed Rules screening assessments, we configured the models to avoid underestimating exposure and risk. This was accomplished by selecting upper-end values from nationally representative datasets for the more influential parameters in the environmental model, including selection and spatial configuration of the area of interest, lake location and size, meteorology, surface water, soil characteristics, and structure of the aquatic food web. We also assume an ingestion exposure scenario and values for human exposure factors that represent reasonable maximum exposures. In Tier 2 of the multipathway and environmental screening assessments, we refine the model inputs to account for meteorological patterns in the vicinity of the facility versus using upper-end national values, and we identify the actual location of lakes near the facility rather than the default lake location that we apply in Tier 1. By refining the screening approach in Tier 2 to account for local geographical and meteorological data, we decrease the likelihood that concentrations in environmental media are overestimated, thereby increasing the usefulness of the screening assessment. In Tier 3 of the screening assessments, we refine the model inputs again to account for hourby-hour plume rise and the height of the mixing layer. We can also use those hour-by-hour meteorological data in a TRIM.FaTE run using the screening configuration corresponding to the lake location. These refinements produce a more accurate estimate of chemical concentrations in the media of interest, thereby reducing the uncertainty with those estimates. The assumptions and the associated uncertainties regarding the selected ingestion exposure scenario are the same for all three tiers. For the environmental screening assessment for acid gases, we employ a single-tiered approach. We use the modeled air concentrations and compare those with ecological benchmarks. For all tiers of the multipathway and environmental screening assessments, our approach to addressing model input uncertainty is generally cautious. We choose model inputs from the upper end of the range of possible values for the influential parameters used in the models, and we assume that the exposed individual exhibits ingestion behavior that would lead to a high total exposure. This approach reduces the likelihood of not identifying high risks for adverse impacts. Despite the uncertainties, when individual pollutants or facilities do not exceed screening threshold emission rates (i.e., screen out), we are confident that the potential for adverse multipathway impacts on human health is very low. On the other hand, when individual pollutants or facilities do exceed screening threshold emission rates, it does not mean that impacts are significant, only that we cannot rule out that possibility and that a refined assessment for the site might be necessary to obtain a more accurate risk characterization for the source category. The EPA evaluates the following HAP in the multipathway and/or environmental risk screening assessments, where applicable: Arsenic, cadmium, dioxins/furans, lead, mercury (both inorganic and methyl mercury), POM, HCl, and HF. These HAP represent pollutants that can cause adverse impacts either through direct exposure to HAP in the air or through exposure to HAP that are deposited from the air onto soils and surface waters and then through the environment into the food web. These HAP represent those HAP for which we can conduct a meaningful multipathway or environmental screening risk assessment. For other HAP not included in our screening assessments, the model has not been parameterized such that it can be used for that purpose. In some cases, depending on the HAP, we may not have appropriate multipathway models that allow us to predict the concentration of that pollutant. The EPA acknowledges that other HAP beyond these that we are evaluating may have the potential to cause adverse effects and, therefore, the EPA may evaluate other relevant HAP in the future, as modeling science and resources allow. IV. Analytical Results and Proposed Decisions A. What are the analytical results and proposed decisions for the Surface Coating of Metal Cans source category? 1. What are the results of the risk assessment and analyses? As described in section III of this preamble, for the Surface Coating of Metal Cans source category, we conducted a risk assessment for all HAP emitted. We present results of the risk assessment briefly below and in more detail in the Metal Cans Risk Assessment Report in the Metal Cans Docket (Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR– 2017–0684). a. Inhalation Risk Assessment Results Table 2 of this preamble summarizes the results of the inhalation risk assessment for the source category. As discussed in section III.C.2 of this preamble, we set MACT-allowable HAP emission levels at metal can coating facilities equal to 1.1 times actual emissions. For more detail about the MACT-allowable emission levels, see Appendix 1 to the Metal Cans Risk Assessment Report in the Metal Cans Docket. TABLE 2—SURFACE COATING OF METAL CANS SOURCE CATEGORY INHALATION RISK ASSESSMENT RESULTS Maximum individual cancer risk (in 1 million) Risk assessment Based on actual emissions khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2 Source Category ......................... Whole Facility .............................. 1 The 2 The 3 8 Based on allowable emissions 3 .................. Estimated population at increased risk of cancer ≥1-in-1 million Based on actual emissions 700 1,500 Based on allowable emissions Estimated annual cancer incidence (cases per year) Based on actual emissions 800 .................. 0.0009 0.002 Maximum chronic noncancer TOSHI 1 Based on allowable emissions 0.001 .................. Based on actual emissions 0.02 0.2 Based on allowable emissions 0.02 .................. Maximum screening acute noncancer HQ 2 Based on actual emissions HQREL = 0.4. TOSHI is the sum of the chronic noncancer HQs for substances that affect the same target organ or organ system. maximum estimated acute exposure concentration was divided by available short-term threshold values to develop HQ values. The results of the inhalation risk modeling using actual emissions data, as shown in Table 2 of this preamble, indicate that the maximum individual cancer risk based on actual emissions (lifetime) could be up to 3-in-1 million VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:09 Jun 03, 2019 Jkt 247001 (driven by formaldehyde from a twopiece can coating line), the maximum chronic noncancer TOSHI value based on actual emissions could be up to 0.02 (driven by formaldehyde from a twopiece can coating line), and the PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 maximum screening acute noncancer HQ value (off-facility site) could be up to 0.4 (driven by formaldehyde). The total estimated annual cancer incidence (national) from these facilities based on actual emission levels is 0.0009 excess E:\FR\FM\04JNP2.SGM 04JNP2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 107 / Tuesday, June 4, 2019 / Proposed Rules cancer cases per year or 1 case in every 1,100 years. b. Acute Risk Results Table 2 of this preamble shows the acute risk results for the Surface Coating of Metal Cans source category. The screening analysis for acute impacts was based on an industry specific multiplier of 1.1, to estimate the peak emission rates from the average rates. For more detailed acute risk results, refer to the Metal Cans Risk Assessment Report in the Metal Cans Docket. c. Multipathway Risk Screening Results There are no PB–HAP emitted by facilities in the Surface Coating of Metal Cans source category. Therefore, we do not expect any human health multipathway risks as a result of emissions from this source category. d. Environmental Risk Screening Results The emissions data for the Surface Coating of Metal Cans source category indicate that two environmental HAP are emitted by sources within this source category: HCl and HF. Therefore, we conducted a screening-level evaluation of the potential for adverse environmental risks associated with emissions of HCl and HF for the Surface Coating of Metal Cans source category. For both HCl and HF, each individual concentration (i.e., each off-site data point in the modeling domain) was below the ecological benchmarks for all facilities. Therefore, we do not expect an adverse environmental effect as a result of HAP emissions from this source category. e. Facility-Wide Risk Results Three facilities have a facility-wide cancer MIR greater than or equal to 1in-1 million. The maximum facilitywide cancer MIR is 8-in-1 million, driven by formaldehyde from miscellaneous industrial processes (other/not classified) and acetaldehyde from beer production (brew kettle). The total estimated cancer incidence from the whole facility is 0.002 excess cancer cases per year, or one excess case in every 500 years. Approximately 1,500 people were estimated to have cancer risks above 1-in-1 million from exposure to HAP emitted from both MACT and non-MACT sources at three of the five facilities in this source category. The maximum facility-wide TOSHI for the 25921 source category is estimated to be less than 1, mainly driven by emissions of acetaldehyde from beer production (brew kettle primarily) and formaldehyde from miscellaneous industrial processes (other/not classified). f. What demographic groups might benefit from this regulation? To examine the potential for any environmental justice issues that might be associated with the source category, we performed a demographic analysis, which is an assessment of risks to individual demographic groups of the populations living within 5 km and within 50 km of the facilities. In the analysis, we evaluated the distribution of HAP-related cancer and noncancer risk from the Surface Coating of Metal Cans source category across different demographic groups within the populations living near facilities.22 The results of the demographic analysis are summarized in Table 3 of this preamble. These results, for various demographic groups, are based on the estimated risk from actual emissions levels for the population living within 50 km of the facilities. TABLE 3—SURFACE COATING OF METAL CANS SOURCE CATEGORY DEMOGRAPHIC RISK ANALYSIS RESULTS Nationwide Total Population ........................................................................................... Population with cancer risk at or above 1-in-1 million due to Surface Coating of Metal Cans 317,746,049 Population with chronic hazard index above 1 due to Surface Coating of Metal Cans 700 0 62 38 92 8 0 0 62 12 0.8 18 7 92 0 0 4 4 0 0 0 0 0 14 86 4 96 0 0 14 86 4 96 0 0 Race by Percent White ............................................................................................................ All Other Races ........................................................................................... Race by Percent White ............................................................................................................ African American ......................................................................................... Native American .......................................................................................... Hispanic or Latino ........................................................................................ Other and Multiracial ................................................................................... Income by Percent Below the Poverty Level .............................................................................. Above the Poverty Level ............................................................................. khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2 Education by Percent Over 25 and Without High a School Diploma ............................................. Over 25 and With a High School Diploma .................................................. The results of the Surface Coating of Metal Cans source category demographic analysis indicate that emissions from the source category expose approximately 700 people to a cancer risk at or above 1-in-1 million and no one to a chronic noncancer TOSHI greater than 1 (we note that many of those in the first risk group are 22 Demographic groups included in the analysis are: White, African American, Native American, other races and multiracial, Hispanic or Latino, children 17 years of age and under, adults 18 to 64 years of age, adults 65 years of age and over, adults without a high school diploma, people living below the poverty level, people living above the poverty level, and linguistically isolated people. VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:09 Jun 03, 2019 Jkt 247001 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\04JNP2.SGM 04JNP2 25922 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 107 / Tuesday, June 4, 2019 / Proposed Rules the same as those in the second). None of the percentages of the at-risk populations are higher than their respective nationwide percentages. The methodology and the results of the demographic analysis are presented in a technical report titled Risk and Technology Review—Analysis of Demographic Factors for Populations Living Near Surface Coating of Metal Cans Source Category Operations, May 2018 (hereafter referred to as the Metal Cans Demographic Analysis Report) in the Metal Cans Docket. khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2 2. What are our proposed decisions regarding risk acceptability, ample margin of safety, and adverse environmental effect? a. Risk Acceptability As noted in section III.A of this preamble, we weigh all health risk factors in our risk acceptability determination, including the cancer MIR, the number of persons in various cancer and noncancer risk ranges, cancer incidence, the maximum noncancer TOSHI, the maximum acute noncancer HQ, the extent of noncancer risks, the distribution of cancer and noncancer risks in the exposed population, and risk estimation uncertainties (54 FR 38044, September 14, 1989). For the Surface Coating of Metal Cans source category, the risk analysis indicates that the cancer risks to the individual most exposed could be up to 3-in-1 million due to actual emissions or based on allowable emissions. These risks are considerably less than 100-in1 million, which is the presumptive upper limit of acceptable risk. The risk analysis also shows very low cancer incidence (0.0009 cases per year for actual emissions and 0.001 cases per year for allowable emissions) and we did not identify potential for adverse chronic noncancer health effects. The acute noncancer risks based on actual emissions are low at an HQ of 0.4 for formaldehyde. 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. Considering all the health risk information and factors discussed above, including the uncertainties discussed in section III.C.7 of this preamble, we propose to find that the risks from the Surface Coating of Metal Cans source category are acceptable. b. Ample Margin of Safety Analysis Although we are proposing that the risks from the Surface Coating of Metal VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:09 Jun 03, 2019 Jkt 247001 Cans source category are acceptable, risk estimates for approximately 700 individuals in the exposed population are above 1-in-1 million at the actual emissions level and 800 individuals at the allowable emissions level. Consequently, we further considered whether the MACT standards for the Surface Coating of Metal Cans source category provide an ample margin of safety to protect public health. In this ample margin of safety analysis, we investigated available emissions control options that might reduce the risk from the source category. We considered this information along with all the health risks and other health information considered in our determination of risk acceptability. As described in section III.B of this preamble, our technology review focused on identifying developments in practices, processes, and control technologies for the Surface Coating of Metal Cans source category, and the EPA reviewed various information sources regarding emission sources that are currently regulated by the Surface Coating of Metal Cans NESHAP. The only development identified in the technology review for can coating is the ongoing development and the potential future conversion from conventional interior can coatings that contain bisphenol A (BPA) to interior coatings that do not intentionally contain BPA (BPA–NI). Since BPA and BPA–NI are not HAP, this change would have no effect on the HAP emissions. There were no other technological developments identified that affect HAP emissions for the Surface Coating of Metal Cans source category. Therefore, we are proposing that additional emission controls for this source category are not necessary to provide an ample margin of safety. c. Environmental Effects The emissions data for the Surface Coating of Metal Cans source category indicate that two environmental HAP are emitted by sources within this source category: HCl and HF. The screening-level evaluation of the potential for adverse environmental risks associated with emissions of HCl and HF from the Surface Coating of Metal Cans source category indicated that each individual concentration (i.e., each off-site data point in the modeling domain) was below the ecological benchmarks for all facilities. In addition, we are unaware of any adverse environmental effects caused by HAP emitted by this source category. Therefore, we do not expect there to be an adverse environmental effect as a result of HAP emissions from this PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 source category, and we are proposing that it is not necessary to set a more stringent standard to prevent, taking into consideration costs, energy, safety, and other relevant factors, an adverse environmental effect. 3. What are the results and proposed decisions based on our technology review? As described in section III.B of this preamble, our technology review focused on identifying developments in practices, processes, and control technologies for the Surface Coating of Metal Cans source category. The EPA reviewed various information sources regarding emission sources that are currently regulated by the Surface Coating of Metal Cans NESHAP to support the technology review. The information sources included the following: The RBLC; state regulations, facility operating permits, regulatory actions (including technology reviews promulgated for other surface coating NESHAP subsequent to the Surface Coating of Metal Cans NESHAP); a site visit and discussions with individual can coating facilities and the industry trade association. The primary emission sources for the technology review included the following: The coating operations; all storage containers and mixing vessels in which coatings, thinners, and cleaning materials are stored or mixed; all manual and automated equipment and containers used for conveying coatings, thinners, and cleaning materials; and all storage containers and all manual and automated equipment and containers used for conveying waste materials generated by a coating operation. Based on our review, we did not identify any add-on control technologies, process equipment, work practices, or procedures that had not been previously considered during development of the Surface Coating of Metal Cans NESHAP, and we did not identify any new or improved add-on control technologies that would result in additional emission reductions. A brief summary of the EPA’s findings in conducting the technology review of can coating operations follows. For a detailed discussion of the EPA’s findings, refer to the Metal Cans Technology Review Memorandum in the Metal Cans Docket. During the 2003 MACT development for the Surface Coating of Metal Cans NESHAP, numerical emission limits were determined for each coating type segment within the four subcategories for a total of 12 HAP emission limits. The emission limits were based on industry survey responses and the E:\FR\FM\04JNP2.SGM 04JNP2 khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 107 / Tuesday, June 4, 2019 / Proposed Rules industry’s use of low- or no-HAP coatings and thinners and add-on capture and control technologies. Alternately, the NESHAP provides sources with the option of limiting HAP emissions with capture and add-on control to achieve an overall control efficiency (OCE) of 97 percent for new or reconstructed sources and 95 percent for existing sources. Alternately, sources with add-on controls can choose the option of meeting a HAP concentration limit of 20 ppm by volume dry at the control device outlet. During development of that rulemaking, we identified the beyond-the-floor option to require the use of capture systems and add-on control devices for all metal can surface coating operations. This option was rejected because we determined the additional emission reductions achieved using the beyond-the-floor option did not warrant the costs each affected source would incur (68 FR 2123). For this technology review, we used the EPA’s NEI and the ECHO databases to identify facilities that are currently subject to the Surface Coating of Metal Cans NESHAP. The facility list was also reviewed by the Can Manufacturers Institute (CMI). CMI provided facility operating permits to confirm that only five facilities are currently operating as major sources and are subject to the Surface Coating of Metal Cans NESHAP. Our search of the RBLC database for improvements in can coating technologies provided results for four metal can coating facilities with permit dates of 2006 or later. All four of the results contained information about the add-on controls used by the facilities. Two facilities reported the use of regenerative thermal oxidizers (RTOs), one reported the use of an induction heater and catalytic oxidation, and one reported the use of thermal oxidation. All of these control technologies were in use by the can coating industry during development of the Surface Coating of Metal Cans NESHAP and were already considered in the development of the Surface Coating of Metal Cans NESHAP. Therefore, we concluded that the results of the search are consistent with current Surface Coating of Metal Cans NESHAP requirements and did not include any improvements in add-on control technology or other equipment that were not identified and considered at that time. We also conducted a review of the state operating permits for the can coating facilities that are subject to the Surface Coating of Metal Cans NESHAP to determine whether any are using technologies that exceed the MACT level of control or are using technologies that were not considered during the VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:09 Jun 03, 2019 Jkt 247001 development of the original NESHAP. The permits show that two of the five facilities use no add-on controls (they use the compliant material option or the material averaging option to meet the NESHAP emission limits) and three of the five facilities had only partial control (i.e., not all can coating lines had control). The coating types are not specified in the permits for all facilities, but one permit specified the use of ultraviolet (UV)-cured coatings. The add-on controls in the permits included a thermal oxidizer and two regenerative thermal oxidizers. As a result of the permit review, we concluded that the add-on controls that are now available are essentially the same and have the same emission reduction performance (i.e., 95- or 97-percent VOC destruction efficiency) as those that were available when the NESHAP was proposed and promulgated. We reviewed other surface coating NESHAP promulgated after the Surface Coating of Metal Cans NESHAP to determine whether any requirements exceed the Surface Coating of Metal Cans MACT level of control or included technologies that were not considered during the development of the original Surface Coating of Metal Cans NESHAP. These NESHAP include Surface Coating of Miscellaneous Metal Parts and Products (40 CFR part 63, subpart MMMM), Surface Coating of Plastic Parts and Products (40 CFR part 63, subpart PPPP), and Surface Coating of Automobiles and Light-Duty Trucks (40 CFR part 63, subpart IIII). We also reviewed the results of the technology reviews for the following NESHAP: Printing and Publishing (40 CFR part 63, subpart KK), Shipbuilding and Ship Repair (40 CFR part 63, subpart II), and Wood Furniture Manufacturing (40 CFR part 63, subpart JJ). Technology reviews for these NESHAP identified PTE and/or RTO as improvements in add-on control technology. Because the Surface Coating of Metal Cans NESHAP already includes a compliance option involving the use of a PTE and an add-on control device, and because these measures were considered in the development of the original Surface Coating of Metal Cans NESHAP, we concluded that these measures do not represent an improvement in control technology under CAA section 112(d)(6). The technology review conducted for the Wood Furniture Manufacturing NESHAP identified the use of more efficient spray guns as a technology review development and revised the requirements to prohibit the use of conventional spray guns. Air-assisted airless spraying was added as a more PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 25923 efficient coating application technology. This development is not applicable to metal can coating because the primary coating operations are performed using non-spray application methods, such as lithographic printing and other types of direct transfer coating application, or they already use airless spray equipment for the inside spray, side seam spray, and repair coating operations. In conclusion, we found no improvements in add-on control technology or other equipment during review of the RBLC, the state operating permits, and subsequent NESHAP that were not already identified and considered during the Surface Coating of Metal Cans NESHAP development. Alternatives to conventional solventborne coatings were identified and considered during MACT development but were not considered to be suitable for all can coating applications. These alternative coatings include higher solids coatings, waterborne coatings, and low-energy electron beam/ ultraviolet cured coatings. Powder coating applications are not common for metal containers. Waterborne and higher solids coatings with lower HAP and VOC content were considered in the development of the proposed and final standards and are reflected in the HAP emission limitations in the final rule. Interior coatings used for cans that contain food or beverages are subject to regulation by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), as well as internal approval by the food and beverage manufacturers. The only anticipated technology change in the area of coating reformulation for the Surface Coating of Metal Cans source category is the replacement of coatings that have no intentionally added BPA for both beverage and food cans, referred to as BPA–NI coatings. The major can coating producers are currently devoting much of their research and development efforts to develop BPA–NI systems for new applications and to improve the BPA–NI systems that already exist. However, a complete shift to these coatings is not expected unless driven by FDA regulation or consumer opinion. Therefore, the EPA did not identify any developments in coating technology or other process changes or pollution prevention alternatives that would represent a development relative to the coating technologies on which the final rule is based. Finally, no improvements in work practices or operational procedures were identified for the Surface Coating of Metal Cans source category that were not previously identified and considered during MACT development. E:\FR\FM\04JNP2.SGM 04JNP2 25924 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 107 / Tuesday, June 4, 2019 / Proposed Rules The current MACT standards require that, if a facility uses add-on controls to comply with the emission limitations, the facility must develop and implement a work practice plan to minimize organic HAP emissions from the storage, mixing, and conveying of coatings, thinners, and cleaning materials used in, and waste materials generated by, those coating operations. If a facility is not using add-on controls and is using either the compliant material option or the emission rate without add on controls option, the facility does not need to comply with work practice standards. Under the emission rate option, HAP emitted from spills or from containers would be counted against the facility in the compliance calculations, so facilities must already minimize these losses to maintain compliance. Based on these findings, we conclude that there have not been any developments in add-on control technology or other equipment not identified and considered during MACT development, nor any improvements in add-on controls, nor any significant changes in the cost (including cost effectiveness) of the add-on controls. Therefore, we are proposing no revisions to the Surface Coating of Metal Cans NESHAP pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6). For further discussion of the technology review results, refer to the Metal Cans Technology Review Memorandum in the Metal Cans Docket. khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2 4. What other actions are we proposing for the Surface Coating of Metal Cans source category? In addition to the proposed actions described above, we are proposing additional revisions to the NESHAP. We are proposing to require electronic submittal of notifications, semiannual reports, and compliance reports (which include performance test reports) for metal cans surface coating facilities. In addition, we are proposing revisions to the SSM provisions of the MACT rule in order to ensure that they are consistent with the Court decision in Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F. 3d 1019 (D.C. Cir. 2008), which vacated two provisions that exempted sources from the requirement to comply with otherwise applicable CAA section 112(d) emission standards during periods of SSM. We also propose other changes, including updating references to equivalent test methods, making technical and editorial revisions, and incorporation by reference (IBR) of alternative test methods. Our analyses and proposed changes related to these issues are discussed in the sections below. VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:09 Jun 03, 2019 Jkt 247001 a. Electronic Reporting Requirements In this action the EPA proposes to require owners and operators of surface coating of metal can facilities to submit electronic copies of the initial notifications required in 40 CFR 63.9(b) and 63.3510(b), notifications of compliance status required in 40 CFR 63.9(h) and 63.3510(c), performance test reports required in 40 CFR 63.3511(b), and semiannual reports required in 40 CFR 63.3511(a), through the EPA’s Central Data Exchange (CDX), using the Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface (CEDRI).23 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 Metal Cans Docket. This proposed rule requirement would replace the current rule requirement to submit the notifications and reports to the Administrator at the appropriate address listed in 40 CFR 63.13. This proposed rule requirement does not affect submittals required by state air agencies as required by 40 CFR 63.13. For the performance test reports required in 40 CFR 63.3511(b), results collected using test methods that are supported by the Electronic Reporting Tool (ERT) as listed on the EPA’s ERT website (https://www3.epa.gov/ttn/ chief/ert/ert_info.pdf) at the time of the performance test are required to be submitted in the format generated through the use of ERT. Performance test results collected using test methods that are not supported by the ERT at the time of the performance test are required to be submitted to the EPA electronically in a portable document format (PDF) using the attachment module of the ERT. Note that all but two of the EPA test methods (EPA Method 25 and optional EPA Method 18) listed under the emissions destruction or removal efficiency section of 40 CFR part 63, subpart KKKK, are currently supported by the ERT. As mentioned above, the rule proposes that, should an owner or operator use EPA Method 25 or EPA Method 18, then its results would be submitted in PDF using the attachment module of the ERT. For the semiannual reports required in 40 CFR 63.3511(a), the EPA proposes that owners and operators use the final semiannual report template, which will reside in CEDRI, one year after finalizing this proposed action. The 23 https://www.epa.gov/electronic-reporting-airemissions/compliance-and-emissions-datareporting-interface-cedri. PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 Proposed Electronic Reporting Template for Surface Coating of Metal Cans Subpart KKKK Semiannual Report is available for review and comment in the Metal Cans Docket as part of this action. We specifically request comment on the format and usability of the template (e.g., filling out and uploading a provided spreadsheet versus entering the required information into an on-line fillable CEDRI web form), as well as the content, layout, and overall design of the template. Prior to availability of the final semiannual compliance report template in CEDRI, owners and operators of affected sources will be required to submit semiannual compliance reports as currently required by the rule. When the EPA finalizes the semiannual compliance report template, metal can sources will be notified about its availability via the CEDRI website. We plan to finalize a required reporting format with the final rule. The owner or operator would begin submitting reports electronically with the next report that is due, once the electronic template has been available for at least 1 year. For the electronic submittal of initial notifications required in 40 CFR 63.9(b), no specific form is available at this time, so these notifications are required to be submitted electronically in PDF. If electronic forms are developed for these notifications, we will notify sources about their availability via the CEDRI website. For the electronic submittal of notifications of compliance status reports required in 40 CFR 63.9(h), the final semiannual report template discussed above, which will reside in CEDRI, will also contain the information required for the notifications of compliance status report and will satisfy the requirement to provide the notifications of compliance status information electronically, eliminating the need to provide a separate notifications of compliance status report. As stated above, the final semiannual report template will be available after finalizing this proposed action and sources will be required to use the form after one year. Prior to the availability of the final semiannual compliance report template in CEDRI, owners and operators of affected sources will be required to submit semiannual compliance reports as currently required by the rule. As stated above, we will notify sources about the availability of the final semiannual report template via the CEDRI website. Additionally, the EPA has identified two broad circumstances in which electronic reporting extensions may be provided. In both circumstances, the decision to accept the claim of needing E:\FR\FM\04JNP2.SGM 04JNP2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 107 / Tuesday, June 4, 2019 / Proposed Rules khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2 additional time to report is within the discretion of the Administrator, and reporting should occur as soon as possible. The EPA is providing these potential extensions to protect owners and operators from noncompliance in cases where they cannot successfully submit a report by the reporting deadline for reasons outside of their control. In 40 CFR 63.3511(f), we propose to address the situation where an extension may be warranted due to outages of the EPA’s CDX or CEDRI that precludes an owner or operator from accessing the system and submitting required reports. Also in 40 CFR 63.3511(g), we propose to address the situation where an extension may be warranted due to a force majeure event, which is defined as an event that will be or has been caused by circumstances beyond the control of the affected facility, its contractors, or any entity controlled by the affected facility that prevents an owner or operator from complying with the requirement to submit a report electronically as required by this rule. Examples of such events are acts of nature, acts of war or terrorism, and equipment failures or safety hazards that are beyond the control of the facility. As discussed in the memorandum Electronic Reporting Requirements for New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) and National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP), August 8, 2018, electronic submittal of the reports addressed in this proposed action will increase the usefulness of the data contained in those reports, and in keeping with current trends in data availability and transparency, will further assist in the protection of public health and the environment, and will ultimately result in less burden on the regulated facilities. Electronic submittal will also improve compliance by facilitating the ability of regulated facilities to demonstrate compliance and the ability of air agencies and the EPA to assess and determine compliance. Moreover, electronic reporting is consistent with the EPA’s plan 24 to implement Executive Order 13563 and the EPA’s agency-wide policy 25 developed in response to the White House’s Digital Government Strategy.26 For more 24 Improving Our Regulations: Final Plan for Periodic Retrospective Reviews of Existing Regulations, August 2011. Available at https:// www.regulations.gov, Document ID No. EPA–HQ– OA–2011–0156–0154. 25 E-Reporting Policy Statement for EPA Regulations, September 2013, https://www.epa.gov/ sites/production/files/2016-03/documents/epaereporting-policy-statement-2013-09-30.pdf. 26 Digital Government: Building a 21st Century Platform to Better Serve the American People, May VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:09 Jun 03, 2019 Jkt 247001 information on the benefits of electronic reporting, see the memorandum Electronic Reporting Requirements for New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) and National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP), August 8, 2018, available in the Metal Cans docket. b. SSM Requirements 1. Proposed Elimination of the SSM Exemption In its 2008 decision in Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F.3d 1019 (D.C. Cir. 2008), the Court vacated portions of two provisions in the EPA’s CAA section 112 regulations governing the emissions of HAP during periods of SSM. Specifically, the Court vacated the SSM exemption contained in 40 CFR 63.6(f)(1) and 40 CFR 63.6(h)(1), holding that under section 302(k) of the CAA, emissions standards or limitations must be continuous in nature and that the SSM exemption violates the CAA’s requirement that some CAA section 112 standards apply continuously. We are proposing the elimination of the SSM exemption in this rule. Consistent with Sierra Club v. EPA, we are proposing standards in this rule that apply at all times. We are also proposing several revisions to Table 5 to Subpart KKKK of Part 63 (Applicability of General Provisions to Subpart KKKK, hereafter referred to as the ‘‘General Provisions table to subpart KKKK’’), as explained in more detail below in section IV.A.4.b.2 of this preamble. For example, we are proposing to eliminate the incorporation of the General Provisions’ requirement that the source develop an SSM plan. Further, we are proposing to eliminate and revise certain recordkeeping and reporting requirements related to the SSM exemption as further described below. The EPA has attempted to ensure that the provisions we are proposing to eliminate are inappropriate, unnecessary, or redundant in the absence of the SSM exemption. We are seeking comment on the specific proposed deletions and revisions and also whether additional provisions should be revised to achieve the stated goal. In proposing these rule amendments, the EPA has taken into account startup and shutdown periods and, for the reasons explained below, has not proposed alternate standards for those periods. Startups and shutdowns are part of normal operations for the Surface Coating of Metal Cans source category. 2012. Available at https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/ default/files/omb/egov/digital-government/ digitalgovernment-strategy/pdf. PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 25925 As currently specified in 40 CFR 63.3492(b), any coating operation(s) for which you use the emission rate with add-on controls option must meet operating limits ‘‘at all times,’’ except for solvent recovery systems for which you conduct liquid-liquid material balances according to 40 CFR 63.3541(i). (Solvent recovery systems for which you conduct a liquid-liquid material balance require a monthly calculation of the solvent recovery device’s collection and recovery efficiency for volatile organic matter.) Also, as currently specified in 40 CFR 63.3500(a)(2), any coating operation(s) for which you use the emission rate with add-on controls option or the control efficiency/outlet concentration option must be in compliance ‘‘at all times’’ with the emission limits in 40 CFR 63.3490 and work practice standards in 40 CFR 63.3493. During startup and shutdown periods, in order for a facility (using add-on controls to meet the standards) to meet the emission and operating standards, the control device for a coating operation needs to be turned on and operating at specified levels before the facility begins coating operations, and the control equipment needs to continue to be operated until after the facility ceases coating operations. In some cases, the facility needs to run thermal oxidizers on supplemental fuel before VOC levels are sufficient for the combustion to be (nearly) selfsustaining. Note that we are also proposing new related language in 40 CFR 63.3500(b) to require that the owner or operator operate and maintain the coating operation, including pollution control equipment, at all times to minimize emissions. See section IV.A.4.b.2 of this preamble for further discussion of this proposed revision. Periods of startup, normal operations, and shutdown are all predictable and routine aspects of a source’s operations. Malfunctions, in contrast, are neither predictable nor routine. Instead they are, by definition, sudden, infrequent and not reasonably preventable failures of emissions control, process, or monitoring equipment. (40 CFR 63.2) (Definition of malfunction). The EPA interprets CAA section 112 as not requiring emissions that occur during periods of malfunction to be factored into development of CAA section 112 standards and this reading has been upheld as reasonable by the Court in U.S. Sugar Corp. v. EPA, 830 F.3d 579, 606–610 (2016). Under CAA section 112, emissions standards for new sources must be no less stringent than the level ‘‘achieved’’ by the best controlled similar source and for E:\FR\FM\04JNP2.SGM 04JNP2 khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2 25926 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 107 / Tuesday, June 4, 2019 / Proposed Rules existing sources generally must be no less stringent than the average emission limitation ‘‘achieved’’ by the best performing 12 percent of sources in the category. There is nothing in CAA section 112 that directs the Agency to consider malfunctions in determining the level ‘‘achieved’’ by the best performing sources when setting emission standards. As the Court has recognized, the phrase ‘‘average emissions limitation achieved by the best performing 12 percent of’’ sources ‘‘says nothing about how the performance of the best units is to be calculated.’’ Nat’l Ass’n of Clean Water Agencies v. EPA, 734 F.3d 1115, 1141 (D.C. Cir. 2013). While the EPA accounts for variability in setting emissions standards, nothing in CAA section 112 requires the Agency to consider malfunctions as part of that analysis. The EPA is not required to treat a malfunction in the same manner as the type of variation in performance that occurs during routine operations of a source. A malfunction is a failure of the source to perform in a ‘‘normal or usual manner’’ and no statutory language compels the EPA to consider such events in setting CAA section 112 standards. As the Court recognized in U.S. Sugar Corp, accounting for malfunctions in setting standards would be difficult, if not impossible, given the myriad different types of malfunctions that can occur across all sources in the category and given the difficulties associated with predicting or accounting for the frequency, degree, and duration of various malfunctions that might occur. Id. at 608 (‘‘the EPA would have to conceive of a standard that could apply equally to the wide range of possible boiler malfunctions, ranging from an explosion to minor mechanical defects. Any possible standard is likely to be hopelessly generic to govern such a wide array of circumstances.’’) As such, the performance of units that are malfunctioning is not ‘‘reasonably’’ foreseeable. See, e.g., Sierra Club v. EPA, 167 F.3d 658, 662 (D.C. Cir. 1999) (‘‘The EPA typically has wide latitude in determining the extent of datagathering necessary to solve a problem. We generally defer to an agency’s decision to proceed on the basis of imperfect scientific information, rather than to ’invest the resources to conduct the perfect study.’ ’’) See also, Weyerhaeuser v. Costle, 590 F.2d 1011, 1058 (D.C. Cir. 1978) (‘‘In the nature of things, no general limit, individual permit, or even any upset provision can anticipate all upset situations. After a certain point, the transgression of VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:09 Jun 03, 2019 Jkt 247001 regulatory limits caused by ‘uncontrollable acts of third parties,’ such as strikes, sabotage, operator intoxication or insanity, and a variety of other eventualities, must be a matter for the administrative exercise of case-bycase enforcement discretion, not for specification in advance by regulation.’’). In addition, emissions during a malfunction event can be significantly higher than emissions at any other time of source operation. For example, if an air pollution control device with 99-percent removal goes offline as a result of a malfunction (as might happen if, for example, the bags in a baghouse catch fire) and the emission unit is a steady state type unit that would take days to shut down, the source would go from 99-percent control to zero control until the control device was repaired. The source’s emissions during the malfunction would be 100 times higher than during normal operations. As such, the emissions over a 4-day malfunction period would exceed the annual emissions of the source during normal operations. As this example illustrates, accounting for malfunctions could lead to standards that are not reflective of (and significantly less stringent than) levels that are achieved by a wellperforming non-malfunctioning source. It is reasonable to interpret CAA section 112 to avoid such a result. The EPA’s approach to malfunctions is consistent with CAA section 112 and is a reasonable interpretation of the statute. Although no statutory language compels the EPA to set standards for malfunctions, the EPA has the discretion to do so where feasible. For example, in the Petroleum Refinery Sector Risk and Technology Review, the EPA established a work practice standard for unique types of malfunctions that result in releases from pressure relief devices or emergency flaring events because we had information to determine that such work practices reflected the level of control that applies to the best performing sources (80 FR 75178, 75211–14, December 1, 2015). The EPA will consider whether circumstances warrant setting standards for a particular type of malfunction and, if so, whether the EPA has sufficient information to identify the relevant best performing sources and establish a standard for such malfunctions. We also encourage commenters to provide any such information. It is unlikely that a malfunction would result in a violation of the standards during metal can surface coating operations for facilities using the compliant material option or the PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 emission rate without add-on controls option. Facilities using the compliant material option have demonstrated that the organic HAP content of each coating is less than or equal to the applicable emission limit and that each thinner used contains no organic HAP. Facilities using the emission rate without add-on controls option have demonstrated that the coatings and thinners used in the coating operations are less than or equal to the applicable emission limit calculated as a rolling 12-month emission rate and determined on a monthly basis. A malfunction event is more likely for metal can coating facilities that use the emission rate with add-on control options or the control efficiency/outlet concentration compliance option. For these options, facilities must demonstrate a reduction of total HAP of at least 97 or 95 percent or that the oxidizer outlet HAP concentration is no greater than 20 ppmv and 100-percent capture efficiency. For this option, facilities must demonstrate that their emission capture systems and add-on control devices meet the operating limits established by the Surface Coating of Metal Cans NESHAP. The capture and control device operating limits are listed in Table 4 of the Surface Coating of Metal Cans NESHAP and must be achieved continuously. Most are based on maintaining an average temperature over a 3-hour block period, which must not fall below the temperature limit established during the facility’s initial performance test. In addition, work practices are also required when using this option to minimize organic HAP emissions from the storage, mixing, and conveying of coatings, thinners, and cleaning materials used in, and waste materials generated by, the coating operation(s), but it is unlikely that a malfunction would result in a violation of the work practice standards. We currently have no information to suggest that it is feasible or necessary to establish any type of standard for malfunctions associated with the Surface Coating of Metal Cans source category. We encourage commenters to provide any such information, if available. In the event that a source fails to comply with the applicable CAA section 112(d) standards as a result of a malfunction event, the EPA will determine an appropriate response based on, among other things, the good faith efforts of the source to minimize emissions during malfunction periods, including preventative and corrective actions, as well as root cause analyses to ascertain and rectify excess E:\FR\FM\04JNP2.SGM 04JNP2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 107 / Tuesday, June 4, 2019 / Proposed Rules emissions. The EPA will also consider whether the source’s failure to comply with the CAA section 112(d) standard was, in fact, sudden, infrequent, not reasonably preventable, and was not instead caused, in part, by poor maintenance or careless operation. 40 CFR 63.2 (definition of malfunction). If the EPA determines in a particular case that an enforcement action against a source for violation of an emission standard is warranted, the source can raise any and all defenses in that enforcement action and the federal district court will determine what, if any, relief is appropriate. The same is true for citizen enforcement actions. Similarly, the presiding officer in an administrative proceeding can consider any defense raised and determine whether administrative penalties are appropriate. In summary, the EPA interpretation of the CAA and, in particular, CAA section 112 is reasonable and encourages practices that will avoid malfunctions. Administrative and judicial procedures for addressing exceedances of the standards fully recognize that violations may occur despite good faith efforts to comply and can accommodate those situations. U.S. Sugar Corp. v. EPA, 830 F.3d 579, 606–610 (2016). 2. Proposed Revisions to the General Provisions Applicability Table khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2 a. 40 CFR 63.3500(b) General Duty We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table to subpart KKKK (Table 5) entry for 40 CFR 63.6(e)(1)(i) by changing the ‘‘yes’’ in column 3 to a ‘‘no.’’ Section 63.6(e)(1)(i) describes the general duty to minimize emissions. Some of the language in that section is no longer necessary or appropriate in light of the elimination of the SSM exemption. We are proposing instead to add general duty regulatory text at 40 CFR 63.3500(b) that reflects the general duty to minimize emissions while eliminating the reference to periods covered by an SSM exemption. The current language in 40 CFR 63.6(e)(1)(i) characterizes what the general duty entails during periods of SSM. With the elimination of the SSM exemption, there is no need to differentiate between normal operations, startup and shutdown, and malfunction events in describing the general duty. Therefore, the language the EPA is proposing for 40 CFR 63.3500(b) does not include that language from 40 CFR 63.6(e)(1)(i). We are also proposing to revise the General Provisions table to subpart KKKK (Table 5) entry for 40 CFR 63.6(e)(1)(ii) by changing the ‘‘yes’’ in VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:09 Jun 03, 2019 Jkt 247001 column 3 to a ‘‘no.’’ Section 63.6(e)(1)(ii) imposes requirements that are not necessary with the elimination of the SSM exemption or are redundant with the general duty requirement being added at 40 CFR 63.3500(b). b. SSM Plan We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table to subpart KKKK (Table 5) entry for 40 CFR 63.6(e)(3) by changing the ‘‘yes’’ in column 3 to a ‘‘no.’’ Generally, these paragraphs require development of an SSM plan and specify SSM recordkeeping and reporting requirements related to the SSM plan. We are also proposing to remove from 40 CFR part 63, subpart KKKK, the current provisions requiring the SSM plan at 40 CFR 63.3511(c). As noted, the EPA is proposing to remove the SSM exemptions. Therefore, affected units will be subject to an emission standard during such events. The applicability of a standard during such events will ensure that sources have ample incentive to plan for and achieve compliance, and, thus, the SSM plan requirements are no longer necessary. 25927 differ from the General Provisions performance testing provisions in several respects. The regulatory text does not include the language in 40 CFR 63.7(e)(1) that restated the SSM exemption and language that precluded startup and shutdown periods from being considered ‘‘representative’’ for purposes of performance testing. The proposed performance testing provisions will also not allow performance testing during startup or shutdown. As in 40 CFR 63.7(e)(1), performance tests conducted under this subpart should not be conducted during malfunctions because conditions during malfunctions are often not representative of normal operating conditions. Section 63.7(e) requires that the owner or operator maintain records of the process information necessary to document operating conditions during the test and include in such records an explanation to support that such conditions represent normal operation. The EPA is proposing to add language clarifying that the owner or operator must make such records available to the Administrator upon request. c. Compliance With Standards We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table to subpart KKKK (table 5) entry for 40 CFR 63.6(f)(1) by changing the ‘‘yes’’ in column 3 to a ‘‘no.’’ The current language of 40 CFR 63.6(f)(1) exempts sources from non-opacity standards during periods of SSM. As discussed above, the Court in Sierra Club vacated the exemptions contained in this provision and held that the CAA requires that some CAA section 112 standards apply continuously. Consistent with Sierra Club, the EPA is proposing to revise the standards in this rule to apply at all times. We are also proposing to remove rule text in 40 CFR 63.3541(h) clarifying that, in calculating emissions to demonstrate compliance, deviation periods must include deviations during an SSM period. Since the EPA is removing the SSM exemption, this clarifying text is no longer needed. e. Monitoring We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table to subpart KKKK (Table 5) entry for 40 CFR 63.8(c)(1) by changing the ‘‘yes’’ in column 3 to a ‘‘no.’’ The crossreferences to the general duty and SSM plan requirements in 40 CFR 63.8(c)(1) are not necessary in light of other requirements of 40 CFR 63.8 that require good air pollution control practices (40 CFR 63.8(c)(1)) and that set out the requirements of a quality control program for monitoring equipment (40 CFR 63.8(d)). Further, we have determined that 40 CFR 63.8(c)(1)(ii) is redundant to the current monitoring requirement in 40 CFR 63.3547(a)(4) and 40 CFR 63.3557(a)(4) (i.e., ‘‘have available necessary parts for routine repairs of the monitoring equipment’’), except 40 CFR 63.8(c)(1)(ii) specifies ‘‘have readily available.’’ We are proposing to revise 40 CFR 63.3547(a)(4) and 63.3557(a)(4) to specify ‘‘readily available.’’ d. 40 CFR 63.4164 Performance Testing We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table to subpart KKKK (Table 5) entry for 40 CFR 63.7(e)(1) by changing the ‘‘yes’’ in column 3 to a ‘‘no.’’ Section 63.7(e)(1) describes performance testing requirements. The EPA is instead proposing to add a performance testing requirement at 40 CFR 63.3543 and 40 CFR 63.3553. The performance testing requirements we are proposing to add f. 40 CFR 63.3512 Recordkeeping We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table to subpart KKKK (Table 5) entry for 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(i) by changing the ‘‘yes’’ in column 3 to a ‘‘no.’’ Section 63.10(b)(2)(i) describes the recordkeeping requirements during startup and shutdown. These recording provisions are no longer necessary because the EPA is proposing that recordkeeping and reporting applicable PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\04JNP2.SGM 04JNP2 khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2 25928 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 107 / Tuesday, June 4, 2019 / Proposed Rules to normal operations will apply to startup and shutdown. In the absence of special provisions applicable to startup and shutdown, such as a startup and shutdown plan, there is no reason to retain additional recordkeeping for startup and shutdown periods. We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table to subpart KKKK (Table 5) entry for 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(ii) by changing the ‘‘yes’’ in column 3 to a ‘‘no.’’ Section 63.10(b)(2)(ii) describes the recordkeeping requirements during a malfunction, requiring a record of ‘‘the occurrence and duration of each malfunction.’’ A similar record is already required in 40 CFR 63.3512(i), which requires a record of ‘‘the date, time, and duration of each deviation,’’ which the EPA is retaining. The regulatory text in 40 CFR 63.3512(i) differs from the General Provisions in that the General Provisions requires the creation and retention of a record of the occurrence and duration of each malfunction of process, air pollution control, and monitoring equipment; whereas 40 CFR 63.3512(i) applies to any failure to meet an applicable standard and is requiring that the source record the date, time, and duration of the failure rather than the ‘‘occurrence.’’ For this reason, the EPA is proposing to add to 40 CFR 63.3512(i) a requirement that sources also keep records that include a list of the affected source or equipment and actions taken to minimize emissions, an estimate of the quantity of each regulated pollutant emitted over the emission limit for which the source failed to meet the standard, and a description of the method used to estimate the emissions. Examples of such methods would include product-loss calculations, mass balance calculations, measurements when available, or engineering judgment based on known process parameters (e.g., coating HAP content and application rates and control device efficiencies). The EPA is proposing to require that sources keep records of this information to ensure that there is adequate information to allow the EPA to determine the severity of any failure to meet a standard, and to provide data that may document how the source met the general duty to minimize emissions when the source has failed to meet an applicable standard. We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table to subpart KKKK (Table 5) entry for 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(iv)–(v) by changing the ‘‘yes’’ in column 3 to a ‘‘no.’’ When applicable, the provision requires sources to record actions taken during SSM events when actions were VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:09 Jun 03, 2019 Jkt 247001 inconsistent with their SSM plan. The requirement in 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(iv) is no longer appropriate because SSM plans will no longer be required. The requirement previously applicable under 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(iv)(B) to record actions to minimize emissions and record corrective actions is now applicable by reference to 40 CFR 63.3512(i)(4). When applicable, the provision in Section 63.10(b)(2)(v) requires sources to record actions taken during SSM events to show that actions taken were consistent with their SSM plan. The requirement is no longer appropriate because SSM plans will no longer be required. We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table to subpart KKKK (Table 5) entry for 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(vi) by changing the ‘‘yes’’ in column 3 to a ‘‘no.’’ The provision requires sources to maintain records during continuous monitoring system (CMS) malfunctions. Section 63.3512(i) covers records of periods of deviation from the standard, including instances where a CMS is inoperative or out-ofcontrol. We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table to subpart KKKK (Table 5) entry for 40 CFR 63.10(c)(15) by changing the ‘‘yes’’ in column 3 to a ‘‘no.’’ When applicable, the provision allows an owner or operator to use the affected source’s SSM plan or records kept to satisfy the recordkeeping requirements of the SSM plan, specified in 40 CFR 63.6(e), to also satisfy the requirements of 40 CFR 63.10(c)(10) through (12). The EPA is proposing to eliminate this requirement because SSM plans would no longer be required, and, therefore, 40 CFR 63.10(c)(15) no longer serves any useful purpose for affected units. We are proposing to remove the requirement in 40 CFR 63.3512(j)(1) that deviation records specify whether deviations from a standard occurred during a period of SSM. This revision is being proposed due to the proposed removal of the SSM exemption and because, as discussed above in this section, we are proposing that deviation records must specify the cause of each deviation, which could include a malfunction period as a cause. We are also proposing to remove the requirement to report the SSM records in 40 CFR 63.6(e)(3)(iii) through (v) by deleting 40 CFR 63.3512(j)(2). g. 40 CFR 63.3511 Reporting We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table to subpart KKKK (Table 5) entry for 40 CFR 63.10(d)(5) by changing the ‘‘yes’’ in column 3 to a ‘‘no.’’ Section 63.10(d)(5) PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 describes the reporting requirements for startups, shutdowns, and malfunctions. To replace the General Provisions reporting requirement, the EPA is proposing to add reporting requirements to 40 CFR 63.3511(a)(7) and (8). The replacement language differs from the General Provisions requirement in that it eliminates periodic SSM reports as a stand-alone report. We are proposing language that requires sources that fail to meet an applicable standard at any time to report the information concerning such events in the semiannual compliance report already required under this rule. Subpart KKKK of 40 CFR part 63 currently requires reporting of the date, time period, and cause of each deviation. We are clarifying in the rule that, if the cause of a deviation from the standard is unknown, this should be specified in the report. We are also proposing to change ‘‘date and time period’’ to ‘‘date, time, and duration’’ (see proposed revisions to 40 CFR 63.3511(a)(5)(i); 40 CFR 63.3511(a)(7)(vi), (a)(7)(vii), and (a)(7)(viii); 40 CFR 63.3511(a)(8)(v), (a)(8)(vi), and (a)(8)(xi)(A)) to use terminology consistent with the recordkeeping section. Further, we are proposing that the report must also contain the number of deviations from the standard, and a list of the affected source or equipment. For deviation reports addressing deviations from an applicable emission limit in 40 CFR 63.3490 or operating limit in Table 4 to 40 CFR part 63 subpart KKKK, we are proposing that the report also include an estimate of the quantity of each regulated pollutant emitted over any emission limit for which the source failed to meet the standard, and a description of the method used to estimate the emissions. For deviation reports addressing deviations from work practice standards associated with the emission rate with add-on controls option (40 CFR 63.3511(a)(8)(xiii)), we are retaining the current requirement (including reporting actions taken to correct the deviation), except that we are revising the rule language to reference the new general duty requirement in 40 CFR 63.3500(b), we are clarifying that the description of the deviation must include a list of the affected sources or equipment and the cause of the deviation, we are clarifying that ‘‘time period’’ includes the ‘‘time and duration,’’ and we are requiring that the report include the number of deviations from the work practice standards in the reporting period. Regarding the proposed new requirement discussed above to estimate the quantity of each regulated pollutant E:\FR\FM\04JNP2.SGM 04JNP2 khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 107 / Tuesday, June 4, 2019 / Proposed Rules emitted over any emission limit for which the source failed to meet the standard, and a description of the method used to estimate the emissions, examples of such methods would include product-loss calculations, mass balance calculations, measurements when available, or engineering judgment based on known process parameters (e.g., coating HAP content and application rates and control device efficiencies). The EPA is proposing this requirement to ensure that the EPA has adequate information to determine compliance, to allow the EPA to determine the severity of the failure to meet an applicable standard, and to provide data that may document how the source met the general duty to minimize emissions during a failure to meet an applicable standard. We will no longer require owners or operators to determine whether actions taken to correct a malfunction are consistent with an SSM plan, because plans would no longer be required. The proposed amendments, therefore, eliminate 40 CFR 63.3511(c) that requires reporting of whether the source deviated from its SSM plan, including required actions to communicate with the Administrator, and the cross reference to 40 CFR 63.10(d)(5)(ii) that contains the description of the previously required SSM report format and submittal schedule from this section. These specifications are no longer necessary because the events will be reported in otherwise required reports with similar format and submittal requirements. Section 63.10(d)(5)(ii) describes an immediate report for startups, shutdown, and malfunctions when a source failed to meet an applicable standard, but did not follow the SSM plan. We will no longer require owners and operators to report when actions taken during a startup, shutdown, or malfunction were not consistent with an SSM plan, because plans would no longer be required. We are proposing to remove the requirements in 40 CFR 63.3511(a)(7) and (a)(8) that deviation reports must specify whether deviation from an operating limit occurred during a period of SSM. We are also proposing to remove the requirements in 40 CFR 63.3511(a)(7)(x) and 40 CFR 63.3511(a)(8)(viii) to break down the total duration of deviations into the startup and shutdown categories. As discussed above in this section, we are proposing to require reporting of the cause of each deviation. Further, the startup and shutdown categories no longer apply because these periods are proposed to be considered normal VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:09 Jun 03, 2019 Jkt 247001 operation, as discussed in section IV.A.4.b.1 of this preamble. c. Technical Amendments to the Surface Coating of Metal Cans NESHAP We propose to amend 40 CFR 63.3481(c)(5) to revise the reference to ‘‘future subpart MMMM’’ of this part by removing the word ‘‘future’’ because subpart MMMM was promulgated in 2004. We propose to revise the format of references to test methods in 40 CFR part 60. The current reference in 40 CFR 63.3545(a) and (b) to Methods 1, 1A, 2, 2A, 2C, 2D, 2F, 2G, 3, 3A, 3B, 4, 25, and 25A specify that each method is in ‘‘appendix A’’ of part 60. Appendix A of part 60 has been divided into appendices A–1 through A–8. We propose to revise each reference to appendix A to indicate which of the eight sections of appendix A applies to the method. We propose to amend 40 CFR 63.3521(a)(1)(i) and (4), which describe how to demonstrate initial compliance with the emission limitations using the compliant material option, to remove references to OSHA-defined carcinogens as specified in 29 CFR 1910.1200(d)(4). The reference to OSHA-defined carcinogens as specified in 29 CFR 1910.1200(d)(4) is intended to specify which compounds must be included in calculating total organic HAP content of a coating material if they are present at 0.1 percent or greater by mass. We are proposing to remove this reference because 29 CFR 1910.1200(d)(4) has been amended and no longer readily defines which compounds are carcinogens. We are proposing to replace these references to OSHAdefined carcinogens and 29 CFR 1910.1200(d)(4) with a list (in proposed new Table 8 to 40 CFR part 63, subpart KKKK) of those organic HAP that must be included in calculating total organic HAP content of a coating material if they are present at 0.1 percent or greater by mass. We propose to include organic HAP in proposed Table 8 to 40 CFR part 63, subpart KKKK if they were categorized in the EPA’s Prioritized Chronic DoseResponse Values for Screening Risk Assessments (dated May 9, 2014) as a ‘‘human carcinogen,’’ ‘‘probable human carcinogen,’’ or ‘‘possible human carcinogen’’ according to The Risk Assessment Guidelines of 1986 (EPA/ 600/8–87/045, August 1987),27 or as ‘‘carcinogenic to humans,’’ ‘‘likely to be carcinogenic to humans,’’ or with 27 See https://www.epa.gov/fera/dose-responseassessment-assessing-health-risks-associatedexposure-hazardous-air-pollutants. PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 25929 ‘‘suggestive evidence of carcinogenic potential’’ according to the Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment (EPA/ 630/P–03/001F, March 2005). We propose to revise the monitoring provisions for thermal and catalytic oxidizers to clarify that a thermocouple is part of the temperature sensor referred to in 40 CFR 63.3547(c)(3) and 40 CFR 63.3557(c)(3) for purposes of performing periodic calibration and verification checks. Current 40 CFR 63.3513(a) allows records, ‘‘where appropriate,’’ to be maintained as ‘‘electronic spreadsheets’’ or a ‘‘database.’’ We propose to add clarification to this provision that the allowance to retain electronic records applies to all records that were submitted as reports electronically via the EPA’s CEDRI. We also propose to add text to the same provision clarifying that 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. d. Ongoing Emissions Compliance Demonstrations Requirement As part of an ongoing effort to improve compliance with various federal air emission regulations, the EPA reviewed the compliance demonstration requirements in the Surface Coating of Metal Cans NESHAP. Currently, if a source owner or operator chooses to comply with the standards using add-on controls, the results of an initial performance test are used to determine compliance; however, the rule does not require ongoing periodic performance testing for these emission capture systems and add-on controls. We are proposing periodic testing of add-on control devices, in addition to the one-time initial emissions and capture efficiency testing and ongoing parametric monitoring to ensure ongoing compliance with the standards. Although ongoing monitoring of operating parameters is required by the NESHAP, as the control device ages over time, the destruction efficiency of the control device can be compromised due to various factors. The EPA published several documents that identify potential control device operational problems that could decrease control device efficiency.28 28 See Control Techniques for Volatile Organic Compound Emissions from Stationary Sources, EPA/453/R–92–018, December 1992, Control Technologies for Emissions from Stationary Sources, EPA/625/6–91/014, June 1991, and Survey of Control for Low Concentration Organic Vapor Gas Streams, EPA–456/R–95–003, May 1995. These E:\FR\FM\04JNP2.SGM Continued 04JNP2 khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2 25930 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 107 / Tuesday, June 4, 2019 / Proposed Rules These factors are discussed in more detail in the memorandum titled Proposed Periodic Testing Requirement dated February 1, 2019, included in the Metal Cans and Metal Coil Dockets. The Institute of Clean Air Companies (ICAC), an industry trade group currently representing 50 emission control device equipment manufacturers, corroborated the fact that control equipment degrades over time in their comments in a prior rulemaking. In their comments on proposed revisions to the NESHAP General Provisions (72 FR 69, January 3, 2007), ICAC stated that ongoing maintenance and checks of control devices are necessary in order to ensure emissions control technology remains effective.29 ICAC identifies both thermal and catalytic oxidizers as effective addon control devices for VOC reduction and destruction. Thermal oxidizers, in which ‘‘. . . organic compounds are converted into carbon dioxide and water . . .’’ allow ‘‘. . . for the destruction of VOCs and HAP up to levels greater than 99-percent . . .’’ once ‘‘. . . [t]he oxidation reaction . . .’’ begins, typically ‘‘. . . in the 1450 °F range.’’ That temperature may need to be elevated, depending on the organic compound to be destroyed. Along with that destruction, ‘‘. . . extreme heat, the corrosive nature of chemical-laden air, exposure to weather, and the wear and tear of non-stop use . . .’’ affect thermal oxidizers such that ‘‘. . . left unchecked, the corrosive nature of the gases treated will create equipment downtime, loss of operational efficiency, and eventually failure of the thermal oxidizer.’’ While catalytic oxidizers operate at lower operating temperatures—typically 440 to 750 °F— than thermal oxidizers, catalytic oxidizers also provide VOC reduction and destruction. In general, the catalyst ‘‘. . . needs to be checked periodically to verify the activity of the catalyst . . .’’ because that ‘‘. . . activity or overall ability of the catalyst to convert target emissions to other by-products will naturally diminish over time.’’ ICAC also mentions chemical poisoning (deactivation of the catalyst by certain compounds) or masking of the catalyst bed, which may occur due to changes in manufacturing processes, as means of catalyst degradation. Finally, ICAC identifies electrical and mechanical documents are included in the Metal Can and Metal Coil Dockets for this action. 29 See Docket Item No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2004– 0094–0173, available at www.regulations.gov. A copy of the ICAC’s comments on the proposed revisions to the General Provisions is also included in the Metal Cans and Metal Coil Dockets for this action. VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:09 Jun 03, 2019 Jkt 247001 component maintenance as important, for if such components are not operating properly, ‘‘. . . the combustion temperature in the . . . oxidizer could drop below the required levels and hazardous air pollutant (HAP) destruction may not be achieved . . .’’ ICAC closes by noting ‘‘. . . it costs more money to operate an oxidizer at peak performance, and if not maintained, performance will deteriorate yielding less destruction of HAP.’’ State websites also provide on-line CAA violations and enforcement actions that include performance issues associated with control devices. A recent search resulted in identification of sources in Ohio and Massachusetts that did not achieve compliance even though they maintained the thermal oxidizer operating temperatures established during previous performance tests, which further corroborates with the ICAC comments and conclusions regarding control device degradation. Based on the need for vigilance in maintaining equipment to stem degradation, we are proposing periodic testing of add-on control devices once every 5 years, in addition to the onetime initial emissions and capture efficiency testing and ongoing temperature measurement to ensure ongoing compliance with the standards. In this action, we are proposing to require periodic performance testing of add-on control devices on a regular frequency (e.g., every 5 years) to ensure the equipment continues to operate properly for facilities using the emission rate with add-on controls compliance option. We note that two of the state operating permits for metal can coating existing sources already require such testing every 5 years synchronized with 40 CFR part 70 air operating permit renewals. This proposed periodic testing requirement includes an exception to the general requirement for periodic testing for facilities using the catalytic oxidizer control option at 40 CFR 63.3546(b) and following the catalyst maintenance procedures in 40 CFR 63.3546(b)(4). This exception is due to the catalyst maintenance procedures that already require annual testing of the catalyst and other maintenance procedures that provide ongoing demonstrations that the control system is operating properly and may, thus, be considered comparable to conducting a performance test. The proposed periodic performance testing requirement allows an exception from periodic testing for facilities using instruments to continuously measure emissions. Such continuous emissions PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 monitoring systems (CEMS) would show actual emissions. The use of CEMS to demonstrate compliance would obviate the need for periodic oxidizer testing. Moreover, installation and operation of a CEMS with a timesharing component, such that values from more than one oxidizer exhaust could be tabulated in a recurring frequency, could prove less expensive (estimated to have an annual cost below $15,000) than ongoing oxidizer testing. This proposed requirement does not require periodic testing or CEMS monitoring of facilities using the compliant materials option or the emission-rate without add-on controls compliance option because these two compliance options do not use any addon controls or control efficiency measurements in the compliance calculations. The proposed periodic performance testing requirement requires facilities complying with the standards using emission capture systems and add-on controls and which are not already on a 5-year testing schedule conduct the first of the periodic performance tests within 3 years of the effective date of the revised standards. Afterward, they would conduct periodic testing before they renew their operating permits, but no longer than 5 years following the previous performance test. Additionally, facilities that have already tested as a condition of their permit within the last 2 years before the effective date would be permitted to maintain their current 5year schedule and not be required to move up the date of the next test to the 3-year date specified above. This proposed requirement would require periodic air emissions testing to measure organic HAP destruction or removal efficiency at the inlet and outlet of the add-on control device, or measurement of the control device outlet concentration of organic HAP. The emissions would be measured as total gaseous organic mass emissions as carbon using either EPA Method 25 or 25A of appendix A–7 to 40 CFR part 60, which are the methods currently required for the initial compliance demonstration. We estimate that the cost associated with this proposed requirement, which includes a control device emissions destruction or removal efficiency test using EPA Method 25 or 25A, would be approximately $19,000 per control device. The cost estimate is included in the memorandum titled Draft Costs/ Impacts of the 40 CFR part 63 Subparts KKKK and SSSS Monitoring Review Revisions, in the Metal Cans and Metal Coil Dockets. We have reviewed the E:\FR\FM\04JNP2.SGM 04JNP2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 107 / Tuesday, June 4, 2019 / Proposed Rules khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2 state operating permits for facilities subject to the Surface Coating of Metal Cans NESHAP and found that one of the metal can coating facilities employs three add-on control devices that are currently not required to conduct periodic testing as a condition of their permit renewal. Two other facilities using add-on controls are currently required to conduct periodic performance tests as a condition of their 40 CFR part 70 operating permits. For these two facilities, the periodic testing would not add any new testing requirements and the estimated costs would not apply to these facilities. Periodic performance tests ensure that any control systems used to comply with the NESHAP in the future would be properly maintained over time, thereby reducing the potential for acute emissions episodes and noncompliance. e. IBR of Alternative Test Methods Under 1 CFR Part 51 The EPA is proposing new and updated test methods for the Surface Coating of Metal Cans NESHAP that include IBR. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is proposing to incorporate by reference the following voluntary consensus standards (VCS) described in the amendments to 40 CFR 63.14: • ASTM Method D1475–13, Standard Test Method for Density of Liquid Coatings, Inks, and Related Products, proposed to be IBR approved for 40 CFR 63.3521(c) and 63.3531(c); • ASTM D2111–10 (2015), Standard Test Methods for Specific Gravity of Halogenated Organic Solvents and Their Admixtures, proposed to be IBR approved for 40 CFR 63.3521(c) and 63.3531(c); • ASTM D2369–10 (2015), Test Method for Volatile Content of Coatings, proposed to be IBR approved for 40 CFR 63.3521(a)(2) and 63.3541(i)(3); • ASTM D2697–03 (2014), Standard Test Method for Volume Nonvolatile Matter in Clear or Pigmented Coatings, proposed to be IBR approved for 40 CFR 63.3521(b)(1); and • ASTM D6093–97 (2016), Standard Test Method for Percent Volume Nonvolatile Matter in Clear or Pigmented Coatings Using Helium Gas Pycnometer, proposed to be IBR approved for 40 CFR 63.3521(b)(1). Older versions of ASTM Methods, D2697 and D6093 were incorporated by reference when the Surface Coating of Metal Cans NESHAP was originally promulgated (68 FR 64432, November 13, 2003). We are proposing to replace the older versions of these methods and ASTM Method D1475 with updated VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:09 Jun 03, 2019 Jkt 247001 versions, which requires IBR revisions. The updated version of the method replaces the older version in the same paragraph of the rule text. We are also proposing the addition of ASTM Methods D2111 and D2369 to the Surface Coating of Metal Cans NESHAP for the first time by incorporating these methods by reference in this rulemaking. Refer to section VIII.J of this preamble for further discussion of these VCS. 5. What compliance dates are we proposing? The EPA is proposing that affected sources must comply with all of the amendments, with the exception of the proposed electronic format for submitting semiannual compliance reports, no later than 181 days after the effective date of the final rule, or upon startup, whichever is later. All affected facilities would have to continue to meet the current requirements of 40 CFR part 63, subpart KKKK until the applicable compliance date of the amended rule. The final action is not expected to be a ‘‘major rule’’ as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2), so the effective date of the final rule will be the promulgation date as specified in CAA section 112(d)(10). For existing sources, we are proposing one change that would impact ongoing compliance requirements for 40 CFR part 63, subpart KKKK. As discussed elsewhere in this preamble, we are proposing to add a requirement that notifications, performance test results, and semiannual compliance reports be submitted electronically. We are proposing that the semiannual compliance report be submitted electronically using a new template, which is available for review and comment as part of this action. We are also proposing to change the requirements for SSM by removing the exemption from the requirements to meet the standard during SSM periods and by removing the requirement to develop and implement an SSM plan. Our experience with similar industries that are required to convert reporting mechanisms to install necessary hardware and software, become familiar with the process of submitting performance test results electronically through the EPA’s CEDRI, test these new electronic submission capabilities, and reliably employ electronic reporting shows that a time period of a minimum of 90 days, and, more typically, 180 days, is generally necessary to successfully accomplish these revisions. Our experience with similar industries further shows that this sort of regulated facility generally requires a time period PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 25931 of 180 days to read and understand the amended rule requirements; to evaluate their operations to ensure that they can meet the standards during periods of startup and shutdown as defined in the rule and make any necessary adjustments; and to update their operation, maintenance, and monitoring plan to reflect the revised requirements. The EPA recognizes the confusion that multiple different compliance dates for individual requirements would create and the additional burden such an assortment of dates would impose. From our assessment of the timeframe needed for compliance with the entirety of the revised requirements, the EPA considers a period of 180 days to be the most expeditious compliance period practicable and, thus, is proposing that existing affected sources be in compliance with all of this regulation’s revised requirements within 181 days of the regulation’s effective date. We solicit comment on these proposed compliance periods, and we specifically request submission of information from sources in this source category regarding specific actions that would need to be undertaken to comply with the proposed amended requirements and the time needed to make the adjustments for compliance with any of the revised requirements. We note that information provided may result in changes to the proposed compliance dates. B. What are the analytical results and proposed decisions for the Surface Coating of Metal Coil source category? 1. What are the results of the risk assessment and analyses? As described above in section III of this preamble, for the Surface Coating of Metal Coil source category, we conducted a risk assessment for all HAP emitted. We present results of the risk assessment briefly below and in more detail in the Metal Coil Risk Assessment Report in the Metal Coil Docket (Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2017–0685). a. Inhalation Risk Assessment Results Table 4 of this preamble summarizes the results of the inhalation risk assessment for the source category. As discussed in section III.C.2 of this preamble, we determined that MACTallowable HAP emission levels at coil coating facilities are equal to 1.1 times the actual emissions. For more detail about the MACT-allowable emission levels, see Appendix 1 to the Metal Coil Risk Assessment Report in the Metal Coil Docket. E:\FR\FM\04JNP2.SGM 04JNP2 25932 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 107 / Tuesday, June 4, 2019 / Proposed Rules TABLE 4—SURFACE COATING OF METAL COIL SOURCE CATEGORY INHALATION RISK ASSESSMENT RESULTS Maximum individual cancer risk (in 1 million) Risk assessment Based on actual emissions Source Category ......................... Whole Facility .............................. 1 The 2 The 10 40 Based on allowable emissions 10 .................. Estimated population at increased risk of cancer ≥1-in-1 million Based on actual emissions 19,000 270,000 Based on allowable emissions Estimated annual cancer incidence (cases per year) Based on actual emissions 24,000 .................. Maximum chronic noncancer TOSHI 1 Based on allowable emissions 0.005 0.03 0.006 .................. Based on actual emissions 0.1 5 Based on allowable emissions 0.1 .................. Maximum screening acute noncancer HQ 2 Based on actual emissions HQREL = 3. TOSHI is the sum of the chronic noncancer HQ for substances that affect the same target organ or organ system. maximum estimated acute exposure concentration was divided by available short-term threshold values to develop HQ values. The results of the inhalation risk modeling using actual emissions data, as shown in Table 4 of this preamble, indicate that the maximum individual cancer risk based on actual emissions (lifetime) could be up to 10-in-1 million (driven by naphthalene from solvent storage), the maximum chronic noncancer TOSHI value based on actual emissions could be up to 0.1 (driven by glycol ethers from prime and finish coating application), and the maximum screening acute noncancer HQ value (off-facility site) could be up to 3 (driven by DGME). The total estimated annual cancer incidence (national) from these facilities based on actual emission levels is 0.005 excess cancer cases per year or one case in every 200 years. b. Acute Risk Results Table 4 of this preamble also shows the acute risk results for the Surface Coating of Metal Coil source category. The screening analysis for acute impacts was based on an industry-specific multiplier of 1.1, to estimate the peak emission rates from the average emission rates. For more detailed acute risk results refer to the Metal Coil Risk Assessment Report in the Metal Coil Docket. c. Multipathway Risk Screening Results The emissions data for the Surface Coating of Metal Coil source category indicate that one PB–HAP is emitted by sources within this source category: Lead. In evaluating the potential for multipathway effects from emissions of lead, modeled maximum annual lead concentrations were compared to the NAAQS for lead (0.15 mg/m3). Results of this analysis confirmed that the NAAQS for lead would not be exceeded by any facility. d. Environmental Risk Screening Results The emissions data for the Surface Coating of Metal Coil source category indicate that two environmental HAP are emitted by sources within this source category: HF and lead. Therefore, we conducted a screening-level evaluation of the potential adverse environmental risks associated with emissions of HF and lead for the Surface Coating of Metal Coil source category. For HF, each individual concentration (i.e., each off-site data point in the modeling domain) was below the ecological benchmarks for all facilities. For lead, we did not estimate any exceedances of the secondary lead NAAQS. Therefore, we do not expect an adverse environmental effect as a result of HAP emissions from this source category. e. Facility-Wide Risk Results Sixteen facilities have a facility-wide cancer MIR greater than or equal to 1in-1 million. The maximum facilitywide cancer MIR is 40-in-1 million, driven by naphthalene from equipment cleanup of metal coil coating processes. The total estimated cancer incidence from the whole facility is 0.02 excess cancer cases per year, or one excess case in every 50 years. Approximately 270,000 people were estimated to have cancer risks above 1-in-1 million from exposure to HAP emitted from both MACT and non-MACT sources of the 48 facilities in this source category. The maximum facility-wide TOSHI for the source category is estimated to be 5, driven by emissions of chlorine from a secondary aluminum fluxing process. f. What demographic groups might benefit from this regulation? To examine the potential for any environmental justice issues that might be associated with the source category, we performed a demographic analysis, which is an assessment of risk to individual demographic groups of the populations living within 5 km and within 50 km of the facilities. In the analysis, we evaluated the distribution of HAP-related cancer and noncancer risk from the Surface Coating of Metal Coil source category across different demographic groups within the populations living near facilities.30 The results of the demographic analysis are summarized in Table 5 of this preamble. These results, for various demographic groups, are based on the estimated risk from actual emissions levels for the population living within 50 km of the facilities. TABLE 5—SURFACE COATING OF METAL COIL SOURCE CATEGORY DEMOGRAPHIC RISK ANALYSIS RESULTS Nationwide khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2 Total Population ........................................................................................... Population with cancer risk at or above 1-in-1 million due to surface coating of metal coil 317,746,049 Population with chronic hazard index above 1 due to surface coating of metal coil 19,000 0 70 30 0 0 Race by Percent White ............................................................................................................ All Other Races ........................................................................................... 30 Demographic groups included in the analysis are: White, African American, Native American, other races and multiracial, Hispanic or Latino, VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:09 Jun 03, 2019 Jkt 247001 62 38 children 17 years of age and under, adults 18 to 64 years of age, adults 65 years of age and over, adults without a high school diploma, people living below PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 the poverty level, people living above the poverty level, and linguistically isolated people. E:\FR\FM\04JNP2.SGM 04JNP2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 107 / Tuesday, June 4, 2019 / Proposed Rules 25933 TABLE 5—SURFACE COATING OF METAL COIL SOURCE CATEGORY DEMOGRAPHIC RISK ANALYSIS RESULTS—Continued Nationwide Population with cancer risk at or above 1-in-1 million due to surface coating of metal coil Population with chronic hazard index above 1 due to surface coating of metal coil Race by Percent White ............................................................................................................ African American ......................................................................................... Native American .......................................................................................... Hispanic or Latino ........................................................................................ Other and Multiracial ................................................................................... 62 12 0.8 18 7 70 21 0.1 4 5 ........................................ 0 0 0 0 14 86 15 85 0 0 14 86 10 90 0 0 Income by Percent Below the Poverty Level .............................................................................. Above the Poverty Level ............................................................................. Education by Percent Over 25 and Without a High School Diploma ............................................. Over 25 and With a High School Diploma .................................................. The results of the Surface Coating of Metal Coil source category demographic analysis indicate that emissions from the source category expose approximately 19,000 people to a cancer risk at or above 1-in-1 million and no one is exposed to a chronic noncancer TOSHI greater than 1 (we note that many of those in the first risk group are the same as those in the second). The percentages of the at-risk population in each demographic group (African American and Below the Poverty Level) are greater than their respective nationwide percentages. The methodology and the results of the demographic analysis are presented in a technical report, Risk and Technology Review—Analysis of Demographic Factors for Populations Living Near Surface Coating of Metal Coil Source Category Operations, May 2017 (hereafter referred to as the Metal Coil Demographic Analysis Report), available in the Metal Coil Docket. 2. What are our proposed decisions regarding risk acceptability, ample margin of safety, and adverse environmental effects? khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2 a. Risk Acceptability As noted in section III.A of this preamble, we weigh all health risk factors in our risk acceptability determination, including the cancer MIR, the number of persons in various cancer and noncancer risk ranges, cancer incidence, the maximum noncancer TOSHI, the maximum acute noncancer HQ, the extent of noncancer risks, the distribution of cancer and noncancer risks in the exposed population, and risk estimation VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:09 Jun 03, 2019 Jkt 247001 uncertainties (54 FR 38044, September 14, 1989). For the Surface Coating of Metal Coil source category, the risk analysis indicates that the cancer risks to the individual most exposed could be up to 10-in-1 million due to actual emissions and allowable emissions. These risks are considerably less than 100-in-1 million, which is the presumptive upper limit of acceptable risk. The risk analysis also shows very low cancer incidence (0.005 cases per year for actual emissions and 0.006 cases per year for allowable emissions), and we did not identify potential for adverse chronic noncancer health effects. The acute screening analysis results in a maximum acute noncancer HQ of 3 for DGME. Since there is not a specified acute dose-response value for DGME, we applied the most protective dose-response value from the other glycol ether compounds, the acute REL for ethylene glycol monomethyl ether, to estimate risk. Given that ethylene glycol monomethyl ether is more toxic than other glycol ethers, the use of this surrogate is a health-protective choice in the EPA’s risk assessment. For acute screening analyses, to better characterize the potential health risks associated with estimated worst-case acute exposures to HAP, we examine a wider range of available acute health metrics than we do for our chronic risk assessments. This is in acknowledgement that there are generally more data gaps and uncertainties in acute reference values than there are in chronic reference values. By definition, the acute REL represents a health-protective level of exposure, with effects not anticipated below those levels, even for repeated PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 exposures; however, the level of exposure that would cause health effects is not specifically known. As the exposure concentration increases above the acute REL, the potential for effects increases. Therefore, when an REL is exceeded and an AEGL–1 or ERPG–1 level is available (i.e., levels at which mild, reversible effects are anticipated in the general population for a single exposure), we typically use them as an additional comparative measure, as they provide an upper bound for exposure levels above which exposed individuals could experience effects. However, for glycol ethers, these values are not available. Additional uncertainties in the acute exposure assessment that the EPA conducts as part of the risk review under section 112 of the CAA include several factors. The degree of accuracy of an acute inhalation exposure assessment depends on the simultaneous occurrence of independent factors that may vary greatly, such as hourly emissions rates, meteorology, and the presence of a person at the location of the maximum concentration. In the acute screening assessment that we conduct under the RTR program, we include the conservative (health-protective) assumptions that peak emissions from each emission point in the source category and worst-case meteorological conditions co-occur, thus, resulting in maximum ambient concentrations. These two events are unlikely to occur at the same time, making these assumptions conservative. We then include the additional assumption that a person is located at this point during the same time period. For this source category, these assumptions are likely to E:\FR\FM\04JNP2.SGM 04JNP2 25934 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 107 / Tuesday, June 4, 2019 / Proposed Rules khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2 overestimate the true worst-case actual exposures, as it is unlikely that a person would be located at the point of maximum exposure during the time when peak emissions and worst-case meteorological conditions occur simultaneously. Thus, as discussed in the Metal Coil Risk Assessment Report in the docket for this action, by assuming the co-occurrence of independent factors for the acute screening assessment, the results are intentionally biased high and are, thus, health-protective. We conclude that adverse effects from acute exposure are not anticipated due to emissions from this source category. In addition, the risk assessment indicates no significant potential for multipathway health effects. Considering all the health risk information and factors discussed above, including the uncertainties discussed in section III.C.7 of this preamble, we propose that the risks from the Surface Coating of Metal Coil source category are acceptable. b. Ample Margin of Safety Analysis Although we are proposing that the risks from the Surface Coating of Metal Coil source category are acceptable, risk estimates for approximately 19,000 individuals in the exposed population are above 1-in-1 million at the actual emissions level, and 24,000 individuals in the exposed population are above 1in-1 million at the allowable emissions level. Consequently, we further considered whether the MACT standards for the Surface Coating of Metal Coil source category provide an ample margin of safety to protect public health. In this ample margin of safety analysis, we investigated available emissions control options that might reduce the risk from the source category. We considered this information along with all the health risks and other health information considered in our determination of risk acceptability. As described in section III.B of this preamble, our technology review focused on identifying developments in practices, processes, and control technologies for the Surface Coating of Metal Coil source category, and we reviewed various information sources regarding emission sources that are currently regulated by the Surface Coating of Metal Coil NESHAP. Based on our review, we did not identify any add-on control technologies, other equipment, or work practices and procedures that had not previously been considered during development of the Surface Coating of Metal Coil NESHAP, and we did not identify any developments since the promulgation of VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:09 Jun 03, 2019 Jkt 247001 the NESHAP. Therefore, we are proposing that additional emissions controls for this source category are not necessary to provide an ample margin of safety. c. Environmental Effects The emissions data for the Surface Coating of Metal Coil source category indicate that two environmental HAP are emitted by sources within this source category: HF and lead. The screening-level evaluation of the potential for adverse environmental risks associated with emissions of HF from the Surface Coating of Metal Coil source category indicated that each individual concentration (i.e., each offsite data point in the modeling domain) was below the ecological benchmarks for all facilities. In addition, we are unaware of any adverse environmental effects caused by HAP emitted by this source category. For lead, we did not estimate any exceedances of the secondary lead NAAQS. Therefore, we do not expect there to be an adverse environmental effect as a result of HAP emissions from this source category, and we are proposing that it is not necessary to set a more stringent standard to prevent, taking into consideration costs, energy, safety, and other relevant factors, an adverse environmental effect. 3. What are the results and proposed decisions based on our technology review? As described in section III.B of this preamble, our technology review focused on identifying developments in practices, processes, and control technologies for the Surface Coating of Metal Coil source category. The EPA reviewed various information sources regarding emission sources that are currently regulated by the Surface Coating of Metal Coil NESHAP to support the technology review. The information sources included the following: The RBLC; the California Statewide BACT Clearinghouse; regulatory actions, including technology reviews promulgated for other surface coating NESHAP subsequent to the Surface Coating of Metal Coil NESHAP; state regulations; facility operating permits; a site visit; and industry information from individual facilities and the industry trade association. The primary emission sources for the technology review are the coil coating application stations and associated curing ovens. Based on our review, we did not identify any add-on control technologies, process equipment, work practices, or procedures that had not been previously considered during PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 development of the Surface Coating of Metal Coil NESHAP, and we did not identify any new or improved add-on control technologies that would result in additional emission reductions. A brief summary of the EPA’s findings in conducting the technology review of coil coating operations follows. For a detailed discussion of the EPA’s findings, refer to the Metal Coil Technology Review memorandum in the Metal Coil Docket. The technology basis for MACT for metal coil coating operations in the 2002 Surface Coating of Metal Coil NESHAP was emission capture and addon control with an OCE of 98 percent for new or reconstructed sources and existing sources. This OCE represents the use of PTE to achieve 100-percent capture of application station HAP emissions and a thermal oxidizer to achieve a destruction efficiency of 98percent. No technology was identified at that time that could achieve a better OCE than the use of a PTE to capture HAP emissions from the coating application station and a thermal oxidizer to destroy HAP emissions from the coating application and the curing oven. An alternative facility HAP emission rate limit of 0.24 pounds of HAP per gallon of solids applied was also established to provide a compliance option for facilities that chose to limit their coating line HAP emissions either through a combination of low-HAP coatings and add-on controls or through the use of waterborne, high solids, or other pollution prevention coatings. During development of that rulemaking, we identified no beyond-the-floor technology that could achieve a higher OCE. Using the EPA’s NEI and the ECHO databases, we identified 48 major source facilities that are currently subject to the Surface Coating of Metal Coil NESHAP. A search of the RBLC database for improvements in coil coating technologies resulted in no findings. Therefore, we conducted a comprehensive review of state operating permits for 39 of the 48 facilities that were available on-line to determine whether any are using improved technologies or technologies that were not considered during the development of the original NESHAP. The review revealed that 37 of the 39 facilities had add-on controls (e.g., thermal oxidizers, catalytic oxidizers, and regenerative thermal oxidizers) and three of the 39 facilities had only partial control (i.e., not all coil coating lines had control). The state permits included VOC emission limitations issued prior to promulgation of the Surface Coating of Metal Coil NESHAP. No permit had a E:\FR\FM\04JNP2.SGM 04JNP2 khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 107 / Tuesday, June 4, 2019 / Proposed Rules VOC limit lower than the Metal Coil New Source Performance Standards published in 1982 (40 CFR part 60, subpart TT). Because none of these limitations were more stringent than the HAP content limit, and all were based on control options considered in the development of the NESHAP, we concluded that none of these limitations represented a development in practices, processes, and control technologies for the Surface Coating of Metal Coil source category. We reviewed other surface coating NESHAP promulgated subsequent to the Surface Coating of Metal Coil NESHAP to determine whether any requirements exceed the Metal Coil MACT level of control or include technologies that were not considered during the development of the original Surface Coating of Metal Coil NESHAP. These NESHAP include Surface Coating of Miscellaneous Metal Parts and Products (40 CFR part 63, subpart MMMM), Surface Coating of Plastic Parts and Products (40 CFR part 63, subpart PPPP), and Surface Coating of Automobiles and Light-Duty Trucks (40 CFR part 63, subpart IIII). We also reviewed the results of the technology reviews for other surface coating NESHAP promulgated after the Surface Coating of Metal Coil NESHAP. These NESHAP include Printing and Publishing (40 CFR part 63, subpart KK), Shipbuilding and Ship Repair (40 CFR part 63, subpart II), and Wood Furniture Manufacturing (40 CFR part 63, subpart JJ). Technology reviews for these NESHAP identified PTE and/or RTO as improvements in add-on control technology. Because the Surface Coating of Metal Coil NESHAP already includes a compliance option involving the use of a PTE and an add-on control device, and because these measures were considered in the development of the Surface Coating of Metal Coil NESHAP, we concluded that these measures do not represent a development in control technology under CAA section 112(d)(6). The technology review conducted for the Wood Furniture Manufacturing NESHAP identified the use of more efficient spray guns as a technology review development and revised the requirements to prohibit the use of conventional spray guns. Because the Surface Coating of Metal Coil source category does not use spray equipment, this development is not applicable to metal coil coating operations. In conclusion, we found no improvements in add-on control technology or other equipment during review of the RBLC, the state operating permits, and subsequent NESHAP that were not VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:09 Jun 03, 2019 Jkt 247001 already identified and considered during Surface Coating of Metal Coil NESHAP development. Alternatives to solvent borne coatings were identified and considered during MACT development but were not considered to be suitable for all coil coating end-product applications. These alternative coatings include waterborne coatings, low energy electron beam/ ultraviolet cured coatings, and powder coatings. These coatings were used by about 10 percent of coil coating facilities according to the MACT survey. Our permit review concluded that this trend continues today and only about 10 percent of the facilities use these coatings to meet the Surface Coating of Metal Coil NESHAP emission limits. Most coil coaters have solvent destruction systems in place, which enables them to use organic paint solvents as a fuel supplement. The only anticipated technology change in the area of coating reformulation for the metal coil surface coating category is the replacement of coatings that contain the hexavalent chromate ion with more benign corrosion-inhibiting species that provide the same long-term protection to metals. The coil coating producers have worked unsuccessfully on this coating reformulation for the past 20 years. Carbon adsorption was identified and considered for add-on control during Metal Coil MACT development, and although it is technologically feasible, no U.S. coil coaters used carbon adsorption due to the high temperature of the oven exhaust. The high temperature would inhibit adsorption of VOC on activated carbon in the adsorber beds. Therefore, we do not consider these measures to represent a development under CAA section 112(d)(6). Finally, we identified no developments in work practices or procedures for the Surface Coating of Metal Coil source category, including work practices and procedures that are currently prescribed in the NESHAP that were not previously identified and considered during MACT development. The facility survey, conducted during MACT development, revealed that several types of work practices and housekeeping techniques were being used. However, the final rule applied only to the coating application stations and the associated curing ovens (i.e., the affected source). The final rule did not apply to coating storage and mixing/ thinning operations and did not apply to the equipment cleaning operations that are the primary operations to which the work practices would have been applied. PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 25935 Based on these findings, we conclude that there have not been any developments in add-on control technology or other equipment not identified and considered during MACT development, nor any improvements in add-on controls, nor any significant changes in the cost (including cost effectiveness) of the add-on controls. Therefore, we are proposing no revisions to the Surface Coating of Metal Coil NESHAP pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6). For further discussion of the technology review results, refer to the Metal Coil Technology Review Memorandum in the Metal Coil Docket. 4. What other actions are we proposing for the Surface Coating of Metal Coil source category? In addition to the proposed actions described above, we are proposing additional revisions to the NESHAP. We are proposing to amend 40 CFR 63.5090 to clarify that 40 CFR part 63, subpart SSSS does not apply to the application to bare metal coils of markings (including letters, numbers, or symbols) that are used for product identification or for product inventory control. In the public comments on the proposed initial MACT standard subpart SSSS (40 FR 44616, July 18, 2000),31 the request was made that the EPA clarify in the final rule that subpart SSSS did not apply to incidental printing operations that applied a company name or logo, or other markings to bare metal coils for product identification or inventory control purposes. (See EPA Air Docket A–97–47, item V–B–1, Report, National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Metal Coil Surface Coating Background Information for Promulgated Standards, EPA: OAQPS, Publication number EPA–453R–02–009, May 2002.) The commenters suggested revising the definition of ‘‘coil coating operation’’ to read ‘‘the collection of equipment used to apply an organic coating to all or substantially all of the surface width of a continuous metal strip.’’ The EPA responded at the time that it agreed that these types of markings applied to bare metal were simply not considered to be part of a coil coating operation, and therefore were not intended to be covered by the coil coating NESHAP subpart SSSS. However, the EPA did not want to exclude operations that applied a printed image to a coated metal coil from coverage by subpart SSSS because they were considered integral to certain 31 See National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Metal Coil Surface Coating Background Information for Promulgated Standards, EPA–453/R–02–009, May 2002 in the Metal Coil Docket. E:\FR\FM\04JNP2.SGM 04JNP2 25936 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 107 / Tuesday, June 4, 2019 / Proposed Rules khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2 coil coating operations and part of the coil coating line and affected source. During the development of these proposed amendments to subpart SSSS, we were notified by steel coil manufacturers that the applicability of subpart SSSS to the application of identification markings to bare metal coils was still unresolved. The steel coil manufacturers asked us to amend subpart SSSS be amended to clarify this applicability issue and whether these identification markings are subject to subpart SSSS. Therefore, we are proposing to clarify that the application of identification markings (including letters, numbers, or symbols) to bare metal coils is not part of a coil coating line and not part of a coil coating affected source. However, we intend to continue to regulate application of printed images to coated steel coils as part of the coil coating affected source. Therefore, the application of letters, numbers, or symbols to a coated metal coil is still considered a coil coating process and part of the coil coating source category. In addition, we are proposing to require electronic submittal of notifications (initial and compliance status), semiannual reports, and performance test reports for metal coil surface coating facilities. We are also proposing revisions to the SSM provisions of the MACT rule in order to ensure that they are consistent with the Court decision in Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F. 3d 1019 (D.C. Cir. 2008), which vacated two provisions that exempted sources from the requirement to comply with otherwise applicable CAA section 112(d) emission standards during periods of SSM. And finally, we are proposing the IBR of optional EPA Method 18, IBR of an alternative test method, and various technical and editorial changes. Our analyses and proposed changes related to these issues are discussed in the sections below. a. Electronic Reporting Requirements The EPA is proposing that owners and operators of facilities subject to the Surface Coating of Metal Coil NESHAP submit electronic copies of initial notifications required in 40 CFR 63.9(b), notifications of compliance status required in 40 CFR 63.9(h), performance test reports, and semiannual reports through the EPA’s CDX, using the CEDRI. A description of the EPA’s CDX and the EPA’s proposed rationale and details on the addition of these electronic reporting requirements for the Surface Coating of Metal Coil source category is the same as for the Surface Coating of Metal Cans source category, as discussed in section IV.A.4.a of this VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:09 Jun 03, 2019 Jkt 247001 preamble. 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 Metal Coil Docket. No specific form is proposed at this time for the initial notifications required in 40 CFR 63.9(b). Until the EPA has completed electronic forms for these notifications, the notifications will be required to be submitted via CEDRI in PDF. If electronic forms are developed for these notifications, we will notify sources about their availability via the CEDRI website. For semiannual reports, the EPA proposes that owners or operators use the final semiannual report template that will reside in CEDRI one year after finalizing this proposed action. The Proposed Electronic Reporting Template for Surface Coating of Metal Coil Subpart SSSS Semiannual Report is available for review and comment in the Metal Cans Docket as part of this action. We specifically request comment on the format and usability of the template (e.g., filling and uploading a provided spreadsheet versus entering the required information into a fillable CEDRI web form), as well as the content, layout, and overall design of the template. Prior to availability of the final semiannual compliance report template in CEDRI, owners or operators of affected sources will be required to submit semiannual compliance reports as currently required by the rule. After development of the final semiannual compliance report template, metal coil sources will be notified about its availability via the CEDRI website. We plan to finalize a required reporting format with the final rule. The owner or operator would begin submitting reports electronically with the next report that is due, once the electronic template has been available for at least one year. For the electronic submittal of notifications of compliance status reports required in 40 CFR 63.9(h), the final semiannual report template discussed above, which will reside in CEDRI, will also contain the information required for the notifications of compliance status report and will satisfy the requirement to provide the notifications of compliance status information electronically, eliminating the need to provide a separate notifications of compliance status report. As stated above, the final semiannual report template will be available after finalizing this proposed action and sources will be required to use the form after one year. Prior to the PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 availability of the final semiannual compliance report template in CEDRI, owners and operators of affected sources will be required to submit semiannual compliance reports as currently required by the rule. As stated above, we will notify sources about the availability of the final semiannual report template via the CEDRI website. Regarding submittal of performance test reports via the EPA’s ERT, as discussed in section IV.A.4.a of this preamble for the Surface Coating of Metal Cans NESHAP, the proposal to submit performance test data electronically to the EPA applies only if the EPA has developed an electronic reporting form for the test method as listed on the EPA’s ERT website. For the Surface Coating of Metal Coil NESHAP, all of the EPA test methods listed under 40 CFR part 63, subpart SSSS, are currently supported by the ERT, except for EPA Method 25 and EPA Method 18 (an optional test method proposed in this action), which appears in the proposed text for 40 CFR 63.5160. As mentioned above, the rule proposes that should an owner or operator choose to use EPA Method 25 or EPA Method 18, then its results would be submitted in PDF using the attachment module of the ERT. Also, as discussed in section IV.A.4.a of this preamble for the Surface Coating of Metal Cans NESHAP, we are proposing to provide facilities with the ability to seek extensions for submitting electronic reports for circumstances beyond the control of the facility. In proposed 40 CFR 63.5181(d), we address the situation for facilities subject to the Surface Coating of Metal Coil NESHAP where an extension may be warranted due to outages of the EPA’s CDX or CEDRI, which may prevent access to the system and submittal of the required reports. In proposed 40 CFR 63.5181(e), we address the situation for facilities subject to the Surface Coating of Metal Coil NESHAP where an extension may be warranted due to a force majeure event, which is defined as an event that will be or has been caused by circumstances beyond the control of the affected facility, its contractors, or any entity controlled by the affected facility that prevents compliance with the requirement to submit a report electronically as required by this rule. b. SSM Requirements 1. Proposed Elimination of the SSM Exemption The EPA is proposing to eliminate the SSM exemption in the Surface Coating of Metal Coil NESHAP. The EPA’s E:\FR\FM\04JNP2.SGM 04JNP2 khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 107 / Tuesday, June 4, 2019 / Proposed Rules proposed rationale for the elimination of the SSM exemption for the Surface Coating of Metal Coil source category is the same as for the Surface Coating of Metal Cans source category, which is discussed in section IV.A.4.b.1 of this preamble. We are also proposing several revisions to Table 2 to Subpart SSSS of 40 CFR part 63 (Applicability of General Provisions to Subpart SSSS, hereafter referred to as the ‘‘General Provisions table to subpart SSSS’’) as is explained in more detail below in section IV.B.4.b.2 of this preamble. For example, we are proposing to eliminate the incorporation of the General Provisions’ requirement that the source develop an SSM plan. We are also proposing to delete 40 CFR 63.4342(h), which specifies that deviations during SSM periods are not violations. Further, we are proposing to eliminate and revise certain recordkeeping and reporting requirements related to the SSM exemption as further described below. The EPA has attempted to ensure that the provisions we are proposing to eliminate are inappropriate, unnecessary, or redundant in the absence of the SSM exemption. We are specifically seeking comment on the specific proposed deletions and revisions and also whether additional provisions should be revised to achieve the stated goal. In proposing these rule amendments, the EPA has taken into account startup and shutdown periods and, for the same reasons explained in section IV.A.4.b.1 of this preamble for the Surface Coating of Metal Cans source category, has not proposed alternate standards for those periods in the Surface Coating of Metal Coil NESHAP. Startups and shutdowns are part of normal operations for the Surface Coating of Metal Coil source category. As currently specified in 40 CFR 63.5121(a), any coating operation(s) for which you use the emission rate with add-on controls option must meet the applicable operating limits in Table 1 to 40 CFR part 63, subpart SSSS ‘‘at all times,’’ except for solvent recovery systems for which you conduct liquidliquid material balances according to 40 CFR 63.5170(e)(1). (Solvent recovery systems for which you conduct a liquidliquid material balance require a monthly calculation of the solvent recovery device’s collection and recovery efficiency for volatile organic matter.) Also, as currently specified in 40 CFR 63.3500(a)(2), any coating operation(s) for which you use the emission rate with add-on controls option or the control efficiency/outlet concentration option must be in compliance ‘‘at all times’’ with the applicable emission VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:09 Jun 03, 2019 Jkt 247001 limitations in 40 CFR 63.3500(a)(2). During startup and shutdown periods, in order for a facility (using add-on controls to meet the standards) to meet the emission and operating standards, the control device for a coating operation needs to be turned on and operating at specified levels before the facility begins coating operations, and the control equipment needs to continue to be operated until after the facility ceases coating operations. In some cases, the facility needs to run thermal oxidizers on supplemental fuel before VOC levels are sufficient for the combustion to be (nearly) selfsustaining. Note that we are also proposing new related language in 40 CFR 63.5140(b) to require that the owner or operator operate and maintain the coating operation, including pollution control equipment, at all times to minimize emissions. See section IV.A.4.b.2 of this preamble for further discussion of this proposed revision. Although no statutory language compels the EPA to set standards for malfunctions, the EPA has the discretion to do so where feasible, as discussed previously in section IV.A.4.b.1 of this preamble for the Surface Coating of Metal Can source category. It is unlikely that a malfunction would result in a violation of the standards during metal coil surface coatings operations for facilities using the compliant material ‘‘as-purchased’’ or ‘‘as-applied’’ options or the coating materials averaging option. Facilities using these options have demonstrated that the organic HAP content of each coating material as-purchased does not exceed 0.046 kg HAP per liter of solids as purchased, or that each coating material as-applied does not exceed 0.046 kg HAP per liter of solids on a rolling 12-month average basis and determined on a monthly basis, or that the average HAP content of all coating materials used does not exceed 0.046 kg HAP per liter of solids as applied based on a rolling 12-month emission rate and determined on a monthly basis. A malfunction event is more likely for metal coil coating facilities that use the emission rate with add-on controls option or the combination of compliant coatings and control device option. For add-on control options, facilities must demonstrate an overall organic HAP control efficiency of at least 98 percent, or that the oxidizer outlet HAP concentration is no greater than 20 ppmv and 100-percent capture efficiency and that operating limits are achieved continuously. For the combination option, facilities must demonstrate that the average equivalent PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 25937 emission rate does not exceed 0.046 kg HAP per liter solids on a rolling 12month average as-applied basis, determined monthly. Operating limits for the capture and control devices are listed in Table 1 to 40 CFR part 63, subpart SSSS of the Surface Coating of Metal Coil NESHAP and must be achieved continuously. The operating limits are based on maintaining an average temperature over a 3-hour block period, which must not fall below the temperature limit established by the facility during its initial performance test. We currently have no information to suggest that it is feasible or necessary to establish any type of standard for malfunctions associated with the Surface Coating of Metal Coil source category. We encourage commenters to provide any such information, if available. In the unlikely event that a source fails to comply with the applicable CAA section 112(d) standards as a result of a malfunction event, the EPA would determine an appropriate response based on, among other things, the good faith efforts of the source to minimize emissions during malfunction periods, including preventative and corrective actions, as well as root cause analyses to ascertain and rectify excess emissions. Refer to section IV.A.4.b.1 of this preamble for further discussion of the EPA’s actions in response to a source failing to comply with the applicable CAA section 112(d) standards as a result of a malfunction event for the Surface Coating of Metal Cans source category, which applies to this source category. 2. Proposed Revisions to the General Provisions Applicability Table a. 40 CFR 63.5140(b) General Duty We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table to subpart SSSS (Table 2) entry for 40 CFR 63.6(e)(1)(i) by changing the ‘‘yes’’ in column 3 to a ‘‘no.’’ Section 63.6(e)(1)(i) describes the general duty to minimize emissions. Some of the language in that section is no longer necessary or appropriate in light of the elimination of the SSM exemption. We are proposing instead to add general duty regulatory text at 40 CFR 63.5140(b) that reflects the general duty to minimize emissions while eliminating the reference to periods covered by an SSM exemption. The current language in 40 CFR 63.6(e)(1)(i) characterizes what the general duty entails during periods of SSM. With the elimination of the SSM exemption, there is no need to differentiate between normal operations, E:\FR\FM\04JNP2.SGM 04JNP2 25938 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 107 / Tuesday, June 4, 2019 / Proposed Rules startup and shutdown, and malfunction events in describing the general duty. Therefore, the language the EPA is proposing for 40 CFR 63.5140(b) does not include that language from 40 CFR 63.6(e)(1). We are also proposing to revise the General Provisions table to subpart SSSS (Table 2) entry for 40 CFR 63.6(e)(1)(ii) by changing the ‘‘yes’’ in column 3 to a ‘‘no.’’ Section 63.6(e)(1)(ii) imposes requirements that are not necessary with the elimination of the SSM exemption or are redundant with the general duty requirement being added at 40 CFR 63.5140(b). khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2 b. SSM Plan We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table to subpart SSSS (Table 2) entry for 40 CFR 63.6(e)(3) by changing the ‘‘yes’’ in column 3 to a ‘‘no.’’ Generally, these paragraphs require development of an SSM plan and specify SSM recordkeeping and reporting requirements related to the SSM plan. We are also proposing to remove from 40 CFR part 63, subpart SSSS, the current provisions requiring the SSM plan in 40 CFR 63.5180(f) and requiring reporting related to the SSM plan in 40 CFR 63.5180(f)(1). As noted, the EPA is proposing to remove the SSM exemptions. Therefore, affected units will be subject to an emission standard during such events. The applicability of a standard during such events will ensure that sources have ample incentive to plan for and achieve compliance, and, thus, the SSM plan requirements are no longer necessary. c. Compliance With Standards We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table to subpart SSSS (Table 2) entry for 40 CFR 63.6(f)(1) by changing the ‘‘yes’’ in column 3 to a ‘‘no.’’ The current language of 40 CFR 63.6(f)(1) exempts sources from non-opacity standards during periods of SSM. As discussed above, the Court in Sierra Club vacated the exemptions contained in this provision and held that the CAA requires that some CAA section 112 standards apply continuously. Consistent with Sierra Club, the EPA is proposing to revise standards in this rule to apply at all times. d. 40 CFR 63.5160 Performance Testing We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table to subpart SSSS (Table 2) entry for 40 CFR 63.7(e)(1) by changing the ‘‘yes’’ in column 3 to a ‘‘no.’’ Section 63.7(e)(1) describes performance testing VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:09 Jun 03, 2019 Jkt 247001 requirements. The EPA is instead proposing to add a performance testing requirement at 40 CFR 63.5160(d)(2). The performance testing requirements we are proposing to add differ from the General Provisions performance testing provisions in several respects. The regulatory text does not include the language in 40 CFR 63.7(e)(1) that restated the SSM exemption and language that precluded startup and shutdown periods from being considered ‘‘representative’’ for purposes of performance testing. Also, the proposed performance testing provisions will not allow performance testing during startup or shutdown. As in 40 CFR 63.7(e)(1), performance tests conducted under this subpart should not be conducted during malfunctions because conditions during malfunctions are often not representative of normal operating conditions. Section 63.7(e) requires that the owner or operator maintain records of the process information necessary to document operating conditions during the test and include in such records an explanation to support that such conditions represent normal operation. The EPA is proposing to add language clarifying that the owner or operator must make such records available to the Administrator upon request. e. Monitoring We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table to subpart SSSS (Table 2) entry for 40 CFR 63.8(a)(4) by changing the ‘‘yes’’ in column 3 to a ‘‘no.’’ Section 63.8(a)(4) describes additional monitoring requirements for control devices. Subpart SSSS of 40 CFR part 63 does not have monitoring requirements for flares. We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table to subpart SSSS (Table 2) entry for 40 CFR 63.8(c)(1) by changing the ‘‘yes’’ in column 3 to a ‘‘no.’’ The crossreferences to the general duty and SSM plan requirements in those subparagraphs are not necessary in light of other requirements of 40 CFR 63.8 that require good air pollution control practices (40 CFR 63.8(c)(1)) and that set out the requirements of a quality control program for monitoring equipment (40 CFR 63.8(d)). Further, we are proposing to revise 40 CFR 63.5150(a) to add a requirement to maintain the monitoring equipment at all times in accordance with 40 CFR 63.5140(b) and keep the necessary parts readily available for routine repairs of the monitoring equipment, consistent with the requirements in 40 CFR 63.8(c)(1)(ii). The reference to 40 CFR 63.8(c)(1)(ii) is PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 no longer needed since it is redundant to the requirement in 40 CFR 63.5150(a). We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table to subpart SSSS (Table 2) entry for 40 CFR 63.8(c)(6) by changing the ‘‘yes’’ in column 3 to a ‘‘no.’’ The reference to 40 CFR 63.8(c)(6) is no longer needed since it is redundant to the requirement in 40 CFR 63.5170 that specifies the requirements for monitoring systems for capture systems and add-on control devices at sources using these to comply. We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table to subpart SSSS (Table 2) entry for 40 CFR 63.8(c)(8) by changing the ‘‘yes’’ in column 3 to a ‘‘no.’’ The reference to 40 CFR 63.8(c)(8) is no longer needed since it is redundant to the requirement in 40 CFR 63.5180(i) that requires reporting of CEMS out-of-control periods. We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table to subpart SSSS (Table 2) entry for 40 CFR 63.8(d)– (e) by changing the ‘‘yes’’ in column 3 to a ‘‘no.’’ The requirements for quality control program and performance evaluation of CMS are not required under 40 CFR part 63, subpart SSSS. We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table to subpart SSSS (Table 2) entry for 40 CFR 63.8(g) by changing the ‘‘yes’’ in column 3 to a ‘‘no.’’ The reference to 40 CFR 63.8(c)(8) is no longer needed since it is redundant to the requirement in 40 CFR 63.5170, 63.5140, 63.5150, and 63.5150 that specify monitoring data reduction. f. 40 CFR 63.5190 Recordkeeping We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table to subpart SSSS (Table 2) entry for 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(i) by changing the ‘‘yes’’ in column 3 to a ‘‘no.’’ Section 63.10(b)(2)(i) describes the recordkeeping requirements during startup and shutdown. These recording provisions are no longer necessary because the EPA is proposing that recordkeeping and reporting applicable to normal operations will apply to startup and shutdown. In the absence of special provisions applicable to startup and shutdown, such as a startup and shutdown plan, there is no reason to retain additional recordkeeping for startup and shutdown periods. We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table to subpart SSSS (Table 2) entry for 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(ii) by changing the ‘‘yes’’ in column 3 to a ‘‘no.’’ Section 63.10(b)(2)(ii) describes the recordkeeping requirements during a malfunction, requiring a record of ‘‘the occurrence and duration of each E:\FR\FM\04JNP2.SGM 04JNP2 khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 107 / Tuesday, June 4, 2019 / Proposed Rules malfunction.’’ A similar record is already required in 40 CFR 63.5190(a)(5), which requires a record of ‘‘the date, time, and duration of each deviation,’’ which the EPA is retaining. The regulatory text in 40 CFR 63.5190(a)(5) differs from the General Provisions in that the General Provisions requires the creation and retention of a record of the occurrence and duration of each malfunction of process, air pollution control, and monitoring equipment; whereas 40 CFR 63.5190(a)(5) applies to any failure to meet an applicable standard and is requiring that the source record the date, time, and duration of the failure rather than the ‘‘occurrence.’’ The EPA is also proposing to add to 40 CFR 63.5190(a)(5) a requirement that sources also keep records that include a list of the affected source or equipment and actions taken to minimize emissions, an estimate of the quantity of each regulated pollutant emitted over the emission limit for which the source failed to meet the standard, and a description of the method used to estimate the emissions. Examples of such methods would include productloss calculations, mass balance calculations, measurements when available, or engineering judgment based on known process parameters (e.g., coating HAP content and application rates and control device efficiencies). The EPA proposes to require that sources keep records of this information to ensure that there is adequate information to allow the EPA to determine the severity of any failure to meet a standard, and to provide data that may document how the source met the general duty to minimize emissions when the source has failed to meet an applicable standard. We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table to subpart SSSS (Table 2) entry for 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(iv) by changing the ‘‘yes’’ in column 3 to a ‘‘no.’’ When applicable, the provision requires sources to record actions taken during SSM events when actions were inconsistent with their SSM plan. The requirement is no longer appropriate because SSM plans will no longer be required. The requirement previously applicable under 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(iv)(B) to record actions to minimize emissions and record corrective actions is now applicable by reference to 40 CFR 63.5190(a)(5). We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table to subpart SSSS (Table 2) entry for 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(v) by changing the ‘‘yes’’ in column 3 to a ‘‘no.’’ When applicable, the provision requires sources to record actions taken during SSM events to VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:09 Jun 03, 2019 Jkt 247001 show that actions taken were consistent with their SSM plan. The requirement is no longer appropriate because SSM plans will no longer be required. We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table to subpart SSSS (Table 2) entry for 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(x)–(xiii) by changing the ‘‘yes’’ in column 3 to a ‘‘no.’’ When applicable, the provision requires sources to record actions taken during SSM events to show that actions taken were consistent with their SSM plan. The requirement is no longer appropriate because SSM plans will no longer be required. g. 40 CFR 63.5180 Reporting We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table to subpart SSSS (Table 2) entry for 40 CFR 63.10(d)(5) by changing the ‘‘yes’’ in column 3 to a ‘‘no.’’ Section 63.10(d)(5) describes the reporting requirements for startups, shutdowns, and malfunctions. To replace the General Provisions reporting requirement, the EPA is proposing to add reporting requirements to 40 CFR 63.5180(f). The replacement language differs from the General Provisions requirement in that it eliminates periodic SSM reports as a stand-alone report. We are proposing language that requires sources that fail to meet an applicable standard at any time to report the information concerning such events in the semiannual compliance report already required under this rule. Subpart SSSS of 40 CFR part 63 currently requires reporting of the date, time period, and cause of each deviation. We are clarifying in the rule that, if the cause of a deviation from a standard is unknown, this should be specified in the report. We are also proposing to change ‘‘date and time period’’ or ‘‘date and time’’ to ‘‘date, time, and duration’’ (see proposed revisions to 40 CFR 63.5180(h)(2), 63.5180(h)(3), 63.5180(i)(3), and 63.5180(i)(4)). Further, we are proposing that the report must also contain the number of deviations from the standard and a list of the affected sources or equipment. For deviation reports addressing deviations from an applicable emission limit in Table 1 to 40 CFR 63.5170 or operating limit in Table 1 to 40 CFR part 63, subpart SSSS, we are proposing that the report also include an estimate of the quantity of each regulated pollutant emitted over any emission limit for which the source failed to meet the standard, and a description of the method used to estimate the emissions. Regarding the proposed new requirement discussed above to estimate the quantity of each regulated pollutant PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 25939 emitted over any emission limit for which the source failed to meet the standard, and a description of the method used to estimate the emissions, examples of such methods would include product-loss calculations, mass balance calculations, measurements when available, or engineering judgment based on known process parameters (e.g., coating HAP content and application rates and control device efficiencies). The EPA is proposing this requirement to ensure that there is adequate information to determine compliance, to allow the EPA to determine the severity of the failure to meet an applicable standard, and to provide data that may document how the source met the general duty to minimize emissions during a failure to meet an applicable standard. We will no longer require owners or operators to determine whether actions taken to correct a malfunction are consistent with an SSM plan, because plans would no longer be required. The proposed amendments, therefore, eliminate 40 CFR 63.5180(f)(1) that requires reporting of whether the source deviated from its SSM plan, including required actions to communicate with the Administrator, and the cross reference to 40 CFR 63.10(d)(5) that contains the description of the previously required SSM report format and submittal schedule from this section. These specifications are no longer necessary because the events will be reported in otherwise required reports with similar format and submittal requirements. We are proposing to remove the requirements in 40 CFR 63.5180(i)(6) that deviation reports must specify whether a deviation from an operating limit occurred during a period of SSM. We are also proposing to remove the requirements in 40 CFR 63.5180(i)(6) to break down the total duration of deviations into the startup and shutdown categories. As discussed above in this section, we are proposing to require reporting of the cause of each deviation. Further, the startup and shutdown categories no longer apply because these periods are proposed to be considered normal operation, as discussed in section IV.A.4.b.1 of this preamble for the Surface Coating of Metal Cans source category, which also applies to this source category. c. Technical Amendments to the Metal Coil NESHAP We propose to amend 40 CFR 63.5160(d)(1)(vi) to add the option of conducting EPA Method 18 of appendix A to 40 CFR part 60, ‘‘Measurement of Gaseous Organic Compound Emissions E:\FR\FM\04JNP2.SGM 04JNP2 khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2 25940 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 107 / Tuesday, June 4, 2019 / Proposed Rules by Gas Chromatography,’’ to measure and then subtract methane emissions from measured total gaseous organic mass emissions as carbon. Facilities using the emission rate with add-on control compliance option can use either EPA Method 25 or EPA Method 25A to measure control device destruction efficiency. Unlike EPA Method 25, EPA Method 25A does not exclude methane from the measurement of organic emissions. Because exhaust streams from coating operations may contain methane from natural gas combustion, we are proposing to allow facilities the option to measure methane using EPA Method 18 and to subtract the methane from the emissions as part of their compliance calculations. We also propose to revise the format of references to test methods in 40 CFR part 60. The current references in 40 CFR 63.5160(d)(1) to EPA Methods 1, 1A, 2, 2A, 2C, 2D, 2F, 2G, 3, 3A, 3B, 4, 25, and 25A specify that each method is in ‘‘appendix A’’ of 40 CFR part 60. Appendix A of 40 CFR part 60 has been divided into appendices A–1 through A–8. We propose to revise each reference to appendix A to indicate which of the eight sections of appendix A applies to the method. We propose to amend 40 CFR 63.5160(b)(1)(i) and 63.5160(b)(4), which describe how to demonstrate compliance with the emission limitations using the compliant material option, to remove references to OSHAdefined carcinogens as specified in 29 CFR 1910.1200(d)(4). The reference to OSHA-defined carcinogens as specified in 29 CFR 1910.1200(d)(4) is intended to specify which compounds must be included in calculating total organic HAP content of a coating material if they are present at 0.1 percent or greater by mass. We propose to remove this reference because 29 CFR 1910.1200(d)(4) has been amended and no longer readily defines which compounds are carcinogens. We propose to replace these references to OSHA-defined carcinogens at 29 CFR 1910.1200(d)(4) with a list (in proposed new Table 3 to 40 CFR part 63, subpart SSSS) of those organic HAP that must be included in calculating total organic HAP content of a coating material if they are present at 0.1 percent or greater by mass. We propose to include organic HAP in proposed Table 3 to 40 CFR part 63, subpart SSSS if they were categorized in the EPA’s Prioritized Chronic DoseResponse Values for Screening Risk Assessments (dated May 9, 2014) as a ‘‘human carcinogen,’’ ‘‘probable human carcinogen,’’ or ‘‘possible human carcinogen’’ according to The Risk VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:09 Jun 03, 2019 Jkt 247001 Assessment Guidelines of 1986 (EPA/ 600/8–87/045, August 1987),32 or as ‘‘carcinogenic to humans,’’ ‘‘likely to be carcinogenic to humans,’’ or with ‘‘suggestive evidence of carcinogenic potential’’ according to the Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment (EPA/ 630/P–03/001F, March 2005). Current 40 CFR 63.5190 specifies records that must be maintained. We propose to add clarification to this provision at 40 CFR 63.5190(c) that specifies the allowance to retain electronic records applies to all records that were submitted as reports electronically via the EPA’s CEDRI. We also propose to add text to the same provision clarifying that 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. We propose to clarify and harmonize the general requirement in 40 CFR 63.5140(a) with the reporting requirement in 40 CFR 63.5180(g)(2)(v) and 40 CFR 63.5180(h)(4) and the recordkeeping requirement in 40 CFR 63.5190(a)(5). Section 40 CFR 63.5140(a) currently states that, ‘‘You must be in compliance with the standards in this subpart at all times . . .’’. We propose to add clarification to this text to read; ‘‘You must be in compliance with the applicable emission standards in 40 CFR 63.5120 and the operating limits in Table 1 of this subpart at all times.’’ If there were no deviations from the applicable emission limit, 40 CFR 63.5180(g)(2)(v) requires you to submit a semiannual compliance report containing specified information including, ‘‘A statement that there were no deviations from the standards during the reporting period, and that no CEMS were inoperative, inactive, malfunctioning, out-of-control, repaired, or adjusted.’’ We are proposing to revise the text to read, ‘‘A statement that there were no deviations from the applicable emission limit in § 63.5120 or the applicable operating limit(s) established according to § 63.5121 during the reporting period, and that no CEMS were inoperative, inactive, malfunctioning, out-of-control, repaired, or adjusted.’’ Conforming changes are also being proposed to the reporting requirement at 40 CFR 63.5180(h)(4) and the recordkeeping requirement at 40 CFR 63.5190(a)(5). We propose to revise one instance in 40 CFR 63.5160(e) regarding 32 See https://www.epa.gov/fera/dose-responseassessment-assessing-health-risks-associatedexposure-hazardous-air-pollutants. PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 performance testing in which an erroneous rule citation, ‘‘§ 63.5170(h)(2) through (4),’’ is specified. Section 63.5170 provides requirements to demonstrate compliance with the standards for each compliance option and refers back to the capture efficiency procedure in 40 CFR 63.5160(e). Sections 63.5170(h)(2) through (4) pertain to the mass of coatings and solvents used in the liquid-liquid material balance calculation of HAP in Equation 10 of the subpart and are unrelated to capture efficiency. Sections 63.5170(g)(2) through (4) include capture efficiency determinations which are not referenced by 40 CFR 63.5160(e); therefore, we propose to change the erroneous citation from ‘‘§ 63.5170(h)(2) through (4)’’ to ‘‘§ 63.5170(g)(2) through (4).’’ We are proposing to amend 40 CFR 63.5130(a) to clarify that the compliance date for existing affected sources is June 10, 2005. We are proposing to amend 40 CFR 63.5160(d)(3)(ii)(D) to correct a typographical error in a reference to paragraphs ‘‘(d)(3)(ii)(D)(1 (3).’’ The correct reference is to paragraphs (d)(3)(ii)(D)(1)–(3). We are proposing to amend 40 CFR 63.5170(c)(1) and (2) to correct the cross references to 40 CFR 63.5120(a)(1) or (2). The correct cross references are to 40 CFR 63.5120(a)(1) or (3), because these are the two compliance options relying on the overall organic HAP control efficiency and the oxidizer outlet HAP concentration. We are proposing to amend Equation 11 in 40 CFR 63.5170 so that the value calculated by the equation is correctly identified as ‘‘He’’ instead of just ‘‘e.’’ d. Ongoing Emissions Compliance Demonstrations As part of an ongoing effort to improve compliance with various federal air emission regulations, the EPA reviewed the compliance demonstration requirements in the Surface Coating of Metal Coil NESHAP. Currently, if a source owner or operator chooses to comply with the standards using add-on controls, the results of an initial performance test are used to determine compliance; however, the rule does not require ongoing periodic performance testing for these emission capture systems and add-on controls. In this action we are proposing to require periodic testing of add-on control devices, in addition to the one-time initial emissions and capture efficiency testing, and ongoing temperature measurement, to ensure ongoing compliance with the standards. E:\FR\FM\04JNP2.SGM 04JNP2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 107 / Tuesday, June 4, 2019 / Proposed Rules khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2 As described more fully in section IV.A.4.d of this preamble for the Surface Coating of Metal Cans source category, the EPA documented potential operational problems associated with control devices in several publications; 33 the ICAC, in their comments on a separate rulemaking on the proposed revisions related to the NESHAP General Provisions (72 FR 69, January 3, 2007), commented that ongoing maintenance and checks of control devices are necessary in order to ensure emissions control technology, including both thermal and catalytic oxidizers, remains effective; 34 and state websites list CAA enforcement information that further corroborates the potential problems identified by the EPA and ICAC comments and conclusions. Given the need for vigilance in maintaining equipment to stem degradation, the EPA is proposing to require periodic testing of add-on control devices, in addition to the onetime initial emissions and capture efficiency testing and ongoing temperature measurement, to ensure ongoing compliance with the Surface Coating of Metal Coil NESHAP. In this action, the EPA is requiring periodic performance testing of add-on control devices on a regular frequency (e.g., every 5 years) to ensure the equipment continues to operate properly for facilities using the emission rate with add-on controls compliance option. We note that about half of the state operating permits for existing metal coil coating sources already require such testing every 5 years synchronized with 40 CFR part 70 air operating permit renewals. This proposed periodic testing requirement includes an exception to the general requirement for periodic testing for facilities using the catalytic oxidizer control option at 40 CFR 63.5160(d)(3)(ii) and following the catalyst maintenance procedures in 40 CFR 63.5160(d)(3)(ii)(C). This exception is due to the catalyst maintenance procedures that already require annual testing of the catalyst and other 33 See Control Techniques for Volatile Organic Compound Emissions from Stationary Sources, EPA/453/R–92–018, December 1992, Control Technologies for Emissions from Stationary Sources, EPA/625/6–91/014, June 1991, and Survey of Control for Low Concentration Organic Vapor Gas Streams, EPA–456/R–95–003, May 1995. These documents can be found in the Metal Cans and Metal Coil dockets for this action. 34 See Docket Item No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2004– 0094–0173, available at www.regulations.gov. A copy of the ICAC’s comments on the proposed revisions to the General Provisions is also included in the Metal Cans and Metal Coil Dockets for this action. VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:09 Jun 03, 2019 Jkt 247001 maintenance procedures that provide ongoing demonstrations that the control system is operating properly and may, thus, be considered comparable to conducting a performance test. The proposed periodic performance testing requirement allows an exception from periodic testing for facilities using instruments to continuously measure emissions. Such CEMS would show actual emissions. The use of CEMS to demonstrate compliance would obviate the need for periodic oxidizer testing. Moreover, installation and operation of a CEMS with a timesharing component, such that values from more than one oxidizer exhaust could be tabulated in a recurring frequency, could prove less expensive (estimated to have an annual cost below $15,000) than ongoing oxidizer testing. This proposed requirement would not require periodic testing or CEMS monitoring of facilities using the ‘‘as purchased’’ or ‘‘as applied’’ compliant coatings options because these compliance options do not use any addon controls or control efficiency measurements in the compliance calculations. The proposed periodic performance testing requirement would require that facilities complying with the standards using emission capture systems and add-on controls and which are not already on a 5-year testing schedule to conduct the first of the periodic performance tests within 3 years of the effective date of the revised standards. Afterward, they would conduct the periodic testing before they renew their operating permits, but no longer than 5 years following the previous performance test. Additionally, facilities that have already tested as a condition of their permit within the last 2 years before the effective date would be permitted to maintain their current 5year schedule and not be required to move up the date of the next test to the 3-year date specified above. This proposed requirement would require periodic air emissions testing to measure organic HAP destruction or removal efficiency at the inlet and outlet of the add-on control device, or measurement of the control device outlet concentration of organic HAP. The emissions would be measured as total gaseous organic mass emissions as carbon using either EPA Method 25 or 25A of appendix A–7 to 40 CFR part 60, which are the methods currently required for the initial compliance demonstration. We estimate that the cost to perform a control device emissions destruction or removal efficiency test using EPA Method 25 or 25A would be PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 25941 approximately $19,000 per control device. The cost estimate is included in the memorandum titled Draft Costs/ Impacts of the 40 CFR part 63 subparts KKKK and SSSS Monitoring Review Revisions, in the Metal Coil Docket. We have reviewed the operating permits for facilities subject to the Surface Coating of Metal Coil NESHAP, and we found that about one-half of the affected sources currently using emission capture systems and add-on controls are required to conduct periodic control device performance tests as a condition of their 40 CFR part 70 operating permits. We estimate that 21 metal coil coating facilities with 30 add-on control devices currently are not required to conduct periodic testing of their control devices as a condition of their permit renewal. Periodic performance tests ensure that all control systems used to comply with the NESHAP would be properly maintained over time, thereby reducing the potential for acute emissions episodes and noncompliance. We are requesting comment on adding periodic testing of add-on control devices to the Surface Coating of Metal Coil NESHAP and on the suggested 5year schedule for the periodic testing. e. IBR of Alternative Test Methods Under 1 CFR Part 51 The EPA is proposing new and updated test methods for the Surface Coating of Metal Coil NESHAP that include IBR. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is proposing to add the following optional EPA method and incorporate by reference the VCS described in the amendments to 40 CFR 63.14: • EPA Method 18 of appendix A to 40 CFR part 60, Measurement of Gaseous Organic Compound Emissions by Gas Chromatography, proposed for 40 CFR 63.5160(d)(vi); • ASTM Method D1475–13, Standard Test Method for Density of Liquid Coatings, Inks, and Related Products, proposed to be IBR approved for 40 CFR 63.5160(c); • ASTM D2111–10 (2015), Standard Test Methods for Specific Gravity of Halogenated Organic Solvents and Their Admixtures, proposed to be IBR approved for 40 CFR 63.5160(c); • ASTM D2369–10 (2015), Test Method for Volatile Content of Coatings, proposed to be IBR approved for 40 CFR 63.5160(b)(2); • ASTM D2697–03 (2014), Standard Test Method for Volume Nonvolatile Matter in Clear or Pigmented Coatings, proposed to be IBR approved for 40 CFR 63.5160(c); and E:\FR\FM\04JNP2.SGM 04JNP2 25942 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 107 / Tuesday, June 4, 2019 / Proposed Rules khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2 • ASTM D6093–97 (2016), Standard Test Method for Percent Volume Nonvolatile Matter in Clear or Pigmented Coatings Using Helium Gas Pycnometer, proposed to be IBR approved for 40 CFR 63.5160(c). Older versions of ASTM methods D2697 and D6093 were incorporated by reference when the Surface Coating of Metal Coil NESHAP was originally promulgated (67 FR 39794, June 10, 2002). We are proposing to replace the older versions of these methods with updated versions, which requires IBR revisions. The updated version of the method replaces the older version in the same paragraph of the rule text. We are also proposing the addition of EPA Method 18 and incorporating by reference ASTM methods D1475, D2111, and D2369 to the Surface Coating of Metal Coil NESHAP for the first time in this rulemaking. Refer to section VIII.J of this preamble for further discussion of these VCS. 5. What compliance dates are we proposing? The EPA is proposing that affected sources must comply with all of the amendments, with the exception of the proposed electronic format for submitting semiannual compliance reports, no later than 181 days after the effective date of the final rule, or upon startup, whichever is later. All affected facilities would have to continue to meet the current requirements of 40 CFR part 63, subpart SSSS until the applicable compliance date of the amended rule. The final action is not expected to be a ‘‘major rule’’ as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2), so the effective date of the final rule will be the promulgation date as specified in CAA section 112(d)(10). For existing sources, we are proposing two changes that would impact ongoing compliance requirements for 40 CFR part 63, subpart SSSS. As discussed elsewhere in this preamble, we are proposing to add a requirement that notifications, performance test results, and semiannual compliance reports be submitted electronically. We are proposing that the semiannual compliance report be submitted electronically using a new template, which is available for review and comment as part of this action. We are also proposing to change the requirements for SSM by removing the exemption from the requirements to meet the standard during SSM periods and by removing the requirement to develop and implement an SSM plan. Our experience with similar industries that are required to convert reporting mechanisms to install necessary VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:09 Jun 03, 2019 Jkt 247001 hardware and software, become familiar with the process of submitting performance test results electronically through the EPA’s CEDRI, test these new electronic submission capabilities, and reliably employ electronic reporting shows that a time period of a minimum of 90 days, and, more typically, 180 days is generally necessary to successfully accomplish these revisions. Our experience with similar industries further shows that this sort of regulated facility generally requires a time period of 180 days to read and understand the amended rule requirements; to evaluate their operations to ensure that they can meet the standards during periods of startup and shutdown as defined in the rule and make any necessary adjustments; and to update their operation, maintenance, and monitoring plan to reflect the revised requirements. The EPA recognizes the confusion that multiple different compliance dates for individual requirements would create and the additional burden such an assortment of dates would impose. From our assessment of the timeframe needed for compliance with the entirety of the revised requirements, the EPA considers a period of 180 days to be the most expeditious compliance period practicable and, thus, is proposing that existing affected sources be in compliance with all of this regulation’s revised requirements within 181 days of the regulation’s effective date. We solicit comment on these proposed compliance periods, and we specifically request submission of information from sources in this source category regarding specific actions that would need to be undertaken to comply with the proposed amended requirements and the time needed to make the adjustments for compliance with any of the revised requirements. We note that information provided may result in changes to the proposed compliance dates. V. Summary of Cost, Environmental, and Economic Impacts A. What are the affected sources? Currently, five major sources subject to the Surface Coating of Metal Cans NESHAP are operating in the United States. The affected source under the NESHAP is the collection of all coating operations; all storage containers and mixing vessels in which coatings, thinners, and cleaning materials are stored or mixed; all manual and automated equipment and containers used for conveying coatings, thinners, and cleaning materials; and all storage containers and all manual and automated equipment and containers PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 used for conveying waste materials generated by a coating operation. A coating operation is defined as the equipment used to apply coating to a metal can or end (including decorative tins), or metal crown or closure, and to dry or cure the coating after application. A coating operation always includes at least the point at which a coating is applied and all subsequent points in the affected source where organic HAP emissions from that coating occur. There may be multiple coating operations in an affected source. Currently, 48 major sources subject to the Surface Coating of Metal Coil NESHAP are operating in the United States. The affected source under the NESHAP is the collection of all the coil coating lines at a facility, including the equipment used to apply an organic coating to the surface of metal coil. A coil coating line includes a web unwind or feed section, a series of one or more work stations, any associated curing oven, wet section, and quench station. A coil coating line does not include ancillary operations such as mixing/ thinning, cleaning, wastewater treatment, and storage of coating material. Metal coil is a continuous metal strip that is at least 0.15 mm (0.006 inch) thick, which is packaged in a roll or coil prior to coating. Material less than 0.15 mm (0.006 inch) thick is considered metal foil, not metal coil. The NESHAP applies to coating lines on which more than 15 percent of the material coated, based on surface area, meets the definition of metal coil. There may be multiple coating operations in an affected source. B. What are the air quality impacts? At the current level of control, estimated emissions of volatile organic HAP from the Surface Coating of Metal Cans source category are approximately 77 tpy. Current estimated emissions of volatile organic HAP from the Surface Coating of Metal Coil source category are approximately 291 tpy. The proposed amendments require that all 53 major sources in the Surface Coating of Metal Cans and Surface Coating of Metal Coil source categories comply with the relevant emission standards at all times, including periods of SSM. We were unable to quantify the emissions that occur during periods of SSM or the specific emissions reductions that would occur as a result of this action. However, eliminating the SSM exemption has the potential to reduce emissions by requiring facilities to meet the applicable standard during SSM periods. Indirect or secondary air emissions impacts are impacts that would result E:\FR\FM\04JNP2.SGM 04JNP2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 107 / Tuesday, June 4, 2019 / Proposed Rules khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2 from the increased electricity usage associated with the operation of control devices (e.g., increased secondary emissions of criteria pollutants from power plants). Energy impacts consist of the electricity and steam needed to operate control devices and other equipment. The proposed amendments would have no effect on the energy needs of the affected facilities in either of the two source categories and would, therefore, have no indirect or secondary air emissions impacts. C. What are the cost impacts? We estimate that each facility in these two source categories will experience costs as a result of these proposed amendments that are estimated as part of the reporting and recordkeeping costs. Each facility will experience costs to read and understand the rule amendments. Costs associated with elimination of the SSM exemption were estimated as part of the reporting and recordkeeping costs and include time for re-evaluating previously developed SSM record systems. Costs associated with the requirement to electronically submit notifications and semi-annual compliance reports using CEDRI were estimated as part of the reporting and recordkeeping costs and include time for becoming familiar with CEDRI and the reporting template for semi-annual compliance reports. The recordkeeping and reporting costs are presented in section V.III.C of this preamble. We are also proposing a requirement for performance testing no less frequently than every 5 years for sources in each source category using the addon controls compliance options. We estimate that one facility subject to the Metal Can Surface Coating NESHAP and using three add-on control devices would incur costs to conduct control device performance testing because it is using the emission rate with add-on controls compliance option and is not required by its permit to conduct testing every 5 years. We estimate that 21 major source facilities subject to the Surface Coating of Metal Coil NESHAP would incur costs to conduct periodic testing because they are currently using the emission rate with add-on controls compliance option and are not required by their permits to conduct testing every 5 years. These 21 metal coil coating facilities have a total of 30 add-on controls. This total does not include facilities in the Surface Coating of Metal Coil source category that have add-on controls and are currently required to perform periodic performance testing as a condition of their state operating permit. The cost for a facility to conduct a destruction or removal efficiency VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:09 Jun 03, 2019 Jkt 247001 performance test using EPA Method 25 or 25A is estimated to be about $19,000, with tests of additional control devices at the same facility costing 25 percent less due to reduced travel costs. The total cost for the one metal can surface coating facility to test three add-on control devices in a single year would be $47,000. The total cost for all 21 facilities to test 30 add-on control devices in a single year, plus two retests to account for 5 percent of control devices failing to pass the first test, would be $560,000. The total annualized testing cost is approximately $11,000 per year for the Metal Can Surface Coating source category, and $130,000 per year for the Metal Coil Surface Coating source category, including retests. In addition to the testing costs, each facility performing a test will have an additional $5,500 in reporting costs per facility in the year in which the test occurs. For further information on the potential costs, see the cost tables in the memoranda titled Estimated Costs/Impacts of the 40 CFR part 63 Subparts KKKK and SSSS Monitoring Review Revisions, February 2019, and the Economic Impact and Small Business Screening Assessments for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Metal Cans Coating Plants (Subpart KKKK) and the Economic Impact and Small Business Screening Assessments for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Metal Coil Coating Plants (Subpart SSSS) in the Metal Cans and Metal Coil Dockets. D. What are the economic impacts? The economic impact analysis is designed to inform decision makers about the potential economic consequences of a regulatory action. For the current proposals, the EPA estimated the cost of becoming familiar with the rule and re-evaluating previously developed SSM record systems and performing periodic emissions testing at certain facilities with add-on controls that are not already required to perform testing. To assess the maximum potential impact, the largest cost expected to be experienced in any one year is compared to the total sales for the ultimate owner of the affected facilities to estimate the total burden for each facility. For the proposed revisions to the NESHAP for the Surface Coating of Metal Cans, the total annualized cost is estimated to be $11,000 for performance testing in year 3 for the five affected entities. The five affected facilities are owned by three different parent companies, and the total costs associated with the proposed requirements range from 0.00002 to 0.77 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 25943 percent of annual sales revenue per ultimate owner. 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. For the proposed revisions to the NESHAP for the Surface Coating of Metal Coil, the total annualized cost is estimated to be $130,000 for performance testing in year 3 for the 48 affected entities. The 48 affected facilities are owned by 25 different parent companies, and the total costs associated with the proposed requirements range from 0.00001 to 0.28 percent of annual sales revenue per ultimate owner. 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. The EPA also 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. One of the facilities potentially affected by the proposed revisions to the NESHAP for the Surface Coating of Metal Cans is a small entity. Ten of the facilities potentially affected by the proposed revisions to the NESHAP for the Surface Coating of Metal Coil are small entities. However, the annualized costs associated with the proposed requirements for the seven ultimate owners of these eleven affected small entities range from 0.0029 to 0.77 percent of annual sales revenues per ultimate owner. Therefore, there are no significant economic impacts on a substantial number of small entities from these proposed amendments. More information and details of this analysis is provided in the technical documents titled Economic Impact and Small Business Screening Assessments for Proposed Amendments to the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for the Surface Coating of Metal Cans (Subpart KKKK) and Economic Impact and Small Business Screening Assessments for Proposed Amendments to the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for the Surface Coating of Metal Coil (Subpart SSSS), available in the Metal Cans and Metal Coil Dockets, respectively. E. What are the benefits? As stated above in section V.B. of this preamble, we were unable to quantify the specific emissions reductions associated with eliminating the SSM exemption, although this proposed change has the potential to reduce emissions of volatile organic HAP. E:\FR\FM\04JNP2.SGM 04JNP2 25944 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 107 / Tuesday, June 4, 2019 / Proposed Rules Because these proposed amendments are not considered economically significant, as defined by Executive Order 12866, we did not monetize the benefits of reducing these emissions. This does not mean that there are no benefits associated with the potential reduction in volatile organic HAP from this rule. VI. Request for Comments We solicit comments on this proposed action. In addition to general comments on this proposed action, we are also interested in additional data that may improve the risk assessments and other analyses. We are specifically interested in receiving any improvements to the data used in the site-specific emissions profiles used for risk modeling. Such data should include supporting documentation in sufficient detail to allow characterization of the quality and representativeness of the data or information. Section VII of this preamble provides more information on submitting data. VII. Submitting Data Corrections khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2 The site-specific emissions profiles used in the source category risk and demographic analyses and instructions are available for download on the RTR website at https://www3.epa.gov/ttn/ atw/rrisk/rtrpg.html. The data files include detailed information for each HAP emissions release point for the facilities in these source categories. If you believe that the data are not representative or are inaccurate, please identify the data in question, provide your reason for concern, and provide any ‘‘improved’’ data that you have, if available. When you submit data, we request that you provide documentation of the basis for the revised values to support your suggested changes. To submit comments on the data downloaded from the RTR website, complete the following steps: 1. Within this downloaded file, enter suggested revisions to the data fields appropriate for that information. 2. Fill in the commenter information fields for each suggested revision (i.e., commenter name, commenter organization, commenter email address, commenter phone number, and revision comments). 3. Gather documentation for any suggested emissions revisions (e.g., performance test reports, material balance calculations). 4. Send the entire downloaded file with suggested revisions in Microsoft® Access format and all accompanying documentation to the Metal Cans Docket or Metal Coil Docket, as applicable, through the method described in the ADDRESSES section of this preamble. 5. If you are providing comments on a single facility or multiple facilities, you need VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:09 Jun 03, 2019 Jkt 247001 only submit one file for all facilities. The file should contain all suggested changes for all sources at that facility (or facilities). We request that all data revision comments be submitted in the form of updated Microsoft® Excel files that are generated by the Microsoft® Access file. These files are provided on the RTR website at https:// www3.epa.gov/ttn/atw/rrisk/rtrpg.html. VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews Additional information about these statutes and Executive Orders can be found at https://www.epa.gov/lawsregulations/laws-and-executive-orders. A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review This action is not a significant regulatory action and was, therefore, not submitted to OMB for review. B. Executive Order 13771: Reducing Regulations and Controlling Regulatory Costs This action is not expected to be an Executive Order 13771 regulatory action because this action is not significant under Executive Order 12866. C. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) The information collection activities in this proposal have been submitted for approval to OMB under the PRA, as discussed for each source category covered by this proposal in sections VIII.C.1 through 2. 1. Surface Coating of Metal Cans The ICR document that the EPA prepared has been assigned EPA ICR number 2079.07. You can find a copy of the ICR in the Metal Cans Docket (Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2017– 0684), and it is briefly summarized here. As part of the RTR for the Surface Coating of Metal Cans NESHAP, the EPA is not proposing to revise the emission limit requirements. The EPA is proposing to revise the SSM provisions of the rule and proposing the use of electronic data reporting for future performance test data submittals, notifications, and reports. This information is being collected to assure compliance with 40 CFR part 63, subpart KKKK. Respondents/affected entities: Facilities performing surface coating of metal cans. Respondent’s obligation to respond: Mandatory (40 CFR part 63, subpart KKKK). Estimated number of respondents: In the 3 years after the amendments are final, approximately five respondents per year would be subject to the PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 NESHAP and no additional respondents are expected to become subject to the NESHAP during that period. Frequency of response: The total number of responses in year 1 is 15 and in year 3 is one. Year 2 would have no responses. Total estimated burden: The average annual burden to the five metal can facilities over the 3 years if the amendments are finalized is estimated to be 54 hours (per year). The average annual burden to the Agency over the 3 years after the amendments are final is estimated to be 23 hours (per year). Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b). Total estimated cost: The average annual cost to the metal can facilities is $6,200 in labor costs in the first 3 years after the amendments are final. The average annual capital and operation and maintenance (O&M) costs is $15,600. The total average annual Agency cost over the first 3 years after the amendments are final is estimated to be $1,090. 2. Surface Coating of Metal Coil The ICR document that the EPA prepared has been assigned EPA ICR number 1957.09. You can find a copy of the ICR in the Metal Coil Docket (Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2017–0685), and it is briefly summarized here. As part of the RTR for the Surface Coating of Metal Coil NESHAP, the EPA is not proposing to revise the emission limit requirements. The EPA is proposing to revise the SSM provisions of the rule and proposing the use of electronic data reporting for future performance test data submittals, notifications, and reports. This information is being collected to assure compliance with 40 CFR part 63, subpart SSSS. Respondents/affected entities: Facilities performing surface coating of metal coil. Respondent’s obligation to respond: Mandatory (40 CFR part 63, subpart SSSS). Estimated number of respondents: In the 3 years after the amendments are final, approximately 48 respondents per year will be subject to the NESHAP and no additional respondents are expected to become subject to the NESHAP during that period. Frequency of response: The total number of responses in year 1 is 144 and in year 3 is 69. Years 2 would have no responses. Total estimated burden: The average annual burden to the 48 metal coil coating facilities over the 3 years if the amendments are finalized is estimated to be 738 hours (per year). The average annual burden to the Agency over the 3 E:\FR\FM\04JNP2.SGM 04JNP2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 107 / Tuesday, June 4, 2019 / Proposed Rules years after the amendments are final is estimated to be 179 hours (per year) for the Agency. Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b). Total estimated cost: The average annual cost to the 48 metal coil coating facilities is $85,000 in labor costs and $186,000 in capital and O&M costs in the first 3 years after the amendments are final. The average annual Agency cost over the first 3 years after the amendments are final is estimated to be $8,530. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for the EPA’s regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9. Submit your comments on the Agency’s need for this information, the accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden to the EPA using the dockets identified at the beginning of this rule. You may also send your ICR-related comments to OMB’s Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs via email to OIRA_ submission@omb.eop.gov, Attention: Desk Officer for the EPA. Since OMB is required to make a decision concerning the ICR between 30 and 60 days after receipt, OMB must receive comments no later than July 5, 2019. The EPA will respond to any ICR-related comments in the final rule. khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2 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 annualized costs associated with the proposed requirements in this action for the affected small entities is described in section V.D. above and additional detail is provided in the economic impact memorandums associated with this action. E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) This action does not contain an unfunded mandate of $100 million or more as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531–1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. The action imposes no enforceable duty on any state, local, or tribal governments or the private sector. F. Executive Order 13132: Federalism This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between the national government and the states, or on the VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:09 Jun 03, 2019 Jkt 247001 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 any of the industries that would be affected by this action (metal can surface coating and metal coil surface coating). 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 C, IV.A.1 and 2, IV.B.1 and 2, and IV.C.1 and 2 of this preamble and are further documented in the Metal Cans Risk Assessment Report and the Metal Coil Risk Assessment Report in the Metal Cans Docket and the Metal Coil Docket, respectively. I. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211 because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866. J. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) and 1 CFR Part 51 This rulemaking involves technical standards. The EPA is proposing to amend the Surface Coating of Metal Coil NESHAP in this action to provide owners and operators with the option of conducting two new methods: EPA Method 18 of appendix A to 40 CFR part 60, ‘‘Measurement of Gaseous Organic Compound Emissions by Gas Chromatography’’ to measure and subtract methane emissions from measured total gaseous organic mass emissions as carbon, and ASTM Method D1475–13, ‘‘Standard Test Method for Density of Liquid Coatings, Inks, and Related Products.’’ We are proposing to add these two standards to the Surface Coating of Metal Coil NESHAP only, as these methods are already provided in PO 00000 Frm 00043 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 25945 the Surface Coating of Metal Cans NESHAP. The EPA is also proposing to amend the Surface Coating of Metal Cans NESHAP to update three ASTM test methods and amend the Surface Coating of Metal Coil NESHAP to update two ASTM test methods. We are proposing to update ASTM Method D1475–90, ‘‘Standard Test Method for Density of Liquid Coatings, Inks, and Related Products,’’ in the Surface Coating of Metal Cans NESHAP by incorporating by reference ASTM Method D1475–13. The updated version, ASTM Method D1475–13 clarifies units of measure and reduces the number of determinations required. We are proposing to update ASTM Method D2697–86 (1998), ‘‘Standard Test Method for Volume Nonvolatile Matter in Clear or Pigmented Coatings,’’ in both the Surface Coating of Metal Cans and the Surface Coating of Metal Coil NESHAP by incorporating by reference ASTM D2697–03 (2014), which is the updated version of the previously approved method. We are also proposing to update ASTM Method D6093–97 (2003), ‘‘Standard Test Method for Percent Volume Nonvolatile Matter in Clear or Pigmented Coatings Using Helium Gas Pycnometer,’’ in both the Surface Coating of Metal Cans and the Surface Coating of Metal Coil NESHAP by incorporating by reference ASTM D6093–97 (2016), which is the updated version of the previously approved method. ASTM D2697–03 (2014) is a test method that can be used to determine the volume of nonvolatile matter in clear and pigmented coatings and ASTM D6093–97 (2016) is a test method that can be used to determine the percent volume of nonvolatile matter in clear and pigmented coatings. For the Surface Coating of Metal Cans NESHAP and the Surface Coating of Metal Coil NESHAP, the EPA proposes to incorporate by reference the following VCS as an alternative to EPA Method 24 for the determination of the volatile matter content in surface coatings: • ASTM D2369–10 (2015), ‘‘Test Method for Volatile Content of Coatings.’’ This test method allows for more accurate results for multicomponent chemical resistant coatings. For the Surface Coating of Metal Cans and the Surface Coating of Metal Coil NESHAP, the EPA proposes to incorporate by reference the following VCS for the determination of the specific gravity of halogenated organic solvents in surface coatings: • ASTM D2111–10 (2015), ‘‘Standard Test Methods for Specific Gravity of Halogenated Organic Solvents and Their E:\FR\FM\04JNP2.SGM 04JNP2 khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2 25946 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 107 / Tuesday, June 4, 2019 / Proposed Rules Admixtures’’ (corrected to a standard temperature). This test method allows measurement of specific gravity at different temperatures that are chosen by the analyst. The ASTM standards are available from the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM), 100 Barr Harbor Drive, Post Office Box C700, West Conshohocken, PA 19428–2959. See https://www.astm.org/. The EPA is not proposing ASTM D1963–85 (1996), ‘‘Standard Test Method for Specific Gravity of Drying Oils, Varnishes, Resins, and Related Materials at 25/25 C,’’ as an alternative for the determination of the specific gravity because ASTM has withdrawn the method without replacement. The EPA is also not proposing CARB Method 310, ‘‘Determination of Volatile Organic Compounds in Consumer Products and Reactive Organic Compounds in Aerosol Coating Products,’’ as an alternative to EPA Method 24 because the EPA has approved the method only for consumer products and aerosol coatings, which do not apply to the rulemakings or source categories addressed in this action. Although we identified another 21 VCS for the Surface Coating of Metal Cans and another 20 VCS for the Surface Coating of Metal Coil as being acceptable alternatives for methods included in these rules, we are not proposing to add these VCS in these rulemakings. See the memoranda titled Voluntary Consensus Standard Results for Surface Coating of Metal Cans, August 16, 2018, and Voluntary Consensus Standard Results for Surface Coating of Metal Coil, August 16, 2018, in the Metal Cans Docket and the Metal Coil Docket, respectively, for the reasons for these determinations. Under 40 CFR 63.7(f) and 40 CFR 63.8(f) of subpart A of the General Provisions, a source may apply to the EPA for permission to use alternative test methods or alternative monitoring requirements in place of any required testing methods, performance specifications, or procedures in the final rule or any amendments. The EPA welcomes comments on this aspect of the proposed rulemaking and, specifically, invites the public to identify potentially applicable VCS and to explain why such standards should be used in this regulation. K. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations The EPA believes that this action does not have disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:09 Jun 03, 2019 Jkt 247001 effects on minority populations, lowincome 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.1 and 2 and sections IV.B.1 and 2 of this preamble and the technical reports titled Risk and Technology Review— Analysis of Demographic Factors for Populations Living Near Surface Coating of Metal Cans Source Category Operations, May 2018, and Risk and Technology Review—Analysis of Demographic Factors for Populations Living Near Surface Coating of Metal Coil Source Category Operations, May 2018, available in the Metal Cans Docket and the Metal Coil Docket, respectively. As discussed in sections IV.A.1 and IV.B.1 of this preamble, we 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 km and within 5 km). In this analysis, we evaluated the distribution of HAP-related cancer risks and noncancer hazards from the Surface Coating of Metal Cans and the Surface Coating of Metal Coil source categories across different social, demographic, and economic groups within the populations living near operations identified as having the highest risks. The results of the Surface Coating of Metal Cans source category demographic analysis indicate that approximately 700 people are exposed to a cancer risk at or above 1-in-1 million and no one is exposed to a chronic noncancer HI greater than 1. None of the percentages of the at-risk populations are higher than their respective nationwide percentages. The proximity results (irrespective of risk) indicate that the population percentages for six demographic categories located within 5 km of metal can coating facilities are higher than their respective nationwide percentages. The results of the Surface Coating of Metal Coil source category demographic analysis indicate that emissions from the source category expose approximately 19,000 people to a cancer risk at or above 1-in-1 million and no one is exposed to a chronic noncancer HI greater than 1. The percentages of the at-risk population in the following specific demographic groups are higher than their respective nationwide percentages: ‘‘African American,’’ and ‘‘Below the Poverty Level.’’ The proximity results (irrespective of risk) indicate that the population percentages for the ‘‘Below the Poverty Level’’ demographic category within 5 km of metal coil coating facilities and PO 00000 Frm 00044 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 the ‘‘African American’’ demographic category within 50 km of metal coil coating facilities are slightly higher than their respective nationwide percentages. We do not expect this proposal to achieve significant reductions in HAP emissions. The EPA anticipates that this action does not have disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority populations, low-income populations, and/or indigenous peoples, as specified in Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994) because it does not significantly affect the level of protection provided to human health or the environment. The documentation for this decision is contained in section IV of this preamble and the technical reports titled Risk and Technology Review—Analysis of Demographic Factors for Populations Living Near Surface Coating of Metal Cans Source Category Operations, May 2018, and Risk and Technology Review—Analysis of Demographic Factors for Populations Living Near Surface Coating of Metal Coil Source Category Operations, May 2018, which are available in the Metal Cans and Metal Coil Dockets, respectively. List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63 Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Hazardous substances, Incorporation by reference, Surface coating of metal cans, Surface coating of metal coil, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Appendix A. Dated: May 2, 2019. Andrew R. Wheeler, Administrator. For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Environmental Protection Agency proposes to amend 40 CFR part 63 as follows: PART 63—NATIONAL EMISSION STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANTS FOR SOURCE CATEGORIES 1. The authority citation for part 63 continues to read as follows: ■ Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. Subpart A—General Provisions 2. Section 63.14 is amended by revising paragraphs (h)(13), (21), (26), (29), (30), (78) and (79) to read as follows: ■ § 63.14 Incorporations by reference. * * * * * (h) * * * (13) ASTM Method D1475–13, Standard Test Method for Density of E:\FR\FM\04JNP2.SGM 04JNP2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 107 / Tuesday, June 4, 2019 / Proposed Rules khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2 Liquid Coatings, Inks, and Related Products, approved November 1, 2013, IBR approved for §§ 63.3521(c), 63.3531(c), 63.4141(b) and (c), 63.4741(b) and (c), 63.4751(c), 63.4941(b) and (c), and 63.5160(c). * * * * * (21) ASTM D2111–10 (Reapproved 2015), Standard Test Methods for Specific Gravity of Halogenated Organic Solvents and Their Admixtures, approved June 1, 2015, IBR approved for §§ 63.3531(c), 63.4141(b) and (c), 63.4741(a), and 63.5160(c). * * * * * (26) ASTM D2369–10 (Reapproved 2015)e, Standard Test Method for Volatile Content of Coatings, approved June 1, 2015, IBR approved for §§ 63.3521(a), 63.3541(i)(3), 63.4141(a) and (b), 63.4161(h), 63.4321(e), 63.4341(e), 63.4351(d), 63.4741(a), 63.4941(a) and (b), 63.4961(j), and 63.5160(b). * * * * * (29) ASTM D2697–86 (Reapproved 1998), Standard Test Method for Volume Nonvolatile Matter in Clear or Pigmented Coatings, IBR approved for §§ 63.3161(f), 63.3941(b), 63.4141(b), 63.4741(b), and 63.4941(b). (30) ASTM D2697–03 (Reapproved 2014), Standard Test Method for Volume Nonvolatile Matter in Clear or Pigmented Coatings, approved July 1, 2014, IBR approved for §§ 63.3521(b), 63.4141(b), 63.4741(a) and (b), 63.4941(b), and 63.5160(c). * * * * * (78) ASTM D6093–97 (Reapproved 2003), Standard Test Method for Percent Volume Nonvolatile Matter in Clear or Pigmented Coatings Using a Helium Gas Pycnometer, IBR approved for §§ 63.3161 and 63.3941. (79) ASTM D6093–97 (Reapproved 2016), Standard Test Method for Percent Volume Nonvolatile Matter in Clear or Pigmented Coatings Using a Helium Gas Pycnometer, Approved December 1, 2016, IBR approved for §§ 63.3521(b), 63.4141(b), 63.4741(a) and (b), 63.4941(b), and 63.5160(c). * * * * * Subpart KKKK—National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Surface Coating of Metal Cans 3. Section 63.3481 is amended by revising paragraph (c)(5) to read as follows: ■ § 63.3481 Am I subject to this subpart? (c) * * * (5) Surface coating of metal pails, buckets, and drums. Subpart MMMM of VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:09 Jun 03, 2019 Jkt 247001 this part covers surface coating of all miscellaneous metal parts and products not explicitly covered by another subpart. ■ 4. Section 63.3492 is amended by revising paragraph (b) to read as follows: § 63.3492 meet? What operating limits must I * * * * * (b) For any controlled coating operation(s) on which you use the emission rate with add-on controls option or the control efficiency/outlet concentration option, except those for which you use a solvent recovery system and conduct a liquid-liquid material balance according to § 63.3541(i), you must meet the operating limits specified in Table 4 to this subpart. Those operating limits apply to the emission capture and control systems for the coating operation(s) used for purposes of complying with this subpart. You must establish the operating limits during the performance tests required in § 63.3540 or § 63.3550 according to the requirements in § 63.3546 or § 63.3556. You must meet the operating limits established during the most recent performance tests required in § 63.3540 or § 63.3550 at all times after they have been established during the performance test. * * * * * ■ 5. Section 63.3500 is amended by revising paragraphs (a)(1), (b), and (c) to read as follows: § 63.3500 What are my general requirements for complying with this subpart? (a) * * * (1) Any coating operation(s) for which you use the compliant material option or the emission rate without add-on controls option, as specified in § 63.3491(a) and (b), must be in compliance with the applicable emission limit in § 63.3490 at all times. * * * * * (b) Before [DATE 181 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE Federal Register], you must always operate and maintain your affected source, including all air pollution control and monitoring equipment you use for purposes of complying with this subpart, according to the provisions in § 63.6(e)(1)(i). On and after [DATE 181 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE Federal Register], at all times, the owner or operator must operate and maintain any affected source, including associated air pollution control equipment and monitoring equipment, in a manner PO 00000 Frm 00045 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 25947 consistent with safety and good air pollution control practices for minimizing emissions. The general duty to minimize emissions does not require the owner or operator to make any further efforts to reduce emissions if levels required by the applicable standard have been achieved. Determination of whether a source is operating in compliance with operation and maintenance requirements will be based on information available to the Administrator that may include, but is not limited to, monitoring results, review of operation and maintenance procedures, review of operation and maintenance records, and inspection of the affected source. (c) Before [DATE 181 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE Federal Register], if your affected source uses an emission capture system and add-on control device for purposes of complying with this subpart, you must develop a written startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan (SSMP) according to the provisions in § 63.6(e)(3). The plan must address startup, shutdown, and corrective actions in the event of a malfunction of the emission capture system or the addon control device. The plan must also address any coating operation equipment that may cause increased emissions or that would affect capture efficiency if the process equipment malfunctions, such as conveyors that move parts among enclosures. On and after [DATE 181 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE Federal Register], the SSMP is not required. ■ 6. Section 63.3511 is amended by: ■ a. Revising paragraphs (a)(4), (a)(5) introductory text, (a)(5)(i), and (a)(5)(iv); ■ b. Adding paragraph (a)(5)(v); ■ c. Revising paragraph (a)(6) introductory text and (a)(6)(iii); ■ d. Adding paragraph (a)(6)(iv); ■ e. Revising paragraph (a)(7) introductory text, and paragraphs (a)(7)(iii), (a)(7)(vi) through (viii), (a)(7)(x), and (a)(7)(xiii) and (xiv); ■ f. Adding paragraph (a)(7)(xv); ■ g. Revising paragraph (a)(8) introductory text, and paragraphs (a)(8)(i), (a)(8)(iv) through (vi), (a)(8)(viii), and (a)(8)(xi) and (xii); ■ f. Adding paragraph (a)(8)(xiii); ■ g. Revising paragraph (c) introductory text; and ■ h. Adding paragraphs (d) through (h). The revisions and additions read as follows: § 63.3511 What reports must I submit? (a) * * * (4) No deviations. If there were no deviations from the emission limits, E:\FR\FM\04JNP2.SGM 04JNP2 khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2 25948 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 107 / Tuesday, June 4, 2019 / Proposed Rules operating limits, or work practice standards in §§ 63.3490, 63.3492, and 63.3493 that apply to you, the semiannual compliance report must include a statement that there were no deviations from the emission limitations during the reporting period. If you used the emission rate with add-on controls option or the control efficiency/outlet concentration option and there were no periods during which the continuous parameter monitoring systems (CPMS) were out of control as specified in § 63.8(c)(7), the semiannual compliance report must include a statement that there were no periods during which the CPMS were out of control during the reporting period. (5) Deviations: Compliant material option. If you used the compliant material option and there was a deviation from the applicable emission limit in § 63.3490, the semiannual compliance report must contain the information in paragraphs (a)(5)(i) through (v) of this section. (i) Identification of each coating used that deviated from the emission limit, each thinner used that contained organic HAP, and the date, time, and duration each was used. * * * * * (iv) Before [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register], a statement of the cause of each deviation. On and after [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register], a statement of the cause of each deviation (including unknown cause, if applicable). (v) On and after [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register], the number of deviations and, for each deviation, a list of the affected source or equipment, an estimate of the quantity of each regulated pollutant emitted over any applicable emission limit in § 63.3490, a description of the method used to estimate the emissions, and the actions you took to minimize emissions in accordance with § 63.3500(b). (6) Deviations: Emission rate without add-on controls option. If you used the emission rate without add-on controls option and there was a deviation from the applicable emission limit in § 63.3490, the semiannual compliance report must contain the information in paragraphs (a)(6)(i) through (iv) of this section. * * * * * (iii) Before [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register], a statement of the cause of each deviation. On and after [date 181 days after date of publication of final VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:09 Jun 03, 2019 Jkt 247001 rule in the Federal Register], a statement of the cause of each deviation (including unknown cause, if applicable). (iv) On and after [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register], the number of deviations, date, time, duration, a list of the affected source or equipment, an estimate of the quantity of each regulated pollutant emitted over any applicable emission limit in § 63.3490, a description of the method used to estimate the emissions, and the actions you took to minimize emissions in accordance with § 63.3500(b). (7) Deviations: Emission rate with add-on controls option. If you used the emission rate with add-on controls option and there was a deviation from the applicable emission limit in § 63.3490 or the applicable operating limit(s) in Table 4 to this subpart (including any periods when emissions bypassed the add-on control device and were diverted to the atmosphere), before [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register], the semiannual compliance report must contain the information in paragraphs (a)(7)(i) through (xiv) of this section. That includes periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction during which deviations occurred. On and after [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register], the semiannual compliance report must contain the information in paragraphs (a)(7)(i) through (xii), (a)(7)(xiv), and (a)(7)(xv) of this section. If you use the emission rate with add-on controls option and there was a deviation from the applicable work practice standards in § 63.3493(b), the semiannual compliance report must contain the information in paragraph (a)(7)(xiii) of this section. * * * * * (iii) The date and time that each malfunction of the capture system or add-on control devices started and stopped. * * * * * (vi) Before [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register], the date and time that each CPMS was inoperative, except for zero (low-level) and high-level checks. On and after [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register], the number of instances that the CPMS was inoperative, and for each instance, except for zero (low-level) and high-level checks, the date, time, and duration that the CPMS was inoperative; the cause (including unknown cause) for the CPMS being inoperative; and the PO 00000 Frm 00046 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 actions you took to minimize emissions in accordance with § 63.3500(b). (vii) Before [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register], the date, time, and duration that each CPMS was out of control, including the information in § 63.8(c)(8). On and after [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register], the number of instances that the CPMS was out of control as specified in § 63.8(c)(7) and, for each instance, the date, time, and duration that the CPMS was out-ofcontrol; the cause (including unknown cause) for the CPMS being out-ofcontrol; and descriptions of corrective actions taken. (viii) Before [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register], the date and time period of each deviation from an operating limit in Table 4 to this subpart; date and time period of any bypass of the add-on control device; and whether each deviation occurred during a period of startup, shutdown, or malfunction or during another period. On and after [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register], the number of deviations from an operating limit in Table 4 to this subpart and, for each deviation, the date, time, and duration of each deviation; the date, time, and duration of any bypass of the add-on control device. * * * * * (x) Before [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register], a breakdown of the total duration of the deviations from the operating limits in Table 4 to this subpart and bypasses of the add-on control device during the semiannual reporting period into those that were due to startup, shutdown, control equipment problems, process problems, other known causes, and other unknown causes. On and after [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register], a breakdown of the total duration of the deviations from the operating limits in Table 4 to this subpart and bypasses of the add-on control device during the semiannual reporting period into those that were due to control equipment problems, process problems, other known causes, and other unknown causes. * * * * * (xiii) Before [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register], for each deviation from the work practice standards, a description of the deviation; the date, and time period of the deviation; and E:\FR\FM\04JNP2.SGM 04JNP2 khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 107 / Tuesday, June 4, 2019 / Proposed Rules the actions you took to correct the deviation. On and after [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register], for deviations from the work practice standards, the number of deviations, and, for each deviation, the information in paragraphs (a)(7)(xiii)(A) and (B) of this section: (A) A description of the deviation; the date, time, and duration of the deviation; and the actions you took to minimize emissions in accordance with § 63.3500(b). (B) The description required in paragraph (a)(7)(xiii)(A) of this section must include a list of the affected sources or equipment for which a deviation occurred and the cause of the deviation (including unknown cause, if applicable. (xiv) Before [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register], a statement of the cause of each deviation. On and after [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register], for deviations from an emission limit in § 63.3490 or an operating limit in Table 4 to this subpart, a statement of the cause of each deviation (including unknown cause, if applicable) and the actions you took to minimize emissions in accordance with § 63.3500(b). (xv) On and after [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register], for each deviation from an emission limit in § 63.3490 or operating limit in Table 4 to this subpart, a list of the affected sources or equipment for which a deviation occurred, an estimate of the quantity of each regulated pollutant emitted over any emission limit in § 63.3490 or operating limit in Table 4 to this subpart, and a description of the method used to estimate the emissions. (8) Deviations: Control efficiency/ outlet concentration option. If you used the control efficiency/outlet concentration option, and there was a deviation from the applicable emission limit in § 63.3490 or the applicable operating limit(s) in Table 4 to this subpart (including any periods when emissions bypassed the add-on control device and were diverted to the atmosphere), before [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register], the semiannual compliance report must contain the information in paragraphs (a)(8)(i) through (xii) of this section. This includes periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction during which deviations occurred. On and after [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register], the semiannual compliance report must specify the number of deviations during VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:09 Jun 03, 2019 Jkt 247001 the compliance period and contain the information in paragraphs (a)(8)(i) through (x), (xii), and (xiii) of this section. If you use the control efficiency/outlet concentration option and there was a deviation from the applicable work practice standards in § 63.3493(b), the semiannual compliance report must contain the information in paragraph (a)(8)(xi) of this section. (i) The date and time that each malfunction of the capture system or add-on control devices started and stopped. * * * * * (iv) Before [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register], the date and time that each CPMS was inoperative, except for zero (low-level) and high-level checks. On and after [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register], for each instance that the CPMS was inoperative, except for zero (low-level) and high-level checks, the date, time, and duration that the CPMS was inoperative; the cause (including unknown cause) for the CPMS being inoperative; and the actions you took to minimize emissions in accordance with § 63.3500(b). (v) For each instance that the CPMS was out of control as specified in § 63.8(c)(7), the date, time, and duration that the CPMS was out of control; the cause (including unknown cause) for the CPMS being out of control; and the actions you took to minimize emissions in accordance with § 63.3500(b). (vi) Before [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register], the date and time period of each deviation from an operating limit in Table 4 to this subpart; date and time of any bypass of the add-on control device; and whether each deviation occurred during a period of startup, shutdown, or malfunction or during another period. On and after [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register], the date, time, and duration of each deviation from an operating limit in Table 4 to this subpart; and the date, time, and duration of any bypass of the add-on control device. * * * * * (viii) Before [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register], a breakdown of the total duration of the deviations from the operating limits in Table 4 to this subpart and bypasses of the add-on control device during the semiannual reporting period into those that were due to startup, shutdown, control equipment problems, process problems, PO 00000 Frm 00047 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 25949 other known causes, and other unknown causes. On and after [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register], a breakdown of the total duration of the deviations from the operating limits in Table 4 to this subpart and bypasses of the add-on control device during the semiannual reporting period into those that were due to control equipment problems, process problems, other known causes, and other unknown causes. * * * * * (xi) Before [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register], for each deviation from the work practice standards, a description of the deviation; the date and time period of the deviation; and the actions you took to correct the deviation. On and after [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register], for deviations from the work practice standards in § 63.3493(b), the number of deviations, and, for each deviation, the information in paragraphs (a)(8)(xiii)(A) and (B) of this section: (A) A description of the deviation; the date, time, and duration of the deviation; and the actions you took to minimize emissions in accordance with § 63.3500(b). (B) The description required in paragraph (a)(8)(xi)(A) of this section must include a list of the affected sources or equipment for which a deviation occurred and the cause of the deviation (including unknown cause, if applicable). (xii) Before [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register], a statement of the cause of each deviation. On and after [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register], for deviations from an emission limit in § 63.3490 or operating limit in Table 4 to this subpart, a statement of the cause of each deviation (including unknown cause, if applicable). (xiii) On and after [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register], for each deviation from an emission limit in § 63.3490 or operating limit in Table 4 to this subpart, a list of the affected sources or equipment for which a deviation occurred, an estimate of the quantity of each regulated pollutant emitted over any emission limit in § 63.3490, and a description of the method used to estimate the emissions. * * * * * (c) Startup, shutdown, malfunction reports. Before [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register], if you used the E:\FR\FM\04JNP2.SGM 04JNP2 khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2 25950 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 107 / Tuesday, June 4, 2019 / Proposed Rules emission rate with add-on controls option or the control efficiency/outlet concentration option and you had a startup, shutdown, or malfunction during the semiannual reporting period, you must submit the reports specified in paragraphs (c)(1) and (2) of this section. On and after [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register], the reports specified in paragraphs (c)(1) and (2) of this section are not required. * * * * * (d) On and after [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register], you must submit the results of the performance test required in §§ 63.3540 and 63.3550 following the procedure specified in paragraphs (d)(1) through (3) of this section. (1) For data collected using test methods supported by the EPA’s Electronic Reporting Tool (ERT) as listed on the EPA’s ERT website (https://www.epa.gov/electronicreporting-air-emissions/electronicreporting-tool-ert) at the time of the test, you must submit the results of the performance test to the EPA via the Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface (CEDRI). The CEDRI interface can be accessed through the EPA’s Central Data Exchange (CDX) (https://cdx.epa.gov/). Performance test data must be submitted in a file format generated through the use of the EPA’s ERT or an alternate electronic file format consistent with the extensible markup language (XML) schema listed on the EPA’s ERT website. (2) For data collected using test methods that are not supported by the EPA’s ERT as listed on the EPA’s ERT website at the time of the test, you must submit the results of the performance test in portable document format (PDF) using the attachment module of the ERT. (3) If you claim that some of the performance test information being submitted under paragraph (d)(1) of this section is confidential business information (CBI), you must submit a complete file generated through the use of the EPA’s ERT or an alternate electronic file consistent with the XML schema listed on the EPA’s ERT website, including information claimed to be CBI, on a compact disc, flash drive, or other commonly used electronic storage medium to the EPA. The electronic medium must be clearly marked as CBI and mailed to U.S. EPA/ OAPQS/CORE CBI Office, Attention: Group Leader, Measurement Policy Group, MD C404–02, 4930 Old Page Rd., Durham, NC 27703. The same ERT or alternate file with the CBI omitted must VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:09 Jun 03, 2019 Jkt 247001 be submitted to the EPA via the EPA’s CDX as described in paragraph (c)(1) of this section. (e) On and after [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register], the owner or operator shall submit the initial notifications required in § 63.9(b) and the notification of compliance status required in § 63.9(h) and § 63.3510(c) to the EPA via the CEDRI. The CEDRI interface can be accessed through the EPA’s CDX (https://cdx.epa.gov). The owner or operator must upload to CEDRI an electronic copy of each applicable notification in PDF. The applicable notification must be submitted by the deadline specified in this subpart, regardless of the method in which the reports are submitted. Owners or operators who claim that some of the information required to be submitted via CEDRI is confidential business information (CBI) shall submit a complete report generated using the appropriate form in CEDRI or an alternate electronic file consistent with the extensible markup language (XML) schema listed on the EPA’s CEDRI website, including information claimed to be CBI, on a compact disc, flash drive, or other commonly used electronic storage medium to the EPA. The electronic medium shall be clearly marked as CBI and mailed to U.S. EPA/ OAQPS/CORE CBI Office, Attention: Group Leader, Measurement Policy Group, MD C404–02, 4930 Old Page Rd., Durham, NC 27703. The same file with the CBI omitted shall be submitted to the EPA via the EPA’s CDX as described earlier in this paragraph. (f) On and after [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register], or once the reporting template has been available on the CEDRI website for 1 year, whichever date is later, the owner or operator shall submit the semiannual compliance report required in paragraph (a) of this section to the EPA via the CEDRI. The CEDRI interface can be accessed through the EPA’s CDX (https://cdx.epa.gov). The owner or operator must use the appropriate electronic template on the CEDRI website for this subpart (https:// www.epa.gov/electronic-reporting-airemissions/compliance-and-emissionsdata-reporting-interface-cedri). The date report templates become available will be listed on the CEDRI website. If the reporting form for the semiannual compliance report specific to this subpart is not available in CEDRI at the time that the report is due, you must submit the report to the Administrator at the appropriate addresses listed in § 63.13. Once the form has been available in CEDRI for 1 year, you must PO 00000 Frm 00048 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 begin submitting all subsequent reports via CEDRI. The reports must be submitted by the deadlines specified in this subpart, regardless of the method in which the reports are submitted. Owners or operators who claim that some of the information required to be submitted via CEDRI is confidential business information (CBI) shall submit a complete report generated using the appropriate form in CEDRI, including information claimed to be CBI, on a compact disc, flash drive, or other commonly used electronic storage medium to the EPA. The electronic medium shall be clearly marked as CBI and mailed to U.S. EPA/OAQPS/CORE CBI Office, Attention: Group Leader, Measurement Policy Group, MD C404– 02, 4930 Old Page Rd., Durham, NC 27703. The same file with the CBI omitted shall be submitted to the EPA via the EPA’s CDX as described earlier in this paragraph. (g) If you are required to electronically submit a report through the Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface (CEDRI) in the EPA’s Central Data Exchange (CDX), and due to a planned or actual outage of either the EPA’s CEDRI or CDX systems within the period of time beginning 5 business days prior to the date that the submission is due, you will be or are precluded from accessing CEDRI or CDX and submitting a required report within the time prescribed, you may assert a claim of EPA system outage for failure to timely comply with the reporting requirement. You must submit notification to the Administrator in writing as soon as possible following the date you first knew, or through due diligence should have known, that the event may cause or caused a delay in reporting. You must provide to the Administrator a written description identifying the date, time and length of the outage; a rationale for attributing the delay in reporting beyond the regulatory deadline to the EPA system outage; describe the measures taken or to be taken to minimize the delay in reporting; and identify a date by which you propose to report, or if you have already met the reporting requirement at the time of the notification, the date you reported. In any circumstance, the report must be submitted electronically as soon as possible after the outage is resolved. The decision to accept the claim of EPA system outage and allow an extension to the reporting deadline is solely within the discretion of the Administrator. (h) If you are required to electronically submit a report through CEDRI in the EPA’s CDX and a force majeure event is about to occur, occurs, E:\FR\FM\04JNP2.SGM 04JNP2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 107 / Tuesday, June 4, 2019 / Proposed Rules or has occurred or there are lingering effects from such an event within the period of time beginning 5 business days prior to the date the submission is due, the owner or operator may assert a claim of force majeure for failure to timely comply with the reporting requirement. For the purposes of this section, a force majeure event is defined as an event that will be or has been caused by circumstances beyond the control of the affected facility, its contractors, or any entity controlled by the affected facility that prevents you from complying with the requirement to submit a report electronically within the time period prescribed. Examples of such events are acts of nature (e.g., hurricanes, earthquakes, or floods), acts of war or terrorism, or equipment failure or safety hazard beyond the control of the affected facility (e.g., large scale power outage). If you intend to assert a claim of force majeure, you must submit notification to the Administrator in writing as soon as possible following the date you first knew, or through due diligence should have known, that the event may cause or caused a delay in reporting. You must provide to the Administrator a written description of the force majeure event and a rationale for attributing the delay in reporting beyond the regulatory deadline to the force majeure event; describe the measures taken or to be taken to minimize the delay in reporting; and identify a date by which you propose to report, or if you have already met the reporting requirement at the time of the notification, the date you reported. In any circumstance, the reporting must occur as soon as possible after the force majeure event occurs. The decision to accept the claim of force majeure and allow an extension to the reporting deadline is solely within the discretion of the Administrator. ■ 7. Section 63.3512 is amended by revising paragraphs (i), (j) introductory text, and (j)(1) and (2) to read as follows: (2) A list of the affected sources or equipment for which the deviation occurred and the cause of the deviation, as reported under § 63.3511(a)(5) through (8). (3) An estimate of the quantity of each regulated pollutant emitted over any applicable emission limit in § 63.3490 or any applicable operating limit in Table 4 to this subpart, and a description of the method used to calculate the estimate, as reported under § 63.3511(a)(5) through (8). (4) A record of actions taken to minimize emissions in accordance with § 63.3500(b) and any corrective actions taken to return the affected unit to its normal or usual manner of operation. (j) If you use the emission rate with add-on controls option or the control efficiency/outlet concentration option, you must also keep the records specified in paragraphs (j)(1) through (8) of this section. (1) Before [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register], for each deviation, a record of whether the deviation occurred during a period of startup, shutdown, or malfunction. On and after [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register], a record of whether the deviation occurred during a period of startup, shutdown, or malfunction is not required. (2) Before [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register], the records in § 63.6(e)(3)(iii) through (v) related to startup, shutdown, and malfunction. On and after [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register], the records in § 63.6(e)(3)(iii) through (v) related to startup, shutdown, and malfunction are not required. * * * * * ■ 8. Section 63.3513 is amended by revising paragraph (a) to read as follows: § 63.3512 (a) Your records must be kept in a form suitable and readily available for expeditious review, according to § 63.10(b)(1). Where appropriate, the records may be maintained as electronic spreadsheets or as a database. On and after [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register], any records required to be maintained by this subpart that are in reports that were 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 What records must I keep? khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2 * * * * * (i) Before [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register], a record of the date, time, and duration of each deviation. On and after [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register], for each deviation from an emission limitation reported under § 63.3511(a)(5) through (8), a record of the information specified in paragraphs (i)(1) through (4) of this section, as applicable. (1) The date, time, and duration of the deviation, as reported under § 63.3511(a)(5) through (8). VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:09 Jun 03, 2019 Jkt 247001 § 63.3513 In what form and for how long must I keep my records? PO 00000 Frm 00049 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 25951 delegated air agency or the EPA as part of an on-site compliance evaluation. * * * * * ■ 9. Section 63.3521 is amended by revising paragraphs (a)(1)(i), (a)(2), (a)(4), (b)(1), and (c) to read as follows: § 63.3521 How do I demonstrate initial compliance with the emission limitations? * * * * * (a) * * * (1) * * * (i) Count each organic HAP in Table 8 to this subpart that is measured to be present at 0.1 percent by mass or more and at 1.0 percent by mass or more for other compounds. For example, if toluene (not listed in Table 8 to this subpart) is measured to be 0.5 percent of the material by mass, you do not have to count it. Express the mass fraction of each organic HAP you count as a value truncated to four places after the decimal point (e.g., 0.3791). * * * * * (2) Method 24 (appendix A to 40 CFR part 60). For coatings, you may use Method 24 to determine the mass fraction of nonaqueous volatile matter and use that value as a substitute for mass fraction of organic HAP. As an alternative to using Method 24, you may use ASTM D2369–10 (2015), ‘‘Test Method for Volatile Content of Coatings’’ (incorporated by reference, see § 63.14). * * * * * (4) Information from the supplier or manufacturer of the material. You may rely on information other than that generated by the test methods specified in paragraphs (a)(1) through (3) of this section, such as manufacturer’s formulation data, if it represents each organic HAP in Table 8 to this subpart that is present at 0.1 percent by mass or more and at 1.0 percent by mass or more for other compounds. For example, if toluene (not listed in Table 8 to this subpart) is 0.5 percent of the material by mass, you do not have to count it. If there is a disagreement between such information and results of a test conducted according to paragraphs (a)(1) through (3) of this section, then the test method results will take precedence unless, after consultation, a regulated source can demonstrate to the satisfaction of the enforcement agency that the formulation data are correct. * * * * * (b) * * * (1) ASTM Method D2697–03 (2014) or D6093–97 (2016). You may use ASTM Method D2697-03 (2014), ‘‘Standard Test Method for Volume Nonvolatile Matter in Clear or Pigmented Coatings,’’ (incorporated by reference, see § 63.14) E:\FR\FM\04JNP2.SGM 04JNP2 25952 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 107 / Tuesday, June 4, 2019 / Proposed Rules or D6093–97 (2016), ‘‘Standard Test Method for Percent Volume Nonvolatile Matter in Clear or Pigmented Coatings Using a Helium Gas Pycnometer’’ (incorporated by reference, see § 63.14), to determine the volume fraction of coating solids for each coating. Divide the nonvolatile volume percent obtained with the methods by 100 to calculate volume fraction of coating solids. If these values cannot be determined using these methods, the owner/operator may submit an alternative technique for determining the values for approval by the Administrator. * * * * * (c) Determine the density of each coating. Determine the density of each coating used during the compliance period from test results using ASTM Method D1475–13 Standard Test Method for Density of Liquid Coatings, Inks, and Related Products (incorporated by reference, see § 63.14) or information from the supplier or manufacturer of the material. If there is disagreement between ASTM Method D1475–13 test results and the supplier’s or manufacturer’s information, the test results will take precedence. * * * * * ■ 10. Section 63.3531 is amended by revising paragraph (c) to read as follows: § 63.3531 How do I demonstrate initial compliance with the emission limitations? * * * * (c) Determine the density of each material. Determine the density of each coating and thinner used during each month from test results using ASTM Method D1475–13 or ASTM D2111–10 (2015) (both incorporated by reference, see § 63.14), information from the supplier or manufacturer of the material, or reference sources providing density or specific gravity data for pure materials. If there is disagreement between ASTM Method D1475–13 or ASTM D2111–10 (2015) test results and such other information sources, the test results will take precedence. * * * * * ■ 11. Section 63.3540 is amended by revising the section heading and paragraphs (a)(1), (a)(4), and (b)(1) to read as follows: khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2 * § 63.3540 By what date must I conduct performance tests and initial compliance demonstrations? (a) * * * (1) All emission capture systems, addon control devices, and CPMS must be installed and operating no later than the applicable compliance date specified in § 63.3483. Except for solvent recovery systems for which you conduct liquidliquid material balances according to VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:09 Jun 03, 2019 Jkt 247001 § 63.3541(i), you must conduct according to the schedule in paragraphs (a)(1)(i) and (ii) of this section initial and periodic performance tests of each capture system and add-on control device according to the procedures in §§ 63.3543, 63.3544, and 63.3545 and establish the operating limits required by § 63.3492. For a solvent recovery system for which you conduct liquidliquid material balances according to § 63.3541(i), you must initiate the first material balance no later than the applicable compliance date specified in § 63.3483. (i) You must conduct the initial performance test and establish the operating limits required by § 63.3492 no later than 180 days after the applicable compliance date specified in § 63.3483. (ii) You must conduct periodic performance tests and establish the operating limits required by § 63.3492 within 5 years following the previous performance test. You must conduct the first periodic performance test before [date 3 years after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register], unless you are already required to complete periodic performance tests as a requirement of renewing your facility’s operating permit under 40 CFR part 70, or 40 CFR part 71, and have conducted a performance test on or after [date 2 years before date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register]. Thereafter you must conduct a performance test no later than 5 years following the previous performance test. Operating limits must be confirmed or reestablished during each performance test. * * * * * (4) For the initial compliance demonstration, you do not need to comply with the operating limits for the emission capture system and add-on control device required by § 63.3492 until after you have completed the initial performance tests specified in paragraph (a)(1) of this section. Instead, you must maintain a log detailing the operation and maintenance of the emission capture system, add-on control device, and continuous parameter monitors during the period between the compliance date and the performance test. You must begin complying with the operating limits established based on the initial performance tests specified in paragraph (a)(1) of this section for your affected source on the date you complete the performance tests. The requirements in this paragraph (a)(4) do not apply to solvent recovery systems for which you conduct liquid-liquid PO 00000 Frm 00050 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 material balances according to the requirements in § 63.3541(i). (b) * * * (1) All emission capture systems, addon control devices, and CPMS must be installed and operating no later than the applicable compliance date specified in § 63.3483. Except for solvent recovery systems for which you conduct liquidliquid material balances according to § 63.3541(i), you must conduct according to the schedule in paragraphs (b)(1)(i) and (ii) of this section initial and periodic performance tests of each capture system and add-on control device according to the procedures in §§ 63.3543, 63.3544, and 63.3545 and establish the operating limits required by § 63.3492. For a solvent recovery system for which you conduct liquidliquid material balances according to § 63.3541(i), you must initiate the first material balance no later than the compliance date specified in § 63.3483. (i) You must conduct the initial performance test and establish the operating limits required by § 63.3492 no later than 180 days after the applicable compliance date specified in § 63.3483. (ii) You must conduct periodic performance tests and establish the operating limits required by § 63.3492 within 5 years following the previous performance test. You must conduct the first periodic performance test before [date 3 years after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register], unless you are already required to complete periodic performance tests as a requirement of renewing your facility’s operating permit under 40 CFR part 70, or 40 CFR part 71, and have conducted a performance test on or after [date 2 years before date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register]. Thereafter you must conduct a performance test no later than 5 years following the previous performance test. Operating limits must be confirmed or reestablished during each performance test. * * * * * ■ 12. Section 63.3541 is amended by revising paragraphs (h) introductory text and (i)(3) to read as follows: § 63.3541 How do I demonstrate initial compliance? * * * * * (h) Calculate the organic HAP emission reduction for each controlled coating operation not using liquid-liquid material balances. For each controlled coating operation using an emission capture system and add-on control device, other than a solvent recovery system for which you conduct liquidliquid material balances, calculate the E:\FR\FM\04JNP2.SGM 04JNP2 khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 107 / Tuesday, June 4, 2019 / Proposed Rules organic HAP emission reduction, using Equation 1 of this section. The calculation applies the emission capture system efficiency and add-on control device efficiency to the mass of organic HAP contained in the coatings and thinners that are used in the coating operation served by the emission capture system and add-on control device during each month. For any period of time a deviation specified in § 63.3542(c) or (d) occurs in the controlled coating operation, you must assume zero efficiency for the emission capture system and add-on control device, unless you have other data indicating the actual efficiency of the emission capture system and add-on control device, and the use of these data has been approved by the Administrator. Equation 1 of this section treats the materials used during such a deviation as if they were used on an uncontrolled coating operation for the time period of the deviation. * * * * * * * * (i) * * * (3) Determine the mass fraction of volatile organic matter for each coating and thinner used in the coating operation controlled by the solvent recovery system during the month, in kg volatile organic matter per kg coating. You may determine the volatile organic matter mass fraction using Method 24 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A, ASTM D2369–10 (2015), ‘‘Test Method for Volatile Content of Coatings’’ (incorporated by reference, see § 63.14), or an EPA approved alternative method. Alternatively, you may determine the volatile organic matter mass fraction using information provided by the manufacturer or supplier of the coating. In the event of any inconsistency between information provided by the manufacturer or supplier and the results of Method 24 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A, ASTM D2369–10 (2015), ‘‘Test Method for Volatile Content of Coatings’’ (incorporated by reference, see § 63.14), or an approved alternative method, the test method results will take precedence unless, after consultation, a regulated source can demonstrate to the satisfaction of the enforcement agency that the formulation data are correct. * * * * * ■ 13. Section 63.3542 is amended by revising paragraphs (f) and (h) to read as follows: § 63.3542 How do I demonstrate continuous compliance with the emission limitations? * * * * * (f) As part of each semiannual compliance report required in § 63.3511, VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:09 Jun 03, 2019 Jkt 247001 you must identify the coating operation(s) for which you used the emission rate with add-on controls option. If there were no deviations from the emission limits in § 63.3490, the operating limits in § 63.3492, and the work practice standards in § 63.3493, submit a statement that you were in compliance with the emission limitations during the reporting period because the organic HAP emission rate for each compliance period was less than or equal to the applicable emission limit in § 63.3490, and you achieved the operating limits required by § 63.3492 and the work practice standards required by § 63.3493 during each compliance period. * * * * * (h) Before [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register], consistent with §§ 63.6(e) and 63.7(e)(1), deviations that occur during a period of startup, shutdown, or malfunction of the emission capture system, add-on control device, or coating operation that may affect emission capture or control device efficiency are not violations if you demonstrate to the Administrator’s satisfaction that you were operating in accordance with § 63.6(e)(1). The Administrator will determine whether deviations that occur during a period you identify as a startup, shutdown, or malfunction are violations according to the provisions in § 63.6(e). On and after [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register], deviations that occur due to malfunction of the emission capture system, add-on control device, or coating operation that may affect emission capture or control device efficiency are required to operate in accordance with § 63.3500(b). The Administrator will determine whether the deviations are violations according to the provisions in § 63.3500(b). * * * * * ■ 14. Section 63.3543 is amended by revising paragraphs (a) introductory text and (a)(1) to read as follows: § 63.3543 What are the general requirements for performance tests? (a) Before [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register], you must conduct each performance test required by § 63.3540 according to the requirements in § 63.7(e)(1) and under the conditions in this section unless you obtain a waiver of the performance test according to the provisions in § 63.7(h). On and after [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register], you must conduct each performance test required by § 63.3540 according to the PO 00000 Frm 00051 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 25953 requirements in this section unless you obtain a waiver of the performance test according to the provisions in § 63.7(h). (1) Representative coating operation operating conditions. You must conduct the performance test under representative operating conditions for the coating operation. Operations during periods of startup, shutdown, or nonoperation do not constitute representative conditions for purposes of conducting a performance test. The owner or operator may not conduct performance tests during periods of malfunction. You must record the process information that is necessary to document operating conditions during the test and explain why the conditions represent normal operation. Upon request, you must make available to the Administrator such records as may be necessary to determine the conditions of performance tests. * * * * * ■ 15. Section 63.3544 is amended by revising the introductory text to read as follows: § 63.3544 How do I determine the emission capture system efficiency? You must use the procedures and test methods in this section to determine capture efficiency as part of each performance test required by § 63.3540. * * * * * ■ 16. Section 63.3545 is amended by revising the introductory text, paragraph (b) introductory text, and paragraphs (b)(1) through (4) to read as follows: § 63.3545 How do I determine the add-on control device emission destruction or removal efficiency? You must use the procedures and test methods in this section to determine the add-on control device emission destruction or removal efficiency as part of the performance tests required by § 63.3540. For each performance test, you must conduct three test runs as specified in § 63.7(e)(3) and each test run must last at least 1 hour. * * * * * (b) Measure total gaseous organic mass emissions as carbon at the inlet and outlet of the add-on control device simultaneously using either Method 25 or 25A of appendix A–7 to 40 CFR part 60 as specified in paragraphs (b)(1) through (5) of this section. You must use the same method for both the inlet and outlet measurements. (1) Use Method 25 of appendix A–7 to 40 CFR part 60 if the add-on control device is an oxidizer and you expect the total gaseous organic concentration as carbon to be more than 50 ppm at the control device outlet. E:\FR\FM\04JNP2.SGM 04JNP2 25954 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 107 / Tuesday, June 4, 2019 / Proposed Rules (2) Use Method 25A of appendix A– 7 to 40 CFR part 60 if the add-on control device is an oxidizer and you expect the total gaseous organic concentration as carbon to be 50 ppm or less at the control device outlet. (3) Use Method 25A of appendix A– 7 to 40 CFR part 60 if the add-control device is not an oxidizer. (4) You may use Method 18 of appendix A–6 to 40 CFR part 60 to subtract methane emissions from measured total gaseous organic mass emissions as carbon. * * * * * ■ 17. Section 63.3546 is amended by revising the introductory text and paragraphs (a)(1) and (2), (b)(1) through (3), (d)(1), (e)(1) and (2), (f)(1) through (3), and (f)(5) and (6) to read as follows: khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2 § 63.3546 How do I establish the emission capture system and add-on control device operating limits during the performance test? During performance tests required by § 63.3540 and described in §§ 63.3543, 63.3544, and 63.3545, you must establish the operating limits required by § 63.3492 unless you have received approval for alternative monitoring and operating limits under § 63.8(f) as specified in § 63.3492. (a) * * * (1) During performance tests, you must monitor and record the combustion temperature at least once every 15 minutes during each of the three test runs. You must monitor the temperature in the firebox of the thermal oxidizer or immediately downstream of the firebox before any substantial heat exchange occurs. (2) For each performance test, use the data collected during the performance test to calculate and record the average combustion temperature maintained during the performance test. That average combustion temperature is the minimum operating limit for your thermal oxidizer. (b) * * * (1) During performance tests, you must monitor and record the temperature at the inlet to the catalyst bed and the temperature difference across the catalyst bed at least once every 15 minutes during each of the three test runs. (2) For each performance test, use the data collected during the performance test to calculate and record the average temperature at the inlet to the catalyst bed and the average temperature difference across the catalyst bed maintained during the performance test. The average temperature difference is the minimum operating limit for your catalytic oxidizer. VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:09 Jun 03, 2019 Jkt 247001 (3) As an alternative to monitoring the temperature difference across the catalyst bed, you may monitor the temperature at the inlet to the catalyst bed and implement a site-specific inspection and maintenance plan for your catalytic oxidizer as specified in paragraph (b)(4) of this section. During performance tests, you must monitor and record the temperature at the inlet to the catalyst bed at least once every 15 minutes during each of the three test runs. For each performance test, use the data collected during the performance test to calculate and record the average temperature at the inlet to the catalyst bed during the performance test. That is the minimum operating limit for your catalytic oxidizer. * * * * * (d) * * * (1) During performance tests, you must monitor and record the total regeneration desorbing gas (e.g., steam or nitrogen) mass flow for each regeneration cycle, and the carbon bed temperature after each carbon bed regeneration and cooling cycle for the regeneration cycle either immediately preceding or immediately following the performance test. * * * * * (e) * * * (1) During performance tests, monitor and record the condenser outlet (product side) gas temperature at least once every 15 minutes during each of the three test runs of the performance test. (2) For each performance test, use the data collected during the performance test to calculate and record the average condenser outlet (product side) gas temperature maintained during the performance test. This average condenser outlet gas temperature is the maximum operating limit for your condenser. (f) * * * (1) During performance tests, monitor and record the inlet temperature to the desorption/reactivation zone of the concentrator at least once every 15 minutes during each of the three runs of the performance test. (2) For each performance test, use the data collected during the performance test to calculate and record the average temperature. This is the minimum operating limit for the desorption/ reactivation zone inlet temperature. (3) During each performance test, monitor and record an indicator(s) of performance for the desorption/ reactivation fan operation at least once every 15 minutes during each of the three runs of the performance test. The indicator can be speed in revolutions PO 00000 Frm 00052 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 per minute (rpm), power in amps, static pressure, or flow rate. * * * * * (5) During each performance test, monitor the rotational speed of the concentrator at least once every 15 minutes during each of the three runs of the performance test. (6) For each performance test, use the data collected during the performance test to calculate and record the average rotational speed. This is the minimum operating limit for the rotational speed of the concentrator. However, the indicator range for the rotational speed may be changed if an engineering evaluation is conducted and a determination made that the change in speed will not affect compliance with the emission limit. * * * * * ■ 18. Section 63.3547 is amended by revising paragraphs (a)(4) and (5), (a)(7), and (c)(3) introductory text to read as follows: § 63.3547 What are the requirements for continuous parameter monitoring system installation, operation, and maintenance? (a) * * * (4) Before [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register], you must maintain the CPMS at all times and have available necessary parts for routine repairs of the monitoring equipment. On and after [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register], you must maintain the CPMS at all times in accordance with § 63.3500(b) and keep necessary parts readily available for routine repairs of the monitoring equipment. (5) Before [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register], you must operate the CPMS and collect emission capture system and add-on control device parameter data at all times that a controlled coating operation is operating, except during monitoring malfunctions, associated repairs, and required quality assurance or control activities (including, if applicable, calibration checks and required zero and span adjustments). On and after [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register], you must operate the CPMS and collect emission capture system and add-on control device parameter data at all times in accordance with § 63.3500(b). * * * * * (7) A monitoring malfunction is any sudden, infrequent, not reasonably preventable failure of the CPMS to provide valid data. Monitoring failures that are caused in part by poor E:\FR\FM\04JNP2.SGM 04JNP2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 107 / Tuesday, June 4, 2019 / Proposed Rules maintenance or careless operation are not malfunctions. Before [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register], any period for which the monitoring system is out of control and data are not available for required calculations is a deviation from the monitoring requirements. On and after [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register], except for periods of required quality assurance or control activities, any period for which the CPMS fails to operate and record data continuously as required by paragraph (a)(5) of this section, or generates data that cannot be included in calculating averages as specified in (a)(6) of this section constitutes a deviation from the monitoring requirements. * * * * * (c) * * * (3) For all thermal oxidizers and catalytic oxidizers, you must meet the requirements in paragraphs (a) and (c)(3)(i) through (ii) of this section for each gas temperature monitoring device. For the purposes of this paragraph (c)(3), a thermocouple is part of the temperature sensor. * * * * * ■ 19. Section 63.3550 is amended by revising the section heading and paragraphs (a)(1), (a)(4), and (b)(1) to read as follows: khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2 § 63.3550 By what date must I conduct performance tests and initial compliance demonstrations? (a) * * * (1) All emission capture systems, addon control devices, and CPMS must be installed and operating no later than the applicable compliance date specified in § 63.3483. You must conduct according to the schedule in paragraphs (a)(1)(i) and (ii) of this section initial and periodic performance tests of each capture system and add-on control device according to §§ 63.3553, 63.3554, and 63.3555 and establish the operating limits required by § 63.3492. (i) You must conduct the initial performance test and establish the operating limits required by § 63.3492 no later than 180 days after the applicable compliance date specified in § 63.3483. (ii) You must conduct periodic performance tests and establish the operating limits required by § 63.3492 within 5 years following the previous performance test. You must conduct the first periodic performance test before [date 3 years after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register], unless you are already required to complete periodic performance tests as a requirement of renewing your VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:09 Jun 03, 2019 Jkt 247001 facility’s operating permit under 40 CFR part 70, or 40 CFR part 71, and have conducted a performance test on or after [date 2 years before date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register]. Thereafter you must conduct a performance test no later than 5 years following the previous performance test. Operating limits must be confirmed or reestablished during each performance test. * * * * * (4) For the initial compliance demonstration, you do not need to comply with the operating limits for the emission capture system and add-on control device required by § 63.3492 until after you have completed the initial performance tests specified in paragraph (a)(1) of this section. Instead, you must maintain a log detailing the operation and maintenance of the emission capture system, add-on control device, and continuous parameter monitors during the period between the compliance date and the performance test. You must begin complying with the operating limits established based on the initial performance tests specified in paragraph (a)(1) of this section on the date you complete the performance tests. (b) * * * (1) All emission capture systems, addon control devices, and CPMS must be installed and operating no later than the applicable compliance date specified in § 63.3483. Except for solvent recovery systems for which you conduct liquidliquid material balances according to § 63.3541(i), you must conduct according to the schedule in paragraphs (a)(1)(i) and (ii) of this section initial and periodic performance tests of each capture system and add-on control device according to the procedures in §§ 63.3543, 63.3544, and 63.3545 and establish the operating limits required by § 63.3492. (i) You must conduct the initial performance test and establish the operating limits required by § 63.3492 no later than 180 days after the applicable compliance date specified in § 63.3483. (ii) You must conduct periodic performance tests and establish the operating limits required by § 63.3492 within 5 years following the previous performance test. You must conduct the first periodic performance test before [date 3 years after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register], unless you are already required to complete periodic performance tests as a requirement of renewing your facility’s operating permit under 40 CFR part 70, or 40 CFR part 71, and have PO 00000 Frm 00053 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 25955 conducted a performance test on or after [date 2 years before date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register]. Thereafter you must conduct a performance test no later than 5 years following the previous performance test. Operating limits must be confirmed or reestablished during each performance test. * * * * * ■ 20. Section 63.3552 is amended by revising paragraph (g) to read as follows: § 63.3552 How do I demonstrate continuous compliance with the emission limitations? * * * * * (g) Before [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register], consistent with §§ 63.6(e) and 63.7(e)(1), deviations that occur during a period of startup, shutdown, or malfunction of the emission capture system, add-on control device, or coating operation that may affect emission capture or control device efficiency are not violations if you demonstrate to the Administrator’s satisfaction that you were operating in accordance with § 63.6(e)(1). The Administrator will determine whether deviations that occur during a period you identify as a startup, shutdown, or malfunction are violations, according to the provisions in § 63.6(e). On and after [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register] deviations that occur due to malfunction of the emission capture system, add-on control device, or coating operation that may affect emission capture or control device efficiency are required to operate in accordance with § 63.3500(b). The Administrator will determine whether the deviations are violations according to the provisions in § 63.3500(b). * * * * * ■ 21. Section 63.3553 is amended by revising paragraphs (a) introductory text and (a)(1) to read as follows: § 63.3553 What are the general requirements for performance tests? (a) Before [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register], you must conduct each performance test required by § 63.3550 according to the requirements in § 63.7(e)(1) and under the conditions in this section unless you obtain a waiver of the performance test according to the provisions in § 63.7(h). On and after [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register], you must conduct each performance test required by § 63.3550 according to the requirements in this section unless you E:\FR\FM\04JNP2.SGM 04JNP2 25956 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 107 / Tuesday, June 4, 2019 / Proposed Rules obtain a waiver of the performance test according to the provisions in § 63.7(h). (1) Representative coating operating conditions. You must conduct the performance test under representative operating conditions for the coating operation(s). Operations during periods of startup, shutdown, or nonoperation do not constitute representative conditions for purposes of conducting a performance test. The owner or operator may not conduct performance tests during periods of malfunction. You must record the process information that is necessary to document operating conditions during the test and explain why the conditions represent normal operation. Upon request, you must make available to the Administrator such records as may be necessary to determine the conditions of performance tests. * * * * * ■ 22. Section 63.3555 is amended by revising the introductory text, paragraph (b) introductory text, and paragraphs (b)(1) through (4) to read as follows: khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2 § 63.3555 How do I determine the outlet THC emissions and add-on control device emission destruction or removal efficiency? You must use the procedures and test methods in this section to determine either the outlet THC emissions or addon control device emission destruction or removal efficiency as part of the performance tests required by § 63.3550. You must conduct three test runs as specified in § 63.7(e)(3), and each test run must last at least 1 hour. * * * * * (b) Measure total gaseous organic mass emissions as carbon at the inlet and outlet of the add-on control device simultaneously using either Method 25 or 25A of appendix A–7 to 40 CFR part 60 as specified in paragraphs (b)(1) through (3) of this section. You must use the same method for both the inlet and outlet measurements. (1) Use Method 25 of appendix A–7 to 40 CFR part 60 if the add-on control device is an oxidizer, and you expect the total gaseous organic concentration as carbon to be more than 50 ppm at the control device outlet. (2) Use Method 25A of appendix A– 7 to 40 CFR part 60 if the add-on control device is an oxidizer, and you expect the total gaseous organic concentration as carbon to be 50 ppm or less at the control device outlet. (3) Use Method 25A of appendix A– 7 to 40 CFR part 60 if the add-on control device is not an oxidizer. (4) You may use Method 18 of appendix A–6 to 40 CFR part 60 to subtract methane emissions from VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:09 Jun 03, 2019 Jkt 247001 measured total gaseous organic mass emissions as carbon. * * * * * ■ 23. Section 63.3556 is amended by revising the introductory text and paragraphs (a)(1) and (2), (b)(1) through (3), (d)(1), (e)(1) and (2), (f)(1) through (3), and (f)(5) and (6) to read as follows: § 63.3556 How do I establish the emission capture system and add-on control device operating limits during the performance test? During the performance tests required by § 63.3550 and described in §§ 63.3553, 63.3554, and 63.3555, you must establish the operating limits required by § 63.3492 according to this section, unless you have received approval for alternative monitoring and operating limits under § 63.8(f) as specified in § 63.3492. (a) * * * (1) During performance tests, you must monitor and record the combustion temperature at least once every 15 minutes during each of the three test runs. You must monitor the temperature in the firebox of the thermal oxidizer or immediately downstream of the firebox before any substantial heat exchange occurs. (2) For each performance test, use the data collected during the performance test to calculate and record the average combustion temperature maintained during the performance test. That average combustion temperature is the minimum operating limit for your thermal oxidizer. (b) * * * (1) During performance tests, you must monitor and record the temperature at the inlet to the catalyst bed and the temperature difference across the catalyst bed at least once every 15 minutes during each of the three test runs. (2) For each performance test, use the data collected during the performance test to calculate and record the average temperature at the inlet to the catalyst bed and the average temperature difference across the catalyst bed maintained during the performance test. The average temperature difference is the minimum operating limit for your catalytic oxidizer. (3) As an alternative to monitoring the temperature difference across the catalyst bed, you may monitor the temperature at the inlet to the catalyst bed and implement a site-specific inspection and maintenance plan for your catalytic oxidizer as specified in paragraph (b)(4) of this section. During performance tests, you must monitor and record the temperature at the inlet to the catalyst bed at least once every 15 PO 00000 Frm 00054 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 minutes during each of the three test runs. Use the data collected during each performance test to calculate and record the average temperature at the inlet to the catalyst bed during the performance test. That is the minimum operating limit for your catalytic oxidizer. * * * * * (d) * * * (1) You must monitor and record the total regeneration desorbing gas (e.g., steam or nitrogen) mass flow for each regeneration cycle, and the carbon bed temperature after each carbon bed regeneration and cooling cycle for the regeneration cycle either immediately preceding or immediately following performance tests. * * * * * (e) * * * (1) During performance tests, monitor and record the condenser outlet (product side) gas temperature at least once every 15 minutes during each of the three test runs. (2) For each performance test, use the data collected during the performance test to calculate and record the average condenser outlet (product side) gas temperature maintained during the performance test. This average condenser outlet gas temperature is the maximum operating limit for your condenser. (f) * * * (1) During performance tests, monitor and record the inlet temperature to the desorption/reactivation zone of the concentrator at least once every 15 minutes during each of the three runs of the performance test. (2) For each performance test, use the data collected during the performance test to calculate and record the average temperature. This is the minimum operating limit for the desorption/ reactivation zone inlet temperature. (3) During performance tests, monitor and record an indicator(s) of performance for the desorption/ reactivation fan operation at least once every 15 minutes during each of the three runs of the performance test. The indicator can be speed in rpm, power in amps, static pressure, or flow rate. * * * * * (5) During performance tests, monitor the rotational speed of the concentrator at least once every 15 minutes during each of the three runs of a performance test. (6) For each performance test, use the data collected during the performance test to calculate and record the average rotational speed. This is the minimum operating limit for the rotational speed of the concentrator. However, the indicator range for the rotational speed E:\FR\FM\04JNP2.SGM 04JNP2 25957 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 107 / Tuesday, June 4, 2019 / Proposed Rules may be changed if an engineering evaluation is conducted and a determination made that the change in speed will not affect compliance with the emission limit. * * * * * ■ 24. Section 63.3557 is amended by revising paragraphs (a)(4) and (5), (a)(7), and (c)(3) introductory text to read as follows: § 63.3557 What are the requirements for continuous parameter monitoring system installation, operation, and maintenance? (a) * * * (4) You must maintain the CPMS at all times in accordance with § 63.3500(b) and have readily available necessary parts for routine repairs of the monitoring equipment. (5) You must operate the CPMS and collect emission capture system and add-on control device parameter data at all times in accordance with § 63.3500(b) that a controlled coating operation is operating, except during monitoring malfunctions, associated repairs, and required quality assurance or control activities (including, if applicable, calibration checks and required zero and span adjustments). * * * * * (7) A monitoring malfunction is any sudden, infrequent, not reasonably preventable failure of the CPMS to provide valid data. Monitoring failures that are caused in part by poor maintenance or careless operation are not malfunctions. Before [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register], any period for which the monitoring system is out of control and data are not available for § 63.3561 subpart? What definitions apply to this * * * * * Deviation, before [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register], 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, 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. Deviation, on and after [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register], 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. * * * * * ■ 26. Table 5 to subpart KKKK of part 63 is revised to read as follows: Table 5 to Subpart KKKK of Part 63— Applicability of General Provisions to Subpart KKKK You must comply with the applicable General Provisions requirements according to the following table: Citation Subject Applicable to subpart KKKK § 63.1(a)(1)–(4) .............................. § 63.1(a)(6) ..................................... § 63.1(a)(10)–(12) .......................... § 63.1(b)(1) ..................................... General Applicability ..................... Source Category Listing ............... Timing and Overlap Clarifications Initial Applicability Determination .. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes ................................................ § 63.1(b)(3) ..................................... Applicability Determination Recordkeeping. Applicability after Standard Established. Applicability of Permit Program for Area Sources. Extensions and Notifications ........ Applicability of Permit Program before Relevant Standard is Set. Definitions ..................................... Yes. § 63.1(c)(1) ..................................... § 63.1(c)(2) ..................................... § 63.1(c)(5) ..................................... § 63.1(e) ......................................... khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2 required calculations is a deviation from the monitoring requirements. On and after [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register], except for periods of required quality assurance or control activities, any period for which the CPMS fails to operate and record data continuously as required by paragraph (a)(5) of this section, or generates data that cannot be included in calculating averages as specified in (a)(6) of this section constitutes a deviation from the monitoring requirements. * * * * * (c) * * * (3) For all thermal oxidizers and catalytic oxidizers, you must meet the requirements in paragraphs (a) and (c)(3)(i) through (ii) of this section for each gas temperature monitoring device. For the purposes of this paragraph (c)(3), a thermocouple is part of the temperature sensor. * * * * * ■ 25. Section 63.3561 is amended by removing the definition for ‘‘Deviation’’ and adding definitions for ‘‘Deviation, before’’ and ‘‘Deviation, on and after’’ in alphabetical order to read as follows: § 63.2 ............................................. § 63.3 ............................................. § 63.4(a)(1)–(2) .............................. § 63.4(b)–(c) ................................... § 63.5(a) ......................................... § 63.5(b)(1), (3), (4), (6) ................. § 63.5(d)(1)(i)–(ii)(F), (d)(1)(ii)(H), (d)(1)(ii)(J), (d)(1)(iii), (d)(2)–(4). VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:09 Jun 03, 2019 Units and Abbreviations ............... Prohibited Activities ...................... Circumvention/Fragmentation ....... Construction/Reconstruction ......... Requirements for Existing, Newly Constructed, and Reconstructed Sources. Application for Approval of Construction/Reconstruction. Jkt 247001 PO 00000 Frm 00055 Fmt 4701 Explanation Applicability to subpart KKKK is also specified in § 63.3481. Yes. No ................................................. Area sources are not subject to subpart KKKK. Yes. Yes. Yes ................................................ Additional definitions are specified in § 63.3561. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\04JNP2.SGM 04JNP2 25958 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 107 / Tuesday, June 4, 2019 / Proposed Rules Citation Subject § 63.5(e) ......................................... § 63.6(e)(1)(i)–(ii) ........................... Approval of Construction/Reconstruction. Approval of Construction/Reconstruction Based on Prior State Review. Compliance with Standards and Maintenance Requirements— Applicability. Compliance Dates for New and Reconstructed Sources. Compliance Dates for Existing Sources. Operation and Maintenance ......... § 63.6(e)(1)(iii) ................................ § 63.6(e)(3)(i), (e)(3)(iii)–(ix) ........... Operation and Maintenance ......... SSMP ............................................ § 63.6(f)(1) ...................................... Compliance Except during Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction. § 63.6(f)(2)–(3) ............................... Methods for Determining Compliance. Use of an Alternative Standard .... Compliance with Opacity/Visible Emission Standards. § 63.5(f) .......................................... § 63.6(a) ......................................... § 63.6(b)(1)–(5), (b)(7) ................... § 63.6(c)(1), (2), (5) ........................ § 63.6(g) ......................................... § 63.6(h) ......................................... § 63.6(i)(1)–(14) ............................. § 63.6(i)(16) .................................... Explanation Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes ................................................ Yes ................................................ Yes before [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register]. No on and after [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register]. Yes. Yes before [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register]. No on and after [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register]. Yes before [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register]. No on and after [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register]. Yes. Yes. No ................................................. Extension of Compliance .............. Compliance Extensions and Administrator’s Authority. Presidential Compliance Exemption. Performance Test Requirements—Applicability. Yes. Yes. § 63.7(a)(2) except (a)(2)(i)–(viii) ... Performance Test ments—Dates. Yes ................................................ § 63.7(a)(3) ..................................... § 63.7(e)(1) ..................................... Performance Tests Required by the Administrator. Performance Test Requirements—Notification, Quality Assurance, Facilities Necessary for Safe Testing, Conditions During Test. Conduct of Performance Tests .... § 63.7(e)(2)–(4) .............................. Conduct of Performance Tests .... § 63.6(j) .......................................... § 63.7(a)(1) ..................................... § 63.7(b)–(d) ................................... khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2 Applicable to subpart KKKK VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:09 Jun 03, 2019 Jkt 247001 PO 00000 Frm 00056 Require- Fmt 4701 Section 63.3483 specifies the compliance dates. Section 63.3483 specifies the compliance dates. See § 63.3500(b) for general duty requirement. Subpart KKKK does not establish opacity standards and does not require continuous opacity monitoring systems (COMS). Yes. Yes ................................................ Applies to all affected sources. Additional requirements for performance testing are specified in §§ 63.3543, 63.3544, 63.3545, 63.3554, and 63.3555. Applies only to performance tests for capture system and control device efficiency at sources using these to comply with the standards. Sections 63.3540 and 63.3550 specify the schedule for performance test requirements that are earlier than those specified in § 63.7(a)(2). Yes. Yes ................................................ Yes before [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register]. No on and after [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register]. Yes. Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\04JNP2.SGM Applies only to performance tests for capture system and add-on control device efficiency at sources using these to comply with the standards. See §§ 63.3543 and 63.3553. 04JNP2 25959 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 107 / Tuesday, June 4, 2019 / Proposed Rules Citation Subject Applicable to subpart KKKK Explanation § 63.7(f) .......................................... Performance Test Requirements—Use of Alternative Test Method. Performance Test Requirements—Data Analysis, Recordkeeping, Reporting, Waiver of Test. Yes ................................................ § 63.8(a)(1)–(2) .............................. Monitoring Requirements—Applicability. Yes ................................................ § 63.8(a)(4) ..................................... Additional ments. Require- No ................................................. Applies to all test methods except those used to determine capture system efficiency. Applies only to performance tests for capture system and add-on control device efficiency at sources using these to comply with the standards. Applies only to monitoring of capture system and add-on control device efficiency at sources using these to comply with the standards. Additional requirements for monitoring are specified in §§ 63.3547 and 63.3557. Subpart KKKK does not have monitoring requirements for flares. § 63.8(b) ......................................... § 63.8(c)(1) ..................................... Conduct of Monitoring .................. Continuous Monitoring System (CMS) Operation and Maintenance. § 63.8(c)(2)–(3) .............................. CMS Operation and Maintenance Yes. Yes before [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register]. No on and after [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register]. Yes ................................................ § 63.8(c)(4) ..................................... CMS .............................................. No ................................................. § 63.8(c)(5) ..................................... COMS ........................................... No ................................................. § 63.8(c)(6) ..................................... CMS Requirements ...................... No ................................................. § 63.8(c)(7) ..................................... § 63.8(c)(8) ..................................... CMS Out-of-Control Periods ........ CMS Out-of-Control Periods Reporting. Yes. No ................................................. § 63.8(d)–(e) ................................... Quality Control Program and CMS Performance Evaluation. Use of an Alternative Monitoring Method. Alternative to Relative Accuracy Test. No. § 63.8(g) ......................................... Data Reduction ............................. No ................................................. § 63.9(a) ......................................... § 63.9(b)(1)–(2) .............................. § 63.9(b)(4)(i), (b)(4)(v), (b)(5) ....... Notification Applicability ................ Initial Notifications ......................... Application for Approval of Construction or Reconstruction. Request for Extension of Compliance. Special Compliance Requirement Notification. Yes. Yes. Yes. § 63.7(g)–(h) ................................... § 63.8(f)(1)–(5) ............................... khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2 § 63.8(f)(6) ...................................... § 63.9(c) ......................................... § 63.9(d) ......................................... VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:09 Jun 03, 2019 Jkt 247001 Monitoring PO 00000 Frm 00057 Fmt 4701 Yes ................................................ Sections 63.3547 and 63.3557 specify the requirements for the operation of CMS for capture systems and add-on control devices at sources using these to comply. Applies only to monitoring of capture system and add-on control device efficiency at sources using these to comply with the standards. Additional requirements for CMS operations and maintenance are specified in §§ 63.3547 and 63.3557. Sections 63.3547 and 63.3557 specify the requirements for the operation of CMS for capture systems and add-on control devices at sources using these to comply. Subpart KKKK does not have opacity or visible emission standards. Sections 63.3547 and 63.3557 specify the requirements for monitoring systems for capture systems and add-on control devices at sources using these to comply. Section 63.3511 requires reporting of CMS out of control periods. Yes. No ................................................. Section 63.8(f)(6) provisions are not applicable because subpart KKKK does not require CEMS. Sections 63.3542, 63.3547, 63.3552 and 63.3557 specify monitoring data reduction. Yes. Yes. Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\04JNP2.SGM 04JNP2 25960 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 107 / Tuesday, June 4, 2019 / Proposed Rules Citation Subject Applicable to subpart KKKK Explanation § 63.9(e) ......................................... Notification of Performance Test .. Yes ................................................ § 63.9(f) .......................................... Notification of Visible Emissions/ Opacity Test. No ................................................. Applies only to capture system and add-on control device performance tests at sources using these to comply with the standards. Subpart KKKK does not have opacity or visible emission standards. § 63.9(g) ......................................... Additional Notifications When Using CMS. Notification of Compliance Status No. § 63.9(h)(1)–(3) .............................. § 63.9(h)(5)–(6) .............................. § 63.9(i) .......................................... § 63.9(j) .......................................... § 63.10(a) ....................................... § 63.10(b)(1) ................................... § 63.10(b)(2)(i)–(ii) .......................... § 63.10(b)(2)(iii) .............................. § 63.10(b)(2)(iv)–(v) ....................... Recordkeeping Relevant to Maintenance of Air Pollution Control and Monitoring Equipment. Actions Taken to Minimize Emissions During Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction. § 63.10(b)(2)(vi) .............................. Recordkeeping for CMS Malfunctions. § 63.10(b)(2) § 63.10(b)(2) § 63.10(b)(2) § 63.10(b)(3) Records ........................................ ....................................................... ....................................................... Recordkeeping Requirements for Applicability Determinations. Additional Recordkeeping Requirements for Sources with CMS. ....................................................... Additional Recordkeeping Requirements for Sources with CMS. (vii)–(xii) .................... (xiii) ........................... (xiv) ........................... ................................... § 63.10(c)(1) ................................... § 63.10(c)(5)–(6) ............................ § 63.10(c)(7)–(8) ............................ § 63.10(c)(10)–(14) ........................ § 63.10(c)(15) ................................. khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2 Clarifications ................................. Adjustment of Submittal Deadlines. Change in Previous Information ... Recordkeeping/Reporting—Applicability and General Information. General Recordkeeping Requirements. Recordkeeping of Occurrence and Duration of Startups and Shutdowns and of Failures to Meet Standards. Additional Recordkeeping Requirements for Sources with CMS. Records Regarding the Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction Plan. Yes ................................................ Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes ................................................ Yes before [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register]. No on and after [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register]. Yes. Yes before [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register]. No on and after [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register]. Yes before [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register]. No on and after [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register]. Yes. No. Yes. Yes. Yes. No ................................................. Yes before [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register]. No on and after [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register]. Yes ................................................ § 63.10(d)(2) ................................... Report of Performance Test Results. Reporting Opacity or Visible Emissions Observations. Yes ................................................ Progress Reports for Sources with Compliance Extensions. Yes. VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:09 Jun 03, 2019 Jkt 247001 PO 00000 Frm 00058 Fmt 4701 See § 63.3512(i)(4) for a record of actions taken to minimize emissions duration a deviation from the standard. See § 63.3512(i) for records of periods of deviation from the standard, including instances where a CMS is inoperative or out-of-control. See § 63.3512(i) for records of periods of deviation from the standard, including instances where a CMS is inoperative or out-of-control. Yes. General Reporting Requirements § 63.10(d)(4) ................................... Additional requirements are specified in §§ 63.3512 and 63.3513. See § 63.3512(i). Yes. § 63.10(d)(1) ................................... § 63.10(d)(3) ................................... Section 63.3510 specifies the dates for submitting the notification of compliance status. No ................................................. Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\04JNP2.SGM Additional requirements are specified in § 63.3511. Additional requirements are specified in § 63.3511(b). Subpart KKKK does not require opacity or visible emissions observations. 04JNP2 25961 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 107 / Tuesday, June 4, 2019 / Proposed Rules Citation Subject Applicable to subpart KKKK Malfunction Explanation § 63.10(d)(5) ................................... Startup, Shutdown, Reports. Yes before [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register]. No on and after [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register]. No. No ................................................. § 63.10(e)(1)–(2) ............................ § 63.10(e)(3) ................................... Additional CMS Reports ............... Excess Emissions/CMS Performance Reports. § 63.10(e)(4) ................................... COMS Data Reports .................... No ................................................. § 63.10(f) ........................................ § 63.11 ........................................... Yes. No ................................................. § 63.12 ........................................... § 63.13(a) ....................................... Recordkeeping/Reporting Waiver Control Device Requirements/ Flares. State Authority and Delegations ... Addresses ..................................... § 63.13(b) ....................................... § 63.13(c) ....................................... Submittal to State Agencies ......... Submittal to State Agencies ......... § 63.14 ........................................... § 63.15 ........................................... Incorporation by Reference .......... Availability of Information/Confidentiality. See § 63.3511(a)(7) and (8). Section 63.3511(b) specifies the contents of periodic compliance reports. Subpart KKKK does not specify requirements for opacity or COMS. Subpart KKKK does not specify use of flares for compliance. Yes. Yes before [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register]. No on and after [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register]. Yes. Yes before [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register]. No unless the state requires the submittal via CEDRI, on and after [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register]. Yes. Yes. 27. Table 8 to subpart KKKK of part 63 is added to read as follows: ■ TABLE 8 TO SUBPART KKKK OF PART 63—LIST OF HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANTS THAT MUST BE COUNTED TOWARD TOTAL ORGANIC HAP CONTENT IF PRESENT AT 0.1 PERCENT OR MORE BY MASS khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2 Chemical name CAS No. 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane .................................................................................................................................................................... 1,1,2-Trichloroethane ........................................................................................................................................................................... 1,1-Dimethylhydrazine ......................................................................................................................................................................... 1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane .............................................................................................................................................................. 1,2-Diphenylhydrazine ......................................................................................................................................................................... 1,3-Butadiene ....................................................................................................................................................................................... 1,3-Dichloropropene ............................................................................................................................................................................ 1,4-Dioxane .......................................................................................................................................................................................... 2,4,6-Trichlorophenol ........................................................................................................................................................................... 2,4/2,6-Dinitrotoluene (mixture) ........................................................................................................................................................... 2,4-Dinitrotoluene ................................................................................................................................................................................. 2,4-Toluene diamine ............................................................................................................................................................................ 2-Nitropropane ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 3,3′-Dichlorobenzidine ......................................................................................................................................................................... 3,3′-Dimethoxybenzidine ..................................................................................................................................................................... 3,3′-Dimethylbenzidine ........................................................................................................................................................................ 4,4′-Methylene bis(2-chloroaniline) ...................................................................................................................................................... Acetaldehyde ....................................................................................................................................................................................... Acrylamide ........................................................................................................................................................................................... Acrylonitrile .......................................................................................................................................................................................... Allyl chloride ......................................................................................................................................................................................... alpha-Hexachlorocyclohexane (a-HCH) .............................................................................................................................................. Aniline .................................................................................................................................................................................................. Benzene ............................................................................................................................................................................................... Benzidine ............................................................................................................................................................................................. Benzotrichloride ................................................................................................................................................................................... Benzyl chloride .................................................................................................................................................................................... beta-Hexachlorocyclohexane (b-HCH) ................................................................................................................................................ VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:09 Jun 03, 2019 Jkt 247001 PO 00000 Frm 00059 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\04JNP2.SGM 04JNP2 79–34–5 79–00–5 57–14–7 96–12–8 122–66–7 106–99–0 542–75–6 123–91–1 88–06–2 25321–14–6 121–14–2 95–80–7 79–46–9 91–94–1 119–90–4 119–93–7 101–14–4 75–07–0 79–06–1 107–13–1 107–05–1 319–84–6 62–53–3 71–43–2 92–87–5 98–07–7 100–44–7 319–85–7 25962 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 107 / Tuesday, June 4, 2019 / Proposed Rules TABLE 8 TO SUBPART KKKK OF PART 63—LIST OF HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANTS THAT MUST BE COUNTED TOWARD TOTAL ORGANIC HAP CONTENT IF PRESENT AT 0.1 PERCENT OR MORE BY MASS—Continued Chemical name CAS No. Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate .................................................................................................................................................................... Bis(chloromethyl)ether ......................................................................................................................................................................... Bromoform ........................................................................................................................................................................................... Captan ................................................................................................................................................................................................. Carbon tetrachloride ............................................................................................................................................................................ Chlordane ............................................................................................................................................................................................ Chlorobenzilate .................................................................................................................................................................................... Chloroform ........................................................................................................................................................................................... Chloroprene ......................................................................................................................................................................................... Cresols (mixed) .................................................................................................................................................................................... DDE ..................................................................................................................................................................................................... Dichloroethyl ether ............................................................................................................................................................................... Dichlorvos ............................................................................................................................................................................................ Epichlorohydrin .................................................................................................................................................................................... Ethyl acrylate ....................................................................................................................................................................................... Ethylene dibromide .............................................................................................................................................................................. Ethylene dichloride .............................................................................................................................................................................. Ethylene oxide ..................................................................................................................................................................................... Ethylene thiourea ................................................................................................................................................................................. Ethylidene dichloride (1,1-Dichloroethane) .......................................................................................................................................... Formaldehyde ...................................................................................................................................................................................... Heptachlor ............................................................................................................................................................................................ Hexachlorobenzene ............................................................................................................................................................................. Hexachlorobutadiene ........................................................................................................................................................................... Hexachloroethane ................................................................................................................................................................................ Hydrazine ............................................................................................................................................................................................. Isophorone ........................................................................................................................................................................................... Lindane (hexachlorocyclohexane, all isomers) ................................................................................................................................... m-Cresol .............................................................................................................................................................................................. Methylene chloride ............................................................................................................................................................................... Naphthalene ......................................................................................................................................................................................... Nitrobenzene ........................................................................................................................................................................................ Nitrosodimethylamine .......................................................................................................................................................................... o-Cresol ............................................................................................................................................................................................... o-Toluidine ........................................................................................................................................................................................... Parathion .............................................................................................................................................................................................. p-Cresol ............................................................................................................................................................................................... p-Dichlorobenzene ............................................................................................................................................................................... Pentachloronitrobenzene ..................................................................................................................................................................... Pentachlorophenol ............................................................................................................................................................................... Propoxur .............................................................................................................................................................................................. Propylene dichloride ............................................................................................................................................................................ Propylene oxide ................................................................................................................................................................................... Quinoline .............................................................................................................................................................................................. Tetrachloroethene ................................................................................................................................................................................ Toxaphene ........................................................................................................................................................................................... Trichloroethylene ................................................................................................................................................................................. Trifluralin .............................................................................................................................................................................................. Vinyl bromide ....................................................................................................................................................................................... Vinyl chloride ....................................................................................................................................................................................... Vinylidene chloride ............................................................................................................................................................................... khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2 Subpart SSSS—National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Surface Coating of Metal Coil 28. Section 63.5090 is amended by revising paragraph (a) and adding paragraph (e) to read as follows: ■ § 63.5090 Does this subpart apply to me? (a) The provisions of this subpart apply to each facility that is a major source of HAP, as defined in § 63.2, at which a coil coating line is operated, VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:09 Jun 03, 2019 Jkt 247001 except as provided in paragraphs (b) and (e) of this section. * * * * * (e) This subpart does not apply to the application of incidental markings (including letters, numbers, or symbols) that are added to bare metal coils and that are used for only product identification or for product inventory control. The application of letters, numbers, or symbols to a coated metal coil is considered a coil coating process and part of the coil coating affected source. PO 00000 Frm 00060 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 117–81–7 542–88–1 75–25–2 133–06–2 56–23–5 57–74–9 510–15–6 67–66–3 126–99–8 1319–77–3 3547–04–4 111–44–4 62–73–7 106–89–8 140–88–5 106–93–4 107–06–2 75–21–8 96–45–7 75–34–3 50–00–0 76–44–8 118–74–1 87–68–3 67–72–1 302–01–2 78–59–1 58–89–9 108–39–4 75–09–2 91–20–3 98–95–3 62–75–9 95–48–7 95–53–4 56–38–2 106–44–5 106–46–7 82–68–8 87–86–5 114–26–1 78–87–5 75–56–9 91–22–5 127–18–4 8001–35–2 79–01–6 1582–09–8 593–60–2 75–01–4 75–35–4 29. Section 63.5110 is amended by removing the definition for ‘‘Deviation’’ and adding definitions for ‘‘Deviation, before’’ and ‘‘Deviation, on and after’’ in alphabetical order to read as follows: ■ § 63.5110 What special definitions are used in this subpart? * * * * * Deviation, before [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register], means any instance in which an affected source, subject to this subpart, or an owner or operator of such a source: E:\FR\FM\04JNP2.SGM 04JNP2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 107 / Tuesday, June 4, 2019 / Proposed Rules (1) Fails to meet any requirement or obligation established by this subpart including, but not limited to, any emission limitation (including any 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 limitation (including any operating limit) or work practice standard in this subpart during start-up, shutdown, or malfunction, regardless of whether or not such failure is permitted by this subpart. Deviation, on and after [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register], 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 limitation (including any 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. * * * * * ■ 30. Section 63.5121 is amended by revising paragraph (a) to read as follows: khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2 § 63.5121 meet? What operating limits must I (a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, for any coil coating line for which you use an add-on control device, unless you use a solvent recovery system and conduct a liquidliquid material balance according to § 63.5170(e)(1), you must meet the applicable operating limits specified in Table 1 to this subpart. You must establish the operating limits during performance tests according to the requirements in § 63.5160(d)(3) and Table 1 to § 63.5160. You must meet the operating limits established during the most recent performance test required in § 63.5160 at all times after you establish them. * * * * * ■ 31. Section 63.5130 is amended by revising paragraph (a) to read as follows: VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:09 Jun 03, 2019 Jkt 247001 § 63.5130 When must I comply? (a) For an existing affected source, the compliance date is June 10, 2005. * * * * * ■ 32. Section 63.5140 is amended by: ■ a. Revising paragraph (a); ■ b. Redesignating paragraph (b) as (c); and ■ c. Adding paragraph (b). The revision and addition read as follows: § 63.5140 What general requirements must I meet to comply with the standards? (a) Before [date 181 days after publication of final rule in the Federal Register], you must be in compliance with the applicable emission standards in § 63.5120 and the operating limits in Table 1 to this subpart at all times, except during periods of start-up, shutdown, and malfunction of any capture system and control device used to comply with this subpart. On and after [date 181 days after publication of final rule in the Federal Register] you must be in compliance with the applicable emission standards in § 63.5120 and the operating limits in Table 1 to this subpart at all times. If you are complying with the emission standards of this subpart without the use of a capture system and control device, you must be in compliance with the standards at all times. (b) Before [date 181 days after publication of final rule in the Federal Register], you must always operate and maintain your affected source, including air pollution control and monitoring equipment, according to the provisions in § 63.6(e)(1). On and after [date 181 days after publication of final rule in the Federal Register], at all times, you must operate and maintain your affected source, including associated air pollution control equipment and monitoring equipment, in a manner consistent with safety and good air pollution control practices for minimizing emissions. The general duty to minimize emissions does not require the owner or operator to make any further efforts to reduce emissions if levels required by the applicable standard have been achieved. Determination of whether a source is operating in compliance with operation and maintenance requirements will be based on information available to the Administrator that may include, but is not limited to, monitoring results, PO 00000 Frm 00061 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 25963 review of operation and maintenance procedures, review of operation and maintenance records, and inspection of the affected source. * * * * * ■ 33. Section 63.5150 is amended by revising paragraph (a) introductory text, paragraph (a)(4)(i), and paragraph (b) to read as follows: § 63.5150 If I use a control device to comply with the emission standards, what monitoring must I do? * * * * * (a) To demonstrate continuing compliance with the standards, you must monitor and inspect each capture system and each control device required to comply with § 63.5120 following the date on which the initial performance test of the capture system and control device is completed. You must install and operate the monitoring equipment as specified in paragraphs (a)(1) through (4) of this section. On and after [date 181 days after publication of final rule in the Federal Register], you must also maintain the monitoring equipment at all times in accordance with § 63.5140(b) and keep the necessary parts readily available for routine repairs of the monitoring equipment. * * * * * (4) * * * (i) The monitoring plan must identify the operating parameter to be monitored to ensure that the capture efficiency measured during compliance tests is maintained, explain why this parameter is appropriate for demonstrating ongoing compliance, and identify the specific monitoring procedures. * * * * * (b) If an operating parameter monitored in accordance with paragraphs (a)(3) and (4) of this section is out of the allowed range specified in Table 1 to this subpart it will be considered a deviation from the operating limit. ■ 34. Section 63.5160 is amended by revising table 1 and paragraphs (b)(1)(i), (b)(2), (b)(4), (c), (d) introductory text, (d)(1) introductory text, (d)(1)(vi) introductory text, (d)(1)(vii), (d)(2), (d)(3) introductory text, (d)(3)(i)(A), (d)(3)(ii)(D) introductory text, and (e) introductory text to read as follows: § 63.5160 What performance tests must I complete? E:\FR\FM\04JNP2.SGM 04JNP2 25964 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 107 / Tuesday, June 4, 2019 / Proposed Rules TABLE 1 TO § 63.5160—REQUIRED PERFORMANCE TESTING SUMMARY If you control HAP on your coil coating line by: You must: 1. Limiting HAP or Volatile matter content of coatings. 2. Using a capture system and add-on control device. Determine the HAP or volatile matter and solids content of coating materials according to the procedures in § 63.5160(b) and (c). Except as specified in paragraph (a) of this section, conduct an initial performance test within 180 days of the applicable compliance date in § 63.5130, and conduct periodic performance tests within 5 years following the previous performance test, as follows: Conduct the first periodic performance test before [date 3 years after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register], unless you are already required to complete periodic performance tests as a requirement of renewing your facility’s operating permit under 40 CFR part 70, or 40 CFR part 71, and have conducted a performance test on or after [date 2 years before date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register]; thereafter, conduct a performance test no later than 5 years following the previous performance test. For each performance test: (1) For each capture and control system, determine the destruction or removal efficiency of each control device according to § 63.5160(d) and the capture efficiency of each capture system according to § 63.5160(e), and (2) confirm or re-establish the operating limits. khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2 * * * * * (b) * * * (1) * * * (i) Count only those organic HAP in Table 3 to this subpart that are measured to be present at greater than or equal to 0.1 weight percent and greater than or equal to 1.0 weight percent for other organic HAP compounds. * * * * * (2) Method 24 in appendix A–7 of part 60. For coatings, you may determine the total volatile matter content as weight fraction of nonaqueous volatile matter and use it as a substitute for organic HAP, using Method 24 in appendix A– 7 of part 60. As an alternative to using Method 24, you may use ASTM D2369– 10 (2015), ‘‘Test Method for Volatile Content of Coatings’’ (incorporated by reference, see § 63.14). The determination of total volatile matter content using a method specified in this paragraph (b)(2) or as provided in paragraph (b)(3) of this section may be performed by the manufacturer of the coating and the results provided to you. * * * * * (4) Formulation data. You may use formulation data provided that the information represents each organic HAP in Table 3 to this subpart that is present at a level equal to or greater than 0.1 percent and equal to or greater than 1.0 percent for other organic HAP compounds in any raw material used, weighted by the mass fraction of each raw material used in the material. Formulation data may be provided to you by the manufacturer of the coating material. In the event of any inconsistency between test data obtained with the test methods specified in paragraphs (b)(1) through (3) of this section and formulation data, the test data will govern. (c) Solids content and density. You must determine the solids content and the density of each coating material VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:09 Jun 03, 2019 Jkt 247001 applied. You may determine the volume solids content using ASTM D2697– 03(2014) Standard Test Method for Volume Nonvolatile Matter in Clear or Pigmented Coatings (incorporated by reference, see § 63.14) or ASTM D6093– 97 (2016) Standard Test Method for Percent Volume Nonvolatile Matter in Clear or Pigmented Coatings Using a Helium Gas Pycnometer (incorporated by reference, see § 63.14), or an EPA approved alternative method. You must determine the density of each coating using ASTM D1475–13 Standard Test Method for Density of Liquid Coatings, Inks, and Related Products (incorporated by reference, see § 63.14) or ASTM D2111–10 (2015) Standard Test Methods for Specific Gravity of Halogenated Organic Solvents and Their Admixtures (incorporated by reference, see § 63.14). The solids determination using ASTM D2697–03(2014) or ASTM D6093–97 (2016) and the density determination using ASTM D1475–13 or ASTM 2111–10 (2015) may be performed by the manufacturer of the material and the results provided to you. Alternatively, you may rely on formulation data provided by material providers to determine the volume solids. In the event of any inconsistency between test data obtained with the ASTM test methods specified in this section and formulation data, the test data will govern. (d) Control device destruction or removal efficiency. If you are using an add-on control device, such as an oxidizer, to comply with the standard in § 63.5120, you must conduct performance tests according to Table 1 to § 63.5160 to establish the destruction or removal efficiency of the control device or the outlet HAP concentration achieved by the oxidizer, according to the methods and procedures in paragraphs (d)(1) and (2) of this section. During performance tests, you must establish the operating limits required PO 00000 Frm 00062 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 by § 63.5121 according to paragraph (d)(3) of this section. (1) Performance tests conducted to determine the destruction or removal efficiency of the control device must be performed such that control device inlet and outlet testing is conducted simultaneously. To determine the outlet organic HAP concentration achieved by the oxidizer, only oxidizer outlet testing must be conducted. The data must be reduced in accordance with the test methods and procedures in paragraphs (d)(1)(i) through (ix). * * * * * (vi) Method 25 or 25A in appendix A– 7 of part 60 is used to determine total gaseous non-methane organic matter concentration. You may use Method 18 in appendix A–6 of part 60 to subtract methane emissions from measured total gaseous organic mass emissions as carbon. Use the same test method for both the inlet and outlet measurements, which must be conducted simultaneously. You must submit notification of the intended test method to the Administrator for approval along with notification of the performance test required under § 63.7 (b). You must use Method 25A if any of the conditions described in paragraphs (d)(1)(vi)(A) through (D) of this section apply to the control device. * * * * * (vii) Each performance test must consist of three separate runs, except as provided by § 63.7(e)(3); each run must be conducted for at least 1 hour under the conditions that exist when the affected source is operating under normal operating conditions. For the purpose of determining volatile organic matter concentrations and mass flow rates, the average of the results of all runs will apply. If you are demonstrating compliance with the outlet organic HAP concentration limit in § 63.5120(a)(3), only the average E:\FR\FM\04JNP2.SGM 04JNP2 25965 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 107 / Tuesday, June 4, 2019 / Proposed Rules outlet volatile organic matter concentration must be determined. * * * * * (2) You must record such process information as may be necessary to determine the conditions in existence at the time of the performance test. Before [date 181 days after publication of final rule in the Federal Register], operations during periods of start-up, shutdown, and malfunction will not constitute representative conditions for the purpose of a performance test. On and after [date 181 days after publication of final rule in the Federal Register], you must conduct the performance test under representative operating conditions for the coating operation. Operations during periods of start-up, shutdown, or nonoperation do not constitute representative conditions for the purpose of a performance test. The owner or operator may not conduct performance tests during periods of malfunction. You must record the process information that is necessary to document operating conditions during the test and explain why the conditions represent normal operation. Upon request, you must make available to the Administrator such records as may be necessary to determine the conditions of performance tests. (3) Operating limits. If you are using a capture system and add-on control device other than a solvent recovery system for which you conduct a liquidliquid material balance to comply with the requirements in § 63.5120, you must establish the applicable operating limits required by § 63.5121. These operating limits apply to each capture system and to each add-on emission control device that is not monitored by CEMS, and you must establish the operating limits during performance tests required by paragraph (d) of this section according to the requirements in paragraphs (d)(3)(i) through (iii) of this section. (i) * * * (A) During performance tests, you must monitor and record the combustion temperature at least once every 15 minutes during each of the three test runs. You must monitor the temperature in the firebox of the thermal oxidizer or immediately downstream of the firebox before any substantial heat exchange occurs. * * * * * (ii) * * * (D) You must develop and implement an inspection and maintenance plan for your catalytic oxidizer(s) for which you elect to monitor according to paragraph (d)(3)(ii)(C) of this section. The plan must address, at a minimum, the elements specified in paragraphs (d)(3)(ii)(D)(1)–(3) of this section. * * * * * (e) Capture efficiency. If you are required to determine capture efficiency to meet the requirements of § 63.5170(e)(2), (f)(1) and (2), (g)(2) through (4), or (i)(2) and (3), you must determine capture efficiency using the procedures in paragraph (e)(1), (2), or (3) of this section, as applicable. * * * * * ■ 35. Section 63.5170 is amended by revising table 1 and paragraphs (c)(1) and (2), (c)(4) introductory text, (e)(2) introductory text, (f)(1) introductory text, (f)(2), (g)(2) introductory text, (g)(3) introductory text, (g)(4) introductory text, Equation 11 of paragraph (h)(6), (i) introductory text, and (i)(1) to read as follows: § 63.5170 How do I demonstrate compliance with the standards? * * * * * TABLE 1 TO § 63.5170—COMPLIANCE DEMONSTRATION REQUIREMENTS INDEX If you choose to demonstrate compliance by: Then you must demonstrate that: 1. Use of ‘‘as purchased’’ compliant coatings .... a. Each coating material used during the 12-month compliance period does not exceed 0.046 kg HAP per liter solids, as purchased. Paragraph (a) of this section. a. Each coating material used does not exceed 0.046 kg HAP per liter solids on a rolling 12month average as applied basis, determined monthly. Paragraphs (b)(1) of this section; or b. Average of all coating materials used does not exceed 0.046 kg HAP per liter solids on a rolling 12-month average as applied basis, determined monthly. Paragraph (b)(2) of this section. Overall organic HAP control efficiency is at least 98 percent on a monthly basis for individual or groups of coil coating lines; or overall organic HAP control efficiency is at least 98 percent during performance tests conducted according to Table 1 to § 63.5170 and operating limits are achieved continuously for individual coil coating lines; or oxidizer outlet HAP concentration is no greater than 20 ppmv and there is 100 percent capture efficiency during performance tests conducted according to Table 1 to § 63.5170 and operating limits are achieved continuously for individual coil coating lines. Paragraph (c) of this section. Average equivalent emission rate does not exceed 0.046 kg HAP per liter solids on a rolling 12-month average as applied basis, determined monthly. Paragraph (d) of this section. 2. Use of ‘‘as applied’’ compliant coatings ......... 3. Use of a capture system and control device 4. Use of a combination of compliant coatings and control devices and maintaining an acceptable equivalent emission rate. khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2 * * * * * (c) * * * (1) If the affected source uses one compliance procedure to limit organic HAP emissions to the level specified in § 63.5120(a)(1) or (3) and has only always-controlled work stations, then you must demonstrate compliance with the provisions of paragraph (e) of this section when emissions from the affected source are controlled by one or more solvent recovery devices. (2) If the affected source uses one compliance procedure to limit organic HAP emissions to the level specified in VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:09 Jun 03, 2019 Jkt 247001 § 63.5120(a)(1) or (3) and has only always-controlled work stations, then you must demonstrate compliance with the provisions of paragraph (f) of this section when emissions are controlled by one or more oxidizers. * * * * * (4) The method of limiting organic HAP emissions to the level specified in § 63.5120(a)(3) is the installation and operation of a PTE around each work station and associated curing oven in the coating line and the ventilation of all organic HAP emissions from each PO 00000 Frm 00063 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 PTE to an oxidizer with an outlet organic HAP concentration of no greater than 20 ppmv on a dry basis. An enclosure that meets the requirements in § 63.5160(e)(1) is considered a PTE. Compliance of the oxidizer with the outlet organic HAP concentration limit is demonstrated either through continuous emission monitoring according to paragraph (c)(4)(ii) of this section or through performance tests according to the requirements of § 63.5160(d) and Table 1 to § 63.5160. If this method is selected, you must meet the requirements of paragraph (c)(4)(i) of E:\FR\FM\04JNP2.SGM 04JNP2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 107 / Tuesday, June 4, 2019 / Proposed Rules this section to demonstrate continuing achievement of 100 percent capture of organic HAP emissions and either paragraph (c)(4)(ii) or paragraph (c)(4)(iii) of this section, respectively, to demonstrate continuous compliance with the oxidizer outlet organic HAP concentration limit through continuous emission monitoring or continuous operating parameter monitoring: * * * * * (e) * * * (2) Continuous emission monitoring of control device performance. Use continuous emission monitors to demonstrate recovery efficiency, conduct performance tests of capture efficiency and volumetric flow rate, and continuously monitor a site specific operating parameter to ensure that capture efficiency and volumetric flow rate are maintained following the procedures in paragraphs (e)(2)(i) through (xi) of this section: * * * * * (f) * * * (1) Continuous monitoring of capture system and control device operating parameters. Demonstrate compliance through performance tests of capture efficiency and control device efficiency and continuous monitoring of capture system and control device operating parameters as specified in paragraphs (f)(1)(i) through (xi) of this section: * * * * * (2) Continuous emission monitoring of control device performance. Use continuous emission monitors, conduct performance tests of capture efficiency, and continuously monitor a site specific operating parameter to ensure that capture efficiency is maintained. Compliance must be demonstrated in accordance with paragraph (e)(2) of this section. (g) * * * (2) Solvent recovery system using performance test and continuous monitoring compliance demonstration. For each solvent recovery system used to control one or more coil coating stations for which you choose to comply by means of performance testing of capture efficiency, continuous emission monitoring of the control device, and continuous monitoring of a capture system operating parameter, each month of the 12-month compliance period you must meet the requirements of paragraphs (g)(2)(i) and (ii) of this section: * * * * * (3) Oxidizer using performance tests and continuous monitoring of operating parameters compliance demonstration. For each oxidizer used to control emissions from one or more work stations for which you choose to demonstrate compliance through performance tests of capture efficiency, control device efficiency, and continuous monitoring of capture system and control device operating parameters, each month of the 12-month compliance period you must meet the requirements of paragraphs (g)(3)(i) through (iii) of this section: * * * * * (4) Oxidizer using continuous emission monitoring compliance demonstration. For each oxidizer used to control emissions from one or more work stations for which you choose to demonstrate compliance through capture efficiency testing, continuous emission monitoring of the control device, and continuous monitoring of a capture system operating parameter, each month of the 12-month compliance period you must meet the requirements in paragraphs (g)(4)(i) and (ii) of this section: * * * * * (h) * * * (6) * * * * ■ c. Revising paragraphs (g)(2)(v), (h) introductory text, (h)(2) and (3); ■ d. Adding paragraph (h)(4); and ■ e. Revising paragraphs (i) introductory text, (i)(1) through (4), (i)(6), and (i)(9). The revisions and addition read as follows: plan specified in § 63.6 (e)(3) and required before [date 181 days after publication of final rule in the Federal Register], you must state such information in the report. The start-up, shutdown, or malfunction report will consist of a letter containing the name, title, and signature of the responsible official who is certifying its accuracy, that will be submitted to the Administrator. Separate start-up, shutdown, or malfunction reports are not required if the information is included in the report specified in paragraph (g) of this section. The startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan and start-up, shutdown, and malfunction report are no longer required on and after [date 181 days after publication of final rule in the Federal Register]. * * * * * (g) * * * (2) * * * (v) A statement that there were no deviations from the applicable emission * * * * (i) Capture and control system compliance demonstration procedures using a CPMS for a coil coating line. If you use an add-on control device, to demonstrate compliance for each capture system and each control device through performance tests and continuous monitoring of capture system and control device operating parameters, you must meet the requirements in paragraphs (i)(1) through (3) of this section. (1) Conduct performance tests according to the schedule in Table 1 to § 63.5160 to determine the control device destruction or removal efficiency, DRE, according to § 63.5160(d) and Table 1 to § 63.5160. * * * * * ■ 36. Section 63.5180 is amended by: ■ a. Revising paragraphs (f) introductory text and (f)(1); ■ b. Removing and reserving paragraph (f)(2); VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:09 Jun 03, 2019 Jkt 247001 § 63.5180 What reports must I submit? * * * * * (f) Before [date 181 days after publication of final rule in the Federal Register], you must submit start-up, shutdown, and malfunction reports as specified in § 63.10(d)(5) if you use a control device to comply with this subpart. (1) Before [date 181 days after publication of final rule in the Federal Register], if your actions during a startup, shutdown, or malfunction of an affected source (including actions taken to correct a malfunction) are not completely consistent with the procedures specified in the source’s start-up, shutdown, and malfunction PO 00000 Frm 00064 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\04JNP2.SGM 04JNP2 EP04JN19.000</GPH> khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2 25966 khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 107 / Tuesday, June 4, 2019 / Proposed Rules limit in § 63.5120 or the applicable operating limit(s) established according to § 63.5121 during the reporting period, and that no CEMS were inoperative, inactive, malfunctioning, out-of-control, repaired, or adjusted. (h) You must submit, for each deviation occurring at an affected source where you are not using CEMS to comply with the standards in this subpart, the semi-annual compliance report containing the information in paragraphs (g)(2)(i) through (iv) of this section and the information in paragraphs (h)(1) through (4) of this section: * * * * * (2) Before [date 181 days after publication of final rule in the Federal Register], you must provide information on the number, duration, and cause of deviations (including unknown cause, if applicable) as applicable, and the corrective action taken. On and after [date 181 days after publication of final rule in the Federal Register], you must provide information on the number, date, time, duration, and cause of deviations from an emission limit in § 63.5120 or any applicable operating limit established according to § 63.5121 (including unknown cause, if applicable) as applicable, and the corrective action taken. (3) Before [date 181 days after publication of final rule in the Federal Register], you must provide information on the number, duration, and cause for continuous parameter monitoring system downtime incidents (including unknown cause other than downtime associated with zero and span and other daily calibration checks, if applicable). On and after [date 181 days after publication of final rule in the Federal Register], you must provide the information specified in paragraphs (h)(3)(i) and (ii) of this section. (i) Number, date, time, duration, cause (including unknown cause), and descriptions of corrective actions taken for continuous parameter monitoring systems that are inoperative (except for zero (low-level) and high-level checks). (ii) Number, date, time, duration, cause (including unknown cause), and descriptions of corrective actions taken for continuous parameter monitoring systems that are out of control as specified in § 63.8(c)(7). (4) On and after [date 181 days after publication of final rule in the Federal Register], for each deviation from an emission limit in § 63.5120 or any applicable operating limit established according to § 63.5121, you must provide a list of the affected source or equipment, an estimate of the quantity VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:09 Jun 03, 2019 Jkt 247001 of each regulated pollutant emitted over any emission limit in § 63.5120, a description of the method used to estimate the emissions, and the actions you took to minimize emissions in accordance with § 63.5140(b). (i) You must submit, for each deviation from the applicable emission limit in § 63.5120 or the applicable operation limit(s) established according to § 63.5121 occurring at an affected source where you are using CEMS to comply with the standards in this subpart, the semi-annual compliance report containing the information in paragraphs (g)(2)(i) through (iv) of this section, and the information in paragraphs (i)(1) through (12) of this section: (1) The date and time that each malfunction of the capture system or add-on control devices started and stopped. (2) Before [date 181 days after publication of final rule in the Federal Register], the date and time that each CEMS was inoperative, except for zero (low-level) and high-level checks. On and after [date 181 days after publication of final rule in the Federal Register], for each instance that the CEMS was inoperative, except for zero (low-level) and high-level checks, the date, time, and duration that the CEMS was inoperative; the cause (including unknown cause) for the CEMS being inoperative; and a description of corrective actions taken. (3) Before [date 181 days after publication of final rule in the Federal Register], the date and time that each CEMS was out-of-control, including the information in § 63.8(c)(8). On and after [date 181 days after publication of final rule in the Federal Register], for each instance that the CEMS was out-ofcontrol, as specified in § 63.8(c)(7), the date, time, and duration that the CEMS was out-of-control; the cause (including unknown cause) for the CEMS being out-of-control; and descriptions of corrective actions taken. (4) Before [date 181 days after publication of final rule in the Federal Register], the date and time that each deviation started and stopped, and whether each deviation occurred during a period of start-up, shutdown, or malfunction or during another period. On and after [date 181 days after publication of final rule in the Federal Register], the date, time, and duration of each deviation from an emission limit in § 63.5120. For each deviation, an estimate of the quantity of each regulated pollutant emitted over any emission limit in § 63.5120 to this PO 00000 Frm 00065 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 25967 subpart, and a description of the method used to estimate the emissions. * * * * * (6) Before [date 181 days after publication of final rule in the Federal Register], a breakdown of the total duration of the deviations during the reporting period into those that are due to start-up, shutdown, control equipment problems, process problems, other known causes, and other unknown causes. On and after [date 181 days after publication of final rule in the Federal Register], 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. * * * * * (9) Before [date 181 days after publication of final rule in the Federal Register], a brief description of the metal coil coating line. On and after [date 181 days after publication of final rule in the Federal Register], a list of the affected source or equipment, including a brief description of the metal coil coating line. * * * * * ■ 37. Section 63.5181 is added to read as follows: § 63.5181 What are my electronic reporting requirements? (a) Beginning no later than [date 181 days after publication of final rule in the Federal Register], you must submit the results of each performance test as required in § 63.5180(e) following the procedure specified in paragraphs (a)(1) through (3) of this section. (1) For data collected using test methods supported by the EPA’s Electronic Reporting Tool (ERT) as listed on the EPA’s ERT website (https://www.epa.gov/electronicreporting-air-emissions/electronicreporting-tool-ert) at the time of the test, you must submit the results of the performance test to the EPA via the Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface (CEDRI). The CEDRI interface can be accessed through the EPA’s Central Data Exchange (CDX) (https://cdx.epa.gov/). Performance test data must be submitted in a file format generated through the use of the EPA’s ERT or an alternate electronic file format consistent with the extensible markup language (XML) schema listed on the EPA’s ERT website. (2) For data collected using test methods that are not supported by the EPA’s ERT as listed on the EPA’s ERT website at the time of the test, you must submit the results of the performance test in portable document format (PDF) E:\FR\FM\04JNP2.SGM 04JNP2 khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2 25968 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 107 / Tuesday, June 4, 2019 / Proposed Rules using the attachment module of the ERT. (3) If you claim that some of the performance test information being submitted under paragraph (a)(1) of this section is confidential business information (CBI), you must submit a complete file generated through the use of the EPA’s ERT or an alternate electronic file consistent with the XML schema listed on the EPA’s ERT website, including information claimed to be CBI, on a compact disc, flash drive or other commonly used electronic storage medium to the EPA. The electronic medium must be clearly marked as CBI and mailed to U.S. EPA/ OAQPS/CORE CBI Office, Attention: Group Leader, Measurement Policy Group, MD C404–02, 4930 Old Page Rd., Durham, NC 27703. The same ERT or alternate file with the CBI omitted must be submitted to the EPA via the EPA’s CDX as described in paragraph (a)(1) of this section. (b) Beginning on [date 181 days after publication of final rule in the Federal Register], the owner or operator shall submit the initial notifications required in § 63.9(b) and the notification of compliance status required in § 63.9(h) and § 63.5180(d) to the EPA via the CEDRI. The CEDRI interface can be accessed through the EPA’s CDX (https://cdx.epa.gov). The owner or operator must upload to CEDRI an electronic copy of each applicable notification in PDF. The applicable notification must be submitted by the deadline specified in this subpart, regardless of the method in which the reports are submitted. Owners or operators who claim that some of the information required to be submitted via CEDRI is confidential business information (CBI) shall submit a complete report generated using the appropriate form in CEDRI or an alternate electronic file consistent with the extensible markup language (XML) schema listed on the EPA’s CEDRI website, including information claimed to be CBI, on a compact disc, flash drive, or other commonly used electronic storage medium to the EPA. The electronic medium shall be clearly marked as CBI and mailed to U.S. EPA/ OAQPS/CORE CBI Office, Attention: Group Leader, Measurement Policy Group, MD C404–02, 4930 Old Page Rd., Durham, NC 27703. The same file with the CBI omitted shall be submitted to the EPA via the EPA’s CDX as described earlier in this paragraph. (c) Beginning on [date 1 year after publication of final rule in the Federal Register], or once the reporting template has been available on the CEDRI website for 1 year, whichever date is later, the VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:09 Jun 03, 2019 Jkt 247001 owner or operator shall submit the semiannual compliance report required in § 63.5180(g) through (i), as applicable, to the EPA via the CEDRI. The CEDRI interface can be accessed through the EPA’s CDX (https:// cdx.epa.gov). The owner or operator must use the appropriate electronic template on the CEDRI website for this subpart (https://www.epa.gov/ electronic-reporting-air-emissions/ compliance-and-emissions-datareporting-interface-cedri). The date on which the report templates become available will be listed on the CEDRI website. If the reporting form for the semiannual compliance report specific to this subpart is not available in CEDRI at the time that the report is due, you must submit the report to the Administrator at the appropriate addresses listed in § 63.13. Once the form has been available in CEDRI for 1 year, you must begin submitting all subsequent reports via CEDRI. The reports must be submitted by the deadlines specified in this subpart, regardless of the method in which the reports are submitted. Owners or operators who claim that some of the information required to be submitted via CEDRI is confidential business information (CBI) shall submit a complete report generated using the appropriate form in CEDRI, including information claimed to be CBI, on a compact disc, flash drive, or other commonly used electronic storage medium to the EPA. The electronic medium shall be clearly marked as CBI and mailed to U.S. EPA/OAQPS/CORE CBI Office, Attention: Group Leader, Measurement Policy Group, MD C404– 02, 4930 Old Page Rd., Durham, NC 27703. The same file with the CBI omitted shall be submitted to the EPA via the EPA’s CDX as described earlier in this paragraph. (d) If you are required to electronically submit a report through the Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface (CEDRI) in the EPA’s Central Data Exchange (CDX), and due to a planned or actual outage of either the EPA’s CEDRI or CDX systems within the period of time beginning 5 business days prior to the date that the submission is due, you will be or are precluded from accessing CEDRI or CDX and submitting a required report within the time prescribed, you may assert a claim of EPA system outage for failure to timely comply with the reporting requirement. You must submit notification to the Administrator in writing as soon as possible following the date you first knew, or through due diligence should have known, that the PO 00000 Frm 00066 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 event may cause or caused a delay in reporting. You must provide to the Administrator a written description identifying the date, time and length of the outage; a rationale for attributing the delay in reporting beyond the regulatory deadline to the EPA system outage; describe the measures taken or to be taken to minimize the delay in reporting; and identify a date by which you propose to report, or if you have already met the reporting requirement at the time of the notification, the date you reported. In any circumstance, the report must be submitted electronically as soon as possible after the outage is resolved. The decision to accept the claim of EPA system outage and allow an extension to the reporting deadline is solely within the discretion of the Administrator. (e) If you are required to electronically submit a report through CEDRI in the EPA’s CDX and a force majeure event is about to occur, occurs, or has occurred or there are lingering effects from such an event within the period of time beginning 5 business days prior to the date the submission is due, the owner or operator may assert a claim of force majeure for failure to timely comply with the reporting requirement. For the purposes of this section, a force majeure event is defined as an event that will be or has been caused by circumstances beyond the control of the affected facility, its contractors, or any entity controlled by the affected facility that prevents you from complying with the requirement to submit a report electronically within the time period prescribed. Examples of such events are acts of nature (e.g., hurricanes, earthquakes, or floods), acts of war or terrorism, or equipment failure or safety hazard beyond the control of the affected facility (e.g., large scale power outage). If you intend to assert a claim of force majeure, you must submit notification to the Administrator in writing as soon as possible following the date you first knew, or through due diligence should have known, that the event may cause or caused a delay in reporting. You must provide to the Administrator a written description of the force majeure event and a rationale for attributing the delay in reporting beyond the regulatory deadline to the force majeure event; describe the measures taken or to be taken to minimize the delay in reporting; and identify a date by which you propose to report, or if you have already met the reporting requirement at the time of the notification, the date you reported. In any circumstance, the reporting must occur as soon as possible after the force E:\FR\FM\04JNP2.SGM 04JNP2 25969 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 107 / Tuesday, June 4, 2019 / Proposed Rules majeure event occurs. The decision to accept the claim of force majeure and allow an extension to the reporting deadline is solely within the discretion of the Administrator. ■ 38. Section 63.5190 is amended by adding paragraphs (a)(5) and (c) to read as follows: § 63.5190 What records must I maintain? (a) * * * (5) On and after [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register], for each deviation from an emission limitation reported under § 63.5180(h) or (i), a record of the information specified in paragraphs (a)(5)(i) through (iv) of this section, as applicable. (i) The date, time, and duration of the deviation, as reported under § 63.5180(h) and (i). reports that were 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. ■ 39. Table 2 to subpart SSSS of part 63 is revised to read as follows: Table 2 to Subpart SSSS of Part 63— Applicability of General Provisions to Subpart SSSS You must comply with the applicable General Provisions requirements according to the following table: General provisions reference Subject Applicable to subpart SSSS § 63.1(a)(1)–(4) .............................. § 63.1(a)(6) ..................................... § 63.1(a)(10)–(12) .......................... § 63.1(b)(1) ..................................... General Applicability ..................... Source Category Listing ............... Timing and Overlap Clarifications Initial Applicability Determination .. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes ................................................ § 63.1(b)(3) ..................................... Applicability Determination Recordkeeping. Applicability after Standard Established. Applicability of Permit Program for Area Sources. Extensions and Notifications ........ Applicability of Permit Program Before Relevant Standard is Set. Definitions ..................................... Yes. § 63.1(c)(1) ..................................... § 63.1(c)(2) ..................................... § 63.1(c)(5) ..................................... § 63.1(e) ......................................... § 63.2 ............................................. § 63.3 ............................................. § 63.4(a)(1)–(2) .............................. § 63.4(b)–(c) ................................... § 63.5(a) ......................................... § 63.5(b)(1), (3), (4), (6) ................. § 63.5(d)(1)(i)–(ii)(F), (d)(1)(ii)(H), (d)(1)(ii)(J), (d)(1)(iii), (d)(2)–(4). § 63.5(e) ......................................... § 63.5(f) .......................................... § 63.6(a) ......................................... § 63.6(b)(1)–(5), (b)(7) ................... khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2 (ii) A list of the affected sources or equipment for which the deviation occurred and the cause of the deviation, as reported under § 63.5180(h) and (i). (iii) An estimate of the quantity of each regulated pollutant emitted over any applicable emission limit in § 63.5120 to this subpart or any applicable operating limit established according to § 63.5121 to this subpart, and a description of the method used to calculate the estimate, as reported under § 63.5180(h) and (i). (iv) A record of actions taken to minimize emissions in accordance with § 63.5140(b) and any corrective actions taken to return the affected unit to its normal or usual manner of operation. * * * * * (c) Any records required to be maintained by this subpart that are in § 63.6(c)(1), (2), (5) ........................ § 63.6(e)(1)(i)–(ii) ........................... § 63.6(e)(1)(iii) ................................ VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:09 Jun 03, 2019 Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes ................................................ Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Approval of Construction/Reconstruction. Approval of Construction/Reconstruction Based on Prior State Review. Compliance with Standards and Maintenance Requirements-Applicability. Compliance Dates for New and Reconstructed Sources. Compliance Dates for Existing Sources. General Duty to Minimize Emissions and Requirement to Correct Malfunctions As Soon As Possible. Yes. Jkt 247001 PO 00000 Frm 00067 Fmt 4701 Applicability to Subpart SSSS is also specified in § 63.5090. Yes. Units and Abbreviations ............... Prohibited Activities ...................... Circumvention/Fragmentation ....... Construction/Reconstruction ......... Requirements for Existing, Newly Constructed, and Reconstructed Sources. Application for Approval of Construction/Reconstruction. Operation and Maintenance Requirements. Explanation Yes ................................................ Additional definitions are specified in § 63.5110. Only total HAP emissions in terms of tons per year are required for § 63.5(d)(1)(ii)(H). Yes. Yes. Yes ................................................ Yes ................................................ Yes before [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register]. No on and after [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register]. Yes. Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\04JNP2.SGM Section 63.5130 specifies the compliance dates. Section 63.5130 specifies the compliance dates. See § 63.5140(b) for general duty requirement. 04JNP2 25970 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 107 / Tuesday, June 4, 2019 / Proposed Rules General provisions reference Subject Applicable to subpart SSSS § 63.6(e)(3)(i), (e)(3)(iii)–(ix) ........... SSMP Requirements .................... § 63.6(f)(1) ...................................... SSM Exemption ............................ § 63.6(f)(2)–(3) ............................... Compliance with Non-Opacity Emission Standards. Alternative Non-Opacity Emission Standard. Compliance with Opacity/Visible Emission Standards. Yes before [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register]. No on and after [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register]. Yes before [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register]. No on and after [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register]. Yes. § 63.6(g) ......................................... § 63.6(h) ......................................... § 63.6(i)(1)–(14), (i)(16) .................. § 63.6(j) .......................................... § 63.7(a)–(d) except (a)(2)(i)–(viii) § 63.7(e)(1) ..................................... § 63.7(e)(2)–(4) .............................. § 63.7(f) .......................................... § 63.7(g)–(h) ................................... § 63.8(a)(1)–(2) .............................. Conduct of Performance Tests .... Alternative Test Method ............... Data Analysis and Waiver of Tests. Monitoring Requirements—Applicability. No ................................................. Yes. Yes. Yes before [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register]. No on and after [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register]. Yes. Yes ................................................ Yes. Yes ................................................ Require- No ................................................. § 63.8(b) ......................................... § 63.8(c)(1) ..................................... Conduct of Monitoring .................. Operation and Maintenance of Continuous Monitoring System (CMS). § 63.8(c)(2)–(3) .............................. CMS Operation and Maintenance Yes. Yes before [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register]. No on and after [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register]. Yes ................................................ § 63.8(c)(4)–(5) .............................. CMS Continuous Operation Procedures. CMS Requirements ...................... No ................................................. Yes ................................................ CMS Quality Control, Written Procedures, and Performance Evaluation. Use of an Alternative Monitoring Method. Alternative to Relative Accuracy Test. Yes ................................................ § 63.8(g) ......................................... Data Reduction ............................. No ................................................. § 63.9(a) ......................................... § 63.9(b)(1) ..................................... Notification of Applicability ............ Initial Notifications ......................... Yes. Yes. § 63.8(f)(1)–(5) ............................... § 63.8(f)(6) ...................................... VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:09 Jun 03, 2019 Jkt 247001 PO 00000 Frm 00068 Fmt 4701 Subpart SSSS does not establish opacity standards or visible emission standards. Yes. Additional ments. § 63.8(d)–(e) ................................... Monitoring See § 63.5140(b) for general duty requirement. Yes. § 63.8(a)(4) ..................................... § 63.8(c)(6)–(8) .............................. khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2 Extension of Compliance and Administrator’s Authority. Presidential Compliance Exemption. Performance Test Requirements Performance Testing .................... Explanation See § 63.5160(d)(2). EPA retains approval authority. Additional requirements for monitoring are specified in § 63.5150(a). Subpart SSSS does not have monitoring requirements for flares. Section 63.5150(a) specifies the requirements for the operation of CMS for capture systems and add-on control devices at sources using these to comply. Applies only to monitoring of capture system and add-on control device efficiency at sources using these to comply with the standards. Additional requirements for CMS operations and maintenance are specified in § 63.5170. Subpart SSSS does not require COMS. Provisions only apply if CEMS are used. Provisions only apply if CEMS are used. Yes ................................................ EPA retains approval authority. No ................................................. Section 63.8(f)(6) provisions are not applicable because subpart SSSS does not require CEMS. Sections 63.5170, 63.5140, 63.5150, and 63.5150 specify monitoring data reduction. Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\04JNP2.SGM 04JNP2 25971 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 107 / Tuesday, June 4, 2019 / Proposed Rules General provisions reference Subject Applicable to subpart SSSS Explanation § 63.9(b)(2) ..................................... Initial Notifications ......................... Yes ................................................ With the exception that § 63.5180(b)(1) provides 2 years after the proposal date for submittal of the initial notification for existing sources. § 63.9(b)(4)(i), (b)(4)(v), (b)(5) ....... Application for Approval of Construction or Reconstruction. Request for Extension of Compliance, New Source Notification for Special Compliance Requirements, and Notification of Performance Test. Yes. § 63.9(f) .......................................... Notification of Visible Emissions/ Opacity Test. No ................................................. § 63.9(g) ......................................... Additional Notifications When Using CMS. Notification of Compliance Status No ................................................. § 63.9(c)–(e) ................................... § 63.9(h)(1)–(3) .............................. § 63.9(h)(5)–(6) .............................. § 63.9(i) .......................................... § 63.9(j) .......................................... § 63.10(a) ....................................... § 63.10(b)(1) ................................... § 63.10(b)(2)(i)–(ii) .......................... § 63.10(b)(2)(iii) .............................. § 63.10(b)(2)(iv)–(v) ....................... Maintenance Records ................... Actions Taken to Minimize Emissions During Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction. § 63.10(b)(2)(vi) .............................. Recordkeeping for CMS Malfunctions. § 63.10(b)(2)(vii)–(xiv) .................... § 63.10(b)(3) ................................... Other CMS Requirements ............ Recordkeeping Requirements for Applicability Determinations. Additional CMS Recordkeeping Requirements. General Reporting Requirements and Report of Performance Test Results. Reporting Opacity or Visible Emissions Observations. § 63.10(c) ....................................... § 63.10(d)(1)–(2) ............................ § 63.10(d)(3) ................................... § 63.10(d)(4) ................................... § 63.10(d)(5) ................................... khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2 Clarifications ................................. Adjustment of Submittal Deadlines. Change in Previous Information ... Recordkeeping/Reporting—Applicability and General Information. General Recordkeeping Requirements. Recordkeeping of Occurrence and Duration of Startups and Shutdowns and Recordkeeping of Failures to Meet Standards. § 63.10(e) ....................................... § 63.10(f) ........................................ § 63.11 ........................................... § 63.12 ........................................... VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:09 Jun 03, 2019 Progress Reports for Sources with Compliance Extensions. Startup, Shutdown, Malfunction Reports. Additional Reporting Requirements for Sources with CMS. Recordkeeping/Reporting Waiver Control Device Requirements/ Flares. State Authority and Delegations ... Jkt 247001 PO 00000 Frm 00069 Fmt 4701 Yes ................................................ Yes ................................................ Notification of performance test requirement applies only to capture system and add-on control device performance tests at sources using these to comply with the standards. Subpart SSSS does not require opacity and visible emissions observations. Provisions for COMS are not applicable. Section 63.5130 specifies the dates for submitting the notification of compliance status. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes ................................................ Yes before [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register]. No on and after [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register]. Yes. Yes before [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register]. No on and after [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register]. Yes before [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register]. No on and after [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register]. Yes. Yes. Additional requirements are specified in § 63.5190. See § 63.5190(a)(5). See § 63.5190(a)(5). See § 63.5190(a)(5). No ................................................. See § 63.5190(a)(5). Yes ................................................ Additional requirements are specified in § 63.5180(e). No ................................................. Subpart SSSS does not require opacity and visible emissions observations. Yes. Yes before [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register]. No on and after [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register]. No. Yes. No ................................................. Subpart SSSS does not specify use of flares for compliance. Yes. Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\04JNP2.SGM 04JNP2 25972 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 107 / Tuesday, June 4, 2019 / Proposed Rules General provisions reference Subject Applicable to subpart SSSS § 63.13(a) ....................................... Addresses ..................................... § 63.13(b) ....................................... § 63.13(c) ....................................... Submittal to State Agencies ......... Submittal to State Agencies ......... § 63.14 ........................................... Incorporation by Reference .......... Yes before [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register]. No on and after [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register]. Yes. Yes before [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register]. No unless the state requires the submittal via CEDRI, on and after [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register]. Yes ................................................ § 63.15 ........................................... Availability of fidentiality. Information/Con- Explanation Subpart SSSS includes provisions for alternative ASTM and ASME test methods that are incorporated by reference. Yes. 40. Table 3 to subpart SSSS of part 63 is added to read as follows: ■ TABLE 3 TO SUBPART SSSS OF PART 63—LIST OF HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANTS THAT MUST BE COUNTED TOWARD TOTAL ORGANIC HAP CONTENT IF PRESENT AT 0.1 PERCENT OR MORE BY MASS khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2 Chemical name CAS No. 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane .................................................................................................................................................................... 1,1,2-Trichloroethane ........................................................................................................................................................................... 1,1-Dimethylhydrazine ......................................................................................................................................................................... 1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane .............................................................................................................................................................. 1,2-Diphenylhydrazine ......................................................................................................................................................................... 1,3-Butadiene ....................................................................................................................................................................................... 1,3-Dichloropropene ............................................................................................................................................................................ 1,4-Dioxane .......................................................................................................................................................................................... 2,4,6-Trichlorophenol ........................................................................................................................................................................... 2,4/2,6-Dinitrotoluene (mixture) ........................................................................................................................................................... 2,4-Dinitrotoluene ................................................................................................................................................................................. 2,4-Toluene diamine ............................................................................................................................................................................ 2-Nitropropane ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 3,3′-Dichlorobenzidine ......................................................................................................................................................................... 3,3′-Dimethoxybenzidine ..................................................................................................................................................................... 3,3′-Dimethylbenzidine ........................................................................................................................................................................ 4,4′-Methylene bis(2-chloroaniline) ...................................................................................................................................................... Acetaldehyde ....................................................................................................................................................................................... Acrylamide ........................................................................................................................................................................................... Acrylonitrile .......................................................................................................................................................................................... Allyl chloride ......................................................................................................................................................................................... alpha-Hexachlorocyclohexane (a-HCH) .............................................................................................................................................. Aniline .................................................................................................................................................................................................. Benzene ............................................................................................................................................................................................... Benzidine ............................................................................................................................................................................................. Benzotrichloride ................................................................................................................................................................................... Benzyl chloride .................................................................................................................................................................................... beta-Hexachlorocyclohexane (b-HCH) ................................................................................................................................................ Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate .................................................................................................................................................................... Bis(chloromethyl)ether ......................................................................................................................................................................... Bromoform ........................................................................................................................................................................................... Captan ................................................................................................................................................................................................. Carbon tetrachloride ............................................................................................................................................................................ Chlordane ............................................................................................................................................................................................ Chlorobenzilate .................................................................................................................................................................................... Chloroform ........................................................................................................................................................................................... Chloroprene ......................................................................................................................................................................................... Cresols (mixed) .................................................................................................................................................................................... DDE ..................................................................................................................................................................................................... Dichloroethyl ether ............................................................................................................................................................................... Dichlorvos ............................................................................................................................................................................................ Epichlorohydrin .................................................................................................................................................................................... VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:09 Jun 03, 2019 Jkt 247001 PO 00000 Frm 00070 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\04JNP2.SGM 04JNP2 79–34–5 79–00–5 57–14–7 96–12–8 122–66–7 106–99–0 542–75–6 123–91–1 88–06–2 25321–14–6 121–14–2 95–80–7 79–46–9 91–94–1 119–90–4 119–93–7 101–14–4 75–07–0 79–06–1 107–13–1 107–05–1 319–84–6 62–53–3 71–43–2 92–87–5 98–07–7 100–44–7 319–85–7 117–81–7 542–88–1 75–25–2 133–06–2 56–23–5 57–74–9 510–15–6 67–66–3 126–99–8 1319–77–3 3547–04–4 111–44–4 62–73–7 106–89–8 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 107 / Tuesday, June 4, 2019 / Proposed Rules 25973 TABLE 3 TO SUBPART SSSS OF PART 63—LIST OF HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANTS THAT MUST BE COUNTED TOWARD TOTAL ORGANIC HAP CONTENT IF PRESENT AT 0.1 PERCENT OR MORE BY MASS—Continued Chemical name CAS No. Ethyl acrylate ....................................................................................................................................................................................... Ethylene dibromide .............................................................................................................................................................................. Ethylene dichloride .............................................................................................................................................................................. Ethylene oxide ..................................................................................................................................................................................... Ethylene thiourea ................................................................................................................................................................................. Ethylidene dichloride (1,1-Dichloroethane) .......................................................................................................................................... Formaldehyde ...................................................................................................................................................................................... Heptachlor ............................................................................................................................................................................................ Hexachlorobenzene ............................................................................................................................................................................. Hexachlorobutadiene ........................................................................................................................................................................... Hexachloroethane ................................................................................................................................................................................ Hydrazine ............................................................................................................................................................................................. Isophorone ........................................................................................................................................................................................... Lindane (hexachlorocyclohexane, all isomers) ................................................................................................................................... m-Cresol .............................................................................................................................................................................................. Methylene chloride ............................................................................................................................................................................... Naphthalene ......................................................................................................................................................................................... Nitrobenzene ........................................................................................................................................................................................ Nitrosodimethylamine .......................................................................................................................................................................... o-Cresol ............................................................................................................................................................................................... o-Toluidine ........................................................................................................................................................................................... Parathion .............................................................................................................................................................................................. p-Cresol ............................................................................................................................................................................................... p-Dichlorobenzene ............................................................................................................................................................................... Pentachloronitrobenzene ..................................................................................................................................................................... Pentachlorophenol ............................................................................................................................................................................... Propoxur .............................................................................................................................................................................................. Propylene dichloride ............................................................................................................................................................................ Propylene oxide ................................................................................................................................................................................... Quinoline .............................................................................................................................................................................................. Tetrachloroethene ................................................................................................................................................................................ Toxaphene ........................................................................................................................................................................................... Trichloroethylene ................................................................................................................................................................................. Trifluralin .............................................................................................................................................................................................. Vinyl bromide ....................................................................................................................................................................................... Vinyl chloride ....................................................................................................................................................................................... Vinylidene chloride ............................................................................................................................................................................... [FR Doc. 2019–10068 Filed 6–3–19; 8:45 am] khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2 BILLING CODE 6560–50–P VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:09 Jun 03, 2019 Jkt 247001 PO 00000 Frm 00071 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 9990 E:\FR\FM\04JNP2.SGM 04JNP2 140–88–5 106–93–4 107–06–2 75–21–8 96–45–7 75–34–3 50–00–0 76–44–8 118–74–1 87–68–3 67–72–1 302–01–2 78–59–1 58–89–9 108–39–4 75–09–2 91–20–3 98–95–3 62–75–9 95–48–7 95–53–4 56–38–2 106–44–5 106–46–7 82–68–8 87–86–5 114–26–1 78–87–5 75–56–9 91–22–5 127–18–4 8001–35–2 79–01–6 1582–09–8 593–60–2 75–01–4 75–35–4

Agencies

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 107 (Tuesday, June 4, 2019)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 25904-25973]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-10068]



[[Page 25903]]

Vol. 84

Tuesday,

No. 107

June 4, 2019

Part II





Environmental Protection Agency





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





40 CFR Part 63





National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Surface 
Coating of Metal Cans and Surface Coating of Metal Coil Residual Risk 
and Technology Reviews; Proposed Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 107 / Tuesday, June 4, 2019 / 
Proposed Rules

[[Page 25904]]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 63

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0684, EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0685; FRL-9993-45-OAR]
RIN 2060-AT51


National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Surface 
Coating of Metal Cans and Surface Coating of Metal Coil Residual Risk 
and Technology Reviews

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing 
amendments to address the results of the residual risk and technology 
reviews (RTRs) that the EPA is required to conduct in accordance with 
the Clean Air Act (CAA) with regard to the National Emissions Standards 
for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for the Surface Coating of Metal 
Cans and the NESHAP for the Surface Coating of Metal Coil. The EPA is 
proposing to find the risks due to emissions of air toxics from these 
source categories under the current standards to be acceptable and that 
the standards provide an ample margin of safety to protect public 
health. We are proposing no revisions to the numerical emission limits 
based on these analyses. The EPA is proposing to amend provisions 
addressing emissions during periods of startup, shutdown, and 
malfunction (SSM); to amend provisions regarding electronic reporting 
of performance test results; to amend provisions regarding monitoring 
requirements; and to make miscellaneous clarifying and technical 
corrections.

DATES: Comments. Comments must be received on or before July 19, 2019. 
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), comments on the information 
collection provisions are best assured of consideration if the Office 
of Management and Budget (OMB) receives a copy of your comments on or 
before July 5, 2019.
    Public hearing. If anyone contacts us requesting a public hearing 
on or before June 10, 2019, we will hold a hearing. Additional 
information about the hearing, if requested, will be published in a 
subsequent Federal Register document and posted at https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/surface-coating-metal-cans-national-emission-standards-hazardous and https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/surface-coating-metal-coil-national-emission-standards-hazardous. See SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for information on 
requesting and registering for a public hearing.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2017-0684 for 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 63, subpart 
KKKK, Surface Coating of Metal Cans, and Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-
0685 for 40 CFR part 63, subpart SSSS, Surface Coating of Metal Coil, 
as applicable, by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov/ 
(our preferred method). Follow the online instructions for submitting 
comments.
     Email: [email protected]. Include Docket ID No. EPA-
HQ-OAR-2017-0684 or EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0685 (specify the applicable docket 
number) in the subject line of the message.
     Fax: (202) 566-9744. Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2017-0684 or EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0685 (specify the applicable docket 
number).
     Mail: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Docket 
Center, Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0684 or EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0685 
(specify the applicable docket number), Mail Code 28221T, 1200 
Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20460.
     Hand/Courier Delivery: EPA Docket Center, WJC West 
Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20004. 
The Docket Center's hours of operation are 8:30 a.m.-4:30 p.m., Monday-
Friday (except Federal holidays).
    Instructions: All submissions received must include the applicable 
Docket ID No. for this rulemaking. Comments received may be posted 
without change to https://www.regulations.gov/, including any personal 
information provided. For detailed instructions on sending comments and 
additional information on the rulemaking process, see the SUPPLEMENTARY 
INFORMATION section of this document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For questions about this proposed 
action, contact Ms. Paula Hirtz, Minerals and Manufacturing Group, 
Sector Policies and Programs Division (D243-04), Office of Air Quality 
Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research 
Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711; telephone number: (919) 541-2618; 
fax number: (919) 541-4991; and email address: [email protected]. For 
specific information regarding the risk modeling methodology, contact 
Mr. Chris Sarsony, 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: (919) 541-4843; fax number: (919) 541-0840; and email 
address: [email protected]. For questions about monitoring and 
testing requirements, contact Mr. Ketan Patel, Sector Policies and 
Programs Division (D243-04), Office of Air Quality Planning and 
Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle 
Park, North Carolina 27711; telephone number: (919) 541-9736; fax 
number: (919) 541-4991; and email address: [email protected]. For 
information about the applicability of any of these 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 2227A), 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 
20460; telephone number: (202) 564-1395; and email address: 
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 
    Public hearing. Please contact Ms. Nancy Perry at (919) 541-5628 or 
by email at [email protected] to request a public hearing, to 
register to speak at the public hearing, or to inquire as to whether a 
public hearing will be held.
    Docket. The EPA has established two separate dockets for this 
rulemaking. Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0684 has been established for 
40 CFR part 63, subpart KKKK, Surface Coating of Metal Cans, and Docket 
ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0685 has been established for 40 CFR part 63, 
subpart SSSS, Surface Coating of Metal Coil. All documents in the 
dockets are listed in Regulations.gov. Although listed, some 
information is not publicly available, e.g., Confidential Business 
Information (CBI) 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. Publicly available docket materials are available either 
electronically in Regulations.gov or in hard copy at the EPA Docket 
Center, Room 3334, WJC West Building, 1301 Constitution Avenue NW, 
Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 
p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone 
number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone 
number for the EPA Docket Center is (202) 566-1742.

[[Page 25905]]

    Instructions. Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2017-0684 for 40 CFR part 63, subpart KKKK, Surface Coating of Metal 
Cans (Metal Cans Docket), or Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0685 for 40 
CFR part 63, subpart SSSS, Surface Coating of Metal Coil (Metal Coil 
Docket), as applicable to your comments. The EPA's policy is that all 
comments received will be included in the public docket without change 
and may be made available online at https://www.regulations.gov/, 
including any personal information provided, unless the comment 
includes information claimed to be CBI or other information whose 
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you 
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through https://www.regulations.gov/ or email. This type of information should be 
submitted by mail as discussed below.
    The EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket. 
Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a 
written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment 
and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA 
will generally not consider comments or comment contents located 
outside of the primary submission (i.e., on the Web, cloud, or other 
file sharing system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA 
public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, 
and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.
    The https://www.regulations.gov/ website allows you to submit your 
comment anonymously, which means the EPA will not know your identity or 
contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. 
If you send an email comment directly to the EPA without going through 
https://www.regulations.gov/, your email address will be automatically 
captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the 
public docket and made available on the internet. If you submit an 
electronic comment, the EPA recommends that you include your name and 
other contact information in the body of your comment and with any 
digital storage media you submit. If the EPA cannot read your comment 
due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, 
the EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files 
should not include special characters or any form of encryption and be 
free of any defects or viruses. For additional information about the 
EPA's public docket, visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at https://www.epa.gov/dockets.
    Submitting CBI. Do not submit information containing CBI to the EPA 
through https://www.regulations.gov or email. Clearly mark the part or 
all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information on 
any digital storage media that you mail to the EPA, mark the outside of 
the digital storage media as CBI and then identify electronically 
within the digital storage media the specific information that is 
claimed as CBI. In addition to one complete version of the comments 
that includes information claimed as CBI, you must submit a copy of the 
comments that does not contain the information claimed as CBI directly 
to the public docket through the procedures outlined in Instructions 
above. If you submit any digital storage media that does not contain 
CBI, mark the outside of the digital storage media clearly that it does 
not contain CBI. Information not marked as CBI will be included in the 
public docket and the EPA's electronic public docket without prior 
notice. Information marked as CBI will not be disclosed except in 
accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. Send or deliver 
information identified as CBI only to the following address: OAQPS 
Document Control Officer (C404-02), OAQPS, U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711, 
Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0684 for 40 CFR part 63, 
subpart KKKK, Surface Coating of Metal Cans (Metal Cans Docket), or 
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0685 for 40 CFR part 63, subpart SSSS, 
Surface Coating of Metal Coil (Metal Coil Docket), as applicable.
    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:

ACA American Coatings Association
AEGL acute exposure guideline level
AERMOD air dispersion model used by the HEM-3 model
ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials
BACT best available control technology
BPA bisphenol A
BPA-NI not intentionally containing BPA
CAA Clean Air Act
CalEPA California EPA
CBI Confidential Business Information
CDX Central Data Exchange
CEDRI Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface
CEMS continuous emissions monitoring systems
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
DGME diethylene glycol monobutyl ether
ECHO Enforcement and Compliance History Online
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
ERPG Emergency Response Planning Guideline
ERT Electronic Reporting Tool
FR Federal Register
GACT generally available control technology gal gallon
HAP hazardous air pollutant(s)
HCl hydrochloric acid
HEM-3 Human Exposure Model, Version 1.1.0
HF hydrogen fluoride
HI hazard index
HQ hazard quotient
HQREL hazard quotient recommended exposure limit
IBR incorporation by reference
ICAC Institute of Clean Air Companies
ICR Information Collection Request
IRIS Integrated Risk Information System
kg kilogram
km kilometer
LAER lowest achievable emission rate
lb pound
MACT maximum achievable control technology
mg/m\3\ milligrams per cubic meter
MIR maximum individual risk
mm millimeters
NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards
NAICS North American Industry Classification System
NEI National Emission Inventory
NESHAP national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants
NSR New Source Review
NTTAA National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
OAQPS Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
OCE overall control efficiency
OMB Office of Management and Budget
OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration
PB-HAP hazardous air pollutants known to be persistent and bio-
accumulative in the environment
PDF portable document format
POM polycyclic organic matter
ppmv parts per million by volume
PRA Paperwork Reduction Act
PTE permanent total enclosure
RACT reasonably available control technology
RBLC RACT/BACT/LAER Clearinghouse
REL reference exposure level
RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act
RfC reference concentration
RfD reference dose
RTO regenerative thermal oxidizer
RTR residual risk and technology review
SAB Science Advisory Board
SSM startup, shutdown, and malfunction
TOSHI target organ-specific hazard index
tpy tons per year
TRIM.FaTE Total Risk Integrated Methodology.Fate, Transport, and 
Ecological Exposure model
UF uncertainty factor
[micro]g/m3 micrograms per cubic meter
UMRA Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

[[Page 25906]]

URE unit risk estimate
VCS voluntary consensus standards
VOC volatile organic compound

    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?
II. Background
    A. What is the statutory authority for this action?
    B. What are the source categories and how do the current NESHAP 
regulate their HAP emissions?
    C. What data collection activities were conducted to support 
this action?
    D. What other relevant background information and data are 
available?
III. Analytical Procedures and Decision Making
    A. How do we consider risk in our decision-making?
    B. How do we perform the technology review?
    C. How do we estimate post-MACT risk posed by these source 
categories?
IV. Analytical Results and Proposed Decisions
    A. What are the analytical results and proposed decisions for 
the Surface Coating of Metal Cans source category?
    B. What are the analytical results and proposed decisions for 
the Surface Coating of Metal Coil source category?
V. Summary of Cost, Environmental, and Economic Impacts
    A. What are the affected sources?
    B. What are the air quality impacts?
    C. What are the cost impacts?
    D. What are the economic impacts?
    E. What are the benefits?
VI. Request for Comments
VII. Submitting Data Corrections
VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
    A. Executive Order 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) and 
1 CFR Part 51
    K. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address 
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income 
Populations

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    Table 1 of this preamble lists the NESHAP and associated regulated 
industrial source categories that are the subject of this proposal. 
Table 1 is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide 
for readers regarding the entities that this proposed action is likely 
to affect. The proposed standards, once promulgated, will be directly 
applicable to the affected sources. Federal, state, local, and tribal 
government entities would not be affected by this proposed action. As 
defined in the Initial List of Categories of Sources Under Section 
112(c)(1) of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 (see 57 FR 31576, 
July 16, 1992) and Documentation for Developing the Initial Source 
Category List, Final Report (see EPA-450/3-91-030, July 1992), the 
Surface Coating of Metal Cans source category includes any facility 
engaged in the coating of metal cans, including: One- and two-piece 
draw and iron can body coating, sheet coating, three-piece can body 
assembly coating, or end coating. We estimate that five major source 
facilities engaged in metal can coating would be subject to this 
proposal. The Surface Coating of Metal Coil source category includes 
any facility engaged in the surface coating of metal coil that is a 
major source of hazardous air pollutant (HAP) emissions. Metal coil is 
defined as any continuous metal strip (with a thickness of 0.15 
millimeters (mm) or more) that is packaged in a roll or coil prior to 
coating. We estimate that 48 major source facilities engaged in metal 
coil coating would be subject to this proposal.

    Table 1--NESHAP and Industrial Source Categories Affected by This
                             Proposed Action
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     Regulated entities
 NESHAP and source category      NAICS code \1\              \2\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Surface Coating of Metal      332431, 332115,       Two-piece Beverage
 Cans.                         332116, 332812,       Can Facilities,
                               332999.               Three-piece Food
                                                     Can Facilities, Two-
                                                     piece Draw and Iron
                                                     Facilities, One-
                                                     piece Aerosol Can
                                                     Facilities.
                              332431..............  Can Assembly
                                                     Facilities.
                              332812..............  End Manufacturing
                                                     Facilities.
Surface Coating of Metal      325992..............  Photographic Film,
 Coil.                                               Paper, Plate, and
                                                     Chemical
                                                     Manufacturing.
                              326199..............  All Other Plastics
                                                     Product
                                                     Manufacturing.
                              331110..............  Iron and Steel Mills
                                                     and Ferroalloy
                                                     Manufacturing.
                              331221..............  Rolled Steel Shape
                                                     Manufacturing.
                              331315..............  Aluminum Sheet,
                                                     Plate, and Foil
                                                     Manufacturing.
                              331318..............  Other Aluminum
                                                     Rolling, Drawing,
                                                     and Extruding.
                              331420..............  Copper Rolling,
                                                     Drawing, Extruding,
                                                     and Alloying.
                              332311..............  Prefabricated Metal
                                                     Building and
                                                     Component
                                                     Manufacturing.
                              332312..............  Fabricated
                                                     Structural Metal
                                                     Manufacturing.
                              332322..............  Sheet Metal Work
                                                     Manufacturing.
                              \3\ 332812..........  Metal Coating,
                                                     Engraving (except
                                                     Jewelry and
                                                     Silverware), and
                                                     Allied Services to
                                                     Manufacturers.
                              332999..............  All Other
                                                     Miscellaneous
                                                     Fabricated Metal
                                                     Product
                                                     Manufacturing.
                              333249..............  Other Industrial
                                                     Machinery
                                                     Manufacturing.

[[Page 25907]]

 
                              337920..............  Blind and Shade
                                                     Manufacturing.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ North American Industry Classification System.
\2\ Regulated entities are major source facilities that apply surface
  coatings to these parts or products.
\3\ The majority of coil coating facilities are included in NAICS Code
  332812.

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

    In addition to being available in the dockets for this action, an 
electronic copy of this action is available on the internet. Following 
signature by the EPA Administrator, the EPA will post a copy of this 
proposed action at https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/surface-coating-metal-cans-national-emission-standards-hazardous and https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/surface-coating-metal-coil-national-emission-standards-hazardous. 
Following publication in the Federal Register, the EPA will post the 
Federal Register version of the proposal and key technical documents at 
these same websites. Information on the overall RTR program is 
available at https://www3.epa.gov/ttn/atw/rrisk/rtrpg.html.
    Redline versions of the regulatory language that incorporates the 
proposed changes in this action are available in the Metal Cans and the 
Metal Coil Dockets (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0684 and Docket ID 
No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0685, respectively).

II. Background

A. What is the statutory authority for this action?

    The statutory authority for this action is provided by sections 112 
and 301 of the CAA, as amended (42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.).\1\ Section 112 
of the CAA establishes a two-stage regulatory process to develop 
standards for emissions of HAP from stationary sources. Generally, the 
first stage involves establishing technology-based standards and the 
second stage involves evaluating those standards that are based on 
maximum achievable control technology (MACT) to determine whether 
additional standards are needed to address any remaining risk 
associated with HAP emissions. This second stage is commonly referred 
to as the ``residual risk review.'' In addition to the residual risk 
review, the CAA also requires the EPA to review standards set under CAA 
section 112 every 8 years to determine if there are ``developments in 
practices, processes, or control technologies'' that may be appropriate 
to incorporate into the standards. This review is commonly referred to 
as the ``technology review.'' When the two reviews are combined into a 
single rulemaking, it is commonly referred to as the ``risk and 
technology review.'' The discussion that follows identifies the most 
relevant statutory sections and briefly explains the contours of the 
methodology used to implement these statutory requirements. A more 
comprehensive discussion appears in the document titled CAA Section 112 
Risk and Technology Reviews: Statutory Authority and Methodology, in 
the dockets for each subpart in this rulemaking (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2017-0684 for Metal Cans Coating and Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-
0685 for Metal Coil Coating).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ In addition, section 301 of the CAA provides general 
authority for the Administrator to ``prescribe such regulations as 
are necessary to carry out his functions'' under the CAA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the first stage of the CAA section 112 standard setting process, 
the EPA promulgates technology-based standards under CAA section112(d) 
for categories of sources identified as emitting one or more of the HAP 
listed in CAA section 112(b). Sources of HAP emissions are either major 
sources or area sources, and CAA section 112 establishes different 
requirements for major source standards and area source standards. 
``Major sources'' are those that emit or have the potential to emit 10 
tons per year (tpy) or more of a single HAP or 25 tpy or more of any 
combination of HAP. All other sources are ``area sources.'' For major 
sources, CAA section 112(d)(2) provides that the technology-based 
NESHAP must reflect the maximum degree of emission reductions of HAP 
achievable (after considering cost, energy requirements, and non-air 
quality health and environmental impacts). These standards are commonly 
referred to as MACT standards. CAA section 112(d)(3) also establishes a 
minimum control level for MACT standards, known as the MACT ``floor.'' 
The EPA must also consider control options that are more stringent than 
the floor. Standards more stringent than the floor are commonly 
referred to as beyond-the-floor standards. In certain instances, as 
provided in CAA section 112(h), the EPA may set work practice standards 
where it is not feasible to prescribe or enforce a numerical emission 
standard. For area sources, CAA section 112(d)(5) gives the EPA 
discretion to set standards based on generally available control 
technologies or management practices (GACT standards) in lieu of MACT 
standards.
    The second stage in standard-setting focuses on identifying and 
addressing any remaining (i.e., ``residual'') risk according to CAA 
section 112(f). For source categories subject to MACT standards, 
section 112(f)(2) of the CAA requires the EPA to determine whether 
promulgation of additional standards is needed to provide an ample 
margin of safety to protect public health or to prevent an adverse 
environmental effect. Section 112(d)(5) of the CAA provides that this 
residual risk review is not required for categories of area sources 
subject to GACT standards. Section 112(f)(2)(B) of the CAA further 
expressly preserves the EPA's use of the two-step approach for 
developing standards to address any residual risk and the Agency's 
interpretation of ``ample margin of safety'' developed in the National 
Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Benzene Emissions 
from Maleic Anhydride Plants, Ethylbenzene/Styrene Plants, Benzene 
Storage Vessels, Benzene Equipment Leaks, and Coke By-Product Recovery 
Plants (Benzene NESHAP) (54 FR 38044, September 14, 1989). The EPA 
notified Congress in the Risk Report that the Agency intended to use 
the Benzene NESHAP approach in making CAA section 112(f) residual risk 
determinations (EPA-453/R-99-001, p. ES-11). The EPA subsequently 
adopted this approach in its residual risk determinations and the 
United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit 
(the Court) upheld the EPA's interpretation that CAA section 112(f)(2) 
incorporates the approach established in the Benzene NESHAP. See NRDC 
v. EPA, 529 F.3d 1077, 1083 (D.C. Cir. 2008).
    The approach incorporated into the CAA and used by the EPA to 
evaluate residual risk and to develop standards under CAA section 
112(f)(2) is a two-step approach. In the first step, the EPA determines 
whether risks are acceptable. This determination ``considers all health

[[Page 25908]]

information, including risk estimation uncertainty, and includes a 
presumptive limit on maximum individual lifetime [cancer] risk (MIR) 
\2\ of approximately 1-in-10 thousand.'' 54 FR 38045, September 14, 
1989. If risks are unacceptable, the EPA must determine the emissions 
standards necessary to reduce risk to an acceptable level without 
considering costs. In the second step of the approach, the EPA 
considers whether the emissions standards provide an ample margin of 
safety to protect public health ``in consideration of all health 
information, including the number of persons at risk levels higher than 
approximately 1-in-1 million, as well as other relevant factors, 
including costs and economic impacts, technological feasibility, and 
other factors relevant to each particular decision.'' Id. The EPA must 
promulgate emission standards necessary to provide an ample margin of 
safety to protect public health. After conducting the ample margin of 
safety analysis, we consider whether a more stringent standard is 
necessary to prevent, taking into consideration costs, energy, safety, 
and other relevant factors, an adverse environmental effect.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Although defined as ``maximum individual risk,'' MIR refers 
only to cancer risk. MIR, one metric for assessing cancer risk, is 
the estimated risk if an individual were exposed to the maximum 
level of a pollutant for a lifetime.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    CAA section 112(d)(6) separately requires the EPA to review 
standards promulgated under CAA section 112 and revise them ``as 
necessary (taking into account developments in practices, processes, 
and control technologies)'' no less often than every 8 years. In 
conducting this review, which we call the ``technology review,'' the 
EPA is not required to recalculate the MACT floor. Natural Resources 
Defense Council (NRDC) v. EPA, 529 F.3d 1077, 1084 (D.C. Cir. 2008). 
Association of Battery Recyclers, Inc. v. EPA, 716 F.3d 667 (D.C. Cir. 
2013). The EPA may consider cost in deciding whether to revise the 
standards pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6).

B. What are the source categories and how do the current NESHAP 
regulate their HAP emissions?

1. What is the Surface Coating of Metal Cans source category and how 
does the current NESHAP regulate its HAP emissions?
a. Source Category Description
    The NESHAP for the Surface Coating of Metal Cans source category 
was promulgated on November 13, 2003 (68 FR 64432), and is codified at 
40 CFR part 63, subpart KKKK. Technical corrections and clarifying 
amendments were promulgated on January 6, 2006 (71 FR 1386). The 
Surface Coating of Metal Cans NESHAP applies to the surface coating and 
related operations at each new, reconstructed, and existing affected 
source of HAP emissions at facilities that are major sources and are 
engaged in the surface coating of metal cans and ends (including 
decorative tins) and metal crowns and closures. The Surface Coating of 
Metal Cans NESHAP (40 CFR 63.3561) defines a ``metal can'' as ``a 
single-walled container manufactured from metal substrate equal to or 
thinner than 0.3785 mm (0.0149 inch)'' and includes coating operations 
for the four following subcategories:
     One- and two-piece draw and iron can body coating--
includes one-piece aerosol cans, defined as an ``aerosol can formed by 
the draw and iron process to which no ends are attached and a valve is 
placed directly on top'' and two-piece draw and iron cans, defined as a 
``steel or aluminum can manufactured by the draw and iron process.'' 
These include two-piece beverage cans manufactured to contain drinkable 
liquids, such as beer, soft drinks, or fruit juices, and two-piece food 
cans designed to contain edible products other than beverages and to be 
hermetically sealed.
     Sheetcoating--includes all the flat metal sheetcoating 
operations associated with the manufacture of three-piece cans, 
decorative tins, crowns, and closures.
     Three-piece can body assembly coating--includes three-
piece aerosol cans, defined as a ``steel aerosol can formed by the 
three-piece can assembly process manufactured to contain food or 
nonfood products,'' and three-piece food cans, defined as a ``steel can 
formed by the three-piece can assembly process manufactured to contain 
edible products and designed to be hermetically sealed.''
     End coating--includes the application of end seal 
compounds and repair spray coatings to metal can ends and includes 
three distinct coating type segments reflecting different end uses: 
Aseptic end seal compounds, non-aseptic end seal compounds, and repair 
spray coatings.
    The Surface Coating of Metal Cans NESHAP defines a ``decorative 
tin'' as ``a single-walled container, designed to be covered or 
uncovered that is manufactured from metal substrate equal to or thinner 
than 0.3785 mm (0.0149 inch) and is normally coated on the exterior 
surface with decorative coatings. Decorative tins may contain foods but 
are not hermetically sealed and are not subject to food processing 
steps such as retort or pasteurization. Interior coatings are not 
usually applied to protect the metal and contents from chemical 
interaction.''
    The Surface Coating of Metal Cans NESHAP also defines a ``coating'' 
as ``a material that is applied to a substrate for decorative, 
protective, or functional purposes. Such materials include, but are not 
limited to, paints, sealants, caulks, inks, adhesives, and maskants.'' 
Fusion pastes, ink jet markings, mist solutions, and lubricants, as 
well as decorative, protective, or functional materials that consist 
only of protective oils for metals, acids, bases, or any combination of 
these substances, are not considered coatings under 40 CFR part 63, 
subpart KKKK.
    Based on our search of the National Emission Inventory (NEI) 
(www.epa.gov/air-emissions-inventories/national-emissions-inventory-nei) and the EPA's Enforcement and Compliance History Online (ECHO) 
database (echo.epa.gov) and a review of active air emissions permits, 
we estimate that five facilities are subject to the Surface Coating of 
Metal Cans NESHAP. A complete list of facilities subject to the Surface 
Coating of Metal Cans NESHAP is available in Appendix 1 to the 
memorandum titled Technology Review for Surface Coating Operations in 
the Metal Cans Category, in the Metal Cans Docket (Docket ID No. EPA-
HQ-OAR-2017-0684).
b. HAP Emission Sources
    The primary HAP emitted from metal can surface coating operations 
are organic HAP and include glycol ethers, formaldehyde, xylenes, 
toluene, methyl isobutyl ketone, 2-(hexyloxy) ethanol, ethyl benzene, 
and methanol. These HAP account for 99 percent of the HAP emissions 
from the source category. The HAP emissions from the metal cans 
category occur from coating application lines, drying and curing ovens, 
mixing and thinning areas, and cleaning of equipment. The coating 
application lines and the drying and curing ovens are the largest 
sources of HAP emissions. The coating application lines apply an 
exterior base coat to two- and three-piece cans using a lithographic/
printing (i.e., roll) application process. The inside, side seam, and 
repair coatings are spray applied using airless spray equipment and are 
a minor portion of the can coating operations. As indicated by the 
name, repair spray coatings are used to cover breaks in the coating 
that are caused during the formation of the score in easy-open ends or 
to provide, after the manufacturing process, an additional protective 
layer for corrosion resistance.

[[Page 25909]]

    Inorganic HAP emissions were considered in the development of the 
Surface Coating of Metal Cans NESHAP. Inorganic HAP, including chromium 
and manganese compounds, are contained in some of the coatings used by 
this source category. However, the EPA determined that no controls were 
needed because the coatings used that may contain inorganic HAP were 
not spray applied. Instead, these coatings were roll applied through 
direct contact (similar to lithographic printing) with the surface to 
which they were being applied, and the inorganic HAP became part of the 
cured coating.\3\ No inorganic HAP were reported in the NEI data used 
for this RTR for surface coating operations at major source metal can 
coating facilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: 
Surface Coating of Metal Cans Background Information for Final 
Standards. Summary of Public Comments and Responses. EPA 453/R-03-
009. August 2003. Section 2.5.4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

c. NESHAP Requirements for Control of HAP
    We estimated that the Surface Coating of Metal Cans NESHAP 
requirements would reduce the emissions of organic HAP from the source 
category by 71 percent or 6,800 tpy (68 FR 2110, January 15, 2003). 
This estimate included two HAP that were since delisted. The delisting 
of ethylene glycol monobutyl ether occurred in 2004, and the delisting 
of methyl ethyl ketone occurred in 2005.
    The NESHAP specifies numerical emission limits for existing sources 
and for new and reconstructed sources for organic HAP emissions 
according to four can coating subcategories. The organic HAP emission 
limits for existing sources conducting: (1) One- and two-piece draw and 
iron can body coating (includes two-piece beverage cans, two-piece food 
cans, and one-piece aerosol cans) ranges from 0.07 to 0.12 kilogram 
(kg) HAP/liter of coating solids (or 0.59 to 0.99 pound/gallon (lb/
gal)); (2) sheet coating is 0.03 kg HAP/liter of coating solids (or 
0.26 lb/gal); (3) three piece can assembly (includes inside spray, 
aseptic, and non-aseptic side seam stripes on food cans, side seam 
stripes on general line non-food cans, and side seam stripes on aerosol 
cans) ranges from 0.29 to 1.94 kg HAP/liter of coating solids (or 2.43 
to 16.16 lb/gal); and (4) end coating (includes aseptic and non-aseptic 
end seal compounds and repair spray coatings) ranges from zero to 2.06 
kg HAP/liter of coating solids (or zero to 17.17 lb/gal). The organic 
HAP emission limits for new and reconstructed sources conducting: (1) 
One and two-piece draw and iron can body coating ranges from 0.04 to 
0.08 kg HAP/liter of coating solids (or 0.31 to 0.65 lb/gal); (2) sheet 
coating is 0.02 kg HAP/liter of coating solids (or 0.17 lb/gal); (3) 
three piece can assembly ranges from 0.12 to 1.48 kg HAP/liter of 
coating solids (or 1.03 to 12.37 lb/gal); and (4) end coating ranges 
from zero to 0.64 kg HAP/liter of coating solids (or zero to 5.34 lb/
gal). The specific organic HAP emission limits for each can coating 
subcategory are listed in Table 3 of the memorandum titled Technology 
Review for Surface Coating Operations in the Metal Cans Category, in 
the Metal Cans Docket (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0684).
    Compliance with the Surface Coating of Metal Cans NESHAP emission 
limits can be achieved using several different options, including a 
compliant material option, an emission rate without add-on controls 
option (averaging option), an emission rate with add-on controls 
option, or a control efficiency/outlet concentration. For any coating 
operation(s) on which the facility uses the compliant material option 
or the emission rate without add-on controls option, the facility is 
not required to meet any work practice standards.
    If the facility uses the emission rate with add-on controls option, 
the facility must develop and implement a work practice plan to 
minimize organic HAP emissions from the storage, mixing, and conveying 
of coatings, thinners, and cleaning materials used in, and waste 
materials generated by, the coating operation(s) using that option. The 
plan must specify practices and procedures to ensure that a set of 
minimum work practices specified in the NESHAP are implemented. The 
facility must also comply with site-specific operating limits for the 
emission capture and control system.
2. What is the Surface Coating of Metal Coil source category and how 
does the current NESHAP regulate its HAP emissions?
a. Source Category Description
    The NESHAP for the Surface Coating of Metal Coil source category 
was promulgated on June 10, 2002 (67 FR 39794), and is codified at 40 
CFR part 63, subpart SSSS. A technical correction to the final rule was 
published on March 17, 2003 (68 FR 12590). The Surface Coating of Metal 
Coil NESHAP applies to owners or operators of metal coil surface 
coating operations at facilities that are major sources of HAP.
    The Surface Coating of Metal Coil NESHAP (40 CFR 63.5100) applies 
to the collection of all coil coating lines at a facility and defines a 
coil coating line as the process for metal coil coating that includes 
the web unwind or feed station, a series of one or more coating 
stations, associated curing ovens, wet sections, and quench stations. A 
coil coating line does not include ancillary operations such as mixing/
thinning, cleaning, wastewater treatment, and storage of coating 
material. The Surface Coating of Metal Coil NESHAP (40 CFR 63.5110) 
defines a coil coating operation as the collection of equipment used to 
apply an organic coating to the surface of any continuous metal strip 
that is 0.006 inch (0.15 millimeter (mm)) thick or more that is 
packaged in a roll or coil. The Surface Coating of Metal Coil NESHAP 
also defines a coating material as the coating and other products 
(e.g., a catalyst and resin in multi-component coatings) combined to 
make a single material at the coating facility that is applied to metal 
coil and includes organic solvents used to thin a coating prior to 
application to the metal coil.
    Based on our search of the NEI and EPA's ECHO database and a review 
of active air emission permits, we estimate that 48 facilities are 
subject to the Surface Coating of Metal Coil NESHAP. A complete list of 
facilities we identified as subject to the Surface Coating of Metal 
Coil NESHAP is available in Appendix 1 to the memorandum titled 
Residual Risk Assessment for the Surface Coating of Metal Coil Source 
Category in Support of the 2019 Risk and Technology Review Proposed 
Rule (hereafter referred to as the Metal Coil Risk Assessment Report), 
in the Surface Coating of Metal Coil Docket (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2017-0685).
b. HAP Emission Sources
    The primary HAP emitted from metal coil coating operations are 
organic HAP and include xylenes, glycol ethers, naphthalene, 
isophorone, toluene, diethylene glycol monobutyl ether (DGME), and 
ethyl benzene. The majority of organic HAP emissions are from the 
coating application and the curing ovens.
    Inorganic HAP emissions were considered in the development of the 
Surface Coating of Metal Coil NESHAP. Based on information reported in 
survey responses during the development of the 2002 proposed NESHAP, 
inorganic HAP were present in the pigments and film-forming components 
of some coatings used by this source category. However, we concluded 
that inorganic HAP are not likely to be emitted from these sources 
because of the application techniques used (67 FR 46032, July 11, 
2002). The data obtained from the NEI and the Toxics Release Inventory 
for

[[Page 25910]]

this RTR included low quantities of inorganic HAP for major source 
facilities that conduct metal coil operations. Further investigation of 
these sources concluded that these inorganic emissions were reported in 
error.
c. NESHAP Requirements for Control of HAP
    We estimated that the Surface Coating of Metal Coil NESHAP 
requirements would reduce the emissions of organic HAP from the source 
category by approximately 55 percent or 1,318 tpy (65 FR 44616, July 
18, 2000). The NESHAP specifies numerical emission limits for organic 
HAP emissions from the coating application stations and associated 
curing ovens. The Surface Coating of Metal Coil NESHAP provides options 
for limiting organic HAP emissions to one of the four specified levels: 
(1) Use only individually compliant coatings with an organic HAP 
content that does not exceed 0.046 kg/liter of solids applied, (2) use 
coatings with an average organic HAP content of 0.046 kg/liter of 
solids on a rolling 12-month average, (3) use a capture system and add-
on control device to either reduce emissions by 98 percent or use a 
100-percent efficient capture system (permanent total enclosure (PTE)) 
and an oxidizer to reduce organic HAP emissions to no more than 20 
parts per million by volume (ppmv) as carbon, or (4) use a combination 
of compliant coatings and control devices to maintain an average 
equivalent emission rate of organic HAP not exceeding 0.046 kg/liter of 
solids on a rolling 12-month average basis. These compliance options 
apply to an individual coil coating line, to multiple lines as a group, 
or to the entire affected source.
    Compliant coatings must contain no organic HAP (each organic HAP 
that is not an Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA)-
defined carcinogen that is measured to be present at less than 1 
percent by weight is counted as zero). The NESHAP also sets operating 
limits for the emission capture and add-on control devices.

C. What data collection activities were conducted to support this 
action?

    For the risk modeling portion of these RTRs, the EPA used data from 
the 2011 and 2014 NEI. The NEI is a database that contains information 
about sources that emit criteria air pollutants, their precursors, and 
HAP. The database includes estimates of annual air pollutant emissions 
from point, nonpoint, and mobile sources in the 50 states, the District 
of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands. The EPA collects this 
information and releases an updated version of the NEI database every 3 
years. The NEI includes data necessary for conducting risk modeling, 
including annual HAP emissions estimates from individual emission 
points at facilities and the related emissions release parameters. We 
used NEI emissions and supporting data as the primary data to develop 
the model input files for the risk assessments for each of these three 
source categories. Detailed information on the development of the 
modeling file for the Surface Coating of Metal Cans source category can 
be found in Appendix 1 to the Residual Risk Assessment for the Surface 
Coating of Metal Cans Source Category in Support of the 2019 Risk and 
Technology Review Proposed Rule (hereafter referred to as the Metal 
Cans Risk Assessment Report), in the Metal Cans Docket (Docket ID No. 
EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0684). Detailed information on the development of the 
modeling file for the Surface Coating of Metal Coil source category can 
be found in Appendix 1 to the Metal Coil Risk Assessment Report, in the 
Metal Coil Docket (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0685).
    For both the risk modeling and technology review portion of these 
RTRs, we also gathered data from facility construction and operating 
permits regarding emission points, air pollution control devices, and 
process operations. We collected permits and supporting documentation 
from state permitting authorities through state-maintained online 
databases. The facility permits were also used to confirm that the 
facilities were major sources of HAP and were subject to the NESHAP 
that are the subject of these risk assessments. In certain cases, we 
contacted industry associations and facility owners or operators to 
confirm and clarify the sources of emissions that were reported in the 
NEI. No formal information collection request (ICR) was conducted for 
this action.
    For the technology review portion of these RTRs, we also used 
information from the EPA's ECHO database as a tool to identify which 
facilities were potentially subject to the NESHAP. The ECHO database 
provides integrated compliance and enforcement information for 
approximately 800,000 regulated facilities nationwide. Using the search 
feature in ECHO, the EPA identified facilities that could potentially 
be subject to each of these two NESHAP. We then reviewed operating 
permits for these facilities, when available, to confirm that they were 
major sources of HAP with emission sources subject to these NESHAP.
    Also for the technology reviews, we collected information from the 
reasonably available control technology (RACT), best available control 
technology (BACT), and lowest achievable emission rate (LAER) 
determinations in the EPA's RACT/BACT/LAER Clearinghouse (RBLC).\4\ 
This is a database that contains case-specific information on air 
pollution technologies that have been required to reduce the emissions 
of air pollutants from stationary sources. Under the EPA's New Source 
Review (NSR) program, if a facility is planning new construction or a 
modification that will increase the air emissions by a large amount, an 
NSR permit must be obtained. This central database promotes the sharing 
of information among permitting agencies and aids in case-by-case 
determinations for NSR permits. We examined information contained in 
the RBLC to determine what technologies are currently used for these 
surface coating operations to reduce air emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ https://www.epa.gov/catc/ractbactlaer-clearinghouse-rblc-basic-information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additional information about these data collection activities for 
the technology reviews is contained in the technology review memoranda 
titled Technology Review for Surface Coating Operations in the Metal 
Cans Category, May 2017 (hereafter referred to as the Metal Cans 
Technology Review Memo), and the Technology Review for Surface Coating 
Operations in the Metal Coil Category, September 2017 (hereafter 
referred to as the Metal Coil Technology Review Memo), available in the 
respective Metal Cans and Metal Coil Dockets.

D. What other relevant background information and data are available?

    We also reviewed the NESHAP for other surface coating source 
categories that were promulgated after the Surface Coating of Metal 
Cans and the Surface Coating of Metal Coil NESHAP as part of the 
technology review for these source categories. We reviewed the 
regulatory requirements and/or technical analyses associated with these 
later regulatory actions to identify any practices, processes, and 
control technologies considered in those rulemakings that could be 
applied to emission sources in the Surface Coating of Metal Cans and 
the Surface Coating of Metal Coil source categories, as well as the 
costs, non-air impacts, and energy implications associated with the use 
of those technologies. We also reviewed

[[Page 25911]]

information available in the American Coatings Association's (ACA) 
Industry Market Analysis, 9th Edition (2014-2019).\5\ The ACA Industry 
Market Analysis provided information on trends in coatings technology 
that can affect emissions from the Surface Coating of Metal Cans and 
the Surface Coating of Metal Coil source categories. Additional details 
regarding our review of these information sources are contained in the 
Metal Cans Technology Review Memo, and the Metal Coil Technology Review 
Memo, available in the respective Metal Cans and Metal Coil Dockets.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Prepared for the ACA, Washington, DC, by The ChemQuest 
Group, Inc., Cincinnati, Ohio. 2015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Analytical Procedures and Decision Making

    In this section, we describe the analyses performed to support the 
proposed decisions for the RTRs and other issues addressed in this 
proposal.

A. How do we consider risk in our decision-making?

    As discussed in section II.A of this preamble and in the Benzene 
NESHAP, in evaluating and developing standards under CAA section 
112(f)(2), we apply a two-step approach to determine whether or not 
risks are acceptable and to determine if the standards provide an ample 
margin of safety to protect public health. As explained in the Benzene 
NESHAP, ``the first step judgment on acceptability cannot be reduced to 
any single factor'' and, thus, ``[t]he Administrator believes that the 
acceptability of risk under section 112 is best judged on the basis of 
a broad set of health risk measures and information.'' 54 FR 38046, 
September 14, 1989. Similarly, with regard to the ample margin of 
safety determination, ``the Agency again considers all of the health 
risk and other health information considered in the first step. Beyond 
that information, additional factors relating to the appropriate level 
of control will also be considered, including cost and economic impacts 
of controls, technological feasibility, uncertainties, and any other 
relevant factors.'' Id.
    The Benzene NESHAP approach provides flexibility regarding factors 
the EPA may consider in making determinations and how the EPA may weigh 
those factors for each source category. The EPA conducts a risk 
assessment that provides estimates of the MIR posed by the HAP 
emissions from each source in the source category, the hazard index 
(HI) for chronic exposures to HAP with the potential to cause noncancer 
health effects, and the hazard quotient (HQ) for acute exposures to HAP 
with the potential to cause noncancer health effects.\6\ The assessment 
also provides estimates of the distribution of cancer risk within the 
exposed populations, cancer incidence, and an evaluation of the 
potential for an adverse environmental effect. The scope of the EPA's 
risk analysis is consistent with the EPA's response to comments on our 
policy under the Benzene NESHAP where the EPA explained that:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The MIR is defined as the cancer risk associated with a 
lifetime of exposure at the highest concentration of HAP where 
people are likely to live. The HQ is the ratio of the potential 
exposure to the HAP to the level at or below which no adverse 
chronic non-cancer effects are expected; the HI is the sum of HQs 
for HAP that affect the same target organ or organ system.

``[t]he policy chosen by the Administrator permits consideration of 
multiple measures of health risk. Not only can the MIR figure be 
considered, but also incidence, the presence of noncancer health 
effects, and the uncertainties of the risk estimates. In this way, the 
effect on the most exposed individuals can be reviewed as well as the 
impact on the general public. These factors can then be weighed in each 
individual case. This approach complies with the Vinyl Chloride mandate 
that the Administrator ascertain an acceptable level of risk to the 
public by employing his expertise to assess available data. It also 
complies with the Congressional intent behind the CAA, which did not 
exclude the use of any particular measure of public health risk from 
the EPA's consideration with respect to CAA section 112 regulations, 
and thereby implicitly permits consideration of any and all measures of 
health risk which the Administrator, in his judgment, believes are 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
appropriate to determining what will `protect the public health'.''

    See 54 FR 38057, September 14, 1989. Thus, the level of the MIR is 
only one factor to be weighed in determining acceptability of risk. The 
Benzene NESHAP explained that ``an 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. Or, the Agency may find, in a 
particular case, that a risk that includes an MIR less than the 
presumptively acceptable level is unacceptable in the light of other 
health risk factors.'' Id. at 38045. Similarly, with regard to the 
ample margin of safety analysis, the EPA stated in the Benzene NESHAP 
that the: ``EPA believes the relative weight of the many factors that 
can be considered in selecting an ample margin of safety can only be 
determined for each specific source category. This occurs mainly 
because technological and economic factors (along with the health-
related factors) vary from source category to source category.'' Id. at 
38061. We also consider the uncertainties associated with the various 
risk analyses, as discussed earlier in this preamble, in our 
determinations of acceptability and ample margin of safety.
    The EPA notes that it has not considered certain health information 
to date in making residual risk determinations. At this time, we do not 
attempt to quantify the HAP risk that may be associated with emissions 
from other facilities that do not include the source categories under 
review, mobile source emissions, natural source emissions, persistent 
environmental pollution, or atmospheric transformation in the vicinity 
of the sources in the categories.
    The EPA understands the potential importance of considering an 
individual's total exposure to HAP in addition to considering exposure 
to HAP emissions from the source category and facility. We recognize 
that such consideration may be particularly important when assessing 
noncancer risk, where pollutant-specific exposure health reference 
levels (e.g., reference concentrations (RfCs)) are based on the 
assumption that thresholds exist for adverse health effects. For 
example, the EPA recognizes that, although exposures attributable to 
emissions from a source category or facility alone may not indicate the 
potential for increased risk of adverse noncancer health effects in a 
population, the exposures resulting from emissions from the facility in 
combination with emissions from all of the other sources (e.g., other 
facilities) to which an individual is exposed may be sufficient to 
result in an increased risk of adverse noncancer health effects. In May 
2010, the Science Advisory Board (SAB) advised the EPA ``that RTR 
assessments will be most useful to decision makers and communities if 
results are presented in the broader context of aggregate and 
cumulative risks, including background concentrations and contributions 
from other sources in the area.'' \7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Recommendations of the SAB Risk and Technology Review (RTR) 
Panel are provided in their report, which is available at: https://
yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/
4AB3966E263D943A8525771F00668381/$File/EPA-SAB-10-007-unsigned.pdf.

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

[[Page 25912]]

    In response to the SAB recommendations, the EPA incorporates 
cumulative risk analyses into its RTR risk assessments, including those 
reflected in this proposal. The Agency (1) Conducts facility-wide 
assessments, which include source category emission points, as well as 
other emission points within the facilities; (2) combines exposures 
from multiple sources in the same category that could affect the same 
individuals; and (3) for some persistent and bioaccumulative 
pollutants, analyzes the ingestion route of exposure. In addition, the 
RTR risk assessments consider aggregate cancer risk from all 
carcinogens and aggregated noncancer HQs for all noncarcinogens 
affecting the same target organ or target organ system.
    Although we are interested in placing source category and facility-
wide HAP risk in the context of total HAP risk from all sources 
combined in the vicinity of each source, we are concerned about the 
uncertainties of doing so. Estimates of total HAP risk from emission 
sources other than those that we have studied in depth during this RTR 
review would have significantly greater associated uncertainties than 
the source category or facility-wide estimates. Such aggregate or 
cumulative assessments would compound those uncertainties, making the 
assessments too unreliable.

B. How do we perform the technology review?

    Our technology review focuses on the identification and evaluation 
of developments in practices, processes, and control technologies that 
have occurred since the MACT standards were promulgated. Where we 
identify such developments, we analyze their technical feasibility, 
estimated costs, energy implications, and non-air environmental 
impacts. We also consider the emission reductions associated with 
applying each development. This analysis informs our decision of 
whether it is ``necessary'' to revise the emissions standards. In 
addition, we consider the appropriateness of applying controls to new 
sources versus retrofitting existing sources. For this exercise, we 
consider any of the following to be a ``development'':
     Any add-on control technology or other equipment that was 
not identified and considered during development of the original MACT 
standards;
     Any improvements in add-on control technology or other 
equipment (that were identified and considered during development of 
the original MACT standards) that could result in additional emissions 
reduction;
     Any work practice or operational procedure that was not 
identified or considered during development of the original MACT 
standards;
     Any process change or pollution prevention alternative 
that could be broadly applied to the industry and that was not 
identified or considered during development of the original MACT 
standards; and
     Any significant changes in the cost (including cost 
effectiveness) of applying controls (including controls the EPA 
considered during the development of the original MACT standards).
    In addition to reviewing the practices, processes, and control 
technologies that were considered at the time we originally developed 
the NESHAP (i.e., the 2003 Surface Coating of Metal Cans NESHAP; and 
the 2002 Surface Coating of Metal Coil NESHAP) we review a variety of 
data sources in our investigation of potential practices, processes, or 
controls that may have not been considered for each of the two source 
categories during development of the NESHAP. Among the sources we 
reviewed were the NESHAP for various industries that were promulgated 
after the MACT standards being reviewed in this action (e.g., NESHAP 
for Miscellaneous Metal Parts and Products (40 CFR part 63, subpart 
MMMM)). We also reviewed the results of other technology reviews for 
other surface coating source categories since the promulgation of the 
NESHAP (e.g., the technology reviews conducted for the Shipbuilding and 
Ship Repair (Surface Coating) NESHAP (40 CFR part 63, subpart II) and 
the Wood Furniture Manufacturing Operations NESHAP (40 CFR part 63, 
subpart JJ)). We reviewed the regulatory requirements and/or technical 
analyses associated with these regulatory actions to identify any 
practices, processes, and control technologies considered in these 
efforts that could be applied to emission sources in the Surface 
Coating of Metal Cans and the Surface Coating of Metal Coil source 
categories, as well as the costs, non-air impacts, and energy 
implications associated with the use of these technologies. Finally, we 
reviewed information from other sources, such as state and/or local 
permitting agency databases and industry-sponsored market analyses and 
trade journals, to research advancements in add-on controls and lower 
HAP technology for coatings and solvents. For a more detailed 
discussion of our methods for performing these technology reviews, 
refer to the Metal Cans Technology Review Memo and the Metal Coil 
Technology Review Memo, which are available in the respective Metal 
Cans and Metal Coil dockets.

C. How do we estimate post-MACT risk posed by these source categories?

    In this section, we provide a complete description of the types of 
analyses that we generally perform during the risk assessment process. 
In some cases, we do not perform a specific analysis because it is not 
relevant. For example, in the absence of emissions of HAP known to be 
persistent and bioaccumulative in the environment (PB-HAP), we would 
not perform a multipathway exposure assessment. Where we do not perform 
an analysis, we state that we do not and provide the reason. While we 
present all of our risk assessment methods, we only present risk 
assessment results for the analyses actually conducted (see section 
IV.B of this preamble).
    The EPA conducts a risk assessment that provides estimates of the 
MIR for cancer posed by the HAP emissions from each source in the 
source category, the HI for chronic exposures to HAP with the potential 
to cause noncancer health effects, and the HQ for acute exposures to 
HAP with the potential to cause noncancer health effects. The 
assessment also provides estimates of the distribution of cancer risk 
within the exposed populations, cancer incidence, and an evaluation of 
the potential for an adverse environmental effect. The seven sections 
that follow this paragraph describe how we estimated emissions and 
conducted the risk assessments in this action. The dockets for this 
rulemaking contain the following documents which provide more 
information on the risk assessment inputs and models: Metal Cans Risk 
Assessment Report and the Metal Coil Risk Assessment Report. The 
methods used to assess risk (as described in the seven primary steps 
below) are consistent with those described by the EPA in the document 
reviewed by a panel of the EPA's SAB in 2009; \8\ and described in the 
SAB review report issued in 2010. They are also consistent with the key 
recommendations contained in that report.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ U.S. EPA. Risk and Technology Review (RTR) Risk Assessment 
Methodologies: For Review by the EPA's Science Advisory Board with 
Case Studies--MACT I Petroleum Refining Sources and Portland Cement 
Manufacturing, June 2009. EPA-452/R-09-006. https://www3.epa.gov/airtoxics/rrisk/rtrpg.html.

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

[[Page 25913]]

1. How did we estimate actual emissions and identify the emissions 
release characteristics?
    The actual emissions and the emission release characteristics for 
each facility were obtained primarily from either the 2011 NEI or the 
2014 NEI. The 2011 version of the NEI was the most recent version 
available during the data collection phase of this rulemaking; 
therefore, most data were obtained from the 2011 NEI. The 2014 NEI was 
used to supplement the dataset with HAP data for emission units or 
processes for which the 2011 NEI included only volatile organic 
compounds (VOC) or particulate matter. In some cases, the industry 
association or the specific facilities were contacted to confirm 
emissions that appeared to be outliers, that were otherwise 
inconsistent with our understanding of the industry, or that were 
associated with high risk values in our initial risk screening 
analyses. When appropriate, emission values and release characteristics 
were revised based on these facility contacts, and these changes were 
documented. Additional information on the development of the modeling 
file for each source category, including the development of the actual 
emissions estimates and emissions release characteristics, can be found 
in Appendix 1 to the Metal Cans Risk Assessment Report, in the Metal 
Cans Docket and Appendix 1 to the Metal Coil Risk Assessment Report, in 
the Metal Coil Docket.
2. How did we estimate MACT-allowable emissions?
    The available emissions data in the RTR emissions dataset include 
estimates of the mass of HAP emitted during a specified annual time 
period. These ``actual'' emission levels are often lower than the 
emission levels allowed under the requirements of the current MACT 
standards. The emissions allowed under the MACT standards are referred 
to as the ``MACT-allowable'' emissions. We discussed the consideration 
of both MACT-allowable and actual emissions in the final Coke Oven 
Batteries RTR (70 FR 19998-19999, April 15, 2005) and in the proposed 
and final Hazardous Organic NESHAP RTRs (71 FR 34428, June 14, 2006, 
and 71 FR 76609, December 21, 2006, respectively). In those actions, we 
noted that assessing the risk at the MACT-allowable level is inherently 
reasonable since that risk reflects the maximum level facilities could 
emit and still comply with national emission standards. We also 
explained that it is reasonable to consider actual emissions, where 
such data are available, in both steps of the risk analysis, in 
accordance with the Benzene NESHAP approach. (54 FR 38044, September 
14, 1989.)
    For both the Surface Coating of Metal Cans and the Surface Coating 
of Metal Coil source categories, the EPA calculated allowable emissions 
by developing source category-specific multipliers of 1.1 that was 
applied to the current emissions for each category to estimate the 
allowable emissions. The multipliers were based on information obtained 
from the facility operating permits and the add-on control device 
control efficiencies for metal can and metal coil coating operations. 
Both categories have facilities that employ the use of add-on controls 
with efficiencies that are slightly above the control efficiency level 
required by the respective NESHAP, which suggests that the actual 
emissions are slightly lower than the NESHAP allowable levels.
    For more details on how the EPA estimated the MACT allowable 
emissions for the Surface Coating of Metal Cans source category, please 
see Appendix 1 to the Metal Cans Risk Assessment Report, in the Metal 
Cans Docket (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0684). For more details on 
how the EPA calculated the MACT allowable emissions for the Surface 
Coating of Metal Coil source category, please see Appendix 1 to the 
Metal Coil Risk Assessment Report, in the Metal Coil Docket (Docket ID 
No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0685).
3. How do we conduct dispersion modeling, determine inhalation 
exposures, and estimate individual and population inhalation risk?
    Both long-term and short-term inhalation exposure concentrations 
and health risk from the source categories addressed in this proposal 
were estimated using the Human Exposure Model (HEM-3).\9\ The HEM-3 
performs three primary risk assessment activities: (1) Conducting 
dispersion modeling to estimate the concentrations of HAP in ambient 
air, (2) estimating long-term and short-term inhalation exposures to 
individuals residing within 50 kilometers (km) of the modeled sources, 
and (3) estimating individual and population-level inhalation risk 
using the exposure estimates and quantitative dose-response 
information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ For more information about HEM-3, go to https://www.epa.gov/fera/risk-assessment-and-modeling-human-exposure-model-hem.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

a. Dispersion Modeling
    The air dispersion model AERMOD, used by the HEM-3 model, is one of 
the EPA's preferred models for assessing air pollutant concentrations 
from industrial facilities.\10\ To perform the dispersion modeling and 
to develop the preliminary risk estimates, HEM-3 draws on three data 
libraries. The first is a library of meteorological data, which is used 
for dispersion calculations. This library includes 1 year (2016) of 
hourly surface and upper air observations from 824 meteorological 
stations, selected to provide coverage of the U.S. and Puerto Rico. A 
second library of U.S. Census Bureau census block \11\ internal point 
locations and populations provides the basis of human exposure 
calculations (U.S. Census, 2010). In addition, for each census block, 
the census library includes the elevation and controlling hill height, 
which are also used in dispersion calculations. A third library of 
pollutant-specific dose-response values is used to estimate health 
risk. These are discussed below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ U.S. EPA. Revision to the Guideline on Air Quality Models: 
Adoption of a Preferred General Purpose (Flat and Complex Terrain) 
Dispersion Model and Other Revisions (70 FR 68218, November 9, 
2005).
    \11\ A census block is the smallest geographic area for which 
census statistics are tabulated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. Risk From Chronic Exposure to HAP
    In developing the risk assessment for chronic exposures, we use the 
estimated annual average ambient air concentrations of each HAP emitted 
by each source in the source categories. The HAP air concentrations at 
each nearby census block centroid located within 50 km of the facility 
are a surrogate for the chronic inhalation exposure concentration for 
all the people who reside in that census block. A distance of 50 km is 
consistent with both the analysis supporting the 1989 Benzene NESHAP 
(54 FR 38044, September 14, 1989) and the limitations of Gaussian 
dispersion models, including AERMOD.
    For each facility, we calculate the MIR as the cancer risk 
associated with a continuous lifetime (24 hours per day, 7 days per 
week, 52 weeks per year, 70 years) exposure to the maximum 
concentration at the centroid of each inhabited census block. We 
calculate individual cancer risk by multiplying the estimated lifetime 
exposure to the ambient concentration of each HAP (in micrograms per 
cubic meter ([mu]g/m\3\)) by its unit risk estimate (URE). The URE is 
an upper-bound estimate of an individual's incremental risk of 
contracting cancer over a lifetime of exposure to a concentration of 1 
microgram of the pollutant per cubic meter of air. For residual risk

[[Page 25914]]

assessments, we generally use UREs from the EPA's Integrated Risk 
Information System (IRIS). For carcinogenic pollutants without IRIS 
values, we look to other reputable sources of cancer dose-response 
values, often using California EPA (CalEPA) UREs, where available. In 
cases where new, scientifically credible dose-response values have been 
developed in a manner consistent with EPA guidelines and have undergone 
a peer review process similar to that used by the EPA, we may use such 
dose-response values in place of, or in addition to, other values, if 
appropriate. The pollutant-specific dose-response values used to 
estimate health risk are available at https://www.epa.gov/fera/dose-response-assessment-assessing-health-risks-associated-exposure-hazardous-air-pollutants.
    To estimate individual lifetime cancer risks associated with 
exposure to HAP emissions from each facility in the source category, we 
sum the risks for each of the carcinogenic HAP \12\ emitted by the 
modeled facility. We estimate cancer risk at every census block within 
50 km of every facility in the source category. The MIR is the highest 
individual lifetime cancer risk estimated for any of those census 
blocks. In addition to calculating the MIR, we estimate the 
distribution of individual cancer risks for the source category by 
summing the number of individuals within 50 km of the sources whose 
estimated risk falls within a specified risk range. We also estimate 
annual cancer incidence by multiplying the estimated lifetime cancer 
risk at each census block by the number of people residing in that 
block, summing results for all of the census blocks, and then dividing 
this result by a 70-year lifetime.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ The EPA's 2005 Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment 
classifies carcinogens as: ``carcinogenic to humans,'' ``likely to 
be carcinogenic to humans,'' and ``suggestive evidence of 
carcinogenic potential.'' These classifications also coincide with 
the terms ``known carcinogen, probable carcinogen, and possible 
carcinogen,'' respectively, which are the terms advocated in the 
EPA's Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment, published in 1986 
(51 FR 33992, September 24, 1986). In August 2000, the document, 
Supplemental Guidance for Conducting Health Risk Assessment of 
Chemical Mixtures (EPA/630/R-00/002), was published as a supplement 
to the 1986 document. Copies of both documents can be obtained from 
https://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/risk/recordisplay.cfm?deid=20533&CFID=70315376&CFTOKEN=71597944. Summing 
the risk of these individual compounds to obtain the cumulative 
cancer risk is an approach that was recommended by the EPA's SAB in 
their 2002 peer review of the EPA's National Air Toxics Assessment 
(NATA) titled NATA--Evaluating the National-scale Air Toxics 
Assessment 1996 Data--a SAB Advisory, available at https://
yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/
214C6E915BB04E14852570CA007A682C/$File/ecadv02001.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To assess the risk of noncancer health effects from chronic 
exposure to HAP, we calculate either an HQ or a target organ-specific 
hazard index (TOSHI). We calculate an HQ when a single noncancer HAP is 
emitted. Where more than one noncancer HAP is emitted, we sum the HQ 
for each of the HAP that affects a common target organ or target organ 
system to obtain a TOSHI. The HQ is the estimated exposure divided by 
the chronic noncancer dose-response value, which is a value selected 
from one of several sources. The preferred chronic noncancer dose-
response value is the EPA RfC, defined as ``an estimate (with 
uncertainty spanning perhaps an order of magnitude) of a continuous 
inhalation exposure to the human population (including sensitive 
subgroups) that is likely to be without an appreciable risk of 
deleterious effects during a lifetime'' (https://iaspub.epa.gov/sor_internet/registry/termreg/searchandretrieve/glossariesandkeywordlists/search.do?details=&vocabName=IRIS%20Glossary). In cases where an RfC 
from the EPA's IRIS is not available or where the EPA determines that 
using a value other than the RfC is appropriate, the chronic noncancer 
dose-response value can be a value from the following prioritized 
sources, which define their dose-response values similarly to the EPA: 
(1) The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) 
Minimum Risk Level (https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/mrls/index.asp); (2) the 
CalEPA Chronic Reference Exposure Level (REL) (https://oehha.ca.gov/air/crnr/notice-adoption-air-toxics-hot-spots-program-guidance-manual-preparation-health-risk-0); or (3) as noted above, a scientifically 
credible dose-response value that has been developed in a manner 
consistent with the EPA guidelines and has undergone a peer review 
process similar to that used by the EPA. The pollutant-specific dose-
response values used to estimate health risks are available at https://www.epa.gov/fera/dose-response-assessment-assessing-health-risks-associated-exposure-hazardous-air-pollutants.
c. Risk From Acute Exposure to HAP That May Cause Health Effects Other 
Than Cancer
    For each HAP for which appropriate acute inhalation dose-response 
values are available, the EPA also assesses the potential health risks 
due to acute exposure. For these assessments, the EPA makes 
conservative assumptions about emission rates, meteorology, and 
exposure location. We use the peak hourly emission rate,\13\ worst-case 
dispersion conditions, and, in accordance with our mandate under 
section 112 of the CAA, the point of highest off-site exposure to 
assess the potential risk to the maximally exposed individual.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ In the absence of hourly emission data, we develop 
estimates of maximum hourly emission rates by multiplying the 
average actual annual emissions rates by a factor (either a 
category-specific factor or a default factor of 10) to account for 
variability. This is documented in the Metal Cans Risk Assessment 
Report and the Metal Coil Risk Assessment Report and in Appendix 5 
of the report: Analysis of Data on Short-term Emission Rates 
Relative to Long-term Emission Rates. These documents are available 
in the Metal Cans Docket and the Metal Coil Docket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To characterize the potential health risks associated with 
estimated acute inhalation exposures to a HAP, we generally use 
multiple acute dose-response values, including acute RELs, acute 
exposure guideline levels (AEGLs), and emergency response planning 
guidelines (ERPG) for 1-hour exposure durations, if available, to 
calculate acute HQs. The acute HQ is calculated by dividing the 
estimated acute exposure by the acute dose-response value. For each HAP 
for which acute dose-response values are available, the EPA calculates 
acute HQs.
    An acute REL is defined as ``the concentration level at or below 
which no adverse health effects are anticipated for a specified 
exposure duration.'' \14\ Acute RELs are based on the most sensitive, 
relevant, adverse health effect reported in the peer-reviewed medical 
and toxicological literature. They are designed to protect the most 
sensitive individuals in the population through the inclusion of 
margins of safety. Because margins of safety are incorporated to 
address data gaps and uncertainties, exceeding the REL does not 
automatically indicate an adverse health impact. AEGLs represent 
threshold exposure limits for the general public and are applicable to 
emergency exposures ranging from 10 minutes to 8 hours.\15\ They are 
guideline levels for

[[Page 25915]]

``once-in-a-lifetime, short-term exposures to airborne concentrations 
of acutely toxic, high-priority chemicals.'' Id. at 21. The AEGL-1 is 
specifically defined as ``the airborne concentration (expressed as ppm 
(parts per million) or mg/m\3\ (milligrams per cubic meter)) of a 
substance above which it is predicted that the general population, 
including susceptible individuals, could experience notable discomfort, 
irritation, or certain asymptomatic nonsensory effects. However, the 
effects are not disabling and are transient and reversible upon 
cessation of exposure.'' The document also notes that ``Airborne 
concentrations below AEGL-1 represent exposure levels that can produce 
mild and progressively increasing but transient and nondisabling odor, 
taste, and sensory irritation or certain asymptomatic, nonsensory 
effects.'' Id. AEGL-2 are defined as ``the airborne concentration 
(expressed as parts per million or milligrams per cubic meter) of a 
substance above which it is predicted that the general population, 
including susceptible individuals, could experience irreversible or 
other serious, long-lasting adverse health effects or an impaired 
ability to escape.'' Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ CalEPA issues acute RELs as part of its Air Toxics Hot 
Spots Program, and the 1-hour and 8-hour values are documented in 
Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Risk Assessment Guidelines, Part I, The 
Determination of Acute Reference Exposure Levels for Airborne 
Toxicants, which is available at https://oehha.ca.gov/air/general-info/oehha-acute-8-hour-and-chronic-reference-exposure-level-rel-summary.
    \15\ National Academy of Sciences, 2001. Standing Operating 
Procedures for Developing Acute Exposure Levels for Hazardous 
Chemicals, page 2. Available at https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-09/documents/sop_final_standing_operating_procedures_2001.pdf. Note that the 
National Advisory Committee for Acute Exposure Guideline Levels for 
Hazardous Substances ended in October 2011, but the AEGL program 
continues to operate at the EPA and works with the National 
Academies to publish final AEGLs (https://www.epa.gov/aegl).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    ERPGs are ``developed for emergency planning and are intended as 
health-based guideline concentrations for single exposures to 
chemicals.'' \16\ Id. at 1. The ERPG-1 is defined as ``the maximum 
airborne concentration below which it is believed that nearly all 
individuals could be exposed for up to 1 hour without experiencing 
other than mild transient adverse health effects or without perceiving 
a clearly defined, objectionable odor.'' Id. at 2. Similarly, the ERPG-
2 is defined as ``the maximum airborne concentration below which it is 
believed that nearly all individuals could be exposed for up to one 
hour without experiencing or developing irreversible or other serious 
health effects or symptoms which could impair an individual's ability 
to take protective action.'' Id. at 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ ERPGS Procedures and Responsibilities. March 2014. American 
Industrial Hygiene Association. Available at: https://www.aiha.org/get-involved/AIHAGuidelineFoundation/EmergencyResponsePlanningGuidelines/Documents/ERPG%20Committee%20Standard%20Operating%20Procedures%20%20-%20March%202014%20Revision%20%28Updated%2010-2-2014%29.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    An acute REL for 1-hour exposure durations is typically lower than 
its corresponding AEGL-1 and ERPG-1. Even though their definitions are 
slightly different, AEGL-1s are often the same as the corresponding 
ERPG-1s, and AEGL-2s are often equal to ERPG-2s. The maximum HQs from 
our acute inhalation screening risk assessment typically result when we 
use the acute REL for a HAP. In cases where the maximum acute HQ 
exceeds 1, we also report the HQ based on the next highest acute dose-
response value (usually the AEGL-1 and/or the ERPG-1).
    For these source categories, we did not have short term emissions 
data; therefore, we developed source category-specific factors based on 
information about each industry. We request comment on our assumptions 
regarding hour-to-hour variation in emissions and our methods of 
calculating the multiplier for estimating the peak 1-hour emissions for 
each source category and any additional information that could help 
refine our approach.
    The Surface Coating of Metal Cans source category process is a 
continuous (non-batch) coating application and curing process that 
results in consistent emission rates. The sources in this category 
primarily roll-apply coatings onto the surface of the metal cans. The 
sources employ the use of various compliance options, which include the 
use of compliant coatings, coatings when averaged meet the emission 
limits, and for facilities that cannot use these options, they employ 
the use of add-on controls. We expect that the hourly variations in 
emissions from these processes during routine operations to be minimal. 
Thus, applying the default emission factor of 10 to estimate the worst-
case hourly emission rate is not reasonable for this category. We 
expect that minimal variations in emissions occur due to variations in 
the organic HAP content of the coatings. We calculated acute emissions 
by developing a source category-specific multiplier of 1.1 that was 
applied to the actual annual emissions, which were then divided by the 
total number of hours in a year (8,760 hours). A further discussion of 
why this factor was chosen can be found in Appendix 1 to the Metal Cans 
Risk Assessment Report in the Metal Cans Docket.
    Similarly, for the Surface Coating of Metal Coil source category, 
we expect to see minimal hour-to-hour variation in emissions during 
routine operations because coil coating operations roll-apply coating 
onto a moving metal strip (coil) in a continuous coating process. The 
coil ends are seamed together in a continuous (non-batch) process that 
achieves a consistent emission rate. Thus, the default emission factor 
of 10 to estimate the worst-case hourly emission rate is not reasonable 
for this category. We expect that minimal variation in emissions occur 
due to variations in the organic HAP content of the coatings from batch 
to batch. We calculated acute emissions by developing a source 
category-specific multiplier of 1.1 that was applied to the actual 
annual emissions, which were then divided by the total number of hours 
in a year (8,760 hours). A further discussion of why this factor was 
chosen can be found in Appendix 1 to the Metal Coil Risk Assessment 
Report in the Metal Coil Docket.
    In our acute inhalation screening risk assessment, acute impacts 
are deemed negligible for HAP for which acute HQs are less than or 
equal to 1 (even under the conservative assumptions of the screening 
assessment), and no further analysis is performed for these HAP. In 
cases where an acute HQ from the screening step is greater than 1, we 
consider additional site-specific data to develop a more refined 
estimate of the potential for acute exposures of concern. For both 
source categories in this action, the data refinements employed 
consisted of plotting the HEM-3 polar grid results for each HAP with an 
acute HQ value greater than 1 on aerial photographs of the facilities. 
We then assessed whether the highest acute HQs were off-site and at 
locations that may be accessible to the public (e.g., roadways and 
public buildings). These refinements are discussed more fully in the 
Metal Cans and Metal Coil Risk Assessment Reports, available in the 
respective Metal Cans and Metal Coil Dockets.
4. How do we conduct the multipathway exposure and risk screening 
assessment?
    The EPA conducts a tiered screening assessment examining the 
potential for significant human health risks due to exposures via 
routes other than inhalation (i.e., ingestion). We first determine 
whether any sources in the source categories emit any HAP known to be 
persistent and bioaccumulative in the environment (PB-HAP), as 
identified in the EPA's Air Toxics Risk Assessment Library (see Volume 
1, Appendix D, at https://www.epa.gov/fera/risk-assessment-and-modeling-air-toxics-risk-assessment-reference-library).
    For the Surface Coating of Metal Cans source category, we did not 
identify emissions of any PB-HAP. Because we did not identify PB-HAP 
emissions, no further evaluation of multipathway risk was conducted for 
this source category. For the Surface Coating of Metal Coil source 
category, we identified PB-HAP emissions of lead, so we proceeded to 
the next step of the evaluation. In this

[[Page 25916]]

step, we determine whether the facility-specific emission rates of the 
emitted PB-HAP are large enough to create the potential for significant 
human health risk through ingestion exposure under reasonable worst-
case conditions. To facilitate this step, we use previously developed 
screening threshold emission rates for several PB-HAP that are based on 
a hypothetical upper-end screening exposure scenario developed for use 
in conjunction with the EPA's Total Risk Integrated Methodology.Fate, 
Transport, and Ecological Exposure (TRIM.FaTE) model. The PB-HAP with 
screening threshold emission rates are arsenic compounds, cadmium 
compounds, chlorinated dibenzodioxins and furans, mercury compounds, 
and polycyclic organic matter (POM). Based on the EPA estimates of 
toxicity and bioaccumulation potential, the pollutants above represent 
a conservative list for inclusion in multipathway risk assessments for 
RTR rules. (See Volume 1, Appendix D at https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/201308/documents/volume_1_reflibrary.pdf). In this 
assessment, we compare the facility-specific emission rates of these 
PB-HAP to the screening threshold emission rates for each PB-HAP to 
assess the potential for significant human health risks via the 
ingestion pathway. We call this application of the TRIM.FaTE model the 
Tier 1 screening assessment. The ratio of a facility's actual emission 
rate to the Tier 1 screening threshold emission rate is a ``screening 
value.''
    We derive the Tier 1 screening threshold emission rates for these 
PB-HAP (other than lead compounds) to correspond to a maximum excess 
lifetime cancer risk of 1-in-1 million (i.e., for arsenic compounds, 
polychlorinated dibenzodioxins and furans and POM) or, for HAP that 
cause noncancer health effects (i.e., cadmium compounds and mercury 
compounds), a maximum HQ of 1. If the emission rate of any one PB-HAP 
or combination of carcinogenic PB-HAP in the Tier 1 screening 
assessment exceeds the Tier 1 screening threshold emission rate for any 
facility (i.e., the screening value is greater than 1), we conduct a 
second screening assessment, which we call the Tier 2 screening 
assessment.
    In the Tier 2 screening assessment, the location of each facility 
that exceeds a Tier 1 screening threshold emission rate is used to 
refine the assumptions associated with the Tier 1 fisher and farmer 
exposure scenarios at that facility. A key assumption in the Tier 1 
screening assessment is that a lake and/or farm is located near the 
facility. As part of the Tier 2 screening assessment, we use a U.S. 
Geological Survey (USGS) database to identify actual waterbodies within 
50 km of each facility. We also examine the differences between local 
meteorology near the facility and the meteorology used in the Tier 1 
screening assessment. We then adjust the previously-developed Tier 1 
screening threshold emission rates for each PB-HAP for each facility 
based on an understanding of how exposure concentrations estimated for 
the screening scenario change with the use of local meteorology and 
USGS waterbody data. If the PB-HAP emission rates for a facility exceed 
the Tier 2 screening threshold emission rates and data are available, 
we may conduct a Tier 3 screening assessment. If PB-HAP emission rates 
do not exceed a Tier 2 screening value of 1, we consider those PB-HAP 
emissions to pose risks below a level of concern.
    There are several analyses that can be included in a Tier 3 
screening assessment, depending upon the extent of refinement 
warranted, including validating that the lakes are fishable, 
considering plume-rise to estimate emissions lost above the mixing 
layer, and considering hourly effects of meteorology and plume rise on 
chemical fate and transport. If the Tier 3 screening assessment 
indicates that risks above levels of concern cannot be ruled out, the 
EPA may further refine the screening assessment through a site-specific 
assessment.
    In evaluating the potential multipathway risk from emissions of 
lead compounds, rather than developing a screening threshold emission 
rate, we compare maximum estimated chronic inhalation exposure 
concentrations to the level of the current National Ambient Air Quality 
Standards (NAAQS) for lead.\17\ Values below the level of the primary 
(health-based) lead NAAQS are considered to have a low potential for 
multipathway risk.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ In doing so, the EPA notes that the legal standard for a 
primary NAAQS--that a standard is requisite to protect public health 
and provide an adequate margin of safety (CAA section 109(b))--
differs from the CAA section 112(f) standard (requiring, among other 
things, that the standard provide an ``ample margin of safety to 
protect public health''). However, the primary lead NAAQS is a 
reasonable measure of determining risk acceptability (i.e., the 
first step of the Benzene NESHAP analysis) since it is designed to 
protect the most susceptible group in the human population--
children, including children living near major lead emitting 
sources. 73 FR 67002/3; 73 FR 67000/3; 73 FR 67005/1. In addition, 
applying the level of the primary lead NAAQS at the risk 
acceptability step is conservative, since that primary lead NAAQS 
reflects an adequate margin of safety.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For further information on the multipathway assessment approach, 
see the Metal Coil Risk Assessment Report, which is available in the 
Metal Coil docket for this action.
5. How do we conduct the environmental risk screening assessment?
a. Adverse Environmental Effect, Environmental HAP, and Ecological 
Benchmarks
    The EPA conducts a screening assessment to examine the potential 
for an adverse environmental effect as required under section 
112(f)(2)(A) of the CAA. Section 112(a)(7) of the CAA defines ``adverse 
environmental effect'' as ``any significant and widespread adverse 
effect, which may reasonably be anticipated, to wildlife, aquatic life, 
or other natural resources, including adverse impacts on populations of 
endangered or threatened species or significant degradation of 
environmental quality over broad areas.''
    The EPA focuses on eight HAP, which are referred to as 
``environmental HAP,'' in its screening assessment: Six PB-HAP and two 
acid gases. The PB-HAP included in the screening assessment are arsenic 
compounds, cadmium compounds, dioxins/furans, (POM, mercury (both 
inorganic mercury and methyl mercury), and lead compounds. The acid 
gases included in the screening assessment are hydrochloric acid (HCl) 
and hydrogen fluoride (HF).
    HAP that persist and bioaccumulate are of particular environmental 
concern because they accumulate in the soil, sediment, and water. The 
acid gases, HCl and HF, are included due to their well-documented 
potential to cause direct damage to terrestrial plants. In the 
environmental risk screening assessment, we evaluate the following four 
exposure media: Terrestrial soils, surface water bodies (includes 
water-column and benthic sediments), fish consumed by wildlife, and 
air. Within these four exposure media, we evaluate nine ecological 
assessment endpoints, which are defined by the ecological entity and 
its attributes. For PB-HAP (other than lead), both community-level and 
population-level endpoints are included. For acid gases, the ecological 
assessment evaluated is terrestrial plant communities.
    An ecological benchmark represents a concentration of HAP that has 
been linked to a particular environmental effect level. For each 
environmental HAP, we identified the available ecological benchmarks 
for each assessment endpoint. We identified, where possible, ecological 
benchmarks at the following effect levels: Probable effect levels, 
lowest-observed-adverse-

[[Page 25917]]

effect level, and no-observed-adverse-effect level. In cases where 
multiple effect levels were available for a particular PB-HAP and 
assessment endpoint, we use all of the available effect levels to help 
us to determine whether ecological risks exist and, if so, whether the 
risks could be considered significant and widespread.
    For further information on how the environmental risk screening 
assessment was conducted, including a discussion of the risk metrics 
used, how the environmental HAP were identified, and how the ecological 
benchmarks were selected, see Appendix 9 of the Metal Cans Risk 
Assessment Report and the Metal Coil Risk Assessment Report, in the 
Metal Cans Docket and the Metal Coil Docket, respectively.
b. Environmental Risk Screening Methodology
    For the environmental risk screening assessment, the EPA first 
determined whether any facilities in the Surface Coating of Metal Cans 
and Surface Coating of Metal Coil source categories emitted any of the 
environmental HAP. For the Surface Coating of Metal Cans source 
category, we identified emissions of HCl and HF. For the Surface 
Coating of Metal Coil source category, we identified emissions of HF 
and lead.
    Because one or more of the environmental HAP evaluated are emitted 
by at least one facility in the source categories, we proceeded to the 
second step of the evaluation for both the Surface Coating of Metal 
Cans and the Surface Coating of Metal Coil source categories.
c. PB-HAP Methodology
    The environmental screening assessment includes six PB-HAP: Arsenic 
compounds, cadmium compounds, dioxins/furans, POM, mercury (both 
inorganic mercury and methyl mercury), and lead compounds. With the 
exception of lead, the environmental risk screening assessment for PB-
HAP consists of three tiers. The first tier of the environmental risk 
screening assessment uses the same health-protective conceptual model 
that is used for the Tier 1 human health screening assessment. 
TRIM.FaTE model simulations were used to back-calculate Tier 1 
screening threshold emission rates. The screening threshold emission 
rates represent the emission rate in tons per year that results in 
media concentrations at the facility that equal the relevant ecological 
benchmark. To assess emissions from each facility in the category, the 
reported emission rate for each PB-HAP was compared to the Tier 1 
screening threshold emission rate for that PB-HAP for each assessment 
endpoint and effect level. If emissions from a facility do not exceed 
the Tier 1 screening threshold emission rate, the facility ``passes'' 
the screening assessment, and, therefore, is not evaluated further 
under the screening approach. If emissions from a facility exceed the 
Tier 1 screening threshold emission rate, we evaluate the facility 
further in Tier 2.
    In Tier 2 of the environmental screening assessment, the screening 
threshold emission rates are adjusted to account for local meteorology 
and the actual location of lakes in the vicinity of facilities that did 
not pass the Tier 1 screening assessment. For soils, we evaluate the 
average soil concentration for all soil parcels within a 7.5-km radius 
for each facility and PB-HAP. For the water, sediment, and fish tissue 
concentrations, the highest value for each facility for each pollutant 
is used. If emission concentrations from a facility do not exceed the 
Tier 2 screening threshold emission rate, the facility ``passes'' the 
screening assessment and typically is not evaluated further. If 
emissions from a facility exceed the Tier 2 screening threshold 
emission rate, we evaluate the facility further in Tier 3.
    As in the multipathway human health risk assessment, in Tier 3 of 
the environmental screening assessment, we examine the suitability of 
the lakes around the facilities to support life and remove those that 
are not suitable (e.g., lakes that have been filled in or are 
industrial ponds), adjust emissions for plume-rise, and conduct hour-
by-hour time-series assessments. If these Tier 3 adjustments to the 
screening threshold emission rates still indicate the potential for an 
adverse environmental effect (i.e., facility emission rate exceeds the 
screening threshold emission rate), we may elect to conduct a more 
refined assessment using more site-specific information. If, after 
additional refinement, the facility emission rate still exceeds the 
screening threshold emission rate, the facility may have the potential 
to cause an adverse environmental effect.
    To evaluate the potential for an adverse environmental effect from 
lead, we compared the average modeled air concentrations (from HEM-3) 
of lead around each facility in the source category to the level of the 
secondary NAAQS for lead. The secondary lead NAAQS is a reasonable 
means of evaluating environmental risk because it is set to provide 
substantial protection against adverse welfare effects which can 
include ``effects on soils, water, crops, vegetation, man-made 
materials, animals, wildlife, weather, visibility and climate, damage 
to and deterioration of property, and hazards to transportation, as 
well as effects on economic values and on personal comfort and well-
being.''
d. Acid Gas Environmental Risk Methodology
    The environmental screening assessment for acid gases evaluates the 
potential phytotoxicity and reduced productivity of plants due to 
chronic exposure to HF and HCl. The environmental risk screening 
methodology for acid gases is a single-tier screening assessment that 
compares modeled ambient air concentrations (from AERMOD) to the 
ecological benchmarks for each acid gas. To identify a potential 
adverse environmental effect (as defined in section 112(a)(7) of the 
CAA) from emissions of HF and HCl, we evaluate the following metrics: 
The size of the modeled area around each facility that exceeds the 
ecological benchmark for each acid gas, in acres and km\2\; the 
percentage of the modeled area around each facility that exceeds the 
ecological benchmark for each acid gas; and the area-weighted average 
screening value around each facility (calculated by dividing the area-
weighted average concentration over the 50-km modeling domain by the 
ecological benchmark for each acid gas). For further information on the 
environmental screening assessment approach, see Appendix 9 of the 
Metal Cans Risk Assessment Report and Metal Coil Risk Assessment 
Report, which are available in each respective docket for this action.
6. How do we conduct facility-wide assessments?
    To put the source category risks in context, we typically examine 
the risks from the entire ``facility,'' where the facility includes all 
HAP-emitting operations within a contiguous area and under common 
control. In other words, we examine the HAP emissions not only from the 
source category emission points of interest, but also emissions of HAP 
from all other emission sources at the facility for which we have data. 
For these source categories, we conducted the facility-wide assessment 
using a dataset compiled from the 2014 NEI. The source category records 
of that NEI dataset were removed, evaluated, and updated as described 
in section II.C of this preamble: ``What data collection activities 
were conducted to support this action?'' Once a quality assured source 
category dataset was available, it was placed back with the remaining 
records from the NEI for that facility.

[[Page 25918]]

The facility-wide file was then used to analyze risks due to the 
inhalation of HAP that are emitted ``facility-wide'' for the 
populations residing within 50 km of each facility, consistent with the 
methods used for the source category analysis described above. For 
these facility-wide risk analyses, the modeled source category risks 
were compared to the facility-wide risks to determine the portion of 
the facility-wide risks that could be attributed to the source 
categories addressed in this proposal. We also specifically examined 
the facility that was associated with the highest estimate of risk and 
determined the percentage of that risk attributable to the source 
category of interest. The Metal Cans Risk Assessment Report and the 
Metal Coil Risk Assessment Report, available respectively in the Metal 
Cans Docket and the Metal Coil Docket, provide the methodology and 
results of the facility-wide analyses, including all facility-wide 
risks and the percentage of source category contribution to facility-
wide risks.
7. How do we consider uncertainties in risk assessment?
    Uncertainty and the potential for bias are inherent in all risk 
assessments, including those performed for this proposal. Although 
uncertainty exists, we believe that our approach, which used 
conservative tools and assumptions, ensures that our decisions are 
health and environmentally protective. A brief discussion of the 
uncertainties in the RTR emissions datasets, dispersion modeling, 
inhalation exposure estimates, and dose-response relationships follows 
below. Also included are those uncertainties specific to our acute 
screening assessments, multipathway screening assessments, and our 
environmental risk screening assessments. A more thorough discussion of 
these uncertainties is included in the Metal Cans Risk Assessment 
Report and the Metal Coil Risk Assessment Report, available 
respectively in the Metal Cans Docket and the Metal Coil Docket. If a 
multipathway site-specific assessment was performed for this source 
category, a full discussion of the uncertainties associated with that 
assessment can be found in Appendix 11 of that document, Site-Specific 
Human Health Multipathway Residual Risk Assessment Report.
a. Uncertainties in the RTR Emissions Datasets
    Although the development of the RTR emissions datasets involved 
quality assurance/quality control processes, the accuracy of emissions 
values will vary depending on the source of the data, the degree to 
which data are incomplete or missing, the degree to which assumptions 
made to complete the datasets are accurate, errors in emission 
estimates, and other factors. The emission estimates considered in this 
analysis generally are annual totals for certain years, and they do not 
reflect short-term fluctuations during the course of a year or 
variations from year to year. The estimates of peak hourly emission 
rates for the acute effects screening assessment were based on an 
emission adjustment factor applied to the average annual hourly 
emission rates, which are intended to account for emission fluctuations 
due to normal facility operations.
b. Uncertainties in Dispersion Modeling
    We recognize there is uncertainty in ambient concentration 
estimates associated with any model, including the EPA's recommended 
regulatory dispersion model, AERMOD. In using a model to estimate 
ambient pollutant concentrations, the user chooses certain options to 
apply. For RTR assessments, we select some model options that have the 
potential to overestimate ambient air concentrations (e.g., not 
including plume depletion or pollutant transformation). We select other 
model options that have the potential to underestimate ambient impacts 
(e.g., not including building downwash). Other options that we select 
have the potential to either under- or overestimate ambient levels 
(e.g., meteorology and receptor locations). On balance, considering the 
directional nature of the uncertainties commonly present in ambient 
concentrations estimated by dispersion models, the approach we apply in 
the RTR assessments should yield unbiased estimates of ambient HAP 
concentrations. We also note that the selection of meteorology dataset 
location could have an impact on the risk estimates. As we continue to 
update and expand our library of meteorological station data used in 
our risk assessments, we expect to reduce this variability.
c. Uncertainties in Inhalation Exposure Assessment
    Although every effort is made to identify all of the relevant 
facilities and emission points, as well as to develop accurate 
estimates of the annual emission rates for all relevant HAP, the 
uncertainties in our emission inventory likely dominate the 
uncertainties in the exposure assessment. Some uncertainties in our 
exposure assessment include human mobility, using the centroid of each 
census block, assuming lifetime exposure, and assuming only outdoor 
exposures. For most of these factors, there is neither an under nor 
overestimate when looking at the maximum individual risk or the 
incidence, but the shape of the distribution of risks may be affected. 
With respect to outdoor exposures, actual exposures may not be as high 
if people spend time indoors, especially for very reactive pollutants 
or larger particles. For all factors, we reduce uncertainty when 
possible. For example, with respect to census-block centroids, we 
analyze large blocks using aerial imagery and adjust locations of the 
block centroids to better represent the population in the blocks. We 
also add additional receptor locations where the population of a block 
is not well represented by a single location.
d. Uncertainties in Dose-Response Relationships
    There are uncertainties inherent in the development of the dose-
response values used in our risk assessments for cancer effects from 
chronic exposures and noncancer effects from both chronic and acute 
exposures. Some uncertainties are generally expressed quantitatively, 
and others are generally expressed in qualitative terms. We note, as a 
preface to this discussion, a point on dose-response uncertainty that 
is stated in the EPA's 2005 Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment; 
namely, that ``the primary goal of EPA actions is protection of human 
health; accordingly, as an Agency policy, risk assessment procedures, 
including default options that are used in the absence of scientific 
data to the contrary, should be health protective'' (the EPA's 2005 
Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment, pages 1-7). This is the 
approach followed here as summarized in the next paragraphs.
    Cancer UREs used in our risk assessments are those that have been 
developed to generally provide an upper bound estimate of risk.\18\ 
That is, they represent a ``plausible upper limit to the true value of 
a quantity'' (although this is usually not a true statistical 
confidence limit). In some circumstances, the true risk could be as low 
as zero; however, in other circumstances the risk could be greater.\19\ 
Chronic noncancer RfC and

[[Page 25919]]

reference dose (RfD) values represent chronic exposure levels that are 
intended to be health-protective levels. To derive dose-response values 
that are intended to be ``without appreciable risk,'' the methodology 
relies upon an uncertainty factor (UF) approach,\20\ which considers 
uncertainty, variability, and gaps in the available data. The UFs are 
applied to derive dose-response values that are intended to protect 
against appreciable risk of deleterious effects.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ IRIS glossary (https://ofmpub.epa.gov/sor_internet/registry/termreg/searchandretrieve/glossariesandkeywordlists/search.do?details=&glossaryName=IRIS%20Glossary).
    \19\ An exception to this is the URE for benzene, which is 
considered to cover a range of values, each end of which is 
considered to be equally plausible, and which is based on maximum 
likelihood estimates.
    \20\ See A Review of the Reference Dose and Reference 
Concentration Processes, U.S. EPA, December 2002, and Methods for 
Derivation of Inhalation Reference Concentrations and Application of 
Inhalation Dosimetry, U.S. EPA, 1994.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Many of the UFs used to account for variability and uncertainty in 
the development of acute dose-response values are quite similar to 
those developed for chronic durations. Additional adjustments are often 
applied to account for uncertainty in extrapolation from observations 
at one exposure duration (e.g., 4 hours) to derive an acute dose-
response value at another exposure duration (e.g., 1 hour). Not all 
acute dose-response values are developed for the same purpose, and care 
must be taken when interpreting the results of an acute assessment of 
human health effects relative to the dose-response value or values 
being exceeded. Where relevant to the estimated exposures, the lack of 
acute dose-response values at different levels of severity should be 
factored into the risk characterization as potential uncertainties.
    Uncertainty also exists in the selection of ecological benchmarks 
for the environmental risk screening assessment. We established a 
hierarchy of preferred benchmark sources to allow selection of 
benchmarks for each environmental HAP at each ecological assessment 
endpoint. We searched for benchmarks for three effect levels (i.e., no-
effects level, threshold-effect level, and probable effect level), but 
not all combinations of ecological assessment/environmental HAP had 
benchmarks for all three effect levels. Where multiple effect levels 
were available for a particular HAP and assessment endpoint, we used 
all of the available effect levels to help us determine whether risk 
exists and whether the risk could be considered significant and 
widespread.
    Although we make every effort to identify appropriate human health 
effect dose-response values for all pollutants emitted by the sources 
in this risk assessment, some HAP emitted by this source category are 
lacking dose-response assessments. Accordingly, these pollutants cannot 
be included in the quantitative risk assessment, which could result in 
quantitative estimates understating HAP risk. To help to alleviate this 
potential underestimate, where we conclude similarity with a HAP for 
which a dose-response value is available, we use that value as a 
surrogate for the assessment of the HAP for which no value is 
available. To the extent use of surrogates indicates appreciable risk, 
we may identify a need to increase priority for an IRIS assessment for 
that substance. We additionally note that, generally speaking, HAP of 
greatest concern due to environmental exposures and hazard are those 
for which dose-response assessments have been performed, reducing the 
likelihood of understating risk. Further, HAP not included in the 
quantitative assessment are assessed qualitatively and considered in 
the risk characterization that informs the risk management decisions, 
including consideration of HAP reductions achieved by various control 
options.
    For a group of compounds that are unspeciated (e.g., glycol 
ethers), we conservatively use the most protective dose-response value 
of an individual compound in that group to estimate risk. Similarly, 
for an individual compound in a group (e.g., ethylene glycol diethyl 
ether) that does not have a specified dose-response value, we also 
apply the most protective dose-response value from the other compounds 
in the group to estimate risk.
e. Uncertainties in Acute Inhalation Screening Assessments
    In addition to the uncertainties highlighted above, there are 
several factors specific to the acute exposure assessment that the EPA 
conducts as part of the risk review under section 112 of the CAA. The 
accuracy of an acute inhalation exposure assessment depends on the 
simultaneous occurrence of independent factors that may vary greatly, 
such as hourly emissions rates, meteorology, and the presence of humans 
at the location of the maximum concentration. In the acute screening 
assessment that we conduct under the RTR program, we assume that peak 
emissions from the source category and worst-case meteorological 
conditions co-occur, thus, resulting in maximum ambient concentrations. 
These two events are unlikely to occur at the same time, making these 
assumptions conservative. We then include the additional assumption 
that a person is located at this point during this same time period. 
For these source categories, these assumptions would tend to be worst-
case actual exposures as it is unlikely that a person would be located 
at the point of maximum exposure during the time when peak emissions 
and worst-case meteorological conditions occur simultaneously.
f. Uncertainties in the Multipathway and Environmental Risk Screening 
Assessments
    For each source category, we generally rely on site-specific levels 
of PB-HAP or environmental HAP emissions to determine whether a refined 
assessment of the impacts from multipathway exposures is necessary or 
whether it is necessary to perform an environmental screening 
assessment. This determination is based on the results of a three-
tiered screening assessment that relies on the outputs from models--
TRIM.FaTE and AERMOD--that estimate environmental pollutant 
concentrations and human exposures for five PB-HAP (dioxins, POM, 
mercury, cadmium, and arsenic) and two acid gases (HF and HCl). For 
lead, we use AERMOD to determine ambient air concentrations, which are 
then compared to the secondary NAAQS standard for lead. Two important 
types of uncertainty associated with the use of these models in RTR 
risk assessments and inherent to any assessment that relies on 
environmental modeling are model uncertainty and input uncertainty.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ In the context of this discussion, the term ``uncertainty'' 
as it pertains to exposure and risk encompasses both variability in 
the range of expected inputs and screening results due to existing 
spatial, temporal, and other factors, as well as uncertainty in 
being able to accurately estimate the true result.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Model uncertainty concerns whether the model adequately represents 
the actual processes (e.g., movement and accumulation) that might occur 
in the environment. For example, does the model adequately describe the 
movement of a pollutant through the soil? This type of uncertainty is 
difficult to quantify. However, based on feedback received from 
previous the EPA SAB reviews and other reviews, we are confident that 
the models used in the screening assessments are appropriate and state-
of-the-art for the multipathway and environmental screening risk 
assessments conducted in support of RTR.
    Input uncertainty is concerned with how accurately the models have 
been configured and parameterized for the assessment at hand. For Tier 
1 of the multipathway and environmental

[[Page 25920]]

screening assessments, we configured the models to avoid 
underestimating exposure and risk. This was accomplished by selecting 
upper-end values from nationally representative datasets for the more 
influential parameters in the environmental model, including selection 
and spatial configuration of the area of interest, lake location and 
size, meteorology, surface water, soil characteristics, and structure 
of the aquatic food web. We also assume an ingestion exposure scenario 
and values for human exposure factors that represent reasonable maximum 
exposures.
    In Tier 2 of the multipathway and environmental screening 
assessments, we refine the model inputs to account for meteorological 
patterns in the vicinity of the facility versus using upper-end 
national values, and we identify the actual location of lakes near the 
facility rather than the default lake location that we apply in Tier 1. 
By refining the screening approach in Tier 2 to account for local 
geographical and meteorological data, we decrease the likelihood that 
concentrations in environmental media are overestimated, thereby 
increasing the usefulness of the screening assessment. In Tier 3 of the 
screening assessments, we refine the model inputs again to account for 
hour-by-hour plume rise and the height of the mixing layer. We can also 
use those hour-by-hour meteorological data in a TRIM.FaTE run using the 
screening configuration corresponding to the lake location. These 
refinements produce a more accurate estimate of chemical concentrations 
in the media of interest, thereby reducing the uncertainty with those 
estimates. The assumptions and the associated uncertainties regarding 
the selected ingestion exposure scenario are the same for all three 
tiers.
    For the environmental screening assessment for acid gases, we 
employ a single-tiered approach. We use the modeled air concentrations 
and compare those with ecological benchmarks.
    For all tiers of the multipathway and environmental screening 
assessments, our approach to addressing model input uncertainty is 
generally cautious. We choose model inputs from the upper end of the 
range of possible values for the influential parameters used in the 
models, and we assume that the exposed individual exhibits ingestion 
behavior that would lead to a high total exposure. This approach 
reduces the likelihood of not identifying high risks for adverse 
impacts.
    Despite the uncertainties, when individual pollutants or facilities 
do not exceed screening threshold emission rates (i.e., screen out), we 
are confident that the potential for adverse multipathway impacts on 
human health is very low. On the other hand, when individual pollutants 
or facilities do exceed screening threshold emission rates, it does not 
mean that impacts are significant, only that we cannot rule out that 
possibility and that a refined assessment for the site might be 
necessary to obtain a more accurate risk characterization for the 
source category.
    The EPA evaluates the following HAP in the multipathway and/or 
environmental risk screening assessments, where applicable: Arsenic, 
cadmium, dioxins/furans, lead, mercury (both inorganic and methyl 
mercury), POM, HCl, and HF. These HAP represent pollutants that can 
cause adverse impacts either through direct exposure to HAP in the air 
or through exposure to HAP that are deposited from the air onto soils 
and surface waters and then through the environment into the food web. 
These HAP represent those HAP for which we can conduct a meaningful 
multipathway or environmental screening risk assessment. For other HAP 
not included in our screening assessments, the model has not been 
parameterized such that it can be used for that purpose. In some cases, 
depending on the HAP, we may not have appropriate multipathway models 
that allow us to predict the concentration of that pollutant. The EPA 
acknowledges that other HAP beyond these that we are evaluating may 
have the potential to cause adverse effects and, therefore, the EPA may 
evaluate other relevant HAP in the future, as modeling science and 
resources allow.

IV. Analytical Results and Proposed Decisions

A. What are the analytical results and proposed decisions for the 
Surface Coating of Metal Cans source category?

1. What are the results of the risk assessment and analyses?
    As described in section III of this preamble, for the Surface 
Coating of Metal Cans source category, we conducted a risk assessment 
for all HAP emitted. We present results of the risk assessment briefly 
below and in more detail in the Metal Cans Risk Assessment Report in 
the Metal Cans Docket (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0684).
a. Inhalation Risk Assessment Results
    Table 2 of this preamble summarizes the results of the inhalation 
risk assessment for the source category. As discussed in section 
III.C.2 of this preamble, we set MACT-allowable HAP emission levels at 
metal can coating facilities equal to 1.1 times actual emissions. For 
more detail about the MACT-allowable emission levels, see Appendix 1 to 
the Metal Cans Risk Assessment Report in the Metal Cans Docket.

                                Table 2--Surface Coating of Metal Cans Source Category Inhalation Risk Assessment Results
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  Maximum individual     Estimated population      Estimated annual         Maximum chronic      Maximum screening acute
                                   cancer risk (in 1     at increased risk of      cancer incidence       noncancer TOSHI \1\       noncancer HQ \2\
                                       million)             cancer >=1-in-1        (cases per year)    -------------------------------------------------
                               ------------------------         million        ------------------------
        Risk assessment                                ------------------------                          Based on    Based on
                                 Based on    Based on    Based on    Based on    Based on    Based on     actual     allowable       Based on actual
                                  actual     allowable    actual     allowable    actual     allowable   emissions   emissions          emissions
                                 emissions   emissions   emissions   emissions   emissions   emissions
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source Category...............           3           3         700         800      0.0009       0.001        0.02        0.02  HQREL = 0.4.
Whole Facility................           8  ..........       1,500  ..........       0.002  ..........         0.2  ..........  ........................
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The TOSHI is the sum of the chronic noncancer HQs for substances that affect the same target organ or organ system.
\2\ The maximum estimated acute exposure concentration was divided by available short-term threshold values to develop HQ values.

    The results of the inhalation risk modeling using actual emissions 
data, as shown in Table 2 of this preamble, indicate that the maximum 
individual cancer risk based on actual emissions (lifetime) could be up 
to 3-in-1 million (driven by formaldehyde from a two-piece can coating 
line), the maximum chronic noncancer TOSHI value based on actual 
emissions could be up to 0.02 (driven by formaldehyde from a two-piece 
can coating line), and the maximum screening acute noncancer HQ value 
(off-facility site) could be up to 0.4 (driven by formaldehyde). The 
total estimated annual cancer incidence (national) from these 
facilities based on actual emission levels is 0.0009 excess

[[Page 25921]]

cancer cases per year or 1 case in every 1,100 years.
b. Acute Risk Results
    Table 2 of this preamble shows the acute risk results for the 
Surface Coating of Metal Cans source category. The screening analysis 
for acute impacts was based on an industry specific multiplier of 1.1, 
to estimate the peak emission rates from the average rates. For more 
detailed acute risk results, refer to the Metal Cans Risk Assessment 
Report in the Metal Cans Docket.
c. Multipathway Risk Screening Results
    There are no PB-HAP emitted by facilities in the Surface Coating of 
Metal Cans source category. Therefore, we do not expect any human 
health multipathway risks as a result of emissions from this source 
category.
d. Environmental Risk Screening Results
    The emissions data for the Surface Coating of Metal Cans source 
category indicate that two environmental HAP are emitted by sources 
within this source category: HCl and HF. Therefore, we conducted a 
screening-level evaluation of the potential for adverse environmental 
risks associated with emissions of HCl and HF for the Surface Coating 
of Metal Cans source category. For both HCl and HF, each individual 
concentration (i.e., each off-site data point in the modeling domain) 
was below the ecological benchmarks for all facilities. Therefore, we 
do not expect an adverse environmental effect as a result of HAP 
emissions from this source category.
e. Facility-Wide Risk Results
    Three facilities have a facility-wide cancer MIR greater than or 
equal to 1-in-1 million. The maximum facility-wide cancer MIR is 8-in-1 
million, driven by formaldehyde from miscellaneous industrial processes 
(other/not classified) and acetaldehyde from beer production (brew 
kettle). The total estimated cancer incidence from the whole facility 
is 0.002 excess cancer cases per year, or one excess case in every 500 
years. Approximately 1,500 people were estimated to have cancer risks 
above 1-in-1 million from exposure to HAP emitted from both MACT and 
non-MACT sources at three of the five facilities in this source 
category. The maximum facility-wide TOSHI for the source category is 
estimated to be less than 1, mainly driven by emissions of acetaldehyde 
from beer production (brew kettle primarily) and formaldehyde from 
miscellaneous industrial processes (other/not classified).
f. What demographic groups might benefit from this regulation?
    To examine the potential for any environmental justice issues that 
might be associated with the source category, we performed a 
demographic analysis, which is an assessment of risks to individual 
demographic groups of the populations living within 5 km and within 50 
km of the facilities. In the analysis, we evaluated the distribution of 
HAP-related cancer and noncancer risk from the Surface Coating of Metal 
Cans source category across different demographic groups within the 
populations living near facilities.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ Demographic groups included in the analysis are: White, 
African American, Native American, other races and multiracial, 
Hispanic or Latino, children 17 years of age and under, adults 18 to 
64 years of age, adults 65 years of age and over, adults without a 
high school diploma, people living below the poverty level, people 
living above the poverty level, and linguistically isolated people.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The results of the demographic analysis are summarized in Table 3 
of this preamble. These results, for various demographic groups, are 
based on the estimated risk from actual emissions levels for the 
population living within 50 km of the facilities.

            Table 3--Surface Coating of Metal Cans Source Category Demographic Risk Analysis Results
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 Population with cancer  Population with chronic
                                                                risk at or above 1-in-1    hazard index above 1
                                                  Nationwide     million due to Surface   due to Surface Coating
                                                                 Coating of Metal Cans        of Metal Cans
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Population..............................     317,746,049                      700                        0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 Race by Percent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
White.........................................              62                       92                        0
All Other Races...............................              38                        8                        0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 Race by Percent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
White.........................................              62                       92                        0
African American..............................              12                        0                        0
Native American...............................             0.8                        0                        0
Hispanic or Latino............................              18                        4                        0
Other and Multiracial.........................               7                        4                        0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                Income by Percent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Below the Poverty Level.......................              14                        4                        0
Above the Poverty Level.......................              86                       96                        0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              Education by Percent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Over 25 and Without High a School Diploma.....              14                        4                        0
Over 25 and With a High School Diploma........              86                       96                        0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The results of the Surface Coating of Metal Cans source category 
demographic analysis indicate that emissions from the source category 
expose approximately 700 people to a cancer risk at or above 1-in-1 
million and no one to a chronic noncancer TOSHI greater than 1 (we note 
that many of those in the first risk group are

[[Page 25922]]

the same as those in the second). None of the percentages of the at-
risk populations are higher than their respective nationwide 
percentages.
    The methodology and the results of the demographic analysis are 
presented in a technical report titled Risk and Technology Review--
Analysis of Demographic Factors for Populations Living Near Surface 
Coating of Metal Cans Source Category Operations, May 2018 (hereafter 
referred to as the Metal Cans Demographic Analysis Report) in the Metal 
Cans Docket.
2. What are our proposed decisions regarding risk acceptability, ample 
margin of safety, and adverse environmental effect?
a. Risk Acceptability
    As noted in section III.A of this preamble, we weigh all health 
risk factors in our risk acceptability determination, including the 
cancer MIR, the number of persons in various cancer and noncancer risk 
ranges, cancer incidence, the maximum noncancer TOSHI, the maximum 
acute noncancer HQ, the extent of noncancer risks, the distribution of 
cancer and noncancer risks in the exposed population, and risk 
estimation uncertainties (54 FR 38044, September 14, 1989).
    For the Surface Coating of Metal Cans source category, the risk 
analysis indicates that the cancer risks to the individual most exposed 
could be up to 3-in-1 million due to actual emissions or based on 
allowable emissions. These risks are considerably less than 100-in-1 
million, which is the presumptive upper limit of acceptable risk. The 
risk analysis also shows very low cancer incidence (0.0009 cases per 
year for actual emissions and 0.001 cases per year for allowable 
emissions) and we did not identify potential for adverse chronic 
noncancer health effects. The acute noncancer risks based on actual 
emissions are low at an HQ of 0.4 for formaldehyde. 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.
    Considering all the health risk information and factors discussed 
above, including the uncertainties discussed in section III.C.7 of this 
preamble, we propose to find that the risks from the Surface Coating of 
Metal Cans source category are acceptable.
b. Ample Margin of Safety Analysis
    Although we are proposing that the risks from the Surface Coating 
of Metal Cans source category are acceptable, risk estimates for 
approximately 700 individuals in the exposed population are above 1-in-
1 million at the actual emissions level and 800 individuals at the 
allowable emissions level. Consequently, we further considered whether 
the MACT standards for the Surface Coating of Metal Cans source 
category provide an ample margin of safety to protect public health. In 
this ample margin of safety analysis, we investigated available 
emissions control options that might reduce the risk from the source 
category. We considered this information along with all the health 
risks and other health information considered in our determination of 
risk acceptability.
    As described in section III.B of this preamble, our technology 
review focused on identifying developments in practices, processes, and 
control technologies for the Surface Coating of Metal Cans source 
category, and the EPA reviewed various information sources regarding 
emission sources that are currently regulated by the Surface Coating of 
Metal Cans NESHAP.
    The only development identified in the technology review for can 
coating is the ongoing development and the potential future conversion 
from conventional interior can coatings that contain bisphenol A (BPA) 
to interior coatings that do not intentionally contain BPA (BPA-NI). 
Since BPA and BPA-NI are not HAP, this change would have no effect on 
the HAP emissions. There were no other technological developments 
identified that affect HAP emissions for the Surface Coating of Metal 
Cans source category. Therefore, we are proposing that additional 
emission controls for this source category are not necessary to provide 
an ample margin of safety.
c. Environmental Effects
    The emissions data for the Surface Coating of Metal Cans source 
category indicate that two environmental HAP are emitted by sources 
within this source category: HCl and HF. The screening-level evaluation 
of the potential for adverse environmental risks associated with 
emissions of HCl and HF from the Surface Coating of Metal Cans source 
category indicated that each individual concentration (i.e., each off-
site data point in the modeling domain) was below the ecological 
benchmarks for all facilities. In addition, we are unaware of any 
adverse environmental effects caused by HAP emitted by this source 
category. Therefore, we do not expect there to be an adverse 
environmental effect as a result of HAP emissions from this source 
category, and we are proposing that it is not necessary to set a more 
stringent standard to prevent, taking into consideration costs, energy, 
safety, and other relevant factors, an adverse environmental effect.
3. What are the results and proposed decisions based on our technology 
review?
    As described in section III.B of this preamble, our technology 
review focused on identifying developments in practices, processes, and 
control technologies for the Surface Coating of Metal Cans source 
category. The EPA reviewed various information sources regarding 
emission sources that are currently regulated by the Surface Coating of 
Metal Cans NESHAP to support the technology review. The information 
sources included the following: The RBLC; state regulations, facility 
operating permits, regulatory actions (including technology reviews 
promulgated for other surface coating NESHAP subsequent to the Surface 
Coating of Metal Cans NESHAP); a site visit and discussions with 
individual can coating facilities and the industry trade association. 
The primary emission sources for the technology review included the 
following: The coating operations; all storage containers and mixing 
vessels in which coatings, thinners, and cleaning materials are stored 
or mixed; all manual and automated equipment and containers used for 
conveying coatings, thinners, and cleaning materials; and all storage 
containers and all manual and automated equipment and containers used 
for conveying waste materials generated by a coating operation.
    Based on our review, we did not identify any add-on control 
technologies, process equipment, work practices, or procedures that had 
not been previously considered during development of the Surface 
Coating of Metal Cans NESHAP, and we did not identify any new or 
improved add-on control technologies that would result in additional 
emission reductions. A brief summary of the EPA's findings in 
conducting the technology review of can coating operations follows. For 
a detailed discussion of the EPA's findings, refer to the Metal Cans 
Technology Review Memorandum in the Metal Cans Docket.
    During the 2003 MACT development for the Surface Coating of Metal 
Cans NESHAP, numerical emission limits were determined for each coating 
type segment within the four subcategories for a total of 12 HAP 
emission limits. The emission limits were based on industry survey 
responses and the

[[Page 25923]]

industry's use of low- or no-HAP coatings and thinners and add-on 
capture and control technologies. Alternately, the NESHAP provides 
sources with the option of limiting HAP emissions with capture and add-
on control to achieve an overall control efficiency (OCE) of 97 percent 
for new or reconstructed sources and 95 percent for existing sources. 
Alternately, sources with add-on controls can choose the option of 
meeting a HAP concentration limit of 20 ppm by volume dry at the 
control device outlet. During development of that rulemaking, we 
identified the beyond-the-floor option to require the use of capture 
systems and add-on control devices for all metal can surface coating 
operations. This option was rejected because we determined the 
additional emission reductions achieved using the beyond-the-floor 
option did not warrant the costs each affected source would incur (68 
FR 2123).
    For this technology review, we used the EPA's NEI and the ECHO 
databases to identify facilities that are currently subject to the 
Surface Coating of Metal Cans NESHAP. The facility list was also 
reviewed by the Can Manufacturers Institute (CMI). CMI provided 
facility operating permits to confirm that only five facilities are 
currently operating as major sources and are subject to the Surface 
Coating of Metal Cans NESHAP.
    Our search of the RBLC database for improvements in can coating 
technologies provided results for four metal can coating facilities 
with permit dates of 2006 or later. All four of the results contained 
information about the add-on controls used by the facilities. Two 
facilities reported the use of regenerative thermal oxidizers (RTOs), 
one reported the use of an induction heater and catalytic oxidation, 
and one reported the use of thermal oxidation. All of these control 
technologies were in use by the can coating industry during development 
of the Surface Coating of Metal Cans NESHAP and were already considered 
in the development of the Surface Coating of Metal Cans NESHAP. 
Therefore, we concluded that the results of the search are consistent 
with current Surface Coating of Metal Cans NESHAP requirements and did 
not include any improvements in add-on control technology or other 
equipment that were not identified and considered at that time.
    We also conducted a review of the state operating permits for the 
can coating facilities that are subject to the Surface Coating of Metal 
Cans NESHAP to determine whether any are using technologies that exceed 
the MACT level of control or are using technologies that were not 
considered during the development of the original NESHAP. The permits 
show that two of the five facilities use no add-on controls (they use 
the compliant material option or the material averaging option to meet 
the NESHAP emission limits) and three of the five facilities had only 
partial control (i.e., not all can coating lines had control). The 
coating types are not specified in the permits for all facilities, but 
one permit specified the use of ultraviolet (UV)-cured coatings. The 
add-on controls in the permits included a thermal oxidizer and two 
regenerative thermal oxidizers. As a result of the permit review, we 
concluded that the add-on controls that are now available are 
essentially the same and have the same emission reduction performance 
(i.e., 95- or 97-percent VOC destruction efficiency) as those that were 
available when the NESHAP was proposed and promulgated.
    We reviewed other surface coating NESHAP promulgated after the 
Surface Coating of Metal Cans NESHAP to determine whether any 
requirements exceed the Surface Coating of Metal Cans MACT level of 
control or included technologies that were not considered during the 
development of the original Surface Coating of Metal Cans NESHAP. These 
NESHAP include Surface Coating of Miscellaneous Metal Parts and 
Products (40 CFR part 63, subpart MMMM), Surface Coating of Plastic 
Parts and Products (40 CFR part 63, subpart PPPP), and Surface Coating 
of Automobiles and Light-Duty Trucks (40 CFR part 63, subpart IIII). We 
also reviewed the results of the technology reviews for the following 
NESHAP: Printing and Publishing (40 CFR part 63, subpart KK), 
Shipbuilding and Ship Repair (40 CFR part 63, subpart II), and Wood 
Furniture Manufacturing (40 CFR part 63, subpart JJ).
    Technology reviews for these NESHAP identified PTE and/or RTO as 
improvements in add-on control technology. Because the Surface Coating 
of Metal Cans NESHAP already includes a compliance option involving the 
use of a PTE and an add-on control device, and because these measures 
were considered in the development of the original Surface Coating of 
Metal Cans NESHAP, we concluded that these measures do not represent an 
improvement in control technology under CAA section 112(d)(6).
    The technology review conducted for the Wood Furniture 
Manufacturing NESHAP identified the use of more efficient spray guns as 
a technology review development and revised the requirements to 
prohibit the use of conventional spray guns. Air-assisted airless 
spraying was added as a more efficient coating application technology. 
This development is not applicable to metal can coating because the 
primary coating operations are performed using non-spray application 
methods, such as lithographic printing and other types of direct 
transfer coating application, or they already use airless spray 
equipment for the inside spray, side seam spray, and repair coating 
operations. In conclusion, we found no improvements in add-on control 
technology or other equipment during review of the RBLC, the state 
operating permits, and subsequent NESHAP that were not already 
identified and considered during the Surface Coating of Metal Cans 
NESHAP development.
    Alternatives to conventional solvent-borne coatings were identified 
and considered during MACT development but were not considered to be 
suitable for all can coating applications. These alternative coatings 
include higher solids coatings, waterborne coatings, and low-energy 
electron beam/ultraviolet cured coatings. Powder coating applications 
are not common for metal containers. Waterborne and higher solids 
coatings with lower HAP and VOC content were considered in the 
development of the proposed and final standards and are reflected in 
the HAP emission limitations in the final rule. Interior coatings used 
for cans that contain food or beverages are subject to regulation by 
the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), as well as internal 
approval by the food and beverage manufacturers. The only anticipated 
technology change in the area of coating reformulation for the Surface 
Coating of Metal Cans source category is the replacement of coatings 
that have no intentionally added BPA for both beverage and food cans, 
referred to as BPA-NI coatings. The major can coating producers are 
currently devoting much of their research and development efforts to 
develop BPA-NI systems for new applications and to improve the BPA-NI 
systems that already exist. However, a complete shift to these coatings 
is not expected unless driven by FDA regulation or consumer opinion. 
Therefore, the EPA did not identify any developments in coating 
technology or other process changes or pollution prevention 
alternatives that would represent a development relative to the coating 
technologies on which the final rule is based.
    Finally, no improvements in work practices or operational 
procedures were identified for the Surface Coating of Metal Cans source 
category that were not previously identified and considered during MACT 
development.

[[Page 25924]]

The current MACT standards require that, if a facility uses add-on 
controls to comply with the emission limitations, the facility must 
develop and implement a work practice plan to minimize organic HAP 
emissions from the storage, mixing, and conveying of coatings, 
thinners, and cleaning materials used in, and waste materials generated 
by, those coating operations. If a facility is not using add-on 
controls and is using either the compliant material option or the 
emission rate without add on controls option, the facility does not 
need to comply with work practice standards. Under the emission rate 
option, HAP emitted from spills or from containers would be counted 
against the facility in the compliance calculations, so facilities must 
already minimize these losses to maintain compliance.
    Based on these findings, we conclude that there have not been any 
developments in add-on control technology or other equipment not 
identified and considered during MACT development, nor any improvements 
in add-on controls, nor any significant changes in the cost (including 
cost effectiveness) of the add-on controls. Therefore, we are proposing 
no revisions to the Surface Coating of Metal Cans NESHAP pursuant to 
CAA section 112(d)(6). For further discussion of the technology review 
results, refer to the Metal Cans Technology Review Memorandum in the 
Metal Cans Docket.
4. What other actions are we proposing for the Surface Coating of Metal 
Cans source category?
    In addition to the proposed actions described above, we are 
proposing additional revisions to the NESHAP. We are proposing to 
require electronic submittal of notifications, semiannual reports, and 
compliance reports (which include performance test reports) for metal 
cans surface coating facilities. In addition, we are proposing 
revisions to the SSM provisions of the MACT rule in order to ensure 
that they are consistent with the Court decision in Sierra Club v. EPA, 
551 F. 3d 1019 (D.C. Cir. 2008), which vacated two provisions that 
exempted sources from the requirement to comply with otherwise 
applicable CAA section 112(d) emission standards during periods of SSM. 
We also propose other changes, including updating references to 
equivalent test methods, making technical and editorial revisions, and 
incorporation by reference (IBR) of alternative test methods. Our 
analyses and proposed changes related to these issues are discussed in 
the sections below.
a. Electronic Reporting Requirements
    In this action the EPA proposes to require owners and operators of 
surface coating of metal can facilities to submit electronic copies of 
the initial notifications required in 40 CFR 63.9(b) and 63.3510(b), 
notifications of compliance status required in 40 CFR 63.9(h) and 
63.3510(c), performance test reports required in 40 CFR 63.3511(b), and 
semiannual reports required in 40 CFR 63.3511(a), through the EPA's 
Central Data Exchange (CDX), using the Compliance and Emissions Data 
Reporting Interface (CEDRI).\23\ 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 Metal Cans Docket. This proposed rule requirement would 
replace the current rule requirement to submit the notifications and 
reports to the Administrator at the appropriate address listed in 40 
CFR 63.13. This proposed rule requirement does not affect submittals 
required by state air agencies as required by 40 CFR 63.13.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ https://www.epa.gov/electronic-reporting-air-emissions/compliance-and-emissions-data-reporting-interface-cedri.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the performance test reports required in 40 CFR 63.3511(b), 
results collected using test methods that are supported by the 
Electronic Reporting Tool (ERT) as listed on the EPA's ERT website 
(https://www3.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ert/ert_info.pdf) at the time of the 
performance test are required to be submitted in the format generated 
through the use of ERT. Performance test results collected using test 
methods that are not supported by the ERT at the time of the 
performance test are required to be submitted to the EPA electronically 
in a portable document format (PDF) using the attachment module of the 
ERT. Note that all but two of the EPA test methods (EPA Method 25 and 
optional EPA Method 18) listed under the emissions destruction or 
removal efficiency section of 40 CFR part 63, subpart KKKK, are 
currently supported by the ERT. As mentioned above, the rule proposes 
that, should an owner or operator use EPA Method 25 or EPA Method 18, 
then its results would be submitted in PDF using the attachment module 
of the ERT.
    For the semiannual reports required in 40 CFR 63.3511(a), the EPA 
proposes that owners and operators use the final semiannual report 
template, which will reside in CEDRI, one year after finalizing this 
proposed action. The Proposed Electronic Reporting Template for Surface 
Coating of Metal Cans Subpart KKKK Semiannual Report is available for 
review and comment in the Metal Cans Docket as part of this action. We 
specifically request comment on the format and usability of the 
template (e.g., filling out and uploading a provided spreadsheet versus 
entering the required information into an on-line fillable CEDRI web 
form), as well as the content, layout, and overall design of the 
template. Prior to availability of the final semiannual compliance 
report template in CEDRI, owners and operators of affected sources will 
be required to submit semiannual compliance reports as currently 
required by the rule. When the EPA finalizes the semiannual compliance 
report template, metal can sources will be notified about its 
availability via the CEDRI website. We plan to finalize a required 
reporting format with the final rule. The owner or operator would begin 
submitting reports electronically with the next report that is due, 
once the electronic template has been available for at least 1 year.
    For the electronic submittal of initial notifications required in 
40 CFR 63.9(b), no specific form is available at this time, so these 
notifications are required to be submitted electronically in PDF. If 
electronic forms are developed for these notifications, we will notify 
sources about their availability via the CEDRI website. For the 
electronic submittal of notifications of compliance status reports 
required in 40 CFR 63.9(h), the final semiannual report template 
discussed above, which will reside in CEDRI, will also contain the 
information required for the notifications of compliance status report 
and will satisfy the requirement to provide the notifications of 
compliance status information electronically, eliminating the need to 
provide a separate notifications of compliance status report. As stated 
above, the final semiannual report template will be available after 
finalizing this proposed action and sources will be required to use the 
form after one year. Prior to the availability of the final semiannual 
compliance report template in CEDRI, owners and operators of affected 
sources will be required to submit semiannual compliance reports as 
currently required by the rule. As stated above, we will notify sources 
about the availability of the final semiannual report template via the 
CEDRI website.
    Additionally, the EPA has identified two broad circumstances in 
which electronic reporting extensions may be provided. In both 
circumstances, the decision to accept the claim of needing

[[Page 25925]]

additional time to report is within the discretion of the 
Administrator, and reporting should occur as soon as possible. The EPA 
is providing these potential extensions to protect owners and operators 
from noncompliance in cases where they cannot successfully submit a 
report by the reporting deadline for reasons outside of their control. 
In 40 CFR 63.3511(f), we propose to address the situation where an 
extension may be warranted due to outages of the EPA's CDX or CEDRI 
that precludes an owner or operator from accessing the system and 
submitting required reports. Also in 40 CFR 63.3511(g), we propose to 
address the situation where an extension may be warranted due to a 
force majeure event, which is defined as an event that will be or has 
been caused by circumstances beyond the control of the affected 
facility, its contractors, or any entity controlled by the affected 
facility that prevents an owner or operator from complying with the 
requirement to submit a report electronically as required by this rule. 
Examples of such events are acts of nature, acts of war or terrorism, 
and equipment failures or safety hazards that are beyond the control of 
the facility.
    As discussed in the memorandum Electronic Reporting Requirements 
for New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) and National Emission 
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP), August 8, 2018, 
electronic submittal of the reports addressed in this proposed action 
will increase the usefulness of the data contained in those reports, 
and in keeping with current trends in data availability and 
transparency, will further assist in the protection of public health 
and the environment, and will ultimately result in less burden on the 
regulated facilities. Electronic submittal will also improve compliance 
by facilitating the ability of regulated facilities to demonstrate 
compliance and the ability of air agencies and the EPA to assess and 
determine compliance. Moreover, electronic reporting is consistent with 
the EPA's plan \24\ to implement Executive Order 13563 and the EPA's 
agency-wide policy \25\ developed in response to the White House's 
Digital Government Strategy.\26\ For more information on the benefits 
of electronic reporting, see the memorandum Electronic Reporting 
Requirements for New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) and National 
Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP), August 8, 
2018, available in the Metal Cans docket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ Improving Our Regulations: Final Plan for Periodic 
Retrospective Reviews of Existing Regulations, August 2011. 
Available at https://www.regulations.gov, Document ID No. EPA-HQ-OA-
2011-0156-0154.
    \25\ E-Reporting Policy Statement for EPA Regulations, September 
2013, https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-03/documents/epa-ereporting-policy-statement-2013-09-30.pdf.
    \26\ Digital Government: Building a 21st Century Platform to 
Better Serve the American People, May 2012. Available at https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/egov/digital-government/digitalgovernment-strategy/pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. SSM Requirements
1. Proposed Elimination of the SSM Exemption
    In its 2008 decision in Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F.3d 1019 (D.C. 
Cir. 2008), the Court vacated portions of two provisions in the EPA's 
CAA section 112 regulations governing the emissions of HAP during 
periods of SSM. Specifically, the Court vacated the SSM exemption 
contained in 40 CFR 63.6(f)(1) and 40 CFR 63.6(h)(1), holding that 
under section 302(k) of the CAA, emissions standards or limitations 
must be continuous in nature and that the SSM exemption violates the 
CAA's requirement that some CAA section 112 standards apply 
continuously.
    We are proposing the elimination of the SSM exemption in this rule. 
Consistent with Sierra Club v. EPA, we are proposing standards in this 
rule that apply at all times. We are also proposing several revisions 
to Table 5 to Subpart KKKK of Part 63 (Applicability of General 
Provisions to Subpart KKKK, hereafter referred to as the ``General 
Provisions table to subpart KKKK''), as explained in more detail below 
in section IV.A.4.b.2 of this preamble. For example, we are proposing 
to eliminate the incorporation of the General Provisions' requirement 
that the source develop an SSM plan. Further, we are proposing to 
eliminate and revise certain recordkeeping and reporting requirements 
related to the SSM exemption as further described below. The EPA has 
attempted to ensure that the provisions we are proposing to eliminate 
are inappropriate, unnecessary, or redundant in the absence of the SSM 
exemption. We are seeking comment on the specific proposed deletions 
and revisions and also whether additional provisions should be revised 
to achieve the stated goal.
    In proposing these rule amendments, the EPA has taken into account 
startup and shutdown periods and, for the reasons explained below, has 
not proposed alternate standards for those periods. Startups and 
shutdowns are part of normal operations for the Surface Coating of 
Metal Cans source category. As currently specified in 40 CFR 
63.3492(b), any coating operation(s) for which you use the emission 
rate with add-on controls option must meet operating limits ``at all 
times,'' except for solvent recovery systems for which you conduct 
liquid-liquid material balances according to 40 CFR 63.3541(i). 
(Solvent recovery systems for which you conduct a liquid-liquid 
material balance require a monthly calculation of the solvent recovery 
device's collection and recovery efficiency for volatile organic 
matter.) Also, as currently specified in 40 CFR 63.3500(a)(2), any 
coating operation(s) for which you use the emission rate with add-on 
controls option or the control efficiency/outlet concentration option 
must be in compliance ``at all times'' with the emission limits in 40 
CFR 63.3490 and work practice standards in 40 CFR 63.3493. During 
startup and shutdown periods, in order for a facility (using add-on 
controls to meet the standards) to meet the emission and operating 
standards, the control device for a coating operation needs to be 
turned on and operating at specified levels before the facility begins 
coating operations, and the control equipment needs to continue to be 
operated until after the facility ceases coating operations. In some 
cases, the facility needs to run thermal oxidizers on supplemental fuel 
before VOC levels are sufficient for the combustion to be (nearly) 
self-sustaining. Note that we are also proposing new related language 
in 40 CFR 63.3500(b) to require that the owner or operator operate and 
maintain the coating operation, including pollution control equipment, 
at all times to minimize emissions. See section IV.A.4.b.2 of this 
preamble for further discussion of this proposed revision.
    Periods of startup, normal operations, and shutdown are all 
predictable and routine aspects of a source's operations. Malfunctions, 
in contrast, are neither predictable nor routine. Instead they are, by 
definition, sudden, infrequent and not reasonably preventable failures 
of emissions control, process, or monitoring equipment. (40 CFR 63.2) 
(Definition of malfunction). The EPA interprets CAA section 112 as not 
requiring emissions that occur during periods of malfunction to be 
factored into development of CAA section 112 standards and this reading 
has been upheld as reasonable by the Court in U.S. Sugar Corp. v. EPA, 
830 F.3d 579, 606-610 (2016). Under CAA section 112, emissions 
standards for new sources must be no less stringent than the level 
``achieved'' by the best controlled similar source and for

[[Page 25926]]

existing sources generally must be no less stringent than the average 
emission limitation ``achieved'' by the best performing 12 percent of 
sources in the category. There is nothing in CAA section 112 that 
directs the Agency to consider malfunctions in determining the level 
``achieved'' by the best performing sources when setting emission 
standards. As the Court has recognized, the phrase ``average emissions 
limitation achieved by the best performing 12 percent of'' sources 
``says nothing about how the performance of the best units is to be 
calculated.'' Nat'l Ass'n of Clean Water Agencies v. EPA, 734 F.3d 
1115, 1141 (D.C. Cir. 2013). While the EPA accounts for variability in 
setting emissions standards, nothing in CAA section 112 requires the 
Agency to consider malfunctions as part of that analysis. The EPA is 
not required to treat a malfunction in the same manner as the type of 
variation in performance that occurs during routine operations of a 
source. A malfunction is a failure of the source to perform in a 
``normal or usual manner'' and no statutory language compels the EPA to 
consider such events in setting CAA section 112 standards.
    As the Court recognized in U.S. Sugar Corp, accounting for 
malfunctions in setting standards would be difficult, if not 
impossible, given the myriad different types of malfunctions that can 
occur across all sources in the category and given the difficulties 
associated with predicting or accounting for the frequency, degree, and 
duration of various malfunctions that might occur. Id. at 608 (``the 
EPA would have to conceive of a standard that could apply equally to 
the wide range of possible boiler malfunctions, ranging from an 
explosion to minor mechanical defects. Any possible standard is likely 
to be hopelessly generic to govern such a wide array of 
circumstances.'') As such, the performance of units that are 
malfunctioning is not ``reasonably'' foreseeable. See, e.g., Sierra 
Club v. EPA, 167 F.3d 658, 662 (D.C. Cir. 1999) (``The EPA typically 
has wide latitude in determining the extent of data-gathering necessary 
to solve a problem. We generally defer to an agency's decision to 
proceed on the basis of imperfect scientific information, rather than 
to 'invest the resources to conduct the perfect study.' '') See also, 
Weyerhaeuser v. Costle, 590 F.2d 1011, 1058 (D.C. Cir. 1978) (``In the 
nature of things, no general limit, individual permit, or even any 
upset provision can anticipate all upset situations. After a certain 
point, the transgression of regulatory limits caused by `uncontrollable 
acts of third parties,' such as strikes, sabotage, operator 
intoxication or insanity, and a variety of other eventualities, must be 
a matter for the administrative exercise of case-by-case enforcement 
discretion, not for specification in advance by regulation.''). In 
addition, emissions during a malfunction event can be significantly 
higher than emissions at any other time of source operation. For 
example, if an air pollution control device with 99-percent removal 
goes off-line as a result of a malfunction (as might happen if, for 
example, the bags in a baghouse catch fire) and the emission unit is a 
steady state type unit that would take days to shut down, the source 
would go from 99-percent control to zero control until the control 
device was repaired. The source's emissions during the malfunction 
would be 100 times higher than during normal operations. As such, the 
emissions over a 4-day malfunction period would exceed the annual 
emissions of the source during normal operations. As this example 
illustrates, accounting for malfunctions could lead to standards that 
are not reflective of (and significantly less stringent than) levels 
that are achieved by a well-performing non-malfunctioning source. It is 
reasonable to interpret CAA section 112 to avoid such a result. The 
EPA's approach to malfunctions is consistent with CAA section 112 and 
is a reasonable interpretation of the statute.
    Although no statutory language compels the EPA to set standards for 
malfunctions, the EPA has the discretion to do so where feasible. For 
example, in the Petroleum Refinery Sector Risk and Technology Review, 
the EPA established a work practice standard for unique types of 
malfunctions that result in releases from pressure relief devices or 
emergency flaring events because we had information to determine that 
such work practices reflected the level of control that applies to the 
best performing sources (80 FR 75178, 75211-14, December 1, 2015). The 
EPA will consider whether circumstances warrant setting standards for a 
particular type of malfunction and, if so, whether the EPA has 
sufficient information to identify the relevant best performing sources 
and establish a standard for such malfunctions. We also encourage 
commenters to provide any such information.
    It is unlikely that a malfunction would result in a violation of 
the standards during metal can surface coating operations for 
facilities using the compliant material option or the emission rate 
without add-on controls option. Facilities using the compliant material 
option have demonstrated that the organic HAP content of each coating 
is less than or equal to the applicable emission limit and that each 
thinner used contains no organic HAP. Facilities using the emission 
rate without add-on controls option have demonstrated that the coatings 
and thinners used in the coating operations are less than or equal to 
the applicable emission limit calculated as a rolling 12-month emission 
rate and determined on a monthly basis.
    A malfunction event is more likely for metal can coating facilities 
that use the emission rate with add-on control options or the control 
efficiency/outlet concentration compliance option. For these options, 
facilities must demonstrate a reduction of total HAP of at least 97 or 
95 percent or that the oxidizer outlet HAP concentration is no greater 
than 20 ppmv and 100-percent capture efficiency. For this option, 
facilities must demonstrate that their emission capture systems and 
add-on control devices meet the operating limits established by the 
Surface Coating of Metal Cans NESHAP. The capture and control device 
operating limits are listed in Table 4 of the Surface Coating of Metal 
Cans NESHAP and must be achieved continuously. Most are based on 
maintaining an average temperature over a 3-hour block period, which 
must not fall below the temperature limit established during the 
facility's initial performance test. In addition, work practices are 
also required when using this option to minimize organic HAP emissions 
from the storage, mixing, and conveying of coatings, thinners, and 
cleaning materials used in, and waste materials generated by, the 
coating operation(s), but it is unlikely that a malfunction would 
result in a violation of the work practice standards.
    We currently have no information to suggest that it is feasible or 
necessary to establish any type of standard for malfunctions associated 
with the Surface Coating of Metal Cans source category. We encourage 
commenters to provide any such information, if available.
    In the event that a source fails to comply with the applicable CAA 
section 112(d) standards as a result of a malfunction event, the EPA 
will determine an appropriate response based on, among other things, 
the good faith efforts of the source to minimize emissions during 
malfunction periods, including preventative and corrective actions, as 
well as root cause analyses to ascertain and rectify excess

[[Page 25927]]

emissions. The EPA will also consider whether the source's failure to 
comply with the CAA section 112(d) standard was, in fact, sudden, 
infrequent, not reasonably preventable, and was not instead caused, in 
part, by poor maintenance or careless operation. 40 CFR 63.2 
(definition of malfunction).
    If the EPA determines in a particular case that an enforcement 
action against a source for violation of an emission standard is 
warranted, the source can raise any and all defenses in that 
enforcement action and the federal district court will determine what, 
if any, relief is appropriate. The same is true for citizen enforcement 
actions. Similarly, the presiding officer in an administrative 
proceeding can consider any defense raised and determine whether 
administrative penalties are appropriate.
    In summary, the EPA interpretation of the CAA and, in particular, 
CAA section 112 is reasonable and encourages practices that will avoid 
malfunctions. Administrative and judicial procedures for addressing 
exceedances of the standards fully recognize that violations may occur 
despite good faith efforts to comply and can accommodate those 
situations. U.S. Sugar Corp. v. EPA, 830 F.3d 579, 606-610 (2016).
2. Proposed Revisions to the General Provisions Applicability Table
a. 40 CFR 63.3500(b) General Duty
    We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table to subpart 
KKKK (Table 5) entry for 40 CFR 63.6(e)(1)(i) by changing the ``yes'' 
in column 3 to a ``no.'' Section 63.6(e)(1)(i) describes the general 
duty to minimize emissions. Some of the language in that section is no 
longer necessary or appropriate in light of the elimination of the SSM 
exemption. We are proposing instead to add general duty regulatory text 
at 40 CFR 63.3500(b) that reflects the general duty to minimize 
emissions while eliminating the reference to periods covered by an SSM 
exemption. The current language in 40 CFR 63.6(e)(1)(i) characterizes 
what the general duty entails during periods of SSM. With the 
elimination of the SSM exemption, there is no need to differentiate 
between normal operations, startup and shutdown, and malfunction events 
in describing the general duty. Therefore, the language the EPA is 
proposing for 40 CFR 63.3500(b) does not include that language from 40 
CFR 63.6(e)(1)(i).
    We are also proposing to revise the General Provisions table to 
subpart KKKK (Table 5) entry for 40 CFR 63.6(e)(1)(ii) by changing the 
``yes'' in column 3 to a ``no.'' Section 63.6(e)(1)(ii) imposes 
requirements that are not necessary with the elimination of the SSM 
exemption or are redundant with the general duty requirement being 
added at 40 CFR 63.3500(b).
b. SSM Plan
    We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table to subpart 
KKKK (Table 5) entry for 40 CFR 63.6(e)(3) by changing the ``yes'' in 
column 3 to a ``no.'' Generally, these paragraphs require development 
of an SSM plan and specify SSM recordkeeping and reporting requirements 
related to the SSM plan. We are also proposing to remove from 40 CFR 
part 63, subpart KKKK, the current provisions requiring the SSM plan at 
40 CFR 63.3511(c). As noted, the EPA is proposing to remove the SSM 
exemptions. Therefore, affected units will be subject to an emission 
standard during such events. The applicability of a standard during 
such events will ensure that sources have ample incentive to plan for 
and achieve compliance, and, thus, the SSM plan requirements are no 
longer necessary.
c. Compliance With Standards
    We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table to subpart 
KKKK (table 5) entry for 40 CFR 63.6(f)(1) by changing the ``yes'' in 
column 3 to a ``no.'' The current language of 40 CFR 63.6(f)(1) exempts 
sources from non-opacity standards during periods of SSM. As discussed 
above, the Court in Sierra Club vacated the exemptions contained in 
this provision and held that the CAA requires that some CAA section 112 
standards apply continuously. Consistent with Sierra Club, the EPA is 
proposing to revise the standards in this rule to apply at all times.
    We are also proposing to remove rule text in 40 CFR 63.3541(h) 
clarifying that, in calculating emissions to demonstrate compliance, 
deviation periods must include deviations during an SSM period. Since 
the EPA is removing the SSM exemption, this clarifying text is no 
longer needed.
d. 40 CFR 63.4164 Performance Testing
    We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table to subpart 
KKKK (Table 5) entry for 40 CFR 63.7(e)(1) by changing the ``yes'' in 
column 3 to a ``no.'' Section 63.7(e)(1) describes performance testing 
requirements. The EPA is instead proposing to add a performance testing 
requirement at 40 CFR 63.3543 and 40 CFR 63.3553. The performance 
testing requirements we are proposing to add differ from the General 
Provisions performance testing provisions in several respects. The 
regulatory text does not include the language in 40 CFR 63.7(e)(1) that 
restated the SSM exemption and language that precluded startup and 
shutdown periods from being considered ``representative'' for purposes 
of performance testing. The proposed performance testing provisions 
will also not allow performance testing during startup or shutdown. As 
in 40 CFR 63.7(e)(1), performance tests conducted under this subpart 
should not be conducted during malfunctions because conditions during 
malfunctions are often not representative of normal operating 
conditions. Section 63.7(e) requires that the owner or operator 
maintain records of the process information necessary to document 
operating conditions during the test and include in such records an 
explanation to support that such conditions represent normal operation. 
The EPA is proposing to add language clarifying that the owner or 
operator must make such records available to the Administrator upon 
request.
e. Monitoring
    We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table to subpart 
KKKK (Table 5) entry for 40 CFR 63.8(c)(1) by changing the ``yes'' in 
column 3 to a ``no.'' The cross-references to the general duty and SSM 
plan requirements in 40 CFR 63.8(c)(1) are not necessary in light of 
other requirements of 40 CFR 63.8 that require good air pollution 
control practices (40 CFR 63.8(c)(1)) and that set out the requirements 
of a quality control program for monitoring equipment (40 CFR 63.8(d)). 
Further, we have determined that 40 CFR 63.8(c)(1)(ii) is redundant to 
the current monitoring requirement in 40 CFR 63.3547(a)(4) and 40 CFR 
63.3557(a)(4) (i.e., ``have available necessary parts for routine 
repairs of the monitoring equipment''), except 40 CFR 63.8(c)(1)(ii) 
specifies ``have readily available.'' We are proposing to revise 40 CFR 
63.3547(a)(4) and 63.3557(a)(4) to specify ``readily available.''
f. 40 CFR 63.3512 Recordkeeping
    We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table to subpart 
KKKK (Table 5) entry for 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(i) by changing the ``yes'' 
in column 3 to a ``no.'' Section 63.10(b)(2)(i) describes the 
recordkeeping requirements during startup and shutdown. These recording 
provisions are no longer necessary because the EPA is proposing that 
recordkeeping and reporting applicable

[[Page 25928]]

to normal operations will apply to startup and shutdown. In the absence 
of special provisions applicable to startup and shutdown, such as a 
startup and shutdown plan, there is no reason to retain additional 
recordkeeping for startup and shutdown periods.
    We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table to subpart 
KKKK (Table 5) entry for 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(ii) by changing the ``yes'' 
in column 3 to a ``no.'' Section 63.10(b)(2)(ii) describes the 
recordkeeping requirements during a malfunction, requiring a record of 
``the occurrence and duration of each malfunction.'' A similar record 
is already required in 40 CFR 63.3512(i), which requires a record of 
``the date, time, and duration of each deviation,'' which the EPA is 
retaining. The regulatory text in 40 CFR 63.3512(i) differs from the 
General Provisions in that the General Provisions requires the creation 
and retention of a record of the occurrence and duration of each 
malfunction of process, air pollution control, and monitoring 
equipment; whereas 40 CFR 63.3512(i) applies to any failure to meet an 
applicable standard and is requiring that the source record the date, 
time, and duration of the failure rather than the ``occurrence.'' For 
this reason, the EPA is proposing to add to 40 CFR 63.3512(i) a 
requirement that sources also keep records that include a list of the 
affected source or equipment and actions taken to minimize emissions, 
an estimate of the quantity of each regulated pollutant emitted over 
the emission limit for which the source failed to meet the standard, 
and a description of the method used to estimate the emissions. 
Examples of such methods would include product-loss calculations, mass 
balance calculations, measurements when available, or engineering 
judgment based on known process parameters (e.g., coating HAP content 
and application rates and control device efficiencies). The EPA is 
proposing to require that sources keep records of this information to 
ensure that there is adequate information to allow the EPA to determine 
the severity of any failure to meet a standard, and to provide data 
that may document how the source met the general duty to minimize 
emissions when the source has failed to meet an applicable standard.
    We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table to subpart 
KKKK (Table 5) entry for 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(iv)-(v) by changing the 
``yes'' in column 3 to a ``no.'' When applicable, the provision 
requires sources to record actions taken during SSM events when actions 
were inconsistent with their SSM plan. The requirement in 40 CFR 
63.10(b)(2)(iv) is no longer appropriate because SSM plans will no 
longer be required. The requirement previously applicable under 40 CFR 
63.10(b)(2)(iv)(B) to record actions to minimize emissions and record 
corrective actions is now applicable by reference to 40 CFR 
63.3512(i)(4). When applicable, the provision in Section 63.10(b)(2)(v) 
requires sources to record actions taken during SSM events to show that 
actions taken were consistent with their SSM plan. The requirement is 
no longer appropriate because SSM plans will no longer be required.
    We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table to subpart 
KKKK (Table 5) entry for 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(vi) by changing the ``yes'' 
in column 3 to a ``no.'' The provision requires sources to maintain 
records during continuous monitoring system (CMS) malfunctions. Section 
63.3512(i) covers records of periods of deviation from the standard, 
including instances where a CMS is inoperative or out-of-control.
    We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table to subpart 
KKKK (Table 5) entry for 40 CFR 63.10(c)(15) by changing the ``yes'' in 
column 3 to a ``no.'' When applicable, the provision allows an owner or 
operator to use the affected source's SSM plan or records kept to 
satisfy the recordkeeping requirements of the SSM plan, specified in 40 
CFR 63.6(e), to also satisfy the requirements of 40 CFR 63.10(c)(10) 
through (12). The EPA is proposing to eliminate this requirement 
because SSM plans would no longer be required, and, therefore, 40 CFR 
63.10(c)(15) no longer serves any useful purpose for affected units.
    We are proposing to remove the requirement in 40 CFR 63.3512(j)(1) 
that deviation records specify whether deviations from a standard 
occurred during a period of SSM. This revision is being proposed due to 
the proposed removal of the SSM exemption and because, as discussed 
above in this section, we are proposing that deviation records must 
specify the cause of each deviation, which could include a malfunction 
period as a cause. We are also proposing to remove the requirement to 
report the SSM records in 40 CFR 63.6(e)(3)(iii) through (v) by 
deleting 40 CFR 63.3512(j)(2).
g. 40 CFR 63.3511 Reporting
    We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table to subpart 
KKKK (Table 5) entry for 40 CFR 63.10(d)(5) by changing the ``yes'' in 
column 3 to a ``no.'' Section 63.10(d)(5) describes the reporting 
requirements for startups, shutdowns, and malfunctions. To replace the 
General Provisions reporting requirement, the EPA is proposing to add 
reporting requirements to 40 CFR 63.3511(a)(7) and (8). The replacement 
language differs from the General Provisions requirement in that it 
eliminates periodic SSM reports as a stand-alone report. We are 
proposing language that requires sources that fail to meet an 
applicable standard at any time to report the information concerning 
such events in the semi-annual compliance report already required under 
this rule. Subpart KKKK of 40 CFR part 63 currently requires reporting 
of the date, time period, and cause of each deviation. We are 
clarifying in the rule that, if the cause of a deviation from the 
standard is unknown, this should be specified in the report. We are 
also proposing to change ``date and time period'' to ``date, time, and 
duration'' (see proposed revisions to 40 CFR 63.3511(a)(5)(i); 40 CFR 
63.3511(a)(7)(vi), (a)(7)(vii), and (a)(7)(viii); 40 CFR 
63.3511(a)(8)(v), (a)(8)(vi), and (a)(8)(xi)(A)) to use terminology 
consistent with the recordkeeping section. Further, we are proposing 
that the report must also contain the number of deviations from the 
standard, and a list of the affected source or equipment. For deviation 
reports addressing deviations from an applicable emission limit in 40 
CFR 63.3490 or operating limit in Table 4 to 40 CFR part 63 subpart 
KKKK, we are proposing that the report also include an estimate of the 
quantity of each regulated pollutant emitted over any emission limit 
for which the source failed to meet the standard, and a description of 
the method used to estimate the emissions. For deviation reports 
addressing deviations from work practice standards associated with the 
emission rate with add-on controls option (40 CFR 63.3511(a)(8)(xiii)), 
we are retaining the current requirement (including reporting actions 
taken to correct the deviation), except that we are revising the rule 
language to reference the new general duty requirement in 40 CFR 
63.3500(b), we are clarifying that the description of the deviation 
must include a list of the affected sources or equipment and the cause 
of the deviation, we are clarifying that ``time period'' includes the 
``time and duration,'' and we are requiring that the report include the 
number of deviations from the work practice standards in the reporting 
period.
    Regarding the proposed new requirement discussed above to estimate 
the quantity of each regulated pollutant

[[Page 25929]]

emitted over any emission limit for which the source failed to meet the 
standard, and a description of the method used to estimate the 
emissions, examples of such methods would include product-loss 
calculations, mass balance calculations, measurements when available, 
or engineering judgment based on known process parameters (e.g., 
coating HAP content and application rates and control device 
efficiencies). The EPA is proposing this requirement to ensure that the 
EPA has adequate information to determine compliance, to allow the EPA 
to determine the severity of the failure to meet an applicable 
standard, and to provide data that may document how the source met the 
general duty to minimize emissions during a failure to meet an 
applicable standard.
    We will no longer require owners or operators to determine whether 
actions taken to correct a malfunction are consistent with an SSM plan, 
because plans would no longer be required. The proposed amendments, 
therefore, eliminate 40 CFR 63.3511(c) that requires reporting of 
whether the source deviated from its SSM plan, including required 
actions to communicate with the Administrator, and the cross reference 
to 40 CFR 63.10(d)(5)(ii) that contains the description of the 
previously required SSM report format and submittal schedule from this 
section. These specifications are no longer necessary because the 
events will be reported in otherwise required reports with similar 
format and submittal requirements.
    Section 63.10(d)(5)(ii) describes an immediate report for startups, 
shutdown, and malfunctions when a source failed to meet an applicable 
standard, but did not follow the SSM plan. We will no longer require 
owners and operators to report when actions taken during a startup, 
shutdown, or malfunction were not consistent with an SSM plan, because 
plans would no longer be required.
    We are proposing to remove the requirements in 40 CFR 63.3511(a)(7) 
and (a)(8) that deviation reports must specify whether deviation from 
an operating limit occurred during a period of SSM. We are also 
proposing to remove the requirements in 40 CFR 63.3511(a)(7)(x) and 40 
CFR 63.3511(a)(8)(viii) to break down the total duration of deviations 
into the startup and shutdown categories. As discussed above in this 
section, we are proposing to require reporting of the cause of each 
deviation. Further, the startup and shutdown categories no longer apply 
because these periods are proposed to be considered normal operation, 
as discussed in section IV.A.4.b.1 of this preamble.
c. Technical Amendments to the Surface Coating of Metal Cans NESHAP
    We propose to amend 40 CFR 63.3481(c)(5) to revise the reference to 
``future subpart MMMM'' of this part by removing the word ``future'' 
because subpart MMMM was promulgated in 2004.
    We propose to revise the format of references to test methods in 40 
CFR part 60. The current reference in 40 CFR 63.3545(a) and (b) to 
Methods 1, 1A, 2, 2A, 2C, 2D, 2F, 2G, 3, 3A, 3B, 4, 25, and 25A specify 
that each method is in ``appendix A'' of part 60. Appendix A of part 60 
has been divided into appendices A-1 through A-8. We propose to revise 
each reference to appendix A to indicate which of the eight sections of 
appendix A applies to the method.
    We propose to amend 40 CFR 63.3521(a)(1)(i) and (4), which describe 
how to demonstrate initial compliance with the emission limitations 
using the compliant material option, to remove references to OSHA-
defined carcinogens as specified in 29 CFR 1910.1200(d)(4). The 
reference to OSHA-defined carcinogens as specified in 29 CFR 
1910.1200(d)(4) is intended to specify which compounds must be included 
in calculating total organic HAP content of a coating material if they 
are present at 0.1 percent or greater by mass. We are proposing to 
remove this reference because 29 CFR 1910.1200(d)(4) has been amended 
and no longer readily defines which compounds are carcinogens. We are 
proposing to replace these references to OSHA-defined carcinogens and 
29 CFR 1910.1200(d)(4) with a list (in proposed new Table 8 to 40 CFR 
part 63, subpart KKKK) of those organic HAP that must be included in 
calculating total organic HAP content of a coating material if they are 
present at 0.1 percent or greater by mass.
    We propose to include organic HAP in proposed Table 8 to 40 CFR 
part 63, subpart KKKK if they were categorized in the EPA's Prioritized 
Chronic Dose-Response Values for Screening Risk Assessments (dated May 
9, 2014) as a ``human carcinogen,'' ``probable human carcinogen,'' or 
``possible human carcinogen'' according to The Risk Assessment 
Guidelines of 1986 (EPA/600/8-87/045, August 1987),\27\ or as 
``carcinogenic to humans,'' ``likely to be carcinogenic to humans,'' or 
with ``suggestive evidence of carcinogenic potential'' according to the 
Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment (EPA/630/P-03/001F, March 
2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ See https://www.epa.gov/fera/dose-response-assessment-assessing-health-risks-associated-exposure-hazardous-air-pollutants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We propose to revise the monitoring provisions for thermal and 
catalytic oxidizers to clarify that a thermocouple is part of the 
temperature sensor referred to in 40 CFR 63.3547(c)(3) and 40 CFR 
63.3557(c)(3) for purposes of performing periodic calibration and 
verification checks.
    Current 40 CFR 63.3513(a) allows records, ``where appropriate,'' to 
be maintained as ``electronic spreadsheets'' or a ``database.'' We 
propose to add clarification to this provision that the allowance to 
retain electronic records applies to all records that were submitted as 
reports electronically via the EPA's CEDRI. We also propose to add text 
to the same provision clarifying that 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.
d. Ongoing Emissions Compliance Demonstrations Requirement
    As part of an ongoing effort to improve compliance with various 
federal air emission regulations, the EPA reviewed the compliance 
demonstration requirements in the Surface Coating of Metal Cans NESHAP. 
Currently, if a source owner or operator chooses to comply with the 
standards using add-on controls, the results of an initial performance 
test are used to determine compliance; however, the rule does not 
require ongoing periodic performance testing for these emission capture 
systems and add-on controls. We are proposing periodic testing of add-
on control devices, in addition to the one-time initial emissions and 
capture efficiency testing and ongoing parametric monitoring to ensure 
ongoing compliance with the standards.
    Although ongoing monitoring of operating parameters is required by 
the NESHAP, as the control device ages over time, the destruction 
efficiency of the control device can be compromised due to various 
factors. The EPA published several documents that identify potential 
control device operational problems that could decrease control device 
efficiency.\28\

[[Page 25930]]

These factors are discussed in more detail in the memorandum titled 
Proposed Periodic Testing Requirement dated February 1, 2019, included 
in the Metal Cans and Metal Coil Dockets.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ See Control Techniques for Volatile Organic Compound 
Emissions from Stationary Sources, EPA/453/R-92-018, December 1992, 
Control Technologies for Emissions from Stationary Sources, EPA/625/
6-91/014, June 1991, and Survey of Control for Low Concentration 
Organic Vapor Gas Streams, EPA-456/R-95-003, May 1995. These 
documents are included in the Metal Can and Metal Coil Dockets for 
this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Institute of Clean Air Companies (ICAC), an industry trade 
group currently representing 50 emission control device equipment 
manufacturers, corroborated the fact that control equipment degrades 
over time in their comments in a prior rulemaking. In their comments on 
proposed revisions to the NESHAP General Provisions (72 FR 69, January 
3, 2007), ICAC stated that ongoing maintenance and checks of control 
devices are necessary in order to ensure emissions control technology 
remains effective.\29\ ICAC identifies both thermal and catalytic 
oxidizers as effective add-on control devices for VOC reduction and 
destruction. Thermal oxidizers, in which ``. . . organic compounds are 
converted into carbon dioxide and water . . .'' allow ``. . . for the 
destruction of VOCs and HAP up to levels greater than 99-percent . . 
.'' once ``. . . [t]he oxidation reaction . . .'' begins, typically ``. 
. . in the 1450 [deg]F range.'' That temperature may need to be 
elevated, depending on the organic compound to be destroyed. Along with 
that destruction, ``. . . extreme heat, the corrosive nature of 
chemical-laden air, exposure to weather, and the wear and tear of non-
stop use . . .'' affect thermal oxidizers such that ``. . . left 
unchecked, the corrosive nature of the gases treated will create 
equipment downtime, loss of operational efficiency, and eventually 
failure of the thermal oxidizer.'' While catalytic oxidizers operate at 
lower operating temperatures--typically 440 to 750 [deg]F--than thermal 
oxidizers, catalytic oxidizers also provide VOC reduction and 
destruction. In general, the catalyst ``. . . needs to be checked 
periodically to verify the activity of the catalyst . . .'' because 
that ``. . . activity or overall ability of the catalyst to convert 
target emissions to other by-products will naturally diminish over 
time.'' ICAC also mentions chemical poisoning (deactivation of the 
catalyst by certain compounds) or masking of the catalyst bed, which 
may occur due to changes in manufacturing processes, as means of 
catalyst degradation. Finally, ICAC identifies electrical and 
mechanical component maintenance as important, for if such components 
are not operating properly, ``. . . the combustion temperature in the . 
. . oxidizer could drop below the required levels and hazardous air 
pollutant (HAP) destruction may not be achieved . . .'' ICAC closes by 
noting ``. . . it costs more money to operate an oxidizer at peak 
performance, and if not maintained, performance will deteriorate 
yielding less destruction of HAP.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ See Docket Item No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2004-0094-0173, available at 
www.regulations.gov. A copy of the ICAC's comments on the proposed 
revisions to the General Provisions is also included in the Metal 
Cans and Metal Coil Dockets for this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    State websites also provide on-line CAA violations and enforcement 
actions that include performance issues associated with control 
devices. A recent search resulted in identification of sources in Ohio 
and Massachusetts that did not achieve compliance even though they 
maintained the thermal oxidizer operating temperatures established 
during previous performance tests, which further corroborates with the 
ICAC comments and conclusions regarding control device degradation.
    Based on the need for vigilance in maintaining equipment to stem 
degradation, we are proposing periodic testing of add-on control 
devices once every 5 years, in addition to the one-time initial 
emissions and capture efficiency testing and ongoing temperature 
measurement to ensure ongoing compliance with the standards.
    In this action, we are proposing to require periodic performance 
testing of add-on control devices on a regular frequency (e.g., every 5 
years) to ensure the equipment continues to operate properly for 
facilities using the emission rate with add-on controls compliance 
option. We note that two of the state operating permits for metal can 
coating existing sources already require such testing every 5 years 
synchronized with 40 CFR part 70 air operating permit renewals. This 
proposed periodic testing requirement includes an exception to the 
general requirement for periodic testing for facilities using the 
catalytic oxidizer control option at 40 CFR 63.3546(b) and following 
the catalyst maintenance procedures in 40 CFR 63.3546(b)(4). This 
exception is due to the catalyst maintenance procedures that already 
require annual testing of the catalyst and other maintenance procedures 
that provide ongoing demonstrations that the control system is 
operating properly and may, thus, be considered comparable to 
conducting a performance test.
    The proposed periodic performance testing requirement allows an 
exception from periodic testing for facilities using instruments to 
continuously measure emissions. Such continuous emissions monitoring 
systems (CEMS) would show actual emissions. The use of CEMS to 
demonstrate compliance would obviate the need for periodic oxidizer 
testing. Moreover, installation and operation of a CEMS with a 
timesharing component, such that values from more than one oxidizer 
exhaust could be tabulated in a recurring frequency, could prove less 
expensive (estimated to have an annual cost below $15,000) than ongoing 
oxidizer testing.
    This proposed requirement does not require periodic testing or CEMS 
monitoring of facilities using the compliant materials option or the 
emission-rate without add-on controls compliance option because these 
two compliance options do not use any add-on controls or control 
efficiency measurements in the compliance calculations.
    The proposed periodic performance testing requirement requires 
facilities complying with the standards using emission capture systems 
and add-on controls and which are not already on a 5-year testing 
schedule conduct the first of the periodic performance tests within 3 
years of the effective date of the revised standards. Afterward, they 
would conduct periodic testing before they renew their operating 
permits, but no longer than 5 years following the previous performance 
test. Additionally, facilities that have already tested as a condition 
of their permit within the last 2 years before the effective date would 
be permitted to maintain their current 5-year schedule and not be 
required to move up the date of the next test to the 3-year date 
specified above. This proposed requirement would require periodic air 
emissions testing to measure organic HAP destruction or removal 
efficiency at the inlet and outlet of the add-on control device, or 
measurement of the control device outlet concentration of organic HAP. 
The emissions would be measured as total gaseous organic mass emissions 
as carbon using either EPA Method 25 or 25A of appendix A-7 to 40 CFR 
part 60, which are the methods currently required for the initial 
compliance demonstration.
    We estimate that the cost associated with this proposed 
requirement, which includes a control device emissions destruction or 
removal efficiency test using EPA Method 25 or 25A, would be 
approximately $19,000 per control device. The cost estimate is included 
in the memorandum titled Draft Costs/Impacts of the 40 CFR part 63 
Subparts KKKK and SSSS Monitoring Review Revisions, in the Metal Cans 
and Metal Coil Dockets. We have reviewed the

[[Page 25931]]

state operating permits for facilities subject to the Surface Coating 
of Metal Cans NESHAP and found that one of the metal can coating 
facilities employs three add-on control devices that are currently not 
required to conduct periodic testing as a condition of their permit 
renewal. Two other facilities using add-on controls are currently 
required to conduct periodic performance tests as a condition of their 
40 CFR part 70 operating permits. For these two facilities, the 
periodic testing would not add any new testing requirements and the 
estimated costs would not apply to these facilities. Periodic 
performance tests ensure that any control systems used to comply with 
the NESHAP in the future would be properly maintained over time, 
thereby reducing the potential for acute emissions episodes and non-
compliance.
e. IBR of Alternative Test Methods Under 1 CFR Part 51
    The EPA is proposing new and updated test methods for the Surface 
Coating of Metal Cans NESHAP that include IBR. In accordance with 
requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is proposing to incorporate by 
reference the following voluntary consensus standards (VCS) described 
in the amendments to 40 CFR 63.14:
     ASTM Method D1475-13, Standard Test Method for Density of 
Liquid Coatings, Inks, and Related Products, proposed to be IBR 
approved for 40 CFR 63.3521(c) and 63.3531(c);
     ASTM D2111-10 (2015), Standard Test Methods for Specific 
Gravity of Halogenated Organic Solvents and Their Admixtures, proposed 
to be IBR approved for 40 CFR 63.3521(c) and 63.3531(c);
     ASTM D2369-10 (2015), Test Method for Volatile Content of 
Coatings, proposed to be IBR approved for 40 CFR 63.3521(a)(2) and 
63.3541(i)(3);
     ASTM D2697-03 (2014), Standard Test Method for Volume 
Nonvolatile Matter in Clear or Pigmented Coatings, proposed to be IBR 
approved for 40 CFR 63.3521(b)(1); and
     ASTM D6093-97 (2016), Standard Test Method for Percent 
Volume Nonvolatile Matter in Clear or Pigmented Coatings Using Helium 
Gas Pycnometer, proposed to be IBR approved for 40 CFR 63.3521(b)(1).
    Older versions of ASTM Methods, D2697 and D6093 were incorporated 
by reference when the Surface Coating of Metal Cans NESHAP was 
originally promulgated (68 FR 64432, November 13, 2003). We are 
proposing to replace the older versions of these methods and ASTM 
Method D1475 with updated versions, which requires IBR revisions. The 
updated version of the method replaces the older version in the same 
paragraph of the rule text. We are also proposing the addition of ASTM 
Methods D2111 and D2369 to the Surface Coating of Metal Cans NESHAP for 
the first time by incorporating these methods by reference in this 
rulemaking. Refer to section VIII.J of this preamble for further 
discussion of these VCS.
5. What compliance dates are we proposing?
    The EPA is proposing that affected sources must comply with all of 
the amendments, with the exception of the proposed electronic format 
for submitting semiannual compliance reports, no later than 181 days 
after the effective date of the final rule, or upon startup, whichever 
is later. All affected facilities would have to continue to meet the 
current requirements of 40 CFR part 63, subpart KKKK until the 
applicable compliance date of the amended rule. The final action is not 
expected to be a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2), so the 
effective date of the final rule will be the promulgation date as 
specified in CAA section 112(d)(10).
    For existing sources, we are proposing one change that would impact 
ongoing compliance requirements for 40 CFR part 63, subpart KKKK. As 
discussed elsewhere in this preamble, we are proposing to add a 
requirement that notifications, performance test results, and 
semiannual compliance reports be submitted electronically. We are 
proposing that the semiannual compliance report be submitted 
electronically using a new template, which is available for review and 
comment as part of this action. We are also proposing to change the 
requirements for SSM by removing the exemption from the requirements to 
meet the standard during SSM periods and by removing the requirement to 
develop and implement an SSM plan. Our experience with similar 
industries that are required to convert reporting mechanisms to install 
necessary hardware and software, become familiar with the process of 
submitting performance test results electronically through the EPA's 
CEDRI, test these new electronic submission capabilities, and reliably 
employ electronic reporting shows that a time period of a minimum of 90 
days, and, more typically, 180 days, is generally necessary to 
successfully accomplish these revisions. Our experience with similar 
industries further shows that this sort of regulated facility generally 
requires a time period of 180 days to read and understand the amended 
rule requirements; to evaluate their operations to ensure that they can 
meet the standards during periods of startup and shutdown as defined in 
the rule and make any necessary adjustments; and to update their 
operation, maintenance, and monitoring plan to reflect the revised 
requirements. The EPA recognizes the confusion that multiple different 
compliance dates for individual requirements would create and the 
additional burden such an assortment of dates would impose. From our 
assessment of the timeframe needed for compliance with the entirety of 
the revised requirements, the EPA considers a period of 180 days to be 
the most expeditious compliance period practicable and, thus, is 
proposing that existing affected sources be in compliance with all of 
this regulation's revised requirements within 181 days of the 
regulation's effective date.
    We solicit comment on these proposed compliance periods, and we 
specifically request submission of information from sources in this 
source category regarding specific actions that would need to be 
undertaken to comply with the proposed amended requirements and the 
time needed to make the adjustments for compliance with any of the 
revised requirements. We note that information provided may result in 
changes to the proposed compliance dates.

B. What are the analytical results and proposed decisions for the 
Surface Coating of Metal Coil source category?

1. What are the results of the risk assessment and analyses?
    As described above in section III of this preamble, for the Surface 
Coating of Metal Coil source category, we conducted a risk assessment 
for all HAP emitted. We present results of the risk assessment briefly 
below and in more detail in the Metal Coil Risk Assessment Report in 
the Metal Coil Docket (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0685).
a. Inhalation Risk Assessment Results
    Table 4 of this preamble summarizes the results of the inhalation 
risk assessment for the source category. As discussed in section 
III.C.2 of this preamble, we determined that MACT-allowable HAP 
emission levels at coil coating facilities are equal to 1.1 times the 
actual emissions. For more detail about the MACT-allowable emission 
levels, see Appendix 1 to the Metal Coil Risk Assessment Report in the 
Metal Coil Docket.

[[Page 25932]]



                                Table 4--Surface Coating of Metal Coil Source Category Inhalation Risk Assessment Results
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  Maximum individual     Estimated population      Estimated annual         Maximum chronic      Maximum screening acute
                                   cancer risk (in 1     at increased risk of      cancer incidence       noncancer TOSHI \1\       noncancer HQ \2\
                                       million)             cancer >=1-in-1        (cases per year)    -------------------------------------------------
                               ------------------------         million        ------------------------
        Risk assessment                                ------------------------                          Based on    Based on
                                 Based on    Based on    Based on    Based on    Based on    Based on     actual     allowable       Based on actual
                                  actual     allowable    actual     allowable    actual     allowable   emissions   emissions          emissions
                                 emissions   emissions   emissions   emissions   emissions   emissions
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source Category...............          10          10      19,000      24,000       0.005       0.006         0.1         0.1  HQREL = 3.
Whole Facility................          40  ..........     270,000  ..........        0.03  ..........           5  ..........  ........................
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The TOSHI is the sum of the chronic noncancer HQ for substances that affect the same target organ or organ system.
\2\ The maximum estimated acute exposure concentration was divided by available short-term threshold values to develop HQ values.

    The results of the inhalation risk modeling using actual emissions 
data, as shown in Table 4 of this preamble, indicate that the maximum 
individual cancer risk based on actual emissions (lifetime) could be up 
to 10-in-1 million (driven by naphthalene from solvent storage), the 
maximum chronic noncancer TOSHI value based on actual emissions could 
be up to 0.1 (driven by glycol ethers from prime and finish coating 
application), and the maximum screening acute noncancer HQ value (off-
facility site) could be up to 3 (driven by DGME). The total estimated 
annual cancer incidence (national) from these facilities based on 
actual emission levels is 0.005 excess cancer cases per year or one 
case in every 200 years.
b. Acute Risk Results
    Table 4 of this preamble also shows the acute risk results for the 
Surface Coating of Metal Coil source category. The screening analysis 
for acute impacts was based on an industry-specific multiplier of 1.1, 
to estimate the peak emission rates from the average emission rates. 
For more detailed acute risk results refer to the Metal Coil Risk 
Assessment Report in the Metal Coil Docket.
c. Multipathway Risk Screening Results
    The emissions data for the Surface Coating of Metal Coil source 
category indicate that one PB-HAP is emitted by sources within this 
source category: Lead. In evaluating the potential for multipathway 
effects from emissions of lead, modeled maximum annual lead 
concentrations were compared to the NAAQS for lead (0.15 [micro]g/
m\3\). Results of this analysis confirmed that the NAAQS for lead would 
not be exceeded by any facility.
d. Environmental Risk Screening Results
    The emissions data for the Surface Coating of Metal Coil source 
category indicate that two environmental HAP are emitted by sources 
within this source category: HF and lead. Therefore, we conducted a 
screening-level evaluation of the potential adverse environmental risks 
associated with emissions of HF and lead for the Surface Coating of 
Metal Coil source category. For HF, each individual concentration 
(i.e., each off-site data point in the modeling domain) was below the 
ecological benchmarks for all facilities. For lead, we did not estimate 
any exceedances of the secondary lead NAAQS. Therefore, we do not 
expect an adverse environmental effect as a result of HAP emissions 
from this source category.
e. Facility-Wide Risk Results
    Sixteen facilities have a facility-wide cancer MIR greater than or 
equal to 1-in-1 million. The maximum facility-wide cancer MIR is 40-in-
1 million, driven by naphthalene from equipment cleanup of metal coil 
coating processes. The total estimated cancer incidence from the whole 
facility is 0.02 excess cancer cases per year, or one excess case in 
every 50 years. Approximately 270,000 people were estimated to have 
cancer risks above 1-in-1 million from exposure to HAP emitted from 
both MACT and non-MACT sources of the 48 facilities in this source 
category. The maximum facility-wide TOSHI for the source category is 
estimated to be 5, driven by emissions of chlorine from a secondary 
aluminum fluxing process.
f. What demographic groups might benefit from this regulation?
    To examine the potential for any environmental justice issues that 
might be associated with the source category, we performed a 
demographic analysis, which is an assessment of risk to individual 
demographic groups of the populations living within 5 km and within 50 
km of the facilities. In the analysis, we evaluated the distribution of 
HAP-related cancer and noncancer risk from the Surface Coating of Metal 
Coil source category across different demographic groups within the 
populations living near facilities.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ Demographic groups included in the analysis are: White, 
African American, Native American, other races and multiracial, 
Hispanic or Latino, children 17 years of age and under, adults 18 to 
64 years of age, adults 65 years of age and over, adults without a 
high school diploma, people living below the poverty level, people 
living above the poverty level, and linguistically isolated people.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The results of the demographic analysis are summarized in Table 5 
of this preamble. These results, for various demographic groups, are 
based on the estimated risk from actual emissions levels for the 
population living within 50 km of the facilities.

            Table 5--Surface Coating of Metal Coil Source Category Demographic Risk Analysis Results
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 Population with cancer  Population with chronic
                                                                risk at or above 1-in-1    hazard index above 1
                                                  Nationwide     million due to surface   due to surface coating
                                                                 coating of metal coil        of metal coil
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Population..............................     317,746,049                   19,000                        0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 Race by Percent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
White.........................................              62                       70                        0
All Other Races...............................              38                       30                        0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 25933]]

 
                                                 Race by Percent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
White.........................................              62                       70  .......................
African American..............................              12                       21                        0
Native American...............................             0.8                      0.1                        0
Hispanic or Latino............................              18                        4                        0
Other and Multiracial.........................               7                        5                        0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                Income by Percent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Below the Poverty Level.......................              14                       15                        0
Above the Poverty Level.......................              86                       85                        0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              Education by Percent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Over 25 and Without a High School Diploma.....              14                       10                        0
Over 25 and With a High School Diploma........              86                       90                        0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The results of the Surface Coating of Metal Coil source category 
demographic analysis indicate that emissions from the source category 
expose approximately 19,000 people to a cancer risk at or above 1-in-1 
million and no one is exposed to a chronic noncancer TOSHI greater than 
1 (we note that many of those in the first risk group are the same as 
those in the second). The percentages of the at-risk population in each 
demographic group (African American and Below the Poverty Level) are 
greater than their respective nationwide percentages.
    The methodology and the results of the demographic analysis are 
presented in a technical report, Risk and Technology Review--Analysis 
of Demographic Factors for Populations Living Near Surface Coating of 
Metal Coil Source Category Operations, May 2017 (hereafter referred to 
as the Metal Coil Demographic Analysis Report), available in the Metal 
Coil Docket.
2. What are our proposed decisions regarding risk acceptability, ample 
margin of safety, and adverse environmental effects?
a. Risk Acceptability
    As noted in section III.A of this preamble, we weigh all health 
risk factors in our risk acceptability determination, including the 
cancer MIR, the number of persons in various cancer and noncancer risk 
ranges, cancer incidence, the maximum noncancer TOSHI, the maximum 
acute noncancer HQ, the extent of noncancer risks, the distribution of 
cancer and noncancer risks in the exposed population, and risk 
estimation uncertainties (54 FR 38044, September 14, 1989).
    For the Surface Coating of Metal Coil source category, the risk 
analysis indicates that the cancer risks to the individual most exposed 
could be up to 10-in-1 million due to actual emissions and allowable 
emissions. These risks are considerably less than 100-in-1 million, 
which is the presumptive upper limit of acceptable risk. The risk 
analysis also shows very low cancer incidence (0.005 cases per year for 
actual emissions and 0.006 cases per year for allowable emissions), and 
we did not identify potential for adverse chronic noncancer health 
effects.
    The acute screening analysis results in a maximum acute noncancer 
HQ of 3 for DGME. Since there is not a specified acute dose-response 
value for DGME, we applied the most protective dose-response value from 
the other glycol ether compounds, the acute REL for ethylene glycol 
monomethyl ether, to estimate risk. Given that ethylene glycol 
monomethyl ether is more toxic than other glycol ethers, the use of 
this surrogate is a health-protective choice in the EPA's risk 
assessment.
    For acute screening analyses, to better characterize the potential 
health risks associated with estimated worst-case acute exposures to 
HAP, we examine a wider range of available acute health metrics than we 
do for our chronic risk assessments. This is in acknowledgement that 
there are generally more data gaps and uncertainties in acute reference 
values than there are in chronic reference values. By definition, the 
acute REL represents a health-protective level of exposure, with 
effects not anticipated below those levels, even for repeated 
exposures; however, the level of exposure that would cause health 
effects is not specifically known. As the exposure concentration 
increases above the acute REL, the potential for effects increases. 
Therefore, when an REL is exceeded and an AEGL-1 or ERPG-1 level is 
available (i.e., levels at which mild, reversible effects are 
anticipated in the general population for a single exposure), we 
typically use them as an additional comparative measure, as they 
provide an upper bound for exposure levels above which exposed 
individuals could experience effects. However, for glycol ethers, these 
values are not available.
    Additional uncertainties in the acute exposure assessment that the 
EPA conducts as part of the risk review under section 112 of the CAA 
include several factors. The degree of accuracy of an acute inhalation 
exposure assessment depends on the simultaneous occurrence of 
independent factors that may vary greatly, such as hourly emissions 
rates, meteorology, and the presence of a person at the location of the 
maximum concentration. In the acute screening assessment that we 
conduct under the RTR program, we include the conservative (health-
protective) assumptions that peak emissions from each emission point in 
the source category and worst-case meteorological conditions co-occur, 
thus, resulting in maximum ambient concentrations. These two events are 
unlikely to occur at the same time, making these assumptions 
conservative. We then include the additional assumption that a person 
is located at this point during the same time period. For this source 
category, these assumptions are likely to

[[Page 25934]]

overestimate the true worst-case actual exposures, as it is unlikely 
that a person would be located at the point of maximum exposure during 
the time when peak emissions and worst-case meteorological conditions 
occur simultaneously. Thus, as discussed in the Metal Coil Risk 
Assessment Report in the docket for this action, by assuming the co-
occurrence of independent factors for the acute screening assessment, 
the results are intentionally biased high and are, thus, health-
protective. We conclude that adverse effects from acute exposure are 
not anticipated due to emissions from this source category.
    In addition, the risk assessment indicates no significant potential 
for multipathway health effects.
    Considering all the health risk information and factors discussed 
above, including the uncertainties discussed in section III.C.7 of this 
preamble, we propose that the risks from the Surface Coating of Metal 
Coil source category are acceptable.
b. Ample Margin of Safety Analysis
    Although we are proposing that the risks from the Surface Coating 
of Metal Coil source category are acceptable, risk estimates for 
approximately 19,000 individuals in the exposed population are above 1-
in-1 million at the actual emissions level, and 24,000 individuals in 
the exposed population are above 1-in-1 million at the allowable 
emissions level. Consequently, we further considered whether the MACT 
standards for the Surface Coating of Metal Coil source category provide 
an ample margin of safety to protect public health. In this ample 
margin of safety analysis, we investigated available emissions control 
options that might reduce the risk from the source category. We 
considered this information along with all the health risks and other 
health information considered in our determination of risk 
acceptability.
    As described in section III.B of this preamble, our technology 
review focused on identifying developments in practices, processes, and 
control technologies for the Surface Coating of Metal Coil source 
category, and we reviewed various information sources regarding 
emission sources that are currently regulated by the Surface Coating of 
Metal Coil NESHAP. Based on our review, we did not identify any add-on 
control technologies, other equipment, or work practices and procedures 
that had not previously been considered during development of the 
Surface Coating of Metal Coil NESHAP, and we did not identify any 
developments since the promulgation of the NESHAP. Therefore, we are 
proposing that additional emissions controls for this source category 
are not necessary to provide an ample margin of safety.
c. Environmental Effects
    The emissions data for the Surface Coating of Metal Coil source 
category indicate that two environmental HAP are emitted by sources 
within this source category: HF and lead. The screening-level 
evaluation of the potential for adverse environmental risks associated 
with emissions of HF from the Surface Coating of Metal Coil source 
category indicated that each individual concentration (i.e., each off-
site data point in the modeling domain) was below the ecological 
benchmarks for all facilities. In addition, we are unaware of any 
adverse environmental effects caused by HAP emitted by this source 
category. For lead, we did not estimate any exceedances of the 
secondary lead NAAQS. Therefore, we do not expect there to be an 
adverse environmental effect as a result of HAP emissions from this 
source category, and we are proposing that it is not necessary to set a 
more stringent standard to prevent, taking into consideration costs, 
energy, safety, and other relevant factors, an adverse environmental 
effect.
3. What are the results and proposed decisions based on our technology 
review?
    As described in section III.B of this preamble, our technology 
review focused on identifying developments in practices, processes, and 
control technologies for the Surface Coating of Metal Coil source 
category. The EPA reviewed various information sources regarding 
emission sources that are currently regulated by the Surface Coating of 
Metal Coil NESHAP to support the technology review. The information 
sources included the following: The RBLC; the California Statewide BACT 
Clearinghouse; regulatory actions, including technology reviews 
promulgated for other surface coating NESHAP subsequent to the Surface 
Coating of Metal Coil NESHAP; state regulations; facility operating 
permits; a site visit; and industry information from individual 
facilities and the industry trade association. The primary emission 
sources for the technology review are the coil coating application 
stations and associated curing ovens.
    Based on our review, we did not identify any add-on control 
technologies, process equipment, work practices, or procedures that had 
not been previously considered during development of the Surface 
Coating of Metal Coil NESHAP, and we did not identify any new or 
improved add-on control technologies that would result in additional 
emission reductions. A brief summary of the EPA's findings in 
conducting the technology review of coil coating operations follows. 
For a detailed discussion of the EPA's findings, refer to the Metal 
Coil Technology Review memorandum in the Metal Coil Docket.
    The technology basis for MACT for metal coil coating operations in 
the 2002 Surface Coating of Metal Coil NESHAP was emission capture and 
add-on control with an OCE of 98 percent for new or reconstructed 
sources and existing sources. This OCE represents the use of PTE to 
achieve 100-percent capture of application station HAP emissions and a 
thermal oxidizer to achieve a destruction efficiency of 98-percent. No 
technology was identified at that time that could achieve a better OCE 
than the use of a PTE to capture HAP emissions from the coating 
application station and a thermal oxidizer to destroy HAP emissions 
from the coating application and the curing oven. An alternative 
facility HAP emission rate limit of 0.24 pounds of HAP per gallon of 
solids applied was also established to provide a compliance option for 
facilities that chose to limit their coating line HAP emissions either 
through a combination of low-HAP coatings and add-on controls or 
through the use of waterborne, high solids, or other pollution 
prevention coatings. During development of that rulemaking, we 
identified no beyond-the-floor technology that could achieve a higher 
OCE.
    Using the EPA's NEI and the ECHO databases, we identified 48 major 
source facilities that are currently subject to the Surface Coating of 
Metal Coil NESHAP. A search of the RBLC database for improvements in 
coil coating technologies resulted in no findings. Therefore, we 
conducted a comprehensive review of state operating permits for 39 of 
the 48 facilities that were available on-line to determine whether any 
are using improved technologies or technologies that were not 
considered during the development of the original NESHAP. The review 
revealed that 37 of the 39 facilities had add-on controls (e.g., 
thermal oxidizers, catalytic oxidizers, and regenerative thermal 
oxidizers) and three of the 39 facilities had only partial control 
(i.e., not all coil coating lines had control).
    The state permits included VOC emission limitations issued prior to 
promulgation of the Surface Coating of Metal Coil NESHAP. No permit had 
a

[[Page 25935]]

VOC limit lower than the Metal Coil New Source Performance Standards 
published in 1982 (40 CFR part 60, subpart TT). Because none of these 
limitations were more stringent than the HAP content limit, and all 
were based on control options considered in the development of the 
NESHAP, we concluded that none of these limitations represented a 
development in practices, processes, and control technologies for the 
Surface Coating of Metal Coil source category.
    We reviewed other surface coating NESHAP promulgated subsequent to 
the Surface Coating of Metal Coil NESHAP to determine whether any 
requirements exceed the Metal Coil MACT level of control or include 
technologies that were not considered during the development of the 
original Surface Coating of Metal Coil NESHAP. These NESHAP include 
Surface Coating of Miscellaneous Metal Parts and Products (40 CFR part 
63, subpart MMMM), Surface Coating of Plastic Parts and Products (40 
CFR part 63, subpart PPPP), and Surface Coating of Automobiles and 
Light-Duty Trucks (40 CFR part 63, subpart IIII). We also reviewed the 
results of the technology reviews for other surface coating NESHAP 
promulgated after the Surface Coating of Metal Coil NESHAP. These 
NESHAP include Printing and Publishing (40 CFR part 63, subpart KK), 
Shipbuilding and Ship Repair (40 CFR part 63, subpart II), and Wood 
Furniture Manufacturing (40 CFR part 63, subpart JJ). Technology 
reviews for these NESHAP identified PTE and/or RTO as improvements in 
add-on control technology. Because the Surface Coating of Metal Coil 
NESHAP already includes a compliance option involving the use of a PTE 
and an add-on control device, and because these measures were 
considered in the development of the Surface Coating of Metal Coil 
NESHAP, we concluded that these measures do not represent a development 
in control technology under CAA section 112(d)(6). The technology 
review conducted for the Wood Furniture Manufacturing NESHAP identified 
the use of more efficient spray guns as a technology review development 
and revised the requirements to prohibit the use of conventional spray 
guns. Because the Surface Coating of Metal Coil source category does 
not use spray equipment, this development is not applicable to metal 
coil coating operations. In conclusion, we found no improvements in 
add-on control technology or other equipment during review of the RBLC, 
the state operating permits, and subsequent NESHAP that were not 
already identified and considered during Surface Coating of Metal Coil 
NESHAP development.
    Alternatives to solvent borne coatings were identified and 
considered during MACT development but were not considered to be 
suitable for all coil coating end-product applications. These 
alternative coatings include waterborne coatings, low energy electron 
beam/ultraviolet cured coatings, and powder coatings. These coatings 
were used by about 10 percent of coil coating facilities according to 
the MACT survey. Our permit review concluded that this trend continues 
today and only about 10 percent of the facilities use these coatings to 
meet the Surface Coating of Metal Coil NESHAP emission limits. Most 
coil coaters have solvent destruction systems in place, which enables 
them to use organic paint solvents as a fuel supplement. The only 
anticipated technology change in the area of coating reformulation for 
the metal coil surface coating category is the replacement of coatings 
that contain the hexavalent chromate ion with more benign corrosion-
inhibiting species that provide the same long-term protection to 
metals. The coil coating producers have worked unsuccessfully on this 
coating reformulation for the past 20 years.
    Carbon adsorption was identified and considered for add-on control 
during Metal Coil MACT development, and although it is technologically 
feasible, no U.S. coil coaters used carbon adsorption due to the high 
temperature of the oven exhaust. The high temperature would inhibit 
adsorption of VOC on activated carbon in the adsorber beds. Therefore, 
we do not consider these measures to represent a development under CAA 
section 112(d)(6).
    Finally, we identified no developments in work practices or 
procedures for the Surface Coating of Metal Coil source category, 
including work practices and procedures that are currently prescribed 
in the NESHAP that were not previously identified and considered during 
MACT development. The facility survey, conducted during MACT 
development, revealed that several types of work practices and 
housekeeping techniques were being used. However, the final rule 
applied only to the coating application stations and the associated 
curing ovens (i.e., the affected source). The final rule did not apply 
to coating storage and mixing/thinning operations and did not apply to 
the equipment cleaning operations that are the primary operations to 
which the work practices would have been applied.
    Based on these findings, we conclude that there have not been any 
developments in add-on control technology or other equipment not 
identified and considered during MACT development, nor any improvements 
in add-on controls, nor any significant changes in the cost (including 
cost effectiveness) of the add-on controls. Therefore, we are proposing 
no revisions to the Surface Coating of Metal Coil NESHAP pursuant to 
CAA section 112(d)(6). For further discussion of the technology review 
results, refer to the Metal Coil Technology Review Memorandum in the 
Metal Coil Docket.
4. What other actions are we proposing for the Surface Coating of Metal 
Coil source category?
    In addition to the proposed actions described above, we are 
proposing additional revisions to the NESHAP. We are proposing to amend 
40 CFR 63.5090 to clarify that 40 CFR part 63, subpart SSSS does not 
apply to the application to bare metal coils of markings (including 
letters, numbers, or symbols) that are used for product identification 
or for product inventory control. In the public comments on the 
proposed initial MACT standard subpart SSSS (40 FR 44616, July 18, 
2000),\31\ the request was made that the EPA clarify in the final rule 
that subpart SSSS did not apply to incidental printing operations that 
applied a company name or logo, or other markings to bare metal coils 
for product identification or inventory control purposes. (See EPA Air 
Docket A-97-47, item V-B-1, Report, National Emission Standards for 
Hazardous Air Pollutants: Metal Coil Surface Coating Background 
Information for Promulgated Standards, EPA: OAQPS, Publication number 
EPA-453R-02-009, May 2002.) The commenters suggested revising the 
definition of ``coil coating operation'' to read ``the collection of 
equipment used to apply an organic coating to all or substantially all 
of the surface width of a continuous metal strip.'' The EPA responded 
at the time that it agreed that these types of markings applied to bare 
metal were simply not considered to be part of a coil coating 
operation, and therefore were not intended to be covered by the coil 
coating NESHAP subpart SSSS. However, the EPA did not want to exclude 
operations that applied a printed image to a coated metal coil from 
coverage by subpart SSSS because they were considered integral to 
certain

[[Page 25936]]

coil coating operations and part of the coil coating line and affected 
source. During the development of these proposed amendments to subpart 
SSSS, we were notified by steel coil manufacturers that the 
applicability of subpart SSSS to the application of identification 
markings to bare metal coils was still unresolved. The steel coil 
manufacturers asked us to amend subpart SSSS be amended to clarify this 
applicability issue and whether these identification markings are 
subject to subpart SSSS. Therefore, we are proposing to clarify that 
the application of identification markings (including letters, numbers, 
or symbols) to bare metal coils is not part of a coil coating line and 
not part of a coil coating affected source. However, we intend to 
continue to regulate application of printed images to coated steel 
coils as part of the coil coating affected source. Therefore, the 
application of letters, numbers, or symbols to a coated metal coil is 
still considered a coil coating process and part of the coil coating 
source category.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ See National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air 
Pollutants: Metal Coil Surface Coating Background Information for 
Promulgated Standards, EPA-453/R-02-009, May 2002 in the Metal Coil 
Docket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, we are proposing to require electronic submittal of 
notifications (initial and compliance status), semiannual reports, and 
performance test reports for metal coil surface coating facilities. We 
are also proposing revisions to the SSM provisions of the MACT rule in 
order to ensure that they are consistent with the Court decision in 
Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F. 3d 1019 (D.C. Cir. 2008), which vacated two 
provisions that exempted sources from the requirement to comply with 
otherwise applicable CAA section 112(d) emission standards during 
periods of SSM. And finally, we are proposing the IBR of optional EPA 
Method 18, IBR of an alternative test method, and various technical and 
editorial changes. Our analyses and proposed changes related to these 
issues are discussed in the sections below.
a. Electronic Reporting Requirements
    The EPA is proposing that owners and operators of facilities 
subject to the Surface Coating of Metal Coil NESHAP submit electronic 
copies of initial notifications required in 40 CFR 63.9(b), 
notifications of compliance status required in 40 CFR 63.9(h), 
performance test reports, and semiannual reports through the EPA's CDX, 
using the CEDRI. A description of the EPA's CDX and the EPA's proposed 
rationale and details on the addition of these electronic reporting 
requirements for the Surface Coating of Metal Coil source category is 
the same as for the Surface Coating of Metal Cans source category, as 
discussed in section IV.A.4.a of this preamble. 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 Metal Coil Docket. No specific form is proposed 
at this time for the initial notifications required in 40 CFR 63.9(b). 
Until the EPA has completed electronic forms for these notifications, 
the notifications will be required to be submitted via CEDRI in PDF. If 
electronic forms are developed for these notifications, we will notify 
sources about their availability via the CEDRI website. For semiannual 
reports, the EPA proposes that owners or operators use the final 
semiannual report template that will reside in CEDRI one year after 
finalizing this proposed action. The Proposed Electronic Reporting 
Template for Surface Coating of Metal Coil Subpart SSSS Semiannual 
Report is available for review and comment in the Metal Cans Docket as 
part of this action. We specifically request comment on the format and 
usability of the template (e.g., filling and uploading a provided 
spreadsheet versus entering the required information into a fillable 
CEDRI web form), as well as the content, layout, and overall design of 
the template. Prior to availability of the final semiannual compliance 
report template in CEDRI, owners or operators of affected sources will 
be required to submit semiannual compliance reports as currently 
required by the rule. After development of the final semiannual 
compliance report template, metal coil sources will be notified about 
its availability via the CEDRI website. We plan to finalize a required 
reporting format with the final rule. The owner or operator would begin 
submitting reports electronically with the next report that is due, 
once the electronic template has been available for at least one year. 
For the electronic submittal of notifications of compliance status 
reports required in 40 CFR 63.9(h), the final semiannual report 
template discussed above, which will reside in CEDRI, will also contain 
the information required for the notifications of compliance status 
report and will satisfy the requirement to provide the notifications of 
compliance status information electronically, eliminating the need to 
provide a separate notifications of compliance status report. As stated 
above, the final semiannual report template will be available after 
finalizing this proposed action and sources will be required to use the 
form after one year. Prior to the availability of the final semiannual 
compliance report template in CEDRI, owners and operators of affected 
sources will be required to submit semiannual compliance reports as 
currently required by the rule. As stated above, we will notify sources 
about the availability of the final semiannual report template via the 
CEDRI website.
    Regarding submittal of performance test reports via the EPA's ERT, 
as discussed in section IV.A.4.a of this preamble for the Surface 
Coating of Metal Cans NESHAP, the proposal to submit performance test 
data electronically to the EPA applies only if the EPA has developed an 
electronic reporting form for the test method as listed on the EPA's 
ERT website. For the Surface Coating of Metal Coil NESHAP, all of the 
EPA test methods listed under 40 CFR part 63, subpart SSSS, are 
currently supported by the ERT, except for EPA Method 25 and EPA Method 
18 (an optional test method proposed in this action), which appears in 
the proposed text for 40 CFR 63.5160. As mentioned above, the rule 
proposes that should an owner or operator choose to use EPA Method 25 
or EPA Method 18, then its results would be submitted in PDF using the 
attachment module of the ERT.
    Also, as discussed in section IV.A.4.a of this preamble for the 
Surface Coating of Metal Cans NESHAP, we are proposing to provide 
facilities with the ability to seek extensions for submitting 
electronic reports for circumstances beyond the control of the 
facility. In proposed 40 CFR 63.5181(d), we address the situation for 
facilities subject to the Surface Coating of Metal Coil NESHAP where an 
extension may be warranted due to outages of the EPA's CDX or CEDRI, 
which may prevent access to the system and submittal of the required 
reports. In proposed 40 CFR 63.5181(e), we address the situation for 
facilities subject to the Surface Coating of Metal Coil NESHAP where an 
extension may be warranted due to a force majeure event, which is 
defined as an event that will be or has been caused by circumstances 
beyond the control of the affected facility, its contractors, or any 
entity controlled by the affected facility that prevents compliance 
with the requirement to submit a report electronically as required by 
this rule.
b. SSM Requirements
1. Proposed Elimination of the SSM Exemption
    The EPA is proposing to eliminate the SSM exemption in the Surface 
Coating of Metal Coil NESHAP. The EPA's

[[Page 25937]]

proposed rationale for the elimination of the SSM exemption for the 
Surface Coating of Metal Coil source category is the same as for the 
Surface Coating of Metal Cans source category, which is discussed in 
section IV.A.4.b.1 of this preamble. We are also proposing several 
revisions to Table 2 to Subpart SSSS of 40 CFR part 63 (Applicability 
of General Provisions to Subpart SSSS, hereafter referred to as the 
``General Provisions table to subpart SSSS'') as is explained in more 
detail below in section IV.B.4.b.2 of this preamble. For example, we 
are proposing to eliminate the incorporation of the General Provisions' 
requirement that the source develop an SSM plan. We are also proposing 
to delete 40 CFR 63.4342(h), which specifies that deviations during SSM 
periods are not violations. Further, we are proposing to eliminate and 
revise certain recordkeeping and reporting requirements related to the 
SSM exemption as further described below. The EPA has attempted to 
ensure that the provisions we are proposing to eliminate are 
inappropriate, unnecessary, or redundant in the absence of the SSM 
exemption. We are specifically seeking comment on the specific proposed 
deletions and revisions and also whether additional provisions should 
be revised to achieve the stated goal.
    In proposing these rule amendments, the EPA has taken into account 
startup and shutdown periods and, for the same reasons explained in 
section IV.A.4.b.1 of this preamble for the Surface Coating of Metal 
Cans source category, has not proposed alternate standards for those 
periods in the Surface Coating of Metal Coil NESHAP. Startups and 
shutdowns are part of normal operations for the Surface Coating of 
Metal Coil source category. As currently specified in 40 CFR 
63.5121(a), any coating operation(s) for which you use the emission 
rate with add-on controls option must meet the applicable operating 
limits in Table 1 to 40 CFR part 63, subpart SSSS ``at all times,'' 
except for solvent recovery systems for which you conduct liquid-liquid 
material balances according to 40 CFR 63.5170(e)(1). (Solvent recovery 
systems for which you conduct a liquid-liquid material balance require 
a monthly calculation of the solvent recovery device's collection and 
recovery efficiency for volatile organic matter.)
    Also, as currently specified in 40 CFR 63.3500(a)(2), any coating 
operation(s) for which you use the emission rate with add-on controls 
option or the control efficiency/outlet concentration option must be in 
compliance ``at all times'' with the applicable emission limitations in 
40 CFR 63.3500(a)(2). During startup and shutdown periods, in order for 
a facility (using add-on controls to meet the standards) to meet the 
emission and operating standards, the control device for a coating 
operation needs to be turned on and operating at specified levels 
before the facility begins coating operations, and the control 
equipment needs to continue to be operated until after the facility 
ceases coating operations. In some cases, the facility needs to run 
thermal oxidizers on supplemental fuel before VOC levels are sufficient 
for the combustion to be (nearly) self-sustaining. Note that we are 
also proposing new related language in 40 CFR 63.5140(b) to require 
that the owner or operator operate and maintain the coating operation, 
including pollution control equipment, at all times to minimize 
emissions. See section IV.A.4.b.2 of this preamble for further 
discussion of this proposed revision.
    Although no statutory language compels the EPA to set standards for 
malfunctions, the EPA has the discretion to do so where feasible, as 
discussed previously in section IV.A.4.b.1 of this preamble for the 
Surface Coating of Metal Can source category.
    It is unlikely that a malfunction would result in a violation of 
the standards during metal coil surface coatings operations for 
facilities using the compliant material ``as-purchased'' or ``as-
applied'' options or the coating materials averaging option. Facilities 
using these options have demonstrated that the organic HAP content of 
each coating material as-purchased does not exceed 0.046 kg HAP per 
liter of solids as purchased, or that each coating material as-applied 
does not exceed 0.046 kg HAP per liter of solids on a rolling 12-month 
average basis and determined on a monthly basis, or that the average 
HAP content of all coating materials used does not exceed 0.046 kg HAP 
per liter of solids as applied based on a rolling 12-month emission 
rate and determined on a monthly basis.
    A malfunction event is more likely for metal coil coating 
facilities that use the emission rate with add-on controls option or 
the combination of compliant coatings and control device option. For 
add-on control options, facilities must demonstrate an overall organic 
HAP control efficiency of at least 98 percent, or that the oxidizer 
outlet HAP concentration is no greater than 20 ppmv and 100-percent 
capture efficiency and that operating limits are achieved continuously. 
For the combination option, facilities must demonstrate that the 
average equivalent emission rate does not exceed 0.046 kg HAP per liter 
solids on a rolling 12-month average as-applied basis, determined 
monthly. Operating limits for the capture and control devices are 
listed in Table 1 to 40 CFR part 63, subpart SSSS of the Surface 
Coating of Metal Coil NESHAP and must be achieved continuously. The 
operating limits are based on maintaining an average temperature over a 
3-hour block period, which must not fall below the temperature limit 
established by the facility during its initial performance test.
    We currently have no information to suggest that it is feasible or 
necessary to establish any type of standard for malfunctions associated 
with the Surface Coating of Metal Coil source category. We encourage 
commenters to provide any such information, if available.
    In the unlikely event that a source fails to comply with the 
applicable CAA section 112(d) standards as a result of a malfunction 
event, the EPA would determine an appropriate response based on, among 
other things, the good faith efforts of the source to minimize 
emissions during malfunction periods, including preventative and 
corrective actions, as well as root cause analyses to ascertain and 
rectify excess emissions. Refer to section IV.A.4.b.1 of this preamble 
for further discussion of the EPA's actions in response to a source 
failing to comply with the applicable CAA section 112(d) standards as a 
result of a malfunction event for the Surface Coating of Metal Cans 
source category, which applies to this source category.
2. Proposed Revisions to the General Provisions Applicability Table
a. 40 CFR 63.5140(b) General Duty
    We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table to subpart 
SSSS (Table 2) entry for 40 CFR 63.6(e)(1)(i) by changing the ``yes'' 
in column 3 to a ``no.'' Section 63.6(e)(1)(i) describes the general 
duty to minimize emissions. Some of the language in that section is no 
longer necessary or appropriate in light of the elimination of the SSM 
exemption. We are proposing instead to add general duty regulatory text 
at 40 CFR 63.5140(b) that reflects the general duty to minimize 
emissions while eliminating the reference to periods covered by an SSM 
exemption. The current language in 40 CFR 63.6(e)(1)(i) characterizes 
what the general duty entails during periods of SSM. With the 
elimination of the SSM exemption, there is no need to differentiate 
between normal operations,

[[Page 25938]]

startup and shutdown, and malfunction events in describing the general 
duty. Therefore, the language the EPA is proposing for 40 CFR 
63.5140(b) does not include that language from 40 CFR 63.6(e)(1).
    We are also proposing to revise the General Provisions table to 
subpart SSSS (Table 2) entry for 40 CFR 63.6(e)(1)(ii) by changing the 
``yes'' in column 3 to a ``no.'' Section 63.6(e)(1)(ii) imposes 
requirements that are not necessary with the elimination of the SSM 
exemption or are redundant with the general duty requirement being 
added at 40 CFR 63.5140(b).
b. SSM Plan
    We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table to subpart 
SSSS (Table 2) entry for 40 CFR 63.6(e)(3) by changing the ``yes'' in 
column 3 to a ``no.'' Generally, these paragraphs require development 
of an SSM plan and specify SSM recordkeeping and reporting requirements 
related to the SSM plan. We are also proposing to remove from 40 CFR 
part 63, subpart SSSS, the current provisions requiring the SSM plan in 
40 CFR 63.5180(f) and requiring reporting related to the SSM plan in 40 
CFR 63.5180(f)(1). As noted, the EPA is proposing to remove the SSM 
exemptions. Therefore, affected units will be subject to an emission 
standard during such events. The applicability of a standard during 
such events will ensure that sources have ample incentive to plan for 
and achieve compliance, and, thus, the SSM plan requirements are no 
longer necessary.
c. Compliance With Standards
    We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table to subpart 
SSSS (Table 2) entry for 40 CFR 63.6(f)(1) by changing the ``yes'' in 
column 3 to a ``no.'' The current language of 40 CFR 63.6(f)(1) exempts 
sources from non-opacity standards during periods of SSM. As discussed 
above, the Court in Sierra Club vacated the exemptions contained in 
this provision and held that the CAA requires that some CAA section 112 
standards apply continuously. Consistent with Sierra Club, the EPA is 
proposing to revise standards in this rule to apply at all times.
d. 40 CFR 63.5160 Performance Testing
    We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table to subpart 
SSSS (Table 2) entry for 40 CFR 63.7(e)(1) by changing the ``yes'' in 
column 3 to a ``no.'' Section 63.7(e)(1) describes performance testing 
requirements. The EPA is instead proposing to add a performance testing 
requirement at 40 CFR 63.5160(d)(2). The performance testing 
requirements we are proposing to add differ from the General Provisions 
performance testing provisions in several respects. The regulatory text 
does not include the language in 40 CFR 63.7(e)(1) that restated the 
SSM exemption and language that precluded startup and shutdown periods 
from being considered ``representative'' for purposes of performance 
testing. Also, the proposed performance testing provisions will not 
allow performance testing during startup or shutdown. As in 40 CFR 
63.7(e)(1), performance tests conducted under this subpart should not 
be conducted during malfunctions because conditions during malfunctions 
are often not representative of normal operating conditions. Section 
63.7(e) requires that the owner or operator maintain records of the 
process information necessary to document operating conditions during 
the test and include in such records an explanation to support that 
such conditions represent normal operation. The EPA is proposing to add 
language clarifying that the owner or operator must make such records 
available to the Administrator upon request.
e. Monitoring
    We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table to subpart 
SSSS (Table 2) entry for 40 CFR 63.8(a)(4) by changing the ``yes'' in 
column 3 to a ``no.'' Section 63.8(a)(4) describes additional 
monitoring requirements for control devices. Subpart SSSS of 40 CFR 
part 63 does not have monitoring requirements for flares.
    We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table to subpart 
SSSS (Table 2) entry for 40 CFR 63.8(c)(1) by changing the ``yes'' in 
column 3 to a ``no.'' The cross-references to the general duty and SSM 
plan requirements in those subparagraphs are not necessary in light of 
other requirements of 40 CFR 63.8 that require good air pollution 
control practices (40 CFR 63.8(c)(1)) and that set out the requirements 
of a quality control program for monitoring equipment (40 CFR 63.8(d)). 
Further, we are proposing to revise 40 CFR 63.5150(a) to add a 
requirement to maintain the monitoring equipment at all times in 
accordance with 40 CFR 63.5140(b) and keep the necessary parts readily 
available for routine repairs of the monitoring equipment, consistent 
with the requirements in 40 CFR 63.8(c)(1)(ii). The reference to 40 CFR 
63.8(c)(1)(ii) is no longer needed since it is redundant to the 
requirement in 40 CFR 63.5150(a).
    We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table to subpart 
SSSS (Table 2) entry for 40 CFR 63.8(c)(6) by changing the ``yes'' in 
column 3 to a ``no.'' The reference to 40 CFR 63.8(c)(6) is no longer 
needed since it is redundant to the requirement in 40 CFR 63.5170 that 
specifies the requirements for monitoring systems for capture systems 
and add-on control devices at sources using these to comply.
    We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table to subpart 
SSSS (Table 2) entry for 40 CFR 63.8(c)(8) by changing the ``yes'' in 
column 3 to a ``no.'' The reference to 40 CFR 63.8(c)(8) is no longer 
needed since it is redundant to the requirement in 40 CFR 63.5180(i) 
that requires reporting of CEMS out-of-control periods.
    We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table to subpart 
SSSS (Table 2) entry for 40 CFR 63.8(d)-(e) by changing the ``yes'' in 
column 3 to a ``no.'' The requirements for quality control program and 
performance evaluation of CMS are not required under 40 CFR part 63, 
subpart SSSS.
    We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table to subpart 
SSSS (Table 2) entry for 40 CFR 63.8(g) by changing the ``yes'' in 
column 3 to a ``no.'' The reference to 40 CFR 63.8(c)(8) is no longer 
needed since it is redundant to the requirement in 40 CFR 63.5170, 
63.5140, 63.5150, and 63.5150 that specify monitoring data reduction.
f. 40 CFR 63.5190 Recordkeeping
    We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table to subpart 
SSSS (Table 2) entry for 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(i) by changing the ``yes'' 
in column 3 to a ``no.'' Section 63.10(b)(2)(i) describes the 
recordkeeping requirements during startup and shutdown. These recording 
provisions are no longer necessary because the EPA is proposing that 
recordkeeping and reporting applicable to normal operations will apply 
to startup and shutdown. In the absence of special provisions 
applicable to startup and shutdown, such as a startup and shutdown 
plan, there is no reason to retain additional recordkeeping for startup 
and shutdown periods.
    We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table to subpart 
SSSS (Table 2) entry for 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(ii) by changing the ``yes'' 
in column 3 to a ``no.'' Section 63.10(b)(2)(ii) describes the 
recordkeeping requirements during a malfunction, requiring a record of 
``the occurrence and duration of each

[[Page 25939]]

malfunction.'' A similar record is already required in 40 CFR 
63.5190(a)(5), which requires a record of ``the date, time, and 
duration of each deviation,'' which the EPA is retaining. The 
regulatory text in 40 CFR 63.5190(a)(5) differs from the General 
Provisions in that the General Provisions requires the creation and 
retention of a record of the occurrence and duration of each 
malfunction of process, air pollution control, and monitoring 
equipment; whereas 40 CFR 63.5190(a)(5) applies to any failure to meet 
an applicable standard and is requiring that the source record the 
date, time, and duration of the failure rather than the ``occurrence.'' 
The EPA is also proposing to add to 40 CFR 63.5190(a)(5) a requirement 
that sources also keep records that include a list of the affected 
source or equipment and actions taken to minimize emissions, an 
estimate of the quantity of each regulated pollutant emitted over the 
emission limit for which the source failed to meet the standard, and a 
description of the method used to estimate the emissions. Examples of 
such methods would include product-loss calculations, mass balance 
calculations, measurements when available, or engineering judgment 
based on known process parameters (e.g., coating HAP content and 
application rates and control device efficiencies). The EPA proposes to 
require that sources keep records of this information to ensure that 
there is adequate information to allow the EPA to determine the 
severity of any failure to meet a standard, and to provide data that 
may document how the source met the general duty to minimize emissions 
when the source has failed to meet an applicable standard.
    We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table to subpart 
SSSS (Table 2) entry for 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(iv) by changing the ``yes'' 
in column 3 to a ``no.'' When applicable, the provision requires 
sources to record actions taken during SSM events when actions were 
inconsistent with their SSM plan. The requirement is no longer 
appropriate because SSM plans will no longer be required. The 
requirement previously applicable under 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(iv)(B) to 
record actions to minimize emissions and record corrective actions is 
now applicable by reference to 40 CFR 63.5190(a)(5).
    We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table to subpart 
SSSS (Table 2) entry for 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(v) by changing the ``yes'' 
in column 3 to a ``no.'' When applicable, the provision requires 
sources to record actions taken during SSM events to show that actions 
taken were consistent with their SSM plan. The requirement is no longer 
appropriate because SSM plans will no longer be required.
    We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table to subpart 
SSSS (Table 2) entry for 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(x)-(xiii) by changing the 
``yes'' in column 3 to a ``no.'' When applicable, the provision 
requires sources to record actions taken during SSM events to show that 
actions taken were consistent with their SSM plan. The requirement is 
no longer appropriate because SSM plans will no longer be required.
g. 40 CFR 63.5180 Reporting
    We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table to subpart 
SSSS (Table 2) entry for 40 CFR 63.10(d)(5) by changing the ``yes'' in 
column 3 to a ``no.'' Section 63.10(d)(5) describes the reporting 
requirements for startups, shutdowns, and malfunctions. To replace the 
General Provisions reporting requirement, the EPA is proposing to add 
reporting requirements to 40 CFR 63.5180(f). The replacement language 
differs from the General Provisions requirement in that it eliminates 
periodic SSM reports as a stand-alone report. We are proposing language 
that requires sources that fail to meet an applicable standard at any 
time to report the information concerning such events in the semi-
annual compliance report already required under this rule. Subpart SSSS 
of 40 CFR part 63 currently requires reporting of the date, time 
period, and cause of each deviation. We are clarifying in the rule 
that, if the cause of a deviation from a standard is unknown, this 
should be specified in the report. We are also proposing to change 
``date and time period'' or ``date and time'' to ``date, time, and 
duration'' (see proposed revisions to 40 CFR 63.5180(h)(2), 
63.5180(h)(3), 63.5180(i)(3), and 63.5180(i)(4)). Further, we are 
proposing that the report must also contain the number of deviations 
from the standard and a list of the affected sources or equipment. For 
deviation reports addressing deviations from an applicable emission 
limit in Table 1 to 40 CFR 63.5170 or operating limit in Table 1 to 40 
CFR part 63, subpart SSSS, we are proposing that the report also 
include an estimate of the quantity of each regulated pollutant emitted 
over any emission limit for which the source failed to meet the 
standard, and a description of the method used to estimate the 
emissions.
    Regarding the proposed new requirement discussed above to estimate 
the quantity of each regulated pollutant emitted over any emission 
limit for which the source failed to meet the standard, and a 
description of the method used to estimate the emissions, examples of 
such methods would include product-loss calculations, mass balance 
calculations, measurements when available, or engineering judgment 
based on known process parameters (e.g., coating HAP content and 
application rates and control device efficiencies). The EPA is 
proposing this requirement to ensure that there is adequate information 
to determine compliance, to allow the EPA to determine the severity of 
the failure to meet an applicable standard, and to provide data that 
may document how the source met the general duty to minimize emissions 
during a failure to meet an applicable standard.
    We will no longer require owners or operators to determine whether 
actions taken to correct a malfunction are consistent with an SSM plan, 
because plans would no longer be required. The proposed amendments, 
therefore, eliminate 40 CFR 63.5180(f)(1) that requires reporting of 
whether the source deviated from its SSM plan, including required 
actions to communicate with the Administrator, and the cross reference 
to 40 CFR 63.10(d)(5) that contains the description of the previously 
required SSM report format and submittal schedule from this section. 
These specifications are no longer necessary because the events will be 
reported in otherwise required reports with similar format and 
submittal requirements.
    We are proposing to remove the requirements in 40 CFR 63.5180(i)(6) 
that deviation reports must specify whether a deviation from an 
operating limit occurred during a period of SSM. We are also proposing 
to remove the requirements in 40 CFR 63.5180(i)(6) to break down the 
total duration of deviations into the startup and shutdown categories. 
As discussed above in this section, we are proposing to require 
reporting of the cause of each deviation. Further, the startup and 
shutdown categories no longer apply because these periods are proposed 
to be considered normal operation, as discussed in section IV.A.4.b.1 
of this preamble for the Surface Coating of Metal Cans source category, 
which also applies to this source category.
c. Technical Amendments to the Metal Coil NESHAP
    We propose to amend 40 CFR 63.5160(d)(1)(vi) to add the option of 
conducting EPA Method 18 of appendix A to 40 CFR part 60, ``Measurement 
of Gaseous Organic Compound Emissions

[[Page 25940]]

by Gas Chromatography,'' to measure and then subtract methane emissions 
from measured total gaseous organic mass emissions as carbon. 
Facilities using the emission rate with add-on control compliance 
option can use either EPA Method 25 or EPA Method 25A to measure 
control device destruction efficiency. Unlike EPA Method 25, EPA Method 
25A does not exclude methane from the measurement of organic emissions. 
Because exhaust streams from coating operations may contain methane 
from natural gas combustion, we are proposing to allow facilities the 
option to measure methane using EPA Method 18 and to subtract the 
methane from the emissions as part of their compliance calculations. We 
also propose to revise the format of references to test methods in 40 
CFR part 60. The current references in 40 CFR 63.5160(d)(1) to EPA 
Methods 1, 1A, 2, 2A, 2C, 2D, 2F, 2G, 3, 3A, 3B, 4, 25, and 25A specify 
that each method is in ``appendix A'' of 40 CFR part 60. Appendix A of 
40 CFR part 60 has been divided into appendices A-1 through A-8. We 
propose to revise each reference to appendix A to indicate which of the 
eight sections of appendix A applies to the method.
    We propose to amend 40 CFR 63.5160(b)(1)(i) and 63.5160(b)(4), 
which describe how to demonstrate compliance with the emission 
limitations using the compliant material option, to remove references 
to OSHA-defined carcinogens as specified in 29 CFR 1910.1200(d)(4). The 
reference to OSHA-defined carcinogens as specified in 29 CFR 
1910.1200(d)(4) is intended to specify which compounds must be included 
in calculating total organic HAP content of a coating material if they 
are present at 0.1 percent or greater by mass. We propose to remove 
this reference because 29 CFR 1910.1200(d)(4) has been amended and no 
longer readily defines which compounds are carcinogens. We propose to 
replace these references to OSHA-defined carcinogens at 29 CFR 
1910.1200(d)(4) with a list (in proposed new Table 3 to 40 CFR part 63, 
subpart SSSS) of those organic HAP that must be included in calculating 
total organic HAP content of a coating material if they are present at 
0.1 percent or greater by mass.
    We propose to include organic HAP in proposed Table 3 to 40 CFR 
part 63, subpart SSSS if they were categorized in the EPA's Prioritized 
Chronic Dose-Response Values for Screening Risk Assessments (dated May 
9, 2014) as a ``human carcinogen,'' ``probable human carcinogen,'' or 
``possible human carcinogen'' according to The Risk Assessment 
Guidelines of 1986 (EPA/600/8-87/045, August 1987),\32\ or as 
``carcinogenic to humans,'' ``likely to be carcinogenic to humans,'' or 
with ``suggestive evidence of carcinogenic potential'' according to the 
Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment (EPA/630/P-03/001F, March 
2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ See https://www.epa.gov/fera/dose-response-assessment-assessing-health-risks-associated-exposure-hazardous-air-pollutants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Current 40 CFR 63.5190 specifies records that must be maintained. 
We propose to add clarification to this provision at 40 CFR 63.5190(c) 
that specifies the allowance to retain electronic records applies to 
all records that were submitted as reports electronically via the EPA's 
CEDRI. We also propose to add text to the same provision clarifying 
that 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.
    We propose to clarify and harmonize the general requirement in 40 
CFR 63.5140(a) with the reporting requirement in 40 CFR 
63.5180(g)(2)(v) and 40 CFR 63.5180(h)(4) and the recordkeeping 
requirement in 40 CFR 63.5190(a)(5). Section 40 CFR 63.5140(a) 
currently states that, ``You must be in compliance with the standards 
in this subpart at all times . . .''. We propose to add clarification 
to this text to read; ``You must be in compliance with the applicable 
emission standards in 40 CFR 63.5120 and the operating limits in Table 
1 of this subpart at all times.''
    If there were no deviations from the applicable emission limit, 40 
CFR 63.5180(g)(2)(v) requires you to submit a semiannual compliance 
report containing specified information including, ``A statement that 
there were no deviations from the standards during the reporting 
period, and that no CEMS were inoperative, inactive, malfunctioning, 
out-of-control, repaired, or adjusted.'' We are proposing to revise the 
text to read, ``A statement that there were no deviations from the 
applicable emission limit in Sec.  63.5120 or the applicable operating 
limit(s) established according to Sec.  63.5121 during the reporting 
period, and that no CEMS were inoperative, inactive, malfunctioning, 
out-of-control, repaired, or adjusted.'' Conforming changes are also 
being proposed to the reporting requirement at 40 CFR 63.5180(h)(4) and 
the recordkeeping requirement at 40 CFR 63.5190(a)(5).
    We propose to revise one instance in 40 CFR 63.5160(e) regarding 
performance testing in which an erroneous rule citation, ``Sec.  
63.5170(h)(2) through (4),'' is specified. Section 63.5170 provides 
requirements to demonstrate compliance with the standards for each 
compliance option and refers back to the capture efficiency procedure 
in 40 CFR 63.5160(e). Sections 63.5170(h)(2) through (4) pertain to the 
mass of coatings and solvents used in the liquid-liquid material 
balance calculation of HAP in Equation 10 of the subpart and are 
unrelated to capture efficiency. Sections 63.5170(g)(2) through (4) 
include capture efficiency determinations which are not referenced by 
40 CFR 63.5160(e); therefore, we propose to change the erroneous 
citation from ``Sec.  63.5170(h)(2) through (4)'' to ``Sec.  
63.5170(g)(2) through (4).''
    We are proposing to amend 40 CFR 63.5130(a) to clarify that the 
compliance date for existing affected sources is June 10, 2005.
    We are proposing to amend 40 CFR 63.5160(d)(3)(ii)(D) to correct a 
typographical error in a reference to paragraphs ``(d)(3)(ii)(D)(1 
(3).'' The correct reference is to paragraphs (d)(3)(ii)(D)(1)-(3).
    We are proposing to amend 40 CFR 63.5170(c)(1) and (2) to correct 
the cross references to 40 CFR 63.5120(a)(1) or (2). The correct cross 
references are to 40 CFR 63.5120(a)(1) or (3), because these are the 
two compliance options relying on the overall organic HAP control 
efficiency and the oxidizer outlet HAP concentration.
    We are proposing to amend Equation 11 in 40 CFR 63.5170 so that the 
value calculated by the equation is correctly identified as 
``He'' instead of just ``e.''
d. Ongoing Emissions Compliance Demonstrations
    As part of an ongoing effort to improve compliance with various 
federal air emission regulations, the EPA reviewed the compliance 
demonstration requirements in the Surface Coating of Metal Coil NESHAP. 
Currently, if a source owner or operator chooses to comply with the 
standards using add-on controls, the results of an initial performance 
test are used to determine compliance; however, the rule does not 
require ongoing periodic performance testing for these emission capture 
systems and add-on controls. In this action we are proposing to require 
periodic testing of add-on control devices, in addition to the one-time 
initial emissions and capture efficiency testing, and ongoing 
temperature measurement, to ensure ongoing compliance with the 
standards.

[[Page 25941]]

    As described more fully in section IV.A.4.d of this preamble for 
the Surface Coating of Metal Cans source category, the EPA documented 
potential operational problems associated with control devices in 
several publications; \33\ the ICAC, in their comments on a separate 
rulemaking on the proposed revisions related to the NESHAP General 
Provisions (72 FR 69, January 3, 2007), commented that ongoing 
maintenance and checks of control devices are necessary in order to 
ensure emissions control technology, including both thermal and 
catalytic oxidizers, remains effective; \34\ and state websites list 
CAA enforcement information that further corroborates the potential 
problems identified by the EPA and ICAC comments and conclusions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ See Control Techniques for Volatile Organic Compound 
Emissions from Stationary Sources, EPA/453/R-92-018, December 1992, 
Control Technologies for Emissions from Stationary Sources, EPA/625/
6-91/014, June 1991, and Survey of Control for Low Concentration 
Organic Vapor Gas Streams, EPA-456/R-95-003, May 1995. These 
documents can be found in the Metal Cans and Metal Coil dockets for 
this action.
    \34\ See Docket Item No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2004-0094-0173, available at 
www.regulations.gov. A copy of the ICAC's comments on the proposed 
revisions to the General Provisions is also included in the Metal 
Cans and Metal Coil Dockets for this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Given the need for vigilance in maintaining equipment to stem 
degradation, the EPA is proposing to require periodic testing of add-on 
control devices, in addition to the one-time initial emissions and 
capture efficiency testing and ongoing temperature measurement, to 
ensure ongoing compliance with the Surface Coating of Metal Coil 
NESHAP.
    In this action, the EPA is requiring periodic performance testing 
of add-on control devices on a regular frequency (e.g., every 5 years) 
to ensure the equipment continues to operate properly for facilities 
using the emission rate with add-on controls compliance option. We note 
that about half of the state operating permits for existing metal coil 
coating sources already require such testing every 5 years synchronized 
with 40 CFR part 70 air operating permit renewals. This proposed 
periodic testing requirement includes an exception to the general 
requirement for periodic testing for facilities using the catalytic 
oxidizer control option at 40 CFR 63.5160(d)(3)(ii) and following the 
catalyst maintenance procedures in 40 CFR 63.5160(d)(3)(ii)(C). This 
exception is due to the catalyst maintenance procedures that already 
require annual testing of the catalyst and other maintenance procedures 
that provide ongoing demonstrations that the control system is 
operating properly and may, thus, be considered comparable to 
conducting a performance test.
    The proposed periodic performance testing requirement allows an 
exception from periodic testing for facilities using instruments to 
continuously measure emissions. Such CEMS would show actual emissions. 
The use of CEMS to demonstrate compliance would obviate the need for 
periodic oxidizer testing. Moreover, installation and operation of a 
CEMS with a timesharing component, such that values from more than one 
oxidizer exhaust could be tabulated in a recurring frequency, could 
prove less expensive (estimated to have an annual cost below $15,000) 
than ongoing oxidizer testing.
    This proposed requirement would not require periodic testing or 
CEMS monitoring of facilities using the ``as purchased'' or ``as 
applied'' compliant coatings options because these compliance options 
do not use any add-on controls or control efficiency measurements in 
the compliance calculations.
    The proposed periodic performance testing requirement would require 
that facilities complying with the standards using emission capture 
systems and add-on controls and which are not already on a 5-year 
testing schedule to conduct the first of the periodic performance tests 
within 3 years of the effective date of the revised standards. 
Afterward, they would conduct the periodic testing before they renew 
their operating permits, but no longer than 5 years following the 
previous performance test. Additionally, facilities that have already 
tested as a condition of their permit within the last 2 years before 
the effective date would be permitted to maintain their current 5-year 
schedule and not be required to move up the date of the next test to 
the 3-year date specified above. This proposed requirement would 
require periodic air emissions testing to measure organic HAP 
destruction or removal efficiency at the inlet and outlet of the add-on 
control device, or measurement of the control device outlet 
concentration of organic HAP. The emissions would be measured as total 
gaseous organic mass emissions as carbon using either EPA Method 25 or 
25A of appendix A-7 to 40 CFR part 60, which are the methods currently 
required for the initial compliance demonstration.
    We estimate that the cost to perform a control device emissions 
destruction or removal efficiency test using EPA Method 25 or 25A would 
be approximately $19,000 per control device. The cost estimate is 
included in the memorandum titled Draft Costs/Impacts of the 40 CFR 
part 63 subparts KKKK and SSSS Monitoring Review Revisions, in the 
Metal Coil Docket. We have reviewed the operating permits for 
facilities subject to the Surface Coating of Metal Coil NESHAP, and we 
found that about one-half of the affected sources currently using 
emission capture systems and add-on controls are required to conduct 
periodic control device performance tests as a condition of their 40 
CFR part 70 operating permits. We estimate that 21 metal coil coating 
facilities with 30 add-on control devices currently are not required to 
conduct periodic testing of their control devices as a condition of 
their permit renewal. Periodic performance tests ensure that all 
control systems used to comply with the NESHAP would be properly 
maintained over time, thereby reducing the potential for acute 
emissions episodes and non-compliance.
    We are requesting comment on adding periodic testing of add-on 
control devices to the Surface Coating of Metal Coil NESHAP and on the 
suggested 5-year schedule for the periodic testing.
e. IBR of Alternative Test Methods Under 1 CFR Part 51
    The EPA is proposing new and updated test methods for the Surface 
Coating of Metal Coil NESHAP that include IBR. In accordance with 
requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is proposing to add the following 
optional EPA method and incorporate by reference the VCS described in 
the amendments to 40 CFR 63.14:
     EPA Method 18 of appendix A to 40 CFR part 60, Measurement 
of Gaseous Organic Compound Emissions by Gas Chromatography, proposed 
for 40 CFR 63.5160(d)(vi);
     ASTM Method D1475-13, Standard Test Method for Density of 
Liquid Coatings, Inks, and Related Products, proposed to be IBR 
approved for 40 CFR 63.5160(c);
     ASTM D2111-10 (2015), Standard Test Methods for Specific 
Gravity of Halogenated Organic Solvents and Their Admixtures, proposed 
to be IBR approved for 40 CFR 63.5160(c);
     ASTM D2369-10 (2015), Test Method for Volatile Content of 
Coatings, proposed to be IBR approved for 40 CFR 63.5160(b)(2);
     ASTM D2697-03 (2014), Standard Test Method for Volume 
Nonvolatile Matter in Clear or Pigmented Coatings, proposed to be IBR 
approved for 40 CFR 63.5160(c); and

[[Page 25942]]

     ASTM D6093-97 (2016), Standard Test Method for Percent 
Volume Nonvolatile Matter in Clear or Pigmented Coatings Using Helium 
Gas Pycnometer, proposed to be IBR approved for 40 CFR 63.5160(c).
    Older versions of ASTM methods D2697 and D6093 were incorporated by 
reference when the Surface Coating of Metal Coil NESHAP was originally 
promulgated (67 FR 39794, June 10, 2002). We are proposing to replace 
the older versions of these methods with updated versions, which 
requires IBR revisions. The updated version of the method replaces the 
older version in the same paragraph of the rule text. We are also 
proposing the addition of EPA Method 18 and incorporating by reference 
ASTM methods D1475, D2111, and D2369 to the Surface Coating of Metal 
Coil NESHAP for the first time in this rulemaking. Refer to section 
VIII.J of this preamble for further discussion of these VCS.
5. What compliance dates are we proposing?
    The EPA is proposing that affected sources must comply with all of 
the amendments, with the exception of the proposed electronic format 
for submitting semiannual compliance reports, no later than 181 days 
after the effective date of the final rule, or upon startup, whichever 
is later. All affected facilities would have to continue to meet the 
current requirements of 40 CFR part 63, subpart SSSS until the 
applicable compliance date of the amended rule. The final action is not 
expected to be a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2), so the 
effective date of the final rule will be the promulgation date as 
specified in CAA section 112(d)(10).
    For existing sources, we are proposing two changes that would 
impact ongoing compliance requirements for 40 CFR part 63, subpart 
SSSS. As discussed elsewhere in this preamble, we are proposing to add 
a requirement that notifications, performance test results, and 
semiannual compliance reports be submitted electronically. We are 
proposing that the semiannual compliance report be submitted 
electronically using a new template, which is available for review and 
comment as part of this action. We are also proposing to change the 
requirements for SSM by removing the exemption from the requirements to 
meet the standard during SSM periods and by removing the requirement to 
develop and implement an SSM plan. Our experience with similar 
industries that are required to convert reporting mechanisms to install 
necessary hardware and software, become familiar with the process of 
submitting performance test results electronically through the EPA's 
CEDRI, test these new electronic submission capabilities, and reliably 
employ electronic reporting shows that a time period of a minimum of 90 
days, and, more typically, 180 days is generally necessary to 
successfully accomplish these revisions. Our experience with similar 
industries further shows that this sort of regulated facility generally 
requires a time period of 180 days to read and understand the amended 
rule requirements; to evaluate their operations to ensure that they can 
meet the standards during periods of startup and shutdown as defined in 
the rule and make any necessary adjustments; and to update their 
operation, maintenance, and monitoring plan to reflect the revised 
requirements. The EPA recognizes the confusion that multiple different 
compliance dates for individual requirements would create and the 
additional burden such an assortment of dates would impose. From our 
assessment of the timeframe needed for compliance with the entirety of 
the revised requirements, the EPA considers a period of 180 days to be 
the most expeditious compliance period practicable and, thus, is 
proposing that existing affected sources be in compliance with all of 
this regulation's revised requirements within 181 days of the 
regulation's effective date.
    We solicit comment on these proposed compliance periods, and we 
specifically request submission of information from sources in this 
source category regarding specific actions that would need to be 
undertaken to comply with the proposed amended requirements and the 
time needed to make the adjustments for compliance with any of the 
revised requirements. We note that information provided may result in 
changes to the proposed compliance dates.

V. Summary of Cost, Environmental, and Economic Impacts

A. What are the affected sources?

    Currently, five major sources subject to the Surface Coating of 
Metal Cans NESHAP are operating in the United States. The affected 
source under the NESHAP is the collection of all coating operations; 
all storage containers and mixing vessels in which coatings, thinners, 
and cleaning materials are stored or mixed; all manual and automated 
equipment and containers used for conveying coatings, thinners, and 
cleaning materials; and all storage containers and all manual and 
automated equipment and containers used for conveying waste materials 
generated by a coating operation. A coating operation is defined as the 
equipment used to apply coating to a metal can or end (including 
decorative tins), or metal crown or closure, and to dry or cure the 
coating after application. A coating operation always includes at least 
the point at which a coating is applied and all subsequent points in 
the affected source where organic HAP emissions from that coating 
occur. There may be multiple coating operations in an affected source.
    Currently, 48 major sources subject to the Surface Coating of Metal 
Coil NESHAP are operating in the United States. The affected source 
under the NESHAP is the collection of all the coil coating lines at a 
facility, including the equipment used to apply an organic coating to 
the surface of metal coil. A coil coating line includes a web unwind or 
feed section, a series of one or more work stations, any associated 
curing oven, wet section, and quench station. A coil coating line does 
not include ancillary operations such as mixing/thinning, cleaning, 
wastewater treatment, and storage of coating material. Metal coil is a 
continuous metal strip that is at least 0.15 mm (0.006 inch) thick, 
which is packaged in a roll or coil prior to coating. Material less 
than 0.15 mm (0.006 inch) thick is considered metal foil, not metal 
coil. The NESHAP applies to coating lines on which more than 15 percent 
of the material coated, based on surface area, meets the definition of 
metal coil. There may be multiple coating operations in an affected 
source.

B. What are the air quality impacts?

    At the current level of control, estimated emissions of volatile 
organic HAP from the Surface Coating of Metal Cans source category are 
approximately 77 tpy. Current estimated emissions of volatile organic 
HAP from the Surface Coating of Metal Coil source category are 
approximately 291 tpy.
    The proposed amendments require that all 53 major sources in the 
Surface Coating of Metal Cans and Surface Coating of Metal Coil source 
categories comply with the relevant emission standards at all times, 
including periods of SSM. We were unable to quantify the emissions that 
occur during periods of SSM or the specific emissions reductions that 
would occur as a result of this action. However, eliminating the SSM 
exemption has the potential to reduce emissions by requiring facilities 
to meet the applicable standard during SSM periods.
    Indirect or secondary air emissions impacts are impacts that would 
result

[[Page 25943]]

from the increased electricity usage associated with the operation of 
control devices (e.g., increased secondary emissions of criteria 
pollutants from power plants). Energy impacts consist of the 
electricity and steam needed to operate control devices and other 
equipment. The proposed amendments would have no effect on the energy 
needs of the affected facilities in either of the two source categories 
and would, therefore, have no indirect or secondary air emissions 
impacts.

C. What are the cost impacts?

    We estimate that each facility in these two source categories will 
experience costs as a result of these proposed amendments that are 
estimated as part of the reporting and recordkeeping costs. Each 
facility will experience costs to read and understand the rule 
amendments. Costs associated with elimination of the SSM exemption were 
estimated as part of the reporting and recordkeeping costs and include 
time for re-evaluating previously developed SSM record systems. Costs 
associated with the requirement to electronically submit notifications 
and semi-annual compliance reports using CEDRI were estimated as part 
of the reporting and recordkeeping costs and include time for becoming 
familiar with CEDRI and the reporting template for semi-annual 
compliance reports. The recordkeeping and reporting costs are presented 
in section V.III.C of this preamble.
    We are also proposing a requirement for performance testing no less 
frequently than every 5 years for sources in each source category using 
the add-on controls compliance options. We estimate that one facility 
subject to the Metal Can Surface Coating NESHAP and using three add-on 
control devices would incur costs to conduct control device performance 
testing because it is using the emission rate with add-on controls 
compliance option and is not required by its permit to conduct testing 
every 5 years. We estimate that 21 major source facilities subject to 
the Surface Coating of Metal Coil NESHAP would incur costs to conduct 
periodic testing because they are currently using the emission rate 
with add-on controls compliance option and are not required by their 
permits to conduct testing every 5 years. These 21 metal coil coating 
facilities have a total of 30 add-on controls. This total does not 
include facilities in the Surface Coating of Metal Coil source category 
that have add-on controls and are currently required to perform 
periodic performance testing as a condition of their state operating 
permit. The cost for a facility to conduct a destruction or removal 
efficiency performance test using EPA Method 25 or 25A is estimated to 
be about $19,000, with tests of additional control devices at the same 
facility costing 25 percent less due to reduced travel costs. The total 
cost for the one metal can surface coating facility to test three add-
on control devices in a single year would be $47,000. The total cost 
for all 21 facilities to test 30 add-on control devices in a single 
year, plus two retests to account for 5 percent of control devices 
failing to pass the first test, would be $560,000. The total annualized 
testing cost is approximately $11,000 per year for the Metal Can 
Surface Coating source category, and $130,000 per year for the Metal 
Coil Surface Coating source category, including retests. In addition to 
the testing costs, each facility performing a test will have an 
additional $5,500 in reporting costs per facility in the year in which 
the test occurs. For further information on the potential costs, see 
the cost tables in the memoranda titled Estimated Costs/Impacts of the 
40 CFR part 63 Subparts KKKK and SSSS Monitoring Review Revisions, 
February 2019, and the Economic Impact and Small Business Screening 
Assessments for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Metal Cans Coating Plants 
(Subpart KKKK) and the Economic Impact and Small Business Screening 
Assessments for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Metal Coil Coating Plants 
(Subpart SSSS) in the Metal Cans and Metal Coil Dockets.

D. What are the economic impacts?

    The economic impact analysis is designed to inform decision makers 
about the potential economic consequences of a regulatory action. For 
the current proposals, the EPA estimated the cost of becoming familiar 
with the rule and re-evaluating previously developed SSM record systems 
and performing periodic emissions testing at certain facilities with 
add-on controls that are not already required to perform testing. To 
assess the maximum potential impact, the largest cost expected to be 
experienced in any one year is compared to the total sales for the 
ultimate owner of the affected facilities to estimate the total burden 
for each facility.
    For the proposed revisions to the NESHAP for the Surface Coating of 
Metal Cans, the total annualized cost is estimated to be $11,000 for 
performance testing in year 3 for the five affected entities. The five 
affected facilities are owned by three different parent companies, and 
the total costs associated with the proposed requirements range from 
0.00002 to 0.77 percent of annual sales revenue per ultimate owner. 
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.
    For the proposed revisions to the NESHAP for the Surface Coating of 
Metal Coil, the total annualized cost is estimated to be $130,000 for 
performance testing in year 3 for the 48 affected entities. The 48 
affected facilities are owned by 25 different parent companies, and the 
total costs associated with the proposed requirements range from 
0.00001 to 0.28 percent of annual sales revenue per ultimate owner. 
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.
    The EPA also 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. One of 
the facilities potentially affected by the proposed revisions to the 
NESHAP for the Surface Coating of Metal Cans is a small entity. Ten of 
the facilities potentially affected by the proposed revisions to the 
NESHAP for the Surface Coating of Metal Coil are small entities. 
However, the annualized costs associated with the proposed requirements 
for the seven ultimate owners of these eleven affected small entities 
range from 0.0029 to 0.77 percent of annual sales revenues per ultimate 
owner. Therefore, there are no significant economic impacts on a 
substantial number of small entities from these proposed amendments.
    More information and details of this analysis is provided in the 
technical documents titled Economic Impact and Small Business Screening 
Assessments for Proposed Amendments to the National Emission Standards 
for Hazardous Air Pollutants for the Surface Coating of Metal Cans 
(Subpart KKKK) and Economic Impact and Small Business Screening 
Assessments for Proposed Amendments to the National Emission Standards 
for Hazardous Air Pollutants for the Surface Coating of Metal Coil 
(Subpart SSSS), available in the Metal Cans and Metal Coil Dockets, 
respectively.

E. What are the benefits?

    As stated above in section V.B. of this preamble, we were unable to 
quantify the specific emissions reductions associated with eliminating 
the SSM exemption, although this proposed change has the potential to 
reduce emissions of volatile organic HAP.

[[Page 25944]]

    Because these proposed amendments are not considered economically 
significant, as defined by Executive Order 12866, we did not monetize 
the benefits of reducing these emissions. This does not mean that there 
are no benefits associated with the potential reduction in volatile 
organic HAP from this rule.

VI. Request for Comments

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

VII. Submitting Data Corrections

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

    1. Within this downloaded file, enter suggested revisions to the 
data fields appropriate for that information.
    2. Fill in the commenter information fields for each suggested 
revision (i.e., commenter name, commenter organization, commenter 
email address, commenter phone number, and revision comments).
    3. Gather documentation for any suggested emissions revisions 
(e.g., performance test reports, material balance calculations).
    4. Send the entire downloaded file with suggested revisions in 
Microsoft[supreg] Access format and all accompanying documentation 
to the Metal Cans Docket or Metal Coil Docket, as applicable, 
through the method described in the ADDRESSES section of this 
preamble.
    5. If you are providing comments on a single facility or 
multiple facilities, you need only submit one file for all 
facilities. The file should contain all suggested changes for all 
sources at that facility (or facilities). We request that all data 
revision comments be submitted in the form of updated 
Microsoft[supreg] Excel files that are generated by the 
Microsoft[supreg] Access file. These files are provided on the RTR 
website at https://www3.epa.gov/ttn/atw/rrisk/rtrpg.html.

VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

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

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

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

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

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

C. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

    The information collection activities in this proposal have been 
submitted for approval to OMB under the PRA, as discussed for each 
source category covered by this proposal in sections VIII.C.1 through 
2.
1. Surface Coating of Metal Cans
    The ICR document that the EPA prepared has been assigned EPA ICR 
number 2079.07. You can find a copy of the ICR in the Metal Cans Docket 
(Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0684), and it is briefly summarized 
here.
    As part of the RTR for the Surface Coating of Metal Cans NESHAP, 
the EPA is not proposing to revise the emission limit requirements. The 
EPA is proposing to revise the SSM provisions of the rule and proposing 
the use of electronic data reporting for future performance test data 
submittals, notifications, and reports. This information is being 
collected to assure compliance with 40 CFR part 63, subpart KKKK.
    Respondents/affected entities: Facilities performing surface 
coating of metal cans.
    Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (40 CFR part 63, 
subpart KKKK).
    Estimated number of respondents: In the 3 years after the 
amendments are final, approximately five respondents per year would be 
subject to the NESHAP and no additional respondents are expected to 
become subject to the NESHAP during that period.
    Frequency of response: The total number of responses in year 1 is 
15 and in year 3 is one. Year 2 would have no responses.
    Total estimated burden: The average annual burden to the five metal 
can facilities over the 3 years if the amendments are finalized is 
estimated to be 54 hours (per year). The average annual burden to the 
Agency over the 3 years after the amendments are final is estimated to 
be 23 hours (per year). Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).
    Total estimated cost: The average annual cost to the metal can 
facilities is $6,200 in labor costs in the first 3 years after the 
amendments are final. The average annual capital and operation and 
maintenance (O&M) costs is $15,600. The total average annual Agency 
cost over the first 3 years after the amendments are final is estimated 
to be $1,090.
2. Surface Coating of Metal Coil
    The ICR document that the EPA prepared has been assigned EPA ICR 
number 1957.09. You can find a copy of the ICR in the Metal Coil Docket 
(Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0685), and it is briefly summarized 
here.
    As part of the RTR for the Surface Coating of Metal Coil NESHAP, 
the EPA is not proposing to revise the emission limit requirements. The 
EPA is proposing to revise the SSM provisions of the rule and proposing 
the use of electronic data reporting for future performance test data 
submittals, notifications, and reports. This information is being 
collected to assure compliance with 40 CFR part 63, subpart SSSS.
    Respondents/affected entities: Facilities performing surface 
coating of metal coil.
    Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (40 CFR part 63, 
subpart SSSS).
    Estimated number of respondents: In the 3 years after the 
amendments are final, approximately 48 respondents per year will be 
subject to the NESHAP and no additional respondents are expected to 
become subject to the NESHAP during that period.
    Frequency of response: The total number of responses in year 1 is 
144 and in year 3 is 69. Years 2 would have no responses.
    Total estimated burden: The average annual burden to the 48 metal 
coil coating facilities over the 3 years if the amendments are 
finalized is estimated to be 738 hours (per year). The average annual 
burden to the Agency over the 3

[[Page 25945]]

years after the amendments are final is estimated to be 179 hours (per 
year) for the Agency. Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).
    Total estimated cost: The average annual cost to the 48 metal coil 
coating facilities is $85,000 in labor costs and $186,000 in capital 
and O&M costs in the first 3 years after the amendments are final. The 
average annual Agency cost over the first 3 years after the amendments 
are final is estimated to be $8,530.
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required 
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a 
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for the 
EPA's regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9.
    Submit your comments on the Agency's need for this information, the 
accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods 
for minimizing respondent burden to the EPA using the dockets 
identified at the beginning of this rule. You may also send your ICR-
related comments to OMB's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs 
via email to [email protected], Attention: Desk Officer for 
the EPA. Since OMB is required to make a decision concerning the ICR 
between 30 and 60 days after receipt, OMB must receive comments no 
later than July 5, 2019. The EPA will respond to any ICR-related 
comments in the final rule.

D. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

    I certify that this action will not have a significant economic 
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. The 
annualized costs associated with the proposed requirements in this 
action for the affected small entities is described in section V.D. 
above and additional detail is provided in the economic impact 
memorandums associated with this action.

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

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

F. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

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

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

    This action does not have tribal implications as specified in 
Executive Order 13175. No tribal facilities are known to be engaged in 
any of the industries that would be affected by this action (metal can 
surface coating and metal coil surface coating). 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 C, IV.A.1 and 2, IV.B.1 and 2, and IV.C.1 and 2 of 
this preamble and are further documented in the Metal Cans Risk 
Assessment Report and the Metal Coil Risk Assessment Report in the 
Metal Cans Docket and the Metal Coil Docket, respectively.

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

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

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

    This rulemaking involves technical standards. The EPA is proposing 
to amend the Surface Coating of Metal Coil NESHAP in this action to 
provide owners and operators with the option of conducting two new 
methods: EPA Method 18 of appendix A to 40 CFR part 60, ``Measurement 
of Gaseous Organic Compound Emissions by Gas Chromatography'' to 
measure and subtract methane emissions from measured total gaseous 
organic mass emissions as carbon, and ASTM Method D1475-13, ``Standard 
Test Method for Density of Liquid Coatings, Inks, and Related 
Products.'' We are proposing to add these two standards to the Surface 
Coating of Metal Coil NESHAP only, as these methods are already 
provided in the Surface Coating of Metal Cans NESHAP.
    The EPA is also proposing to amend the Surface Coating of Metal 
Cans NESHAP to update three ASTM test methods and amend the Surface 
Coating of Metal Coil NESHAP to update two ASTM test methods. We are 
proposing to update ASTM Method D1475-90, ``Standard Test Method for 
Density of Liquid Coatings, Inks, and Related Products,'' in the 
Surface Coating of Metal Cans NESHAP by incorporating by reference ASTM 
Method D1475-13. The updated version, ASTM Method D1475-13 clarifies 
units of measure and reduces the number of determinations required. We 
are proposing to update ASTM Method D2697-86 (1998), ``Standard Test 
Method for Volume Nonvolatile Matter in Clear or Pigmented Coatings,'' 
in both the Surface Coating of Metal Cans and the Surface Coating of 
Metal Coil NESHAP by incorporating by reference ASTM D2697-03 (2014), 
which is the updated version of the previously approved method. We are 
also proposing to update ASTM Method D6093-97 (2003), ``Standard Test 
Method for Percent Volume Nonvolatile Matter in Clear or Pigmented 
Coatings Using Helium Gas Pycnometer,'' in both the Surface Coating of 
Metal Cans and the Surface Coating of Metal Coil NESHAP by 
incorporating by reference ASTM D6093-97 (2016), which is the updated 
version of the previously approved method. ASTM D2697-03 (2014) is a 
test method that can be used to determine the volume of nonvolatile 
matter in clear and pigmented coatings and ASTM D6093-97 (2016) is a 
test method that can be used to determine the percent volume of 
nonvolatile matter in clear and pigmented coatings.
    For the Surface Coating of Metal Cans NESHAP and the Surface 
Coating of Metal Coil NESHAP, the EPA proposes to incorporate by 
reference the following VCS as an alternative to EPA Method 24 for the 
determination of the volatile matter content in surface coatings:
     ASTM D2369-10 (2015), ``Test Method for Volatile Content 
of Coatings.'' This test method allows for more accurate results for 
multi-component chemical resistant coatings.
    For the Surface Coating of Metal Cans and the Surface Coating of 
Metal Coil NESHAP, the EPA proposes to incorporate by reference the 
following VCS for the determination of the specific gravity of 
halogenated organic solvents in surface coatings:
     ASTM D2111-10 (2015), ``Standard Test Methods for Specific 
Gravity of Halogenated Organic Solvents and Their

[[Page 25946]]

Admixtures'' (corrected to a standard temperature). This test method 
allows measurement of specific gravity at different temperatures that 
are chosen by the analyst.
    The ASTM standards are available from the American Society for 
Testing and Materials (ASTM), 100 Barr Harbor Drive, Post Office Box 
C700, West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959. See https://www.astm.org/.
    The EPA is not proposing ASTM D1963-85 (1996), ``Standard Test 
Method for Specific Gravity of Drying Oils, Varnishes, Resins, and 
Related Materials at 25/25 C,'' as an alternative for the determination 
of the specific gravity because ASTM has withdrawn the method without 
replacement. The EPA is also not proposing CARB Method 310, 
``Determination of Volatile Organic Compounds in Consumer Products and 
Reactive Organic Compounds in Aerosol Coating Products,'' as an 
alternative to EPA Method 24 because the EPA has approved the method 
only for consumer products and aerosol coatings, which do not apply to 
the rulemakings or source categories addressed in this action.
    Although we identified another 21 VCS for the Surface Coating of 
Metal Cans and another 20 VCS for the Surface Coating of Metal Coil as 
being acceptable alternatives for methods included in these rules, we 
are not proposing to add these VCS in these rulemakings. See the 
memoranda titled Voluntary Consensus Standard Results for Surface 
Coating of Metal Cans, August 16, 2018, and Voluntary Consensus 
Standard Results for Surface Coating of Metal Coil, August 16, 2018, in 
the Metal Cans Docket and the Metal Coil Docket, respectively, for the 
reasons for these determinations.
    Under 40 CFR 63.7(f) and 40 CFR 63.8(f) of subpart A of the General 
Provisions, a source may apply to the EPA for permission to use 
alternative test methods or alternative monitoring requirements in 
place of any required testing methods, performance specifications, or 
procedures in the final rule or any amendments.
    The EPA welcomes comments on this aspect of the proposed rulemaking 
and, specifically, invites the public to identify potentially 
applicable VCS and to explain why such standards should be used in this 
regulation.

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

    The EPA believes that this action does not have disproportionately 
high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority 
populations, low-income populations, and/or indigenous peoples, as 
specified in Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    The documentation for this decision is contained in sections IV.A.1 
and 2 and sections IV.B.1 and 2 of this preamble and the technical 
reports titled Risk and Technology Review--Analysis of Demographic 
Factors for Populations Living Near Surface Coating of Metal Cans 
Source Category Operations, May 2018, and Risk and Technology Review--
Analysis of Demographic Factors for Populations Living Near Surface 
Coating of Metal Coil Source Category Operations, May 2018, available 
in the Metal Cans Docket and the Metal Coil Docket, respectively.
    As discussed in sections IV.A.1 and IV.B.1 of this preamble, we 
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 km and within 5 km). In this 
analysis, we evaluated the distribution of HAP-related cancer risks and 
noncancer hazards from the Surface Coating of Metal Cans and the 
Surface Coating of Metal Coil source categories across different 
social, demographic, and economic groups within the populations living 
near operations identified as having the highest risks.
    The results of the Surface Coating of Metal Cans source category 
demographic analysis indicate that approximately 700 people are exposed 
to a cancer risk at or above 1-in-1 million and no one is exposed to a 
chronic noncancer HI greater than 1. None of the percentages of the at-
risk populations are higher than their respective nationwide 
percentages.
    The proximity results (irrespective of risk) indicate that the 
population percentages for six demographic categories located within 5 
km of metal can coating facilities are higher than their respective 
nationwide percentages.
    The results of the Surface Coating of Metal Coil source category 
demographic analysis indicate that emissions from the source category 
expose approximately 19,000 people to a cancer risk at or above 1-in-1 
million and no one is exposed to a chronic noncancer HI greater than 1. 
The percentages of the at-risk population in the following specific 
demographic groups are higher than their respective nationwide 
percentages: ``African American,'' and ``Below the Poverty Level.''
    The proximity results (irrespective of risk) indicate that the 
population percentages for the ``Below the Poverty Level'' demographic 
category within 5 km of metal coil coating facilities and the ``African 
American'' demographic category within 50 km of metal coil coating 
facilities are slightly higher than their respective nationwide 
percentages.
    We do not expect this proposal to achieve significant reductions in 
HAP emissions. The EPA anticipates that this action does not have 
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental 
effects on minority populations, low-income populations, and/or 
indigenous peoples, as specified in Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, 
February 16, 1994) because it does not significantly affect the level 
of protection provided to human health or the environment. The 
documentation for this decision is contained in section IV of this 
preamble and the technical reports titled Risk and Technology Review--
Analysis of Demographic Factors for Populations Living Near Surface 
Coating of Metal Cans Source Category Operations, May 2018, and Risk 
and Technology Review--Analysis of Demographic Factors for Populations 
Living Near Surface Coating of Metal Coil Source Category Operations, 
May 2018, which are available in the Metal Cans and Metal Coil Dockets, 
respectively.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Hazardous 
substances, Incorporation by reference, Surface coating of metal cans, 
Surface coating of metal coil, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements, Appendix A.

    Dated: May 2, 2019.
Andrew R. Wheeler,
Administrator.
    For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Environmental 
Protection Agency proposes to amend 40 CFR part 63 as follows:

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

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

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

Subpart A--General Provisions

0
2. Section 63.14 is amended by revising paragraphs (h)(13), (21), (26), 
(29), (30), (78) and (79) to read as follows:


Sec.  63.14  Incorporations by reference.

* * * * *
    (h) * * *
    (13) ASTM Method D1475-13, Standard Test Method for Density of

[[Page 25947]]

Liquid Coatings, Inks, and Related Products, approved November 1, 2013, 
IBR approved for Sec. Sec.  63.3521(c), 63.3531(c), 63.4141(b) and (c), 
63.4741(b) and (c), 63.4751(c), 63.4941(b) and (c), and 63.5160(c).
* * * * *
    (21) ASTM D2111-10 (Reapproved 2015), Standard Test Methods for 
Specific Gravity of Halogenated Organic Solvents and Their Admixtures, 
approved June 1, 2015, IBR approved for Sec. Sec.  63.3531(c), 
63.4141(b) and (c), 63.4741(a), and 63.5160(c).
* * * * *
    (26) ASTM D2369-10 (Reapproved 2015)\e\, Standard Test Method for 
Volatile Content of Coatings, approved June 1, 2015, IBR approved for 
Sec. Sec.  63.3521(a), 63.3541(i)(3), 63.4141(a) and (b), 63.4161(h), 
63.4321(e), 63.4341(e), 63.4351(d), 63.4741(a), 63.4941(a) and (b), 
63.4961(j), and 63.5160(b).
* * * * *
    (29) ASTM D2697-86 (Reapproved 1998), Standard Test Method for 
Volume Nonvolatile Matter in Clear or Pigmented Coatings, IBR approved 
for Sec. Sec.  63.3161(f), 63.3941(b), 63.4141(b), 63.4741(b), and 
63.4941(b).
    (30) ASTM D2697-03 (Reapproved 2014), Standard Test Method for 
Volume Nonvolatile Matter in Clear or Pigmented Coatings, approved July 
1, 2014, IBR approved for Sec. Sec.  63.3521(b), 63.4141(b), 63.4741(a) 
and (b), 63.4941(b), and 63.5160(c).
* * * * *
    (78) ASTM D6093-97 (Reapproved 2003), Standard Test Method for 
Percent Volume Nonvolatile Matter in Clear or Pigmented Coatings Using 
a Helium Gas Pycnometer, IBR approved for Sec. Sec.  63.3161 and 
63.3941.
    (79) ASTM D6093-97 (Reapproved 2016), Standard Test Method for 
Percent Volume Nonvolatile Matter in Clear or Pigmented Coatings Using 
a Helium Gas Pycnometer, Approved December 1, 2016, IBR approved for 
Sec. Sec.  63.3521(b), 63.4141(b), 63.4741(a) and (b), 63.4941(b), and 
63.5160(c).
* * * * *

Subpart KKKK--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air 
Pollutants: Surface Coating of Metal Cans

0
3. Section 63.3481 is amended by revising paragraph (c)(5) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  63.3481  Am I subject to this subpart?

    (c) * * *
    (5) Surface coating of metal pails, buckets, and drums. Subpart 
MMMM of this part covers surface coating of all miscellaneous metal 
parts and products not explicitly covered by another subpart.
0
4. Section 63.3492 is amended by revising paragraph (b) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  63.3492  What operating limits must I meet?

* * * * *
    (b) For any controlled coating operation(s) on which you use the 
emission rate with add-on controls option or the control efficiency/
outlet concentration option, except those for which you use a solvent 
recovery system and conduct a liquid-liquid material balance according 
to Sec.  63.3541(i), you must meet the operating limits specified in 
Table 4 to this subpart. Those operating limits apply to the emission 
capture and control systems for the coating operation(s) used for 
purposes of complying with this subpart. You must establish the 
operating limits during the performance tests required in Sec.  63.3540 
or Sec.  63.3550 according to the requirements in Sec.  63.3546 or 
Sec.  63.3556. You must meet the operating limits established during 
the most recent performance tests required in Sec.  63.3540 or Sec.  
63.3550 at all times after they have been established during the 
performance test.
* * * * *
0
5. Section 63.3500 is amended by revising paragraphs (a)(1), (b), and 
(c) to read as follows:


Sec.  63.3500  What are my general requirements for complying with this 
subpart?

    (a) * * *
    (1) Any coating operation(s) for which you use the compliant 
material option or the emission rate without add-on controls option, as 
specified in Sec.  63.3491(a) and (b), must be in compliance with the 
applicable emission limit in Sec.  63.3490 at all times.
* * * * *
    (b) Before [DATE 181 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE 
IN THE Federal Register], you must always operate and maintain your 
affected source, including all air pollution control and monitoring 
equipment you use for purposes of complying with this subpart, 
according to the provisions in Sec.  63.6(e)(1)(i). On and after [DATE 
181 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE Federal 
Register], at all times, the owner or operator must operate and 
maintain any affected source, including associated air pollution 
control equipment and monitoring equipment, in a manner consistent with 
safety and good air pollution control practices for minimizing 
emissions. The general duty to minimize emissions does not require the 
owner or operator to make any further efforts to reduce emissions if 
levels required by the applicable standard have been achieved. 
Determination of whether a source is operating in compliance with 
operation and maintenance requirements will be based on information 
available to the Administrator that may include, but is not limited to, 
monitoring results, review of operation and maintenance procedures, 
review of operation and maintenance records, and inspection of the 
affected source.
    (c) Before [DATE 181 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE 
IN THE Federal Register], if your affected source uses an emission 
capture system and add-on control device for purposes of complying with 
this subpart, you must develop a written startup, shutdown, and 
malfunction plan (SSMP) according to the provisions in Sec.  
63.6(e)(3). The plan must address startup, shutdown, and corrective 
actions in the event of a malfunction of the emission capture system or 
the add-on control device. The plan must also address any coating 
operation equipment that may cause increased emissions or that would 
affect capture efficiency if the process equipment malfunctions, such 
as conveyors that move parts among enclosures. On and after [DATE 181 
DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE Federal Register], 
the SSMP is not required.
0
6. Section 63.3511 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraphs (a)(4), (a)(5) introductory text, (a)(5)(i), and 
(a)(5)(iv);
0
b. Adding paragraph (a)(5)(v);
0
c. Revising paragraph (a)(6) introductory text and (a)(6)(iii);
0
d. Adding paragraph (a)(6)(iv);
0
e. Revising paragraph (a)(7) introductory text, and paragraphs 
(a)(7)(iii), (a)(7)(vi) through (viii), (a)(7)(x), and (a)(7)(xiii) and 
(xiv);
0
f. Adding paragraph (a)(7)(xv);
0
g. Revising paragraph (a)(8) introductory text, and paragraphs 
(a)(8)(i), (a)(8)(iv) through (vi), (a)(8)(viii), and (a)(8)(xi) and 
(xii);
0
f. Adding paragraph (a)(8)(xiii);
0
g. Revising paragraph (c) introductory text; and
0
h. Adding paragraphs (d) through (h).
    The revisions and additions read as follows:


Sec.  63.3511  What reports must I submit?

    (a) * * *
    (4) No deviations. If there were no deviations from the emission 
limits,

[[Page 25948]]

operating limits, or work practice standards in Sec. Sec.  63.3490, 
63.3492, and 63.3493 that apply to you, the semiannual compliance 
report must include a statement that there were no deviations from the 
emission limitations during the reporting period. If you used the 
emission rate with add-on controls option or the control efficiency/
outlet concentration option and there were no periods during which the 
continuous parameter monitoring systems (CPMS) were out of control as 
specified in Sec.  63.8(c)(7), the semiannual compliance report must 
include a statement that there were no periods during which the CPMS 
were out of control during the reporting period.
    (5) Deviations: Compliant material option. If you used the 
compliant material option and there was a deviation from the applicable 
emission limit in Sec.  63.3490, the semiannual compliance report must 
contain the information in paragraphs (a)(5)(i) through (v) of this 
section.
    (i) Identification of each coating used that deviated from the 
emission limit, each thinner used that contained organic HAP, and the 
date, time, and duration each was used.
* * * * *
    (iv) Before [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule 
in the Federal Register], a statement of the cause of each deviation. 
On and after [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in 
the Federal Register], a statement of the cause of each deviation 
(including unknown cause, if applicable).
    (v) On and after [date 181 days after date of publication of final 
rule in the Federal Register], the number of deviations and, for each 
deviation, a list of the affected source or equipment, an estimate of 
the quantity of each regulated pollutant emitted over any applicable 
emission limit in Sec.  63.3490, a description of the method used to 
estimate the emissions, and the actions you took to minimize emissions 
in accordance with Sec.  63.3500(b).
    (6) Deviations: Emission rate without add-on controls option. If 
you used the emission rate without add-on controls option and there was 
a deviation from the applicable emission limit in Sec.  63.3490, the 
semiannual compliance report must contain the information in paragraphs 
(a)(6)(i) through (iv) of this section.
* * * * *
    (iii) Before [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule 
in the Federal Register], a statement of the cause of each deviation. 
On and after [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in 
the Federal Register], a statement of the cause of each deviation 
(including unknown cause, if applicable).
    (iv) On and after [date 181 days after date of publication of final 
rule in the Federal Register], the number of deviations, date, time, 
duration, a list of the affected source or equipment, an estimate of 
the quantity of each regulated pollutant emitted over any applicable 
emission limit in Sec.  63.3490, a description of the method used to 
estimate the emissions, and the actions you took to minimize emissions 
in accordance with Sec.  63.3500(b).
    (7) Deviations: Emission rate with add-on controls option. If you 
used the emission rate with add-on controls option and there was a 
deviation from the applicable emission limit in Sec.  63.3490 or the 
applicable operating limit(s) in Table 4 to this subpart (including any 
periods when emissions bypassed the add-on control device and were 
diverted to the atmosphere), before [date 181 days after date of 
publication of final rule in the Federal Register], the semiannual 
compliance report must contain the information in paragraphs (a)(7)(i) 
through (xiv) of this section. That includes periods of startup, 
shutdown, and malfunction during which deviations occurred. On and 
after [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the 
Federal Register], the semiannual compliance report must contain the 
information in paragraphs (a)(7)(i) through (xii), (a)(7)(xiv), and 
(a)(7)(xv) of this section. If you use the emission rate with add-on 
controls option and there was a deviation from the applicable work 
practice standards in Sec.  63.3493(b), the semiannual compliance 
report must contain the information in paragraph (a)(7)(xiii) of this 
section.
* * * * *
    (iii) The date and time that each malfunction of the capture system 
or add-on control devices started and stopped.
* * * * *
    (vi) Before [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule 
in the Federal Register], the date and time that each CPMS was 
inoperative, except for zero (low-level) and high-level checks. On and 
after [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the 
Federal Register], the number of instances that the CPMS was 
inoperative, and for each instance, except for zero (low-level) and 
high-level checks, the date, time, and duration that the CPMS was 
inoperative; the cause (including unknown cause) for the CPMS being 
inoperative; and the actions you took to minimize emissions in 
accordance with Sec.  63.3500(b).
    (vii) Before [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule 
in the Federal Register], the date, time, and duration that each CPMS 
was out of control, including the information in Sec.  63.8(c)(8). On 
and after [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the 
Federal Register], the number of instances that the CPMS was out of 
control as specified in Sec.  63.8(c)(7) and, for each instance, the 
date, time, and duration that the CPMS was out-of-control; the cause 
(including unknown cause) for the CPMS being out-of-control; and 
descriptions of corrective actions taken.
    (viii) Before [date 181 days after date of publication of final 
rule in the Federal Register], the date and time period of each 
deviation from an operating limit in Table 4 to this subpart; date and 
time period of any bypass of the add-on control device; and whether 
each deviation occurred during a period of startup, shutdown, or 
malfunction or during another period. On and after [date 181 days after 
date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register], the number 
of deviations from an operating limit in Table 4 to this subpart and, 
for each deviation, the date, time, and duration of each deviation; the 
date, time, and duration of any bypass of the add-on control device.
* * * * *
    (x) Before [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule 
in the Federal Register], a breakdown of the total duration of the 
deviations from the operating limits in Table 4 to this subpart and 
bypasses of the add-on control device during the semiannual reporting 
period into those that were due to startup, shutdown, control equipment 
problems, process problems, other known causes, and other unknown 
causes. On and after [date 181 days after date of publication of final 
rule in the Federal Register], a breakdown of the total duration of the 
deviations from the operating limits in Table 4 to this subpart and 
bypasses of the add-on control device during the semiannual reporting 
period into those that were due to control equipment problems, process 
problems, other known causes, and other unknown causes.
* * * * *
    (xiii) Before [date 181 days after date of publication of final 
rule in the Federal Register], for each deviation from the work 
practice standards, a description of the deviation; the date, and time 
period of the deviation; and

[[Page 25949]]

the actions you took to correct the deviation. On and after [date 181 
days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register], 
for deviations from the work practice standards, the number of 
deviations, and, for each deviation, the information in paragraphs 
(a)(7)(xiii)(A) and (B) of this section:
    (A) A description of the deviation; the date, time, and duration of 
the deviation; and the actions you took to minimize emissions in 
accordance with Sec.  63.3500(b).
    (B) The description required in paragraph (a)(7)(xiii)(A) of this 
section must include a list of the affected sources or equipment for 
which a deviation occurred and the cause of the deviation (including 
unknown cause, if applicable.
    (xiv) Before [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule 
in the Federal Register], a statement of the cause of each deviation. 
On and after [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in 
the Federal Register], for deviations from an emission limit in Sec.  
63.3490 or an operating limit in Table 4 to this subpart, a statement 
of the cause of each deviation (including unknown cause, if applicable) 
and the actions you took to minimize emissions in accordance with Sec.  
63.3500(b).
    (xv) On and after [date 181 days after date of publication of final 
rule in the Federal Register], for each deviation from an emission 
limit in Sec.  63.3490 or operating limit in Table 4 to this subpart, a 
list of the affected sources or equipment for which a deviation 
occurred, an estimate of the quantity of each regulated pollutant 
emitted over any emission limit in Sec.  63.3490 or operating limit in 
Table 4 to this subpart, and a description of the method used to 
estimate the emissions.
    (8) Deviations: Control efficiency/outlet concentration option. If 
you used the control efficiency/outlet concentration option, and there 
was a deviation from the applicable emission limit in Sec.  63.3490 or 
the applicable operating limit(s) in Table 4 to this subpart (including 
any periods when emissions bypassed the add-on control device and were 
diverted to the atmosphere), before [date 181 days after date of 
publication of final rule in the Federal Register], the semiannual 
compliance report must contain the information in paragraphs (a)(8)(i) 
through (xii) of this section. This includes periods of startup, 
shutdown, and malfunction during which deviations occurred. On and 
after [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the 
Federal Register], the semiannual compliance report must specify the 
number of deviations during the compliance period and contain the 
information in paragraphs (a)(8)(i) through (x), (xii), and (xiii) of 
this section. If you use the control efficiency/outlet concentration 
option and there was a deviation from the applicable work practice 
standards in Sec.  63.3493(b), the semiannual compliance report must 
contain the information in paragraph (a)(8)(xi) of this section.
    (i) The date and time that each malfunction of the capture system 
or add-on control devices started and stopped.
* * * * *
    (iv) Before [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule 
in the Federal Register], the date and time that each CPMS was 
inoperative, except for zero (low-level) and high-level checks. On and 
after [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the 
Federal Register], for each instance that the CPMS was inoperative, 
except for zero (low-level) and high-level checks, the date, time, and 
duration that the CPMS was inoperative; the cause (including unknown 
cause) for the CPMS being inoperative; and the actions you took to 
minimize emissions in accordance with Sec.  63.3500(b).
    (v) For each instance that the CPMS was out of control as specified 
in Sec.  63.8(c)(7), the date, time, and duration that the CPMS was out 
of control; the cause (including unknown cause) for the CPMS being out 
of control; and the actions you took to minimize emissions in 
accordance with Sec.  63.3500(b).
    (vi) Before [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule 
in the Federal Register], the date and time period of each deviation 
from an operating limit in Table 4 to this subpart; date and time of 
any bypass of the add-on control device; and whether each deviation 
occurred during a period of startup, shutdown, or malfunction or during 
another period. On and after [date 181 days after date of publication 
of final rule in the Federal Register], the date, time, and duration of 
each deviation from an operating limit in Table 4 to this subpart; and 
the date, time, and duration of any bypass of the add-on control 
device.
* * * * *
    (viii) Before [date 181 days after date of publication of final 
rule in the Federal Register], a breakdown of the total duration of the 
deviations from the operating limits in Table 4 to this subpart and 
bypasses of the add-on control device during the semiannual reporting 
period into those that were due to startup, shutdown, control equipment 
problems, process problems, other known causes, and other unknown 
causes. On and after [date 181 days after date of publication of final 
rule in the Federal Register], a breakdown of the total duration of the 
deviations from the operating limits in Table 4 to this subpart and 
bypasses of the add-on control device during the semiannual reporting 
period into those that were due to control equipment problems, process 
problems, other known causes, and other unknown causes.
* * * * *
    (xi) Before [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule 
in the Federal Register], for each deviation from the work practice 
standards, a description of the deviation; the date and time period of 
the deviation; and the actions you took to correct the deviation. On 
and after [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the 
Federal Register], for deviations from the work practice standards in 
Sec.  63.3493(b), the number of deviations, and, for each deviation, 
the information in paragraphs (a)(8)(xiii)(A) and (B) of this section:
    (A) A description of the deviation; the date, time, and duration of 
the deviation; and the actions you took to minimize emissions in 
accordance with Sec.  63.3500(b).
    (B) The description required in paragraph (a)(8)(xi)(A) of this 
section must include a list of the affected sources or equipment for 
which a deviation occurred and the cause of the deviation (including 
unknown cause, if applicable).
    (xii) Before [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule 
in the Federal Register], a statement of the cause of each deviation. 
On and after [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in 
the Federal Register], for deviations from an emission limit in Sec.  
63.3490 or operating limit in Table 4 to this subpart, a statement of 
the cause of each deviation (including unknown cause, if applicable).
    (xiii) On and after [date 181 days after date of publication of 
final rule in the Federal Register], for each deviation from an 
emission limit in Sec.  63.3490 or operating limit in Table 4 to this 
subpart, a list of the affected sources or equipment for which a 
deviation occurred, an estimate of the quantity of each regulated 
pollutant emitted over any emission limit in Sec.  63.3490, and a 
description of the method used to estimate the emissions.
* * * * *
    (c) Startup, shutdown, malfunction reports. Before [date 181 days 
after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register], if 
you used the

[[Page 25950]]

emission rate with add-on controls option or the control efficiency/
outlet concentration option and you had a startup, shutdown, or 
malfunction during the semiannual reporting period, you must submit the 
reports specified in paragraphs (c)(1) and (2) of this section. On and 
after [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the 
Federal Register], the reports specified in paragraphs (c)(1) and (2) 
of this section are not required.
* * * * *
    (d) On and after [date 181 days after date of publication of final 
rule in the Federal Register], you must submit the results of the 
performance test required in Sec. Sec.  63.3540 and 63.3550 following 
the procedure specified in paragraphs (d)(1) through (3) of this 
section.
    (1) For data collected using test methods supported by the EPA's 
Electronic Reporting Tool (ERT) as listed on the EPA's ERT website 
(https://www.epa.gov/electronic-reporting-air-emissions/electronic-reporting-tool-ert) at the time of the test, you must submit the 
results of the performance test to the EPA via the Compliance and 
Emissions Data Reporting Interface (CEDRI). The CEDRI interface can be 
accessed through the EPA's Central Data Exchange (CDX) (https://cdx.epa.gov/). Performance test data must be submitted in a file format 
generated through the use of the EPA's ERT or an alternate electronic 
file format consistent with the extensible markup language (XML) schema 
listed on the EPA's ERT website.
    (2) For data collected using test methods that are not supported by 
the EPA's ERT as listed on the EPA's ERT website at the time of the 
test, you must submit the results of the performance test in portable 
document format (PDF) using the attachment module of the ERT.
    (3) If you claim that some of the performance test information 
being submitted under paragraph (d)(1) of this section is confidential 
business information (CBI), you must submit a complete file generated 
through the use of the EPA's ERT or an alternate electronic file 
consistent with the XML schema listed on the EPA's ERT website, 
including information claimed to be CBI, on a compact disc, flash 
drive, or other commonly used electronic storage medium to the EPA. The 
electronic medium must be clearly marked as CBI and mailed to U.S. EPA/
OAPQS/CORE CBI Office, Attention: Group Leader, Measurement Policy 
Group, MD C404-02, 4930 Old Page Rd., Durham, NC 27703. The same ERT or 
alternate file with the CBI omitted must be submitted to the EPA via 
the EPA's CDX as described in paragraph (c)(1) of this section.
    (e) On and after [date 181 days after date of publication of final 
rule in the Federal Register], the owner or operator shall submit the 
initial notifications required in Sec.  63.9(b) and the notification of 
compliance status required in Sec.  63.9(h) and Sec.  63.3510(c) to the 
EPA via the CEDRI. The CEDRI interface can be accessed through the 
EPA's CDX (https://cdx.epa.gov). The owner or operator must upload to 
CEDRI an electronic copy of each applicable notification in PDF. The 
applicable notification must be submitted by the deadline specified in 
this subpart, regardless of the method in which the reports are 
submitted. Owners or operators who claim that some of the information 
required to be submitted via CEDRI is confidential business information 
(CBI) shall submit a complete report generated using the appropriate 
form in CEDRI or an alternate electronic file consistent with the 
extensible markup language (XML) schema listed on the EPA's CEDRI 
website, including information claimed to be CBI, on a compact disc, 
flash drive, or other commonly used electronic storage medium to the 
EPA. The electronic medium shall be clearly marked as CBI and mailed to 
U.S. EPA/OAQPS/CORE CBI Office, Attention: Group Leader, Measurement 
Policy Group, MD C404-02, 4930 Old Page Rd., Durham, NC 27703. The same 
file with the CBI omitted shall be submitted to the EPA via the EPA's 
CDX as described earlier in this paragraph.
    (f) On and after [date 181 days after date of publication of final 
rule in the Federal Register], or once the reporting template has been 
available on the CEDRI website for 1 year, whichever date is later, the 
owner or operator shall submit the semiannual compliance report 
required in paragraph (a) of this section to the EPA via the CEDRI. The 
CEDRI interface can be accessed through the EPA's CDX (https://cdx.epa.gov). The owner or operator must use the appropriate electronic 
template on the CEDRI website for this subpart (https://www.epa.gov/electronic-reporting-air-emissions/compliance-and-emissions-data-reporting-interface-cedri). The date report templates become available 
will be listed on the CEDRI website. If the reporting form for the 
semiannual compliance report specific to this subpart is not available 
in CEDRI at the time that the report is due, you must submit the report 
to the Administrator at the appropriate addresses listed in Sec.  
63.13. Once the form has been available in CEDRI for 1 year, you must 
begin submitting all subsequent reports via CEDRI. The reports must be 
submitted by the deadlines specified in this subpart, regardless of the 
method in which the reports are submitted. Owners or operators who 
claim that some of the information required to be submitted via CEDRI 
is confidential business information (CBI) shall submit a complete 
report generated using the appropriate form in CEDRI, including 
information claimed to be CBI, on a compact disc, flash drive, or other 
commonly used electronic storage medium to the EPA. The electronic 
medium shall be clearly marked as CBI and mailed to U.S. EPA/OAQPS/CORE 
CBI Office, Attention: Group Leader, Measurement Policy Group, MD C404-
02, 4930 Old Page Rd., Durham, NC 27703. The same file with the CBI 
omitted shall be submitted to the EPA via the EPA's CDX as described 
earlier in this paragraph.
    (g) If you are required to electronically submit a report through 
the Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface (CEDRI) in the 
EPA's Central Data Exchange (CDX), and due to a planned or actual 
outage of either the EPA's CEDRI or CDX systems within the period of 
time beginning 5 business days prior to the date that the submission is 
due, you will be or are precluded from accessing CEDRI or CDX and 
submitting a required report within the time prescribed, you may assert 
a claim of EPA system outage for failure to timely comply with the 
reporting requirement. You must submit notification to the 
Administrator in writing as soon as possible following the date you 
first knew, or through due diligence should have known, that the event 
may cause or caused a delay in reporting. You must provide to the 
Administrator a written description identifying the date, time and 
length of the outage; a rationale for attributing the delay in 
reporting beyond the regulatory deadline to the EPA system outage; 
describe the measures taken or to be taken to minimize the delay in 
reporting; and identify a date by which you propose to report, or if 
you have already met the reporting requirement at the time of the 
notification, the date you reported. In any circumstance, the report 
must be submitted electronically as soon as possible after the outage 
is resolved. The decision to accept the claim of EPA system outage and 
allow an extension to the reporting deadline is solely within the 
discretion of the Administrator.
    (h) If you are required to electronically submit a report through 
CEDRI in the EPA's CDX and a force majeure event is about to occur, 
occurs,

[[Page 25951]]

or has occurred or there are lingering effects from such an event 
within the period of time beginning 5 business days prior to the date 
the submission is due, the owner or operator may assert a claim of 
force majeure for failure to timely comply with the reporting 
requirement. For the purposes of this section, a force majeure event is 
defined as an event that will be or has been caused by circumstances 
beyond the control of the affected facility, its contractors, or any 
entity controlled by the affected facility that prevents you from 
complying with the requirement to submit a report electronically within 
the time period prescribed. Examples of such events are acts of nature 
(e.g., hurricanes, earthquakes, or floods), acts of war or terrorism, 
or equipment failure or safety hazard beyond the control of the 
affected facility (e.g., large scale power outage). If you intend to 
assert a claim of force majeure, you must submit notification to the 
Administrator in writing as soon as possible following the date you 
first knew, or through due diligence should have known, that the event 
may cause or caused a delay in reporting. You must provide to the 
Administrator a written description of the force majeure event and a 
rationale for attributing the delay in reporting beyond the regulatory 
deadline to the force majeure event; describe the measures taken or to 
be taken to minimize the delay in reporting; and identify a date by 
which you propose to report, or if you have already met the reporting 
requirement at the time of the notification, the date you reported. In 
any circumstance, the reporting must occur as soon as possible after 
the force majeure event occurs. The decision to accept the claim of 
force majeure and allow an extension to the reporting deadline is 
solely within the discretion of the Administrator.
0
7. Section 63.3512 is amended by revising paragraphs (i), (j) 
introductory text, and (j)(1) and (2) to read as follows:


Sec.  63.3512  What records must I keep?

* * * * *
    (i) Before [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule 
in the Federal Register], a record of the date, time, and duration of 
each deviation. On and after [date 181 days after date of publication 
of final rule in the Federal Register], for each deviation from an 
emission limitation reported under Sec.  63.3511(a)(5) through (8), a 
record of the information specified in paragraphs (i)(1) through (4) of 
this section, as applicable.
    (1) The date, time, and duration of the deviation, as reported 
under Sec.  63.3511(a)(5) through (8).
    (2) A list of the affected sources or equipment for which the 
deviation occurred and the cause of the deviation, as reported under 
Sec.  63.3511(a)(5) through (8).
    (3) An estimate of the quantity of each regulated pollutant emitted 
over any applicable emission limit in Sec.  63.3490 or any applicable 
operating limit in Table 4 to this subpart, and a description of the 
method used to calculate the estimate, as reported under Sec.  
63.3511(a)(5) through (8).
    (4) A record of actions taken to minimize emissions in accordance 
with Sec.  63.3500(b) and any corrective actions taken to return the 
affected unit to its normal or usual manner of operation.
    (j) If you use the emission rate with add-on controls option or the 
control efficiency/outlet concentration option, you must also keep the 
records specified in paragraphs (j)(1) through (8) of this section.
    (1) Before [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule 
in the Federal Register], for each deviation, a record of whether the 
deviation occurred during a period of startup, shutdown, or 
malfunction. On and after [date 181 days after date of publication of 
final rule in the Federal Register], a record of whether the deviation 
occurred during a period of startup, shutdown, or malfunction is not 
required.
    (2) Before [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule 
in the Federal Register], the records in Sec.  63.6(e)(3)(iii) through 
(v) related to startup, shutdown, and malfunction. On and after [date 
181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal 
Register], the records in Sec.  63.6(e)(3)(iii) through (v) related to 
startup, shutdown, and malfunction are not required.
* * * * *
0
8. Section 63.3513 is amended by revising paragraph (a) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  63.3513  In what form and for how long must I keep my records?

    (a) Your records must be kept in a form suitable and readily 
available for expeditious review, according to Sec.  63.10(b)(1). Where 
appropriate, the records may be maintained as electronic spreadsheets 
or as a database. On and after [date 181 days after date of publication 
of final rule in the Federal Register], any records required to be 
maintained by this subpart that are in reports that were 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
9. Section 63.3521 is amended by revising paragraphs (a)(1)(i), (a)(2), 
(a)(4), (b)(1), and (c) to read as follows:


Sec.  63.3521  How do I demonstrate initial compliance with the 
emission limitations?

* * * * *
    (a) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (i) Count each organic HAP in Table 8 to this subpart that is 
measured to be present at 0.1 percent by mass or more and at 1.0 
percent by mass or more for other compounds. For example, if toluene 
(not listed in Table 8 to this subpart) is measured to be 0.5 percent 
of the material by mass, you do not have to count it. Express the mass 
fraction of each organic HAP you count as a value truncated to four 
places after the decimal point (e.g., 0.3791).
* * * * *
    (2) Method 24 (appendix A to 40 CFR part 60). For coatings, you may 
use Method 24 to determine the mass fraction of nonaqueous volatile 
matter and use that value as a substitute for mass fraction of organic 
HAP. As an alternative to using Method 24, you may use ASTM D2369-10 
(2015), ``Test Method for Volatile Content of Coatings'' (incorporated 
by reference, see Sec.  63.14).
* * * * *
    (4) Information from the supplier or manufacturer of the material. 
You may rely on information other than that generated by the test 
methods specified in paragraphs (a)(1) through (3) of this section, 
such as manufacturer's formulation data, if it represents each organic 
HAP in Table 8 to this subpart that is present at 0.1 percent by mass 
or more and at 1.0 percent by mass or more for other compounds. For 
example, if toluene (not listed in Table 8 to this subpart) is 0.5 
percent of the material by mass, you do not have to count it. If there 
is a disagreement between such information and results of a test 
conducted according to paragraphs (a)(1) through (3) of this section, 
then the test method results will take precedence unless, after 
consultation, a regulated source can demonstrate to the satisfaction of 
the enforcement agency that the formulation data are correct.
* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (1) ASTM Method D2697-03 (2014) or D6093-97 (2016). You may use 
ASTM Method D2697-03 (2014), ``Standard Test Method for Volume 
Nonvolatile Matter in Clear or Pigmented Coatings,'' (incorporated by 
reference, see Sec.  63.14)

[[Page 25952]]

or D6093-97 (2016), ``Standard Test Method for Percent Volume 
Nonvolatile Matter in Clear or Pigmented Coatings Using a Helium Gas 
Pycnometer'' (incorporated by reference, see Sec.  63.14), to determine 
the volume fraction of coating solids for each coating. Divide the 
nonvolatile volume percent obtained with the methods by 100 to 
calculate volume fraction of coating solids. If these values cannot be 
determined using these methods, the owner/operator may submit an 
alternative technique for determining the values for approval by the 
Administrator.
* * * * *
    (c) Determine the density of each coating. Determine the density of 
each coating used during the compliance period from test results using 
ASTM Method D1475-13 Standard Test Method for Density of Liquid 
Coatings, Inks, and Related Products (incorporated by reference, see 
Sec.  63.14) or information from the supplier or manufacturer of the 
material. If there is disagreement between ASTM Method D1475-13 test 
results and the supplier's or manufacturer's information, the test 
results will take precedence.
* * * * *
0
10. Section 63.3531 is amended by revising paragraph (c) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  63.3531  How do I demonstrate initial compliance with the 
emission limitations?

* * * * *
    (c) Determine the density of each material. Determine the density 
of each coating and thinner used during each month from test results 
using ASTM Method D1475-13 or ASTM D2111-10 (2015) (both incorporated 
by reference, see Sec.  63.14), information from the supplier or 
manufacturer of the material, or reference sources providing density or 
specific gravity data for pure materials. If there is disagreement 
between ASTM Method D1475-13 or ASTM D2111-10 (2015) test results and 
such other information sources, the test results will take precedence.
* * * * *
0
11. Section 63.3540 is amended by revising the section heading and 
paragraphs (a)(1), (a)(4), and (b)(1) to read as follows:


Sec.  63.3540  By what date must I conduct performance tests and 
initial compliance demonstrations?

    (a) * * *
    (1) All emission capture systems, add-on control devices, and CPMS 
must be installed and operating no later than the applicable compliance 
date specified in Sec.  63.3483. Except for solvent recovery systems 
for which you conduct liquid-liquid material balances according to 
Sec.  63.3541(i), you must conduct according to the schedule in 
paragraphs (a)(1)(i) and (ii) of this section initial and periodic 
performance tests of each capture system and add-on control device 
according to the procedures in Sec. Sec.  63.3543, 63.3544, and 63.3545 
and establish the operating limits required by Sec.  63.3492. For a 
solvent recovery system for which you conduct liquid-liquid material 
balances according to Sec.  63.3541(i), you must initiate the first 
material balance no later than the applicable compliance date specified 
in Sec.  63.3483.
    (i) You must conduct the initial performance test and establish the 
operating limits required by Sec.  63.3492 no later than 180 days after 
the applicable compliance date specified in Sec.  63.3483.
    (ii) You must conduct periodic performance tests and establish the 
operating limits required by Sec.  63.3492 within 5 years following the 
previous performance test. You must conduct the first periodic 
performance test before [date 3 years after date of publication of 
final rule in the Federal Register], unless you are already required to 
complete periodic performance tests as a requirement of renewing your 
facility's operating permit under 40 CFR part 70, or 40 CFR part 71, 
and have conducted a performance test on or after [date 2 years before 
date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register]. Thereafter 
you must conduct a performance test no later than 5 years following the 
previous performance test. Operating limits must be confirmed or 
reestablished during each performance test.
* * * * *
    (4) For the initial compliance demonstration, you do not need to 
comply with the operating limits for the emission capture system and 
add-on control device required by Sec.  63.3492 until after you have 
completed the initial performance tests specified in paragraph (a)(1) 
of this section. Instead, you must maintain a log detailing the 
operation and maintenance of the emission capture system, add-on 
control device, and continuous parameter monitors during the period 
between the compliance date and the performance test. You must begin 
complying with the operating limits established based on the initial 
performance tests specified in paragraph (a)(1) of this section for 
your affected source on the date you complete the performance tests. 
The requirements in this paragraph (a)(4) do not apply to solvent 
recovery systems for which you conduct liquid-liquid material balances 
according to the requirements in Sec.  63.3541(i).
    (b) * * *
    (1) All emission capture systems, add-on control devices, and CPMS 
must be installed and operating no later than the applicable compliance 
date specified in Sec.  63.3483. Except for solvent recovery systems 
for which you conduct liquid-liquid material balances according to 
Sec.  63.3541(i), you must conduct according to the schedule in 
paragraphs (b)(1)(i) and (ii) of this section initial and periodic 
performance tests of each capture system and add-on control device 
according to the procedures in Sec. Sec.  63.3543, 63.3544, and 63.3545 
and establish the operating limits required by Sec.  63.3492. For a 
solvent recovery system for which you conduct liquid-liquid material 
balances according to Sec.  63.3541(i), you must initiate the first 
material balance no later than the compliance date specified in Sec.  
63.3483.
    (i) You must conduct the initial performance test and establish the 
operating limits required by Sec.  63.3492 no later than 180 days after 
the applicable compliance date specified in Sec.  63.3483.
    (ii) You must conduct periodic performance tests and establish the 
operating limits required by Sec.  63.3492 within 5 years following the 
previous performance test. You must conduct the first periodic 
performance test before [date 3 years after date of publication of 
final rule in the Federal Register], unless you are already required to 
complete periodic performance tests as a requirement of renewing your 
facility's operating permit under 40 CFR part 70, or 40 CFR part 71, 
and have conducted a performance test on or after [date 2 years before 
date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register]. Thereafter 
you must conduct a performance test no later than 5 years following the 
previous performance test. Operating limits must be confirmed or 
reestablished during each performance test.
* * * * *
0
12. Section 63.3541 is amended by revising paragraphs (h) introductory 
text and (i)(3) to read as follows:


Sec.  63.3541  How do I demonstrate initial compliance?

* * * * *
    (h) Calculate the organic HAP emission reduction for each 
controlled coating operation not using liquid-liquid material balances. 
For each controlled coating operation using an emission capture system 
and add-on control device, other than a solvent recovery system for 
which you conduct liquid-liquid material balances, calculate the

[[Page 25953]]

organic HAP emission reduction, using Equation 1 of this section. The 
calculation applies the emission capture system efficiency and add-on 
control device efficiency to the mass of organic HAP contained in the 
coatings and thinners that are used in the coating operation served by 
the emission capture system and add-on control device during each 
month. For any period of time a deviation specified in Sec.  63.3542(c) 
or (d) occurs in the controlled coating operation, you must assume zero 
efficiency for the emission capture system and add-on control device, 
unless you have other data indicating the actual efficiency of the 
emission capture system and add-on control device, and the use of these 
data has been approved by the Administrator. Equation 1 of this section 
treats the materials used during such a deviation as if they were used 
on an uncontrolled coating operation for the time period of the 
deviation. * * *
* * * * *
    (i) * * *
    (3) Determine the mass fraction of volatile organic matter for each 
coating and thinner used in the coating operation controlled by the 
solvent recovery system during the month, in kg volatile organic matter 
per kg coating. You may determine the volatile organic matter mass 
fraction using Method 24 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A, ASTM D2369-10 
(2015), ``Test Method for Volatile Content of Coatings'' (incorporated 
by reference, see Sec.  63.14), or an EPA approved alternative method. 
Alternatively, you may determine the volatile organic matter mass 
fraction using information provided by the manufacturer or supplier of 
the coating. In the event of any inconsistency between information 
provided by the manufacturer or supplier and the results of Method 24 
of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A, ASTM D2369-10 (2015), ``Test Method for 
Volatile Content of Coatings'' (incorporated by reference, see Sec.  
63.14), or an approved alternative method, the test method results will 
take precedence unless, after consultation, a regulated source can 
demonstrate to the satisfaction of the enforcement agency that the 
formulation data are correct.
* * * * *
0
13. Section 63.3542 is amended by revising paragraphs (f) and (h) to 
read as follows:


Sec.  63.3542  How do I demonstrate continuous compliance with the 
emission limitations?

* * * * *
    (f) As part of each semiannual compliance report required in Sec.  
63.3511, you must identify the coating operation(s) for which you used 
the emission rate with add-on controls option. If there were no 
deviations from the emission limits in Sec.  63.3490, the operating 
limits in Sec.  63.3492, and the work practice standards in Sec.  
63.3493, submit a statement that you were in compliance with the 
emission limitations during the reporting period because the organic 
HAP emission rate for each compliance period was less than or equal to 
the applicable emission limit in Sec.  63.3490, and you achieved the 
operating limits required by Sec.  63.3492 and the work practice 
standards required by Sec.  63.3493 during each compliance period.
* * * * *
    (h) Before [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule 
in the Federal Register], consistent with Sec. Sec.  63.6(e) and 
63.7(e)(1), deviations that occur during a period of startup, shutdown, 
or malfunction of the emission capture system, add-on control device, 
or coating operation that may affect emission capture or control device 
efficiency are not violations if you demonstrate to the Administrator's 
satisfaction that you were operating in accordance with Sec.  
63.6(e)(1). The Administrator will determine whether deviations that 
occur during a period you identify as a startup, shutdown, or 
malfunction are violations according to the provisions in Sec.  
63.6(e). On and after [date 181 days after date of publication of final 
rule in the Federal Register], deviations that occur due to malfunction 
of the emission capture system, add-on control device, or coating 
operation that may affect emission capture or control device efficiency 
are required to operate in accordance with Sec.  63.3500(b). The 
Administrator will determine whether the deviations are violations 
according to the provisions in Sec.  63.3500(b).
* * * * *
0
14. Section 63.3543 is amended by revising paragraphs (a) introductory 
text and (a)(1) to read as follows:


Sec.  63.3543  What are the general requirements for performance tests?

    (a) Before [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule 
in the Federal Register], you must conduct each performance test 
required by Sec.  63.3540 according to the requirements in Sec.  
63.7(e)(1) and under the conditions in this section unless you obtain a 
waiver of the performance test according to the provisions in Sec.  
63.7(h). On and after [date 181 days after date of publication of final 
rule in the Federal Register], you must conduct each performance test 
required by Sec.  63.3540 according to the requirements in this section 
unless you obtain a waiver of the performance test according to the 
provisions in Sec.  63.7(h).
    (1) Representative coating operation operating conditions. You must 
conduct the performance test under representative operating conditions 
for the coating operation. Operations during periods of startup, 
shutdown, or nonoperation do not constitute representative conditions 
for purposes of conducting a performance test. The owner or operator 
may not conduct performance tests during periods of malfunction. You 
must record the process information that is necessary to document 
operating conditions during the test and explain why the conditions 
represent normal operation. Upon request, you must make available to 
the Administrator such records as may be necessary to determine the 
conditions of performance tests.
* * * * *
0
15. Section 63.3544 is amended by revising the introductory text to 
read as follows:


Sec.  63.3544  How do I determine the emission capture system 
efficiency?

    You must use the procedures and test methods in this section to 
determine capture efficiency as part of each performance test required 
by Sec.  63.3540.
* * * * *
0
16. Section 63.3545 is amended by revising the introductory text, 
paragraph (b) introductory text, and paragraphs (b)(1) through (4) to 
read as follows:


Sec.  63.3545  How do I determine the add-on control device emission 
destruction or removal efficiency?

    You must use the procedures and test methods in this section to 
determine the add-on control device emission destruction or removal 
efficiency as part of the performance tests required by Sec.  63.3540. 
For each performance test, you must conduct three test runs as 
specified in Sec.  63.7(e)(3) and each test run must last at least 1 
hour.
* * * * *
    (b) Measure total gaseous organic mass emissions as carbon at the 
inlet and outlet of the add-on control device simultaneously using 
either Method 25 or 25A of appendix A-7 to 40 CFR part 60 as specified 
in paragraphs (b)(1) through (5) of this section. You must use the same 
method for both the inlet and outlet measurements.
    (1) Use Method 25 of appendix A-7 to 40 CFR part 60 if the add-on 
control device is an oxidizer and you expect the total gaseous organic 
concentration as carbon to be more than 50 ppm at the control device 
outlet.

[[Page 25954]]

    (2) Use Method 25A of appendix A-7 to 40 CFR part 60 if the add-on 
control device is an oxidizer and you expect the total gaseous organic 
concentration as carbon to be 50 ppm or less at the control device 
outlet.
    (3) Use Method 25A of appendix A-7 to 40 CFR part 60 if the add-
control device is not an oxidizer.
    (4) You may use Method 18 of appendix A-6 to 40 CFR part 60 to 
subtract methane emissions from measured total gaseous organic mass 
emissions as carbon.
* * * * *
0
17. Section 63.3546 is amended by revising the introductory text and 
paragraphs (a)(1) and (2), (b)(1) through (3), (d)(1), (e)(1) and (2), 
(f)(1) through (3), and (f)(5) and (6) to read as follows:


Sec.  63.3546  How do I establish the emission capture system and add-
on control device operating limits during the performance test?

    During performance tests required by Sec.  63.3540 and described in 
Sec. Sec.  63.3543, 63.3544, and 63.3545, you must establish the 
operating limits required by Sec.  63.3492 unless you have received 
approval for alternative monitoring and operating limits under Sec.  
63.8(f) as specified in Sec.  63.3492.
    (a) * * *
    (1) During performance tests, you must monitor and record the 
combustion temperature at least once every 15 minutes during each of 
the three test runs. You must monitor the temperature in the firebox of 
the thermal oxidizer or immediately downstream of the firebox before 
any substantial heat exchange occurs.
    (2) For each performance test, use the data collected during the 
performance test to calculate and record the average combustion 
temperature maintained during the performance test. That average 
combustion temperature is the minimum operating limit for your thermal 
oxidizer.
    (b) * * *
    (1) During performance tests, you must monitor and record the 
temperature at the inlet to the catalyst bed and the temperature 
difference across the catalyst bed at least once every 15 minutes 
during each of the three test runs.
    (2) For each performance test, use the data collected during the 
performance test to calculate and record the average temperature at the 
inlet to the catalyst bed and the average temperature difference across 
the catalyst bed maintained during the performance test. The average 
temperature difference is the minimum operating limit for your 
catalytic oxidizer.
    (3) As an alternative to monitoring the temperature difference 
across the catalyst bed, you may monitor the temperature at the inlet 
to the catalyst bed and implement a site-specific inspection and 
maintenance plan for your catalytic oxidizer as specified in paragraph 
(b)(4) of this section. During performance tests, you must monitor and 
record the temperature at the inlet to the catalyst bed at least once 
every 15 minutes during each of the three test runs. For each 
performance test, use the data collected during the performance test to 
calculate and record the average temperature at the inlet to the 
catalyst bed during the performance test. That is the minimum operating 
limit for your catalytic oxidizer.
* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (1) During performance tests, you must monitor and record the total 
regeneration desorbing gas (e.g., steam or nitrogen) mass flow for each 
regeneration cycle, and the carbon bed temperature after each carbon 
bed regeneration and cooling cycle for the regeneration cycle either 
immediately preceding or immediately following the performance test.
* * * * *
    (e) * * *
    (1) During performance tests, monitor and record the condenser 
outlet (product side) gas temperature at least once every 15 minutes 
during each of the three test runs of the performance test.
    (2) For each performance test, use the data collected during the 
performance test to calculate and record the average condenser outlet 
(product side) gas temperature maintained during the performance test. 
This average condenser outlet gas temperature is the maximum operating 
limit for your condenser.
    (f) * * *
    (1) During performance tests, monitor and record the inlet 
temperature to the desorption/reactivation zone of the concentrator at 
least once every 15 minutes during each of the three runs of the 
performance test.
    (2) For each performance test, use the data collected during the 
performance test to calculate and record the average temperature. This 
is the minimum operating limit for the desorption/reactivation zone 
inlet temperature.
    (3) During each performance test, monitor and record an 
indicator(s) of performance for the desorption/reactivation fan 
operation at least once every 15 minutes during each of the three runs 
of the performance test. The indicator can be speed in revolutions per 
minute (rpm), power in amps, static pressure, or flow rate.
* * * * *
    (5) During each performance test, monitor the rotational speed of 
the concentrator at least once every 15 minutes during each of the 
three runs of the performance test.
    (6) For each performance test, use the data collected during the 
performance test to calculate and record the average rotational speed. 
This is the minimum operating limit for the rotational speed of the 
concentrator. However, the indicator range for the rotational speed may 
be changed if an engineering evaluation is conducted and a 
determination made that the change in speed will not affect compliance 
with the emission limit.
* * * * *
0
18. Section 63.3547 is amended by revising paragraphs (a)(4) and (5), 
(a)(7), and (c)(3) introductory text to read as follows:


Sec.  63.3547  What are the requirements for continuous parameter 
monitoring system installation, operation, and maintenance?

    (a) * * *
    (4) Before [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule 
in the Federal Register], you must maintain the CPMS at all times and 
have available necessary parts for routine repairs of the monitoring 
equipment. On and after [date 181 days after date of publication of 
final rule in the Federal Register], you must maintain the CPMS at all 
times in accordance with Sec.  63.3500(b) and keep necessary parts 
readily available for routine repairs of the monitoring equipment.
    (5) Before [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule 
in the Federal Register], you must operate the CPMS and collect 
emission capture system and add-on control device parameter data at all 
times that a controlled coating operation is operating, except during 
monitoring malfunctions, associated repairs, and required quality 
assurance or control activities (including, if applicable, calibration 
checks and required zero and span adjustments). On and after [date 181 
days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register], 
you must operate the CPMS and collect emission capture system and add-
on control device parameter data at all times in accordance with Sec.  
63.3500(b).
* * * * *
    (7) A monitoring malfunction is any sudden, infrequent, not 
reasonably preventable failure of the CPMS to provide valid data. 
Monitoring failures that are caused in part by poor

[[Page 25955]]

maintenance or careless operation are not malfunctions. Before [date 
181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal 
Register], any period for which the monitoring system is out of control 
and data are not available for required calculations is a deviation 
from the monitoring requirements. On and after [date 181 days after 
date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register], except for 
periods of required quality assurance or control activities, any period 
for which the CPMS fails to operate and record data continuously as 
required by paragraph (a)(5) of this section, or generates data that 
cannot be included in calculating averages as specified in (a)(6) of 
this section constitutes a deviation from the monitoring requirements.
* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (3) For all thermal oxidizers and catalytic oxidizers, you must 
meet the requirements in paragraphs (a) and (c)(3)(i) through (ii) of 
this section for each gas temperature monitoring device. For the 
purposes of this paragraph (c)(3), a thermocouple is part of the 
temperature sensor.
* * * * *
0
19. Section 63.3550 is amended by revising the section heading and 
paragraphs (a)(1), (a)(4), and (b)(1) to read as follows:


Sec.  63.3550  By what date must I conduct performance tests and 
initial compliance demonstrations?

    (a) * * *
    (1) All emission capture systems, add-on control devices, and CPMS 
must be installed and operating no later than the applicable compliance 
date specified in Sec.  63.3483. You must conduct according to the 
schedule in paragraphs (a)(1)(i) and (ii) of this section initial and 
periodic performance tests of each capture system and add-on control 
device according to Sec. Sec.  63.3553, 63.3554, and 63.3555 and 
establish the operating limits required by Sec.  63.3492.
    (i) You must conduct the initial performance test and establish the 
operating limits required by Sec.  63.3492 no later than 180 days after 
the applicable compliance date specified in Sec.  63.3483.
    (ii) You must conduct periodic performance tests and establish the 
operating limits required by Sec.  63.3492 within 5 years following the 
previous performance test. You must conduct the first periodic 
performance test before [date 3 years after date of publication of 
final rule in the Federal Register], unless you are already required to 
complete periodic performance tests as a requirement of renewing your 
facility's operating permit under 40 CFR part 70, or 40 CFR part 71, 
and have conducted a performance test on or after [date 2 years before 
date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register]. Thereafter 
you must conduct a performance test no later than 5 years following the 
previous performance test. Operating limits must be confirmed or 
reestablished during each performance test.
* * * * *
    (4) For the initial compliance demonstration, you do not need to 
comply with the operating limits for the emission capture system and 
add-on control device required by Sec.  63.3492 until after you have 
completed the initial performance tests specified in paragraph (a)(1) 
of this section. Instead, you must maintain a log detailing the 
operation and maintenance of the emission capture system, add-on 
control device, and continuous parameter monitors during the period 
between the compliance date and the performance test. You must begin 
complying with the operating limits established based on the initial 
performance tests specified in paragraph (a)(1) of this section on the 
date you complete the performance tests.
    (b) * * *
    (1) All emission capture systems, add-on control devices, and CPMS 
must be installed and operating no later than the applicable compliance 
date specified in Sec.  63.3483. Except for solvent recovery systems 
for which you conduct liquid-liquid material balances according to 
Sec.  63.3541(i), you must conduct according to the schedule in 
paragraphs (a)(1)(i) and (ii) of this section initial and periodic 
performance tests of each capture system and add-on control device 
according to the procedures in Sec. Sec.  63.3543, 63.3544, and 63.3545 
and establish the operating limits required by Sec.  63.3492.
    (i) You must conduct the initial performance test and establish the 
operating limits required by Sec.  63.3492 no later than 180 days after 
the applicable compliance date specified in Sec.  63.3483.
    (ii) You must conduct periodic performance tests and establish the 
operating limits required by Sec.  63.3492 within 5 years following the 
previous performance test. You must conduct the first periodic 
performance test before [date 3 years after date of publication of 
final rule in the Federal Register], unless you are already required to 
complete periodic performance tests as a requirement of renewing your 
facility's operating permit under 40 CFR part 70, or 40 CFR part 71, 
and have conducted a performance test on or after [date 2 years before 
date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register]. Thereafter 
you must conduct a performance test no later than 5 years following the 
previous performance test. Operating limits must be confirmed or 
reestablished during each performance test.
* * * * *
0
20. Section 63.3552 is amended by revising paragraph (g) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  63.3552  How do I demonstrate continuous compliance with the 
emission limitations?

* * * * *
    (g) Before [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule 
in the Federal Register], consistent with Sec. Sec.  63.6(e) and 
63.7(e)(1), deviations that occur during a period of startup, shutdown, 
or malfunction of the emission capture system, add-on control device, 
or coating operation that may affect emission capture or control device 
efficiency are not violations if you demonstrate to the Administrator's 
satisfaction that you were operating in accordance with Sec.  
63.6(e)(1). The Administrator will determine whether deviations that 
occur during a period you identify as a startup, shutdown, or 
malfunction are violations, according to the provisions in Sec.  
63.6(e). On and after [date 181 days after date of publication of final 
rule in the Federal Register] deviations that occur due to malfunction 
of the emission capture system, add-on control device, or coating 
operation that may affect emission capture or control device efficiency 
are required to operate in accordance with Sec.  63.3500(b). The 
Administrator will determine whether the deviations are violations 
according to the provisions in Sec.  63.3500(b).
* * * * *
0
21. Section 63.3553 is amended by revising paragraphs (a) introductory 
text and (a)(1) to read as follows:


Sec.  63.3553  What are the general requirements for performance tests?

    (a) Before [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule 
in the Federal Register], you must conduct each performance test 
required by Sec.  63.3550 according to the requirements in Sec.  
63.7(e)(1) and under the conditions in this section unless you obtain a 
waiver of the performance test according to the provisions in Sec.  
63.7(h). On and after [date 181 days after date of publication of final 
rule in the Federal Register], you must conduct each performance test 
required by Sec.  63.3550 according to the requirements in this section 
unless you

[[Page 25956]]

obtain a waiver of the performance test according to the provisions in 
Sec.  63.7(h).
    (1) Representative coating operating conditions. You must conduct 
the performance test under representative operating conditions for the 
coating operation(s). Operations during periods of startup, shutdown, 
or nonoperation do not constitute representative conditions for 
purposes of conducting a performance test. The owner or operator may 
not conduct performance tests during periods of malfunction. You must 
record the process information that is necessary to document operating 
conditions during the test and explain why the conditions represent 
normal operation. Upon request, you must make available to the 
Administrator such records as may be necessary to determine the 
conditions of performance tests.
* * * * *
0
22. Section 63.3555 is amended by revising the introductory text, 
paragraph (b) introductory text, and paragraphs (b)(1) through (4) to 
read as follows:


Sec.  63.3555  How do I determine the outlet THC emissions and add-on 
control device emission destruction or removal efficiency?

    You must use the procedures and test methods in this section to 
determine either the outlet THC emissions or add-on control device 
emission destruction or removal efficiency as part of the performance 
tests required by Sec.  63.3550. You must conduct three test runs as 
specified in Sec.  63.7(e)(3), and each test run must last at least 1 
hour.
* * * * *
    (b) Measure total gaseous organic mass emissions as carbon at the 
inlet and outlet of the add-on control device simultaneously using 
either Method 25 or 25A of appendix A-7 to 40 CFR part 60 as specified 
in paragraphs (b)(1) through (3) of this section. You must use the same 
method for both the inlet and outlet measurements.
    (1) Use Method 25 of appendix A-7 to 40 CFR part 60 if the add-on 
control device is an oxidizer, and you expect the total gaseous organic 
concentration as carbon to be more than 50 ppm at the control device 
outlet.
    (2) Use Method 25A of appendix A-7 to 40 CFR part 60 if the add-on 
control device is an oxidizer, and you expect the total gaseous organic 
concentration as carbon to be 50 ppm or less at the control device 
outlet.
    (3) Use Method 25A of appendix A-7 to 40 CFR part 60 if the add-on 
control device is not an oxidizer.
    (4) You may use Method 18 of appendix A-6 to 40 CFR part 60 to 
subtract methane emissions from measured total gaseous organic mass 
emissions as carbon.
* * * * *
0
23. Section 63.3556 is amended by revising the introductory text and 
paragraphs (a)(1) and (2), (b)(1) through (3), (d)(1), (e)(1) and (2), 
(f)(1) through (3), and (f)(5) and (6) to read as follows:


Sec.  63.3556  How do I establish the emission capture system and add-
on control device operating limits during the performance test?

    During the performance tests required by Sec.  63.3550 and 
described in Sec. Sec.  63.3553, 63.3554, and 63.3555, you must 
establish the operating limits required by Sec.  63.3492 according to 
this section, unless you have received approval for alternative 
monitoring and operating limits under Sec.  63.8(f) as specified in 
Sec.  63.3492.
    (a) * * *
    (1) During performance tests, you must monitor and record the 
combustion temperature at least once every 15 minutes during each of 
the three test runs. You must monitor the temperature in the firebox of 
the thermal oxidizer or immediately downstream of the firebox before 
any substantial heat exchange occurs.
    (2) For each performance test, use the data collected during the 
performance test to calculate and record the average combustion 
temperature maintained during the performance test. That average 
combustion temperature is the minimum operating limit for your thermal 
oxidizer.
    (b) * * *
    (1) During performance tests, you must monitor and record the 
temperature at the inlet to the catalyst bed and the temperature 
difference across the catalyst bed at least once every 15 minutes 
during each of the three test runs.
    (2) For each performance test, use the data collected during the 
performance test to calculate and record the average temperature at the 
inlet to the catalyst bed and the average temperature difference across 
the catalyst bed maintained during the performance test. The average 
temperature difference is the minimum operating limit for your 
catalytic oxidizer.
    (3) As an alternative to monitoring the temperature difference 
across the catalyst bed, you may monitor the temperature at the inlet 
to the catalyst bed and implement a site-specific inspection and 
maintenance plan for your catalytic oxidizer as specified in paragraph 
(b)(4) of this section. During performance tests, you must monitor and 
record the temperature at the inlet to the catalyst bed at least once 
every 15 minutes during each of the three test runs. Use the data 
collected during each performance test to calculate and record the 
average temperature at the inlet to the catalyst bed during the 
performance test. That is the minimum operating limit for your 
catalytic oxidizer.
* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (1) You must monitor and record the total regeneration desorbing 
gas (e.g., steam or nitrogen) mass flow for each regeneration cycle, 
and the carbon bed temperature after each carbon bed regeneration and 
cooling cycle for the regeneration cycle either immediately preceding 
or immediately following performance tests.
* * * * *
    (e) * * *
    (1) During performance tests, monitor and record the condenser 
outlet (product side) gas temperature at least once every 15 minutes 
during each of the three test runs.
    (2) For each performance test, use the data collected during the 
performance test to calculate and record the average condenser outlet 
(product side) gas temperature maintained during the performance test. 
This average condenser outlet gas temperature is the maximum operating 
limit for your condenser.
    (f) * * *
    (1) During performance tests, monitor and record the inlet 
temperature to the desorption/reactivation zone of the concentrator at 
least once every 15 minutes during each of the three runs of the 
performance test.
    (2) For each performance test, use the data collected during the 
performance test to calculate and record the average temperature. This 
is the minimum operating limit for the desorption/reactivation zone 
inlet temperature.
    (3) During performance tests, monitor and record an indicator(s) of 
performance for the desorption/reactivation fan operation at least once 
every 15 minutes during each of the three runs of the performance test. 
The indicator can be speed in rpm, power in amps, static pressure, or 
flow rate.
* * * * *
    (5) During performance tests, monitor the rotational speed of the 
concentrator at least once every 15 minutes during each of the three 
runs of a performance test.
    (6) For each performance test, use the data collected during the 
performance test to calculate and record the average rotational speed. 
This is the minimum operating limit for the rotational speed of the 
concentrator. However, the indicator range for the rotational speed

[[Page 25957]]

may be changed if an engineering evaluation is conducted and a 
determination made that the change in speed will not affect compliance 
with the emission limit.
* * * * *
0
24. Section 63.3557 is amended by revising paragraphs (a)(4) and (5), 
(a)(7), and (c)(3) introductory text to read as follows:


Sec.  63.3557  What are the requirements for continuous parameter 
monitoring system installation, operation, and maintenance?

    (a) * * *
    (4) You must maintain the CPMS at all times in accordance with 
Sec.  63.3500(b) and have readily available necessary parts for routine 
repairs of the monitoring equipment.
    (5) You must operate the CPMS and collect emission capture system 
and add-on control device parameter data at all times in accordance 
with Sec.  63.3500(b) that a controlled coating operation is operating, 
except during monitoring malfunctions, associated repairs, and required 
quality assurance or control activities (including, if applicable, 
calibration checks and required zero and span adjustments).
* * * * *
    (7) A monitoring malfunction is any sudden, infrequent, not 
reasonably preventable failure of the CPMS to provide valid data. 
Monitoring failures that are caused in part by poor maintenance or 
careless operation are not malfunctions. Before [date 181 days after 
date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register], any period 
for which the monitoring system is out of control and data are not 
available for required calculations is a deviation from the monitoring 
requirements. On and after [date 181 days after date of publication of 
final rule in the Federal Register], except for periods of required 
quality assurance or control activities, any period for which the CPMS 
fails to operate and record data continuously as required by paragraph 
(a)(5) of this section, or generates data that cannot be included in 
calculating averages as specified in (a)(6) of this section constitutes 
a deviation from the monitoring requirements.
* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (3) For all thermal oxidizers and catalytic oxidizers, you must 
meet the requirements in paragraphs (a) and (c)(3)(i) through (ii) of 
this section for each gas temperature monitoring device. For the 
purposes of this paragraph (c)(3), a thermocouple is part of the 
temperature sensor.
* * * * *
0
25. Section 63.3561 is amended by removing the definition for 
``Deviation'' and adding definitions for ``Deviation, before'' and 
``Deviation, on and after'' in alphabetical order to read as follows:


Sec.  63.3561  What definitions apply to this subpart?

* * * * *
    Deviation, before [date 181 days after date of publication of final 
rule in the Federal Register], 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, 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.
    Deviation, on and after [date 181 days after date of publication of 
final rule in the Federal Register], 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.
* * * * *
0
26. Table 5 to subpart KKKK of part 63 is revised to read as follows:

Table 5 to Subpart KKKK of Part 63--Applicability of General Provisions 
to Subpart KKKK

    You must comply with the applicable General Provisions requirements 
according to the following table:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 Applicable to subpart
               Citation                        Subject                    KKKK                 Explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec.   63.1(a)(1)-(4)................  General Applicability..  Yes....................
Sec.   63.1(a)(6)....................  Source Category Listing  Yes....................
Sec.   63.1(a)(10)-(12)..............  Timing and Overlap       Yes....................
                                        Clarifications.
Sec.   63.1(b)(1)....................  Initial Applicability    Yes....................  Applicability to
                                        Determination.                                    subpart KKKK is also
                                                                                          specified in Sec.
                                                                                          63.3481.
Sec.   63.1(b)(3)....................  Applicability            Yes....................
                                        Determination
                                        Recordkeeping.
Sec.   63.1(c)(1)....................  Applicability after      Yes....................
                                        Standard Established.
Sec.   63.1(c)(2)....................  Applicability of Permit  No.....................  Area sources are not
                                        Program for Area                                  subject to subpart
                                        Sources.                                          KKKK.
Sec.   63.1(c)(5)....................  Extensions and           Yes....................
                                        Notifications.
Sec.   63.1(e).......................  Applicability of Permit  Yes....................
                                        Program before
                                        Relevant Standard is
                                        Set.
Sec.   63.2..........................  Definitions............  Yes....................  Additional definitions
                                                                                          are specified in Sec.
                                                                                           63.3561.
Sec.   63.3..........................  Units and Abbreviations  Yes....................
Sec.   63.4(a)(1)-(2)................  Prohibited Activities..  Yes....................
Sec.   63.4(b)-(c)...................  Circumvention/           Yes....................
                                        Fragmentation.
Sec.   63.5(a).......................  Construction/            Yes....................
                                        Reconstruction.
Sec.   63.5(b)(1), (3), (4), (6).....  Requirements for         Yes....................
                                        Existing, Newly
                                        Constructed, and
                                        Reconstructed Sources.
Sec.   63.5(d)(1)(i)-(ii)(F),          Application for          Yes....................
 (d)(1)(ii)(H), (d)(1)(ii)(J),          Approval of
 (d)(1)(iii), (d)(2)-(4).               Construction/
                                        Reconstruction.

[[Page 25958]]

 
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--Applicab
                                        ility.
Sec.   63.6(b)(1)-(5), (b)(7)........  Compliance Dates for     Yes....................  Section 63.3483
                                        New and Reconstructed                             specifies the
                                        Sources.                                          compliance dates.
Sec.   63.6(c)(1), (2), (5)..........  Compliance Dates for     Yes....................  Section 63.3483
                                        Existing Sources.                                 specifies the
                                                                                          compliance dates.
Sec.   63.6(e)(1)(i)-(ii)............  Operation and            Yes before [date 181     See Sec.   63.3500(b)
                                        Maintenance.             days after date of       for general duty
                                                                 publication of final     requirement.
                                                                 rule in the Federal
                                                                 Register].
                                                                No on and after [date
                                                                 181 days after date of
                                                                 publication of final
                                                                 rule in the Federal
                                                                 Register]..
Sec.   63.6(e)(1)(iii)...............  Operation and            Yes....................
                                        Maintenance.
Sec.   63.6(e)(3)(i), (e)(3)(iii)-     SSMP...................  Yes before [date 181
 (ix).                                                           days after date of
                                                                 publication of final
                                                                 rule in the Federal
                                                                 Register].
                                                                No on and after [date
                                                                 181 days after date of
                                                                 publication of final
                                                                 rule in the Federal
                                                                 Register]..
Sec.   63.6(f)(1)....................  Compliance Except        Yes before [date 181
                                        during Startup,          days after date of
                                        Shutdown, and            publication of final
                                        Malfunction.             rule in the Federal
                                                                 Register].
                                                                No on and after [date
                                                                 181 days after date of
                                                                 publication of final
                                                                 rule in the Federal
                                                                 Register]..
Sec.   63.6(f)(2)-(3)................  Methods for Determining  Yes....................
                                        Compliance.
Sec.   63.6(g).......................  Use of an Alternative    Yes....................
                                        Standard.
Sec.   63.6(h).......................  Compliance with Opacity/ No.....................  Subpart KKKK does not
                                        Visible Emission                                  establish opacity
                                        Standards.                                        standards and does not
                                                                                          require continuous
                                                                                          opacity monitoring
                                                                                          systems (COMS).
Sec.   63.6(i)(1)-(14)...............  Extension of Compliance  Yes....................
Sec.   63.6(i)(16)...................  Compliance Extensions    Yes....................
                                        and Administrator's
                                        Authority.
Sec.   63.6(j).......................  Presidential Compliance  Yes....................
                                        Exemption.
Sec.   63.7(a)(1)....................  Performance Test         Yes....................  Applies to all affected
                                        Requirements--Applicab                            sources. Additional
                                        ility.                                            requirements for
                                                                                          performance testing
                                                                                          are specified in Sec.
                                                                                          Sec.   63.3543,
                                                                                          63.3544, 63.3545,
                                                                                          63.3554, and 63.3555.
Sec.   63.7(a)(2) except (a)(2)(i)-    Performance Test         Yes....................  Applies only to
 (viii).                                Requirements--Dates.                              performance tests for
                                                                                          capture system and
                                                                                          control device
                                                                                          efficiency at sources
                                                                                          using these to comply
                                                                                          with the standards.
                                                                                          Sections 63.3540 and
                                                                                          63.3550 specify the
                                                                                          schedule for
                                                                                          performance test
                                                                                          requirements that are
                                                                                          earlier than those
                                                                                          specified in Sec.
                                                                                          63.7(a)(2).
Sec.   63.7(a)(3)....................  Performance Tests        Yes....................
                                        Required by the
                                        Administrator.
Sec.   63.7(b)-(d)...................  Performance Test         Yes....................  Applies only to
                                        Requirements--Notifica                            performance tests for
                                        tion, Quality                                     capture system and add-
                                        Assurance, Facilities                             on control device
                                        Necessary for Safe                                efficiency at sources
                                        Testing, Conditions                               using these to comply
                                        During Test.                                      with the standards.
Sec.   63.7(e)(1)....................  Conduct of Performance   Yes before [date 181     See Sec.  Sec.
                                        Tests.                   days after date of       63.3543 and 63.3553.
                                                                 publication of final
                                                                 rule in the Federal
                                                                 Register].
                                                                No on and after [date
                                                                 181 days after date of
                                                                 publication of final
                                                                 rule in the Federal
                                                                 Register]..
Sec.   63.7(e)(2)-(4)................  Conduct of Performance   Yes....................
                                        Tests.

[[Page 25959]]

 
Sec.   63.7(f).......................  Performance Test         Yes....................  Applies to all test
                                        Requirements--Use of                              methods except those
                                        Alternative Test                                  used to determine
                                        Method.                                           capture system
                                                                                          efficiency.
Sec.   63.7(g)-(h)...................  Performance Test         Yes....................  Applies only to
                                        Requirements--Data                                performance tests for
                                        Analysis,                                         capture system and add-
                                        Recordkeeping,                                    on control device
                                        Reporting, Waiver of                              efficiency at sources
                                        Test.                                             using these to comply
                                                                                          with the standards.
Sec.   63.8(a)(1)-(2)................  Monitoring               Yes....................  Applies only to
                                        Requirements--Applicab                            monitoring of capture
                                        ility.                                            system and add-on
                                                                                          control device
                                                                                          efficiency at sources
                                                                                          using these to comply
                                                                                          with the standards.
                                                                                          Additional
                                                                                          requirements for
                                                                                          monitoring are
                                                                                          specified in Sec.
                                                                                          Sec.   63.3547 and
                                                                                          63.3557.
Sec.   63.8(a)(4)....................  Additional Monitoring    No.....................  Subpart KKKK does not
                                        Requirements.                                     have monitoring
                                                                                          requirements for
                                                                                          flares.
Sec.   63.8(b).......................  Conduct of Monitoring..  Yes....................
Sec.   63.8(c)(1)....................  Continuous Monitoring    Yes before [date 181     Sections 63.3547 and
                                        System (CMS) Operation   days after date of       63.3557 specify the
                                        and Maintenance.         publication of final     requirements for the
                                                                 rule in the Federal      operation of CMS for
                                                                 Register].               capture systems and
                                                                No on and after [date     add-on control devices
                                                                 181 days after date of   at sources using these
                                                                 publication of final     to comply.
                                                                 rule in the Federal
                                                                 Register]..
Sec.   63.8(c)(2)-(3)................  CMS Operation and        Yes....................  Applies only to
                                        Maintenance.                                      monitoring of capture
                                                                                          system and add-on
                                                                                          control device
                                                                                          efficiency at sources
                                                                                          using these to comply
                                                                                          with the standards.
                                                                                          Additional
                                                                                          requirements for CMS
                                                                                          operations and
                                                                                          maintenance are
                                                                                          specified in Sec.
                                                                                          Sec.   63.3547 and
                                                                                          63.3557.
Sec.   63.8(c)(4)....................  CMS....................  No.....................  Sections 63.3547 and
                                                                                          63.3557 specify the
                                                                                          requirements for the
                                                                                          operation of CMS for
                                                                                          capture systems and
                                                                                          add-on control devices
                                                                                          at sources using these
                                                                                          to comply.
Sec.   63.8(c)(5)....................  COMS...................  No.....................  Subpart KKKK does not
                                                                                          have opacity or
                                                                                          visible emission
                                                                                          standards.
Sec.   63.8(c)(6)....................  CMS Requirements.......  No.....................  Sections 63.3547 and
                                                                                          63.3557 specify the
                                                                                          requirements for
                                                                                          monitoring systems for
                                                                                          capture systems and
                                                                                          add-on control devices
                                                                                          at sources using these
                                                                                          to comply.
Sec.   63.8(c)(7)....................  CMS Out-of-Control       Yes....................
                                        Periods.
Sec.   63.8(c)(8)....................  CMS Out-of-Control       No.....................  Section 63.3511
                                        Periods Reporting.                                requires reporting of
                                                                                          CMS out of control
                                                                                          periods.
Sec.   63.8(d)-(e)...................  Quality Control Program  No.....................
                                        and CMS Performance
                                        Evaluation.
Sec.   63.8(f)(1)-(5)................  Use of an Alternative    Yes....................
                                        Monitoring Method.
Sec.   63.8(f)(6)....................  Alternative to Relative  No.....................  Section 63.8(f)(6)
                                        Accuracy Test.                                    provisions are not
                                                                                          applicable because
                                                                                          subpart KKKK does not
                                                                                          require CEMS.
Sec.   63.8(g).......................  Data Reduction.........  No.....................  Sections 63.3542,
                                                                                          63.3547, 63.3552 and
                                                                                          63.3557 specify
                                                                                          monitoring data
                                                                                          reduction.
Sec.   63.9(a).......................  Notification             Yes....................
                                        Applicability.
Sec.   63.9(b)(1)-(2)................  Initial Notifications..  Yes....................
Sec.   63.9(b)(4)(i), (b)(4)(v),       Application for          Yes....................
 (b)(5).                                Approval of
                                        Construction or
                                        Reconstruction.
Sec.   63.9(c).......................  Request for Extension    Yes....................
                                        of Compliance.
Sec.   63.9(d).......................  Special Compliance       Yes....................
                                        Requirement
                                        Notification.

[[Page 25960]]

 
Sec.   63.9(e).......................  Notification of          Yes....................  Applies only to capture
                                        Performance Test.                                 system and add-on
                                                                                          control device
                                                                                          performance tests at
                                                                                          sources using these to
                                                                                          comply with the
                                                                                          standards.
Sec.   63.9(f).......................  Notification of Visible  No.....................  Subpart KKKK does not
                                        Emissions/Opacity Test.                           have opacity or
                                                                                          visible emission
                                                                                          standards.
Sec.   63.9(g).......................  Additional               No.....................
                                        Notifications When
                                        Using CMS.
Sec.   63.9(h)(1)-(3)................  Notification of          Yes....................  Section 63.3510
                                        Compliance Status.                                specifies the dates
                                                                                          for submitting the
                                                                                          notification of
                                                                                          compliance status.
Sec.   63.9(h)(5)-(6)................  Clarifications.........  Yes....................
Sec.   63.9(i).......................  Adjustment of Submittal  Yes....................
                                        Deadlines.
Sec.   63.9(j).......................  Change in Previous       Yes....................
                                        Information.
Sec.   63.10(a)......................  Recordkeeping/           Yes....................
                                        Reporting--Applicabili
                                        ty and General
                                        Information.
Sec.   63.10(b)(1)...................  General Recordkeeping    Yes....................  Additional requirements
                                        Requirements.                                     are specified in Sec.
                                                                                          Sec.   63.3512 and
                                                                                          63.3513.
Sec.   63.10(b)(2)(i)-(ii)...........  Recordkeeping of         Yes before [date 181     See Sec.   63.3512(i).
                                        Occurrence and           days after date of
                                        Duration of Startups     publication of final
                                        and Shutdowns and of     rule in the Federal
                                        Failures to Meet         Register].
                                        Standards.              No on and after [date
                                                                 181 days after date of
                                                                 publication of final
                                                                 rule in the Federal
                                                                 Register]..
Sec.   63.10(b)(2)(iii)..............  Recordkeeping Relevant   Yes....................
                                        to Maintenance of Air
                                        Pollution Control and
                                        Monitoring Equipment.
Sec.   63.10(b)(2)(iv)-(v)...........  Actions Taken to         Yes before [date 181     See Sec.
                                        Minimize Emissions       days after date of       63.3512(i)(4) for a
                                        During Startup,          publication of final     record of actions
                                        Shutdown, and            rule in the Federal      taken to minimize
                                        Malfunction.             Register].               emissions duration a
                                                                No on and after [date     deviation from the
                                                                 181 days after date of   standard.
                                                                 publication of final
                                                                 rule in the Federal
                                                                 Register].
Sec.   63.10(b)(2)(vi)...............  Recordkeeping for CMS    Yes before [date 181     See Sec.   63.3512(i)
                                        Malfunctions.            days after date of       for records of periods
                                                                 publication of final     of deviation from the
                                                                 rule in the Federal      standard, including
                                                                 Register].               instances where a CMS
                                                                No on and after [date     is inoperative or out-
                                                                 181 days after date of   of-control.
                                                                 publication of final
                                                                 rule in the Federal
                                                                 Register].
Sec.   63.10(b)(2) (vii)-(xii).......  Records................  Yes....................
Sec.   63.10(b)(2) (xiii)............  .......................  No.....................
Sec.   63.10(b)(2) (xiv).............  .......................  Yes....................
Sec.   63.10(b)(3)...................  Recordkeeping            Yes....................
                                        Requirements for
                                        Applicability
                                        Determinations.
Sec.   63.10(c)(1)...................  Additional               Yes....................
                                        Recordkeeping
                                        Requirements for
                                        Sources with CMS.
Sec.   63.10(c)(5)-(6)...............  .......................  Yes....................
Sec.   63.10(c)(7)-(8)...............  Additional               No.....................  See Sec.   63.3512(i)
                                        Recordkeeping                                     for records of periods
                                        Requirements for                                  of deviation from the
                                        Sources with CMS.                                 standard, including
                                                                                          instances where a CMS
                                                                                          is inoperative or out-
                                                                                          of-control.
Sec.   63.10(c)(10)-(14).............  Additional               Yes....................
                                        Recordkeeping
                                        Requirements for
                                        Sources with CMS.
Sec.   63.10(c)(15)..................  Records Regarding the    Yes before [date 181
                                        Startup, Shutdown, and   days after date of
                                        Malfunction Plan.        publication of final
                                                                 rule in the Federal
                                                                 Register].
                                                                No on and after [date
                                                                 181 days after date of
                                                                 publication of final
                                                                 rule in the Federal
                                                                 Register]..
Sec.   63.10(d)(1)...................  General Reporting        Yes....................  Additional requirements
                                        Requirements.                                     are specified in Sec.
                                                                                           63.3511.
Sec.   63.10(d)(2)...................  Report of Performance    Yes....................  Additional requirements
                                        Test Results.                                     are specified in Sec.
                                                                                           63.3511(b).
Sec.   63.10(d)(3)...................  Reporting Opacity or     No.....................  Subpart KKKK does not
                                        Visible Emissions                                 require opacity or
                                        Observations.                                     visible emissions
                                                                                          observations.
Sec.   63.10(d)(4)...................  Progress Reports for     Yes....................
                                        Sources with
                                        Compliance Extensions.

[[Page 25961]]

 
Sec.   63.10(d)(5)...................  Startup, Shutdown,       Yes before [date 181     See Sec.
                                        Malfunction Reports.     days after date of       63.3511(a)(7) and (8).
                                                                 publication of final
                                                                 rule in the Federal
                                                                 Register].
                                                                No on and after [date
                                                                 181 days after date of
                                                                 publication of final
                                                                 rule in the Federal
                                                                 Register].
Sec.   63.10(e)(1)-(2)...............  Additional CMS Reports.  No.....................
Sec.   63.10(e)(3)...................  Excess Emissions/CMS     No.....................  Section 63.3511(b)
                                        Performance Reports.                              specifies the contents
                                                                                          of periodic compliance
                                                                                          reports.
Sec.   63.10(e)(4)...................  COMS Data Reports......  No.....................  Subpart KKKK does not
                                                                                          specify requirements
                                                                                          for opacity or COMS.
Sec.   63.10(f)......................  Recordkeeping/Reporting  Yes....................
                                        Waiver.
Sec.   63.11.........................  Control Device           No.....................  Subpart KKKK does not
                                        Requirements/Flares.                              specify use of flares
                                                                                          for compliance.
Sec.   63.12.........................  State Authority and      Yes....................
                                        Delegations.
Sec.   63.13(a)......................  Addresses..............  Yes before [date 181
                                                                 days after date of
                                                                 publication of final
                                                                 rule in the Federal
                                                                 Register].
                                                                No on and after [date
                                                                 181 days after date of
                                                                 publication of final
                                                                 rule in the Federal
                                                                 Register]..
Sec.   63.13(b)......................  Submittal to State       Yes....................
                                        Agencies.
Sec.   63.13(c)......................  Submittal to State       Yes before [date 181
                                        Agencies.                days after date of
                                                                 publication of final
                                                                 rule in the Federal
                                                                 Register].
                                                                No unless the state
                                                                 requires the submittal
                                                                 via CEDRI, on and
                                                                 after [date 181 days
                                                                 after date of
                                                                 publication of final
                                                                 rule in the Federal
                                                                 Register].
Sec.   63.14.........................  Incorporation by         Yes....................
                                        Reference.
Sec.   63.15.........................  Availability of          Yes....................
                                        Information/
                                        Confidentiality.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

0
27. Table 8 to subpart KKKK of part 63 is added to read as follows:

  Table 8 to Subpart KKKK of Part 63--List of Hazardous Air Pollutants
 That Must Be Counted Toward Total Organic HAP Content if Present at 0.1
                         Percent or More by Mass
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                      Chemical name                           CAS No.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane...............................         79-34-5
1,1,2-Trichloroethane...................................         79-00-5
1,1-Dimethylhydrazine...................................         57-14-7
1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane.............................         96-12-8
1,2-Diphenylhydrazine...................................        122-66-7
1,3-Butadiene...........................................        106-99-0
1,3-Dichloropropene.....................................        542-75-6
1,4-Dioxane.............................................        123-91-1
2,4,6-Trichlorophenol...................................         88-06-2
2,4/2,6-Dinitrotoluene (mixture)........................      25321-14-6
2,4-Dinitrotoluene......................................        121-14-2
2,4-Toluene diamine.....................................         95-80-7
2-Nitropropane..........................................         79-46-9
3,3'-Dichlorobenzidine..................................         91-94-1
3,3'-Dimethoxybenzidine.................................        119-90-4
3,3'-Dimethylbenzidine..................................        119-93-7
4,4'-Methylene bis(2-chloroaniline).....................        101-14-4
Acetaldehyde............................................         75-07-0
Acrylamide..............................................         79-06-1
Acrylonitrile...........................................        107-13-1
Allyl chloride..........................................        107-05-1
alpha-Hexachlorocyclohexane (a-HCH).....................        319-84-6
Aniline.................................................         62-53-3
Benzene.................................................         71-43-2
Benzidine...............................................         92-87-5
Benzotrichloride........................................         98-07-7
Benzyl chloride.........................................        100-44-7
beta-Hexachlorocyclohexane (b-HCH)......................        319-85-7

[[Page 25962]]

 
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate..............................        117-81-7
Bis(chloromethyl)ether..................................        542-88-1
Bromoform...............................................         75-25-2
Captan..................................................        133-06-2
Carbon tetrachloride....................................         56-23-5
Chlordane...............................................         57-74-9
Chlorobenzilate.........................................        510-15-6
Chloroform..............................................         67-66-3
Chloroprene.............................................        126-99-8
Cresols (mixed).........................................       1319-77-3
DDE.....................................................       3547-04-4
Dichloroethyl ether.....................................        111-44-4
Dichlorvos..............................................         62-73-7
Epichlorohydrin.........................................        106-89-8
Ethyl acrylate..........................................        140-88-5
Ethylene dibromide......................................        106-93-4
Ethylene dichloride.....................................        107-06-2
Ethylene oxide..........................................         75-21-8
Ethylene thiourea.......................................         96-45-7
Ethylidene dichloride (1,1-Dichloroethane)..............         75-34-3
Formaldehyde............................................         50-00-0
Heptachlor..............................................         76-44-8
Hexachlorobenzene.......................................        118-74-1
Hexachlorobutadiene.....................................         87-68-3
Hexachloroethane........................................         67-72-1
Hydrazine...............................................        302-01-2
Isophorone..............................................         78-59-1
Lindane (hexachlorocyclohexane, all isomers)............         58-89-9
m-Cresol................................................        108-39-4
Methylene chloride......................................         75-09-2
Naphthalene.............................................         91-20-3
Nitrobenzene............................................         98-95-3
Nitrosodimethylamine....................................         62-75-9
o-Cresol................................................         95-48-7
o-Toluidine.............................................         95-53-4
Parathion...............................................         56-38-2
p-Cresol................................................        106-44-5
p-Dichlorobenzene.......................................        106-46-7
Pentachloronitrobenzene.................................         82-68-8
Pentachlorophenol.......................................         87-86-5
Propoxur................................................        114-26-1
Propylene dichloride....................................         78-87-5
Propylene oxide.........................................         75-56-9
Quinoline...............................................         91-22-5
Tetrachloroethene.......................................        127-18-4
Toxaphene...............................................       8001-35-2
Trichloroethylene.......................................         79-01-6
Trifluralin.............................................       1582-09-8
Vinyl bromide...........................................        593-60-2
Vinyl chloride..........................................         75-01-4
Vinylidene chloride.....................................         75-35-4
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Subpart SSSS--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air 
Pollutants: Surface Coating of Metal Coil

0
28. Section 63.5090 is amended by revising paragraph (a) and adding 
paragraph (e) to read as follows:


Sec.  63.5090  Does this subpart apply to me?

    (a) The provisions of this subpart apply to each facility that is a 
major source of HAP, as defined in Sec.  63.2, at which a coil coating 
line is operated, except as provided in paragraphs (b) and (e) of this 
section.
* * * * *
    (e) This subpart does not apply to the application of incidental 
markings (including letters, numbers, or symbols) that are added to 
bare metal coils and that are used for only product identification or 
for product inventory control. The application of letters, numbers, or 
symbols to a coated metal coil is considered a coil coating process and 
part of the coil coating affected source.
0
29. Section 63.5110 is amended by removing the definition for 
``Deviation'' and adding definitions for ``Deviation, before'' and 
``Deviation, on and after'' in alphabetical order to read as follows:


Sec.  63.5110  What special definitions are used in this subpart?

* * * * *
    Deviation, before [date 181 days after date of publication of final 
rule in the Federal Register], means any instance in which an affected 
source, subject to this subpart, or an owner or operator of such a 
source:

[[Page 25963]]

    (1) Fails to meet any requirement or obligation established by this 
subpart including, but not limited to, any emission limitation 
(including any 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 limitation (including any operating 
limit) or work practice standard in this subpart during start-up, 
shutdown, or malfunction, regardless of whether or not such failure is 
permitted by this subpart.
    Deviation, on and after [date 181 days after date of publication of 
final rule in the Federal Register], 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 limitation 
(including any 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.
* * * * *
0
30. Section 63.5121 is amended by revising paragraph (a) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  63.5121  What operating limits must I meet?

    (a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, for any 
coil coating line for which you use an add-on control device, unless 
you use a solvent recovery system and conduct a liquid-liquid material 
balance according to Sec.  63.5170(e)(1), you must meet the applicable 
operating limits specified in Table 1 to this subpart. You must 
establish the operating limits during performance tests according to 
the requirements in Sec.  63.5160(d)(3) and Table 1 to Sec.  63.5160. 
You must meet the operating limits established during the most recent 
performance test required in Sec.  63.5160 at all times after you 
establish them.
* * * * *
0
31. Section 63.5130 is amended by revising paragraph (a) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  63.5130  When must I comply?

    (a) For an existing affected source, the compliance date is June 
10, 2005.
* * * * *
0
32. Section 63.5140 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraph (a);
0
b. Redesignating paragraph (b) as (c); and
0
c. Adding paragraph (b).
    The revision and addition read as follows:


Sec.  63.5140  What general requirements must I meet to comply with the 
standards?

    (a) Before [date 181 days after publication of final rule in the 
Federal Register], you must be in compliance with the applicable 
emission standards in Sec.  63.5120 and the operating limits in Table 1 
to this subpart at all times, except during periods of start-up, 
shutdown, and malfunction of any capture system and control device used 
to comply with this subpart. On and after [date 181 days after 
publication of final rule in the Federal Register] you must be in 
compliance with the applicable emission standards in Sec.  63.5120 and 
the operating limits in Table 1 to this subpart at all times. If you 
are complying with the emission standards of this subpart without the 
use of a capture system and control device, you must be in compliance 
with the standards at all times.
    (b) Before [date 181 days after publication of final rule in the 
Federal Register], you must always operate and maintain your affected 
source, including air pollution control and monitoring equipment, 
according to the provisions in Sec.  63.6(e)(1). On and after [date 181 
days after publication of final rule in the Federal Register], at all 
times, you must operate and maintain your affected source, including 
associated air pollution control equipment and monitoring equipment, in 
a manner consistent with safety and good air pollution control 
practices for minimizing emissions. The general duty to minimize 
emissions does not require the owner or operator to make any further 
efforts to reduce emissions if levels required by the applicable 
standard have been achieved. Determination of whether a source is 
operating in compliance with operation and maintenance requirements 
will be based on information available to the Administrator that may 
include, but is not limited to, monitoring results, review of operation 
and maintenance procedures, review of operation and maintenance 
records, and inspection of the affected source.
* * * * *
0
33. Section 63.5150 is amended by revising paragraph (a) introductory 
text, paragraph (a)(4)(i), and paragraph (b) to read as follows:


Sec.  63.5150  If I use a control device to comply with the emission 
standards, what monitoring must I do?

* * * * *
    (a) To demonstrate continuing compliance with the standards, you 
must monitor and inspect each capture system and each control device 
required to comply with Sec.  63.5120 following the date on which the 
initial performance test of the capture system and control device is 
completed. You must install and operate the monitoring equipment as 
specified in paragraphs (a)(1) through (4) of this section. On and 
after [date 181 days after publication of final rule in the Federal 
Register], you must also maintain the monitoring equipment at all times 
in accordance with Sec.  63.5140(b) and keep the necessary parts 
readily available for routine repairs of the monitoring equipment.
* * * * *
    (4) * * *
    (i) The monitoring plan must identify the operating parameter to be 
monitored to ensure that the capture efficiency measured during 
compliance tests is maintained, explain why this parameter is 
appropriate for demonstrating ongoing compliance, and identify the 
specific monitoring procedures.
* * * * *
    (b) If an operating parameter monitored in accordance with 
paragraphs (a)(3) and (4) of this section is out of the allowed range 
specified in Table 1 to this subpart it will be considered a deviation 
from the operating limit.
0
34. Section 63.5160 is amended by revising table 1 and paragraphs 
(b)(1)(i), (b)(2), (b)(4), (c), (d) introductory text, (d)(1) 
introductory text, (d)(1)(vi) introductory text, (d)(1)(vii), (d)(2), 
(d)(3) introductory text, (d)(3)(i)(A), (d)(3)(ii)(D) introductory 
text, and (e) introductory text to read as follows:


Sec.  63.5160  What performance tests must I complete?

[[Page 25964]]



     Table 1 to Sec.   63.5160--Required Performance Testing Summary
------------------------------------------------------------------------
  If you control HAP on your
    coil coating line by:                      You must:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Limiting HAP or Volatile    Determine the HAP or volatile matter and
 matter content of coatings.    solids content of coating materials
                                according to the procedures in Sec.
                                63.5160(b) and (c).
2. Using a capture system and  Except as specified in paragraph (a) of
 add-on control device.         this section, conduct an initial
                                performance test within 180 days of the
                                applicable compliance date in Sec.
                                63.5130, and conduct periodic
                                performance tests within 5 years
                                following the previous performance test,
                                as follows: Conduct the first periodic
                                performance test before [date 3 years
                                after date of publication of final rule
                                in the Federal Register], unless you are
                                already required to complete periodic
                                performance tests as a requirement of
                                renewing your facility's operating
                                permit under 40 CFR part 70, or 40 CFR
                                part 71, and have conducted a
                                performance test on or after [date 2
                                years before date of publication of
                                final rule in the Federal Register];
                                thereafter, conduct a performance test
                                no later than 5 years following the
                                previous performance test. For each
                                performance test: (1) For each capture
                                and control system, determine the
                                destruction or removal efficiency of
                                each control device according to Sec.
                                63.5160(d) and the capture efficiency of
                                each capture system according to Sec.
                                63.5160(e), and (2) confirm or re-
                                establish the operating limits.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (i) Count only those organic HAP in Table 3 to this subpart that 
are measured to be present at greater than or equal to 0.1 weight 
percent and greater than or equal to 1.0 weight percent for other 
organic HAP compounds.
* * * * *
    (2) Method 24 in appendix A-7 of part 60. For coatings, you may 
determine the total volatile matter content as weight fraction of 
nonaqueous volatile matter and use it as a substitute for organic HAP, 
using Method 24 in appendix A-7 of part 60. As an alternative to using 
Method 24, you may use ASTM D2369-10 (2015), ``Test Method for Volatile 
Content of Coatings'' (incorporated by reference, see Sec.  63.14). The 
determination of total volatile matter content using a method specified 
in this paragraph (b)(2) or as provided in paragraph (b)(3) of this 
section may be performed by the manufacturer of the coating and the 
results provided to you.
* * * * *
    (4) Formulation data. You may use formulation data provided that 
the information represents each organic HAP in Table 3 to this subpart 
that is present at a level equal to or greater than 0.1 percent and 
equal to or greater than 1.0 percent for other organic HAP compounds in 
any raw material used, weighted by the mass fraction of each raw 
material used in the material. Formulation data may be provided to you 
by the manufacturer of the coating material. In the event of any 
inconsistency between test data obtained with the test methods 
specified in paragraphs (b)(1) through (3) of this section and 
formulation data, the test data will govern.
    (c) Solids content and density. You must determine the solids 
content and the density of each coating material applied. You may 
determine the volume solids content using ASTM D2697-03(2014) Standard 
Test Method for Volume Nonvolatile Matter in Clear or Pigmented 
Coatings (incorporated by reference, see Sec.  63.14) or ASTM D6093-97 
(2016) Standard Test Method for Percent Volume Nonvolatile Matter in 
Clear or Pigmented Coatings Using a Helium Gas Pycnometer (incorporated 
by reference, see Sec.  63.14), or an EPA approved alternative method. 
You must determine the density of each coating using ASTM D1475-13 
Standard Test Method for Density of Liquid Coatings, Inks, and Related 
Products (incorporated by reference, see Sec.  63.14) or ASTM D2111-10 
(2015) Standard Test Methods for Specific Gravity of Halogenated 
Organic Solvents and Their Admixtures (incorporated by reference, see 
Sec.  63.14). The solids determination using ASTM D2697-03(2014) or 
ASTM D6093-97 (2016) and the density determination using ASTM D1475-13 
or ASTM 2111-10 (2015) may be performed by the manufacturer of the 
material and the results provided to you. Alternatively, you may rely 
on formulation data provided by material providers to determine the 
volume solids. In the event of any inconsistency between test data 
obtained with the ASTM test methods specified in this section and 
formulation data, the test data will govern.
    (d) Control device destruction or removal efficiency. If you are 
using an add-on control device, such as an oxidizer, to comply with the 
standard in Sec.  63.5120, you must conduct performance tests according 
to Table 1 to Sec.  63.5160 to establish the destruction or removal 
efficiency of the control device or the outlet HAP concentration 
achieved by the oxidizer, according to the methods and procedures in 
paragraphs (d)(1) and (2) of this section. During performance tests, 
you must establish the operating limits required by Sec.  63.5121 
according to paragraph (d)(3) of this section.
    (1) Performance tests conducted to determine the destruction or 
removal efficiency of the control device must be performed such that 
control device inlet and outlet testing is conducted simultaneously. To 
determine the outlet organic HAP concentration achieved by the 
oxidizer, only oxidizer outlet testing must be conducted. The data must 
be reduced in accordance with the test methods and procedures in 
paragraphs (d)(1)(i) through (ix).
* * * * *
    (vi) Method 25 or 25A in appendix A-7 of part 60 is used to 
determine total gaseous non-methane organic matter concentration. You 
may use Method 18 in appendix A-6 of part 60 to subtract methane 
emissions from measured total gaseous organic mass emissions as carbon. 
Use the same test method for both the inlet and outlet measurements, 
which must be conducted simultaneously. You must submit notification of 
the intended test method to the Administrator for approval along with 
notification of the performance test required under Sec.  63.7 (b). You 
must use Method 25A if any of the conditions described in paragraphs 
(d)(1)(vi)(A) through (D) of this section apply to the control device.
* * * * *
    (vii) Each performance test must consist of three separate runs, 
except as provided by Sec.  63.7(e)(3); each run must be conducted for 
at least 1 hour under the conditions that exist when the affected 
source is operating under normal operating conditions. For the purpose 
of determining volatile organic matter concentrations and mass flow 
rates, the average of the results of all runs will apply. If you are 
demonstrating compliance with the outlet organic HAP concentration 
limit in Sec.  63.5120(a)(3), only the average

[[Page 25965]]

outlet volatile organic matter concentration must be determined.
* * * * *
    (2) You must record such process information as may be necessary to 
determine the conditions in existence at the time of the performance 
test. Before [date 181 days after publication of final rule in the 
Federal Register], operations during periods of start-up, shutdown, and 
malfunction will not constitute representative conditions for the 
purpose of a performance test. On and after [date 181 days after 
publication of final rule in the Federal Register], you must conduct 
the performance test under representative operating conditions for the 
coating operation. Operations during periods of start-up, shutdown, or 
nonoperation do not constitute representative conditions for the 
purpose of a performance test. The owner or operator may not conduct 
performance tests during periods of malfunction. You must record the 
process information that is necessary to document operating conditions 
during the test and explain why the conditions represent normal 
operation. Upon request, you must make available to the Administrator 
such records as may be necessary to determine the conditions of 
performance tests.
    (3) Operating limits. If you are using a capture system and add-on 
control device other than a solvent recovery system for which you 
conduct a liquid-liquid material balance to comply with the 
requirements in Sec.  63.5120, you must establish the applicable 
operating limits required by Sec.  63.5121. These operating limits 
apply to each capture system and to each add-on emission control device 
that is not monitored by CEMS, and you must establish the operating 
limits during performance tests required by paragraph (d) of this 
section according to the requirements in paragraphs (d)(3)(i) through 
(iii) of this section.
    (i) * * *
    (A) During performance tests, you must monitor and record the 
combustion temperature at least once every 15 minutes during each of 
the three test runs. You must monitor the temperature in the firebox of 
the thermal oxidizer or immediately downstream of the firebox before 
any substantial heat exchange occurs.
* * * * *
    (ii) * * *
    (D) You must develop and implement an inspection and maintenance 
plan for your catalytic oxidizer(s) for which you elect to monitor 
according to paragraph (d)(3)(ii)(C) of this section. The plan must 
address, at a minimum, the elements specified in paragraphs 
(d)(3)(ii)(D)(1)-(3) of this section.
* * * * *
    (e) Capture efficiency. If you are required to determine capture 
efficiency to meet the requirements of Sec.  63.5170(e)(2), (f)(1) and 
(2), (g)(2) through (4), or (i)(2) and (3), you must determine capture 
efficiency using the procedures in paragraph (e)(1), (2), or (3) of 
this section, as applicable.
* * * * *
0
35. Section 63.5170 is amended by revising table 1 and paragraphs 
(c)(1) and (2), (c)(4) introductory text, (e)(2) introductory text, 
(f)(1) introductory text, (f)(2), (g)(2) introductory text, (g)(3) 
introductory text, (g)(4) introductory text, Equation 11 of paragraph 
(h)(6), (i) introductory text, and (i)(1) to read as follows:


Sec.  63.5170  How do I demonstrate compliance with the standards?

* * * * *

 Table 1 to Sec.   63.5170--Compliance Demonstration Requirements Index
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 If you choose to demonstrate
        compliance by:              Then you must demonstrate that:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Use of ``as purchased''     a. Each coating material used during the
 compliant coatings.            12-month compliance period does not
                                exceed 0.046 kg HAP per liter solids, as
                                purchased. Paragraph (a) of this
                                section.
2. Use of ``as applied''       a. Each coating material used does not
 compliant coatings.            exceed 0.046 kg HAP per liter solids on
                                a rolling 12-month average as applied
                                basis, determined monthly. Paragraphs
                                (b)(1) of this section; or
                               b. Average of all coating materials used
                                does not exceed 0.046 kg HAP per liter
                                solids on a rolling 12-month average as
                                applied basis, determined monthly.
                                Paragraph (b)(2) of this section.
3. Use of a capture system     Overall organic HAP control efficiency is
 and control device.            at least 98 percent on a monthly basis
                                for individual or groups of coil coating
                                lines; or overall organic HAP control
                                efficiency is at least 98 percent during
                                performance tests conducted according to
                                Table 1 to Sec.   63.5170 and operating
                                limits are achieved continuously for
                                individual coil coating lines; or
                                oxidizer outlet HAP concentration is no
                                greater than 20 ppmv and there is 100
                                percent capture efficiency during
                                performance tests conducted according to
                                Table 1 to Sec.   63.5170 and operating
                                limits are achieved continuously for
                                individual coil coating lines. Paragraph
                                (c) of this section.
4. Use of a combination of     Average equivalent emission rate does not
 compliant coatings and         exceed 0.046 kg HAP per liter solids on
 control devices and            a rolling 12-month average as applied
 maintaining an acceptable      basis, determined monthly. Paragraph (d)
 equivalent emission rate.      of this section.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (1) If the affected source uses one compliance procedure to limit 
organic HAP emissions to the level specified in Sec.  63.5120(a)(1) or 
(3) and has only always-controlled work stations, then you must 
demonstrate compliance with the provisions of paragraph (e) of this 
section when emissions from the affected source are controlled by one 
or more solvent recovery devices.
    (2) If the affected source uses one compliance procedure to limit 
organic HAP emissions to the level specified in Sec.  63.5120(a)(1) or 
(3) and has only always-controlled work stations, then you must 
demonstrate compliance with the provisions of paragraph (f) of this 
section when emissions are controlled by one or more oxidizers.
* * * * *
    (4) The method of limiting organic HAP emissions to the level 
specified in Sec.  63.5120(a)(3) is the installation and operation of a 
PTE around each work station and associated curing oven in the coating 
line and the ventilation of all organic HAP emissions from each PTE to 
an oxidizer with an outlet organic HAP concentration of no greater than 
20 ppmv on a dry basis. An enclosure that meets the requirements in 
Sec.  63.5160(e)(1) is considered a PTE. Compliance of the oxidizer 
with the outlet organic HAP concentration limit is demonstrated either 
through continuous emission monitoring according to paragraph 
(c)(4)(ii) of this section or through performance tests according to 
the requirements of Sec.  63.5160(d) and Table 1 to Sec.  63.5160. If 
this method is selected, you must meet the requirements of paragraph 
(c)(4)(i) of

[[Page 25966]]

this section to demonstrate continuing achievement of 100 percent 
capture of organic HAP emissions and either paragraph (c)(4)(ii) or 
paragraph (c)(4)(iii) of this section, respectively, to demonstrate 
continuous compliance with the oxidizer outlet organic HAP 
concentration limit through continuous emission monitoring or 
continuous operating parameter monitoring:
* * * * *
    (e) * * *
    (2) Continuous emission monitoring of control device performance. 
Use continuous emission monitors to demonstrate recovery efficiency, 
conduct performance tests of capture efficiency and volumetric flow 
rate, and continuously monitor a site specific operating parameter to 
ensure that capture efficiency and volumetric flow rate are maintained 
following the procedures in paragraphs (e)(2)(i) through (xi) of this 
section:
* * * * *
    (f) * * *
    (1) Continuous monitoring of capture system and control device 
operating parameters. Demonstrate compliance through performance tests 
of capture efficiency and control device efficiency and continuous 
monitoring of capture system and control device operating parameters as 
specified in paragraphs (f)(1)(i) through (xi) of this section:
* * * * *
    (2) Continuous emission monitoring of control device performance. 
Use continuous emission monitors, conduct performance tests of capture 
efficiency, and continuously monitor a site specific operating 
parameter to ensure that capture efficiency is maintained. Compliance 
must be demonstrated in accordance with paragraph (e)(2) of this 
section.
    (g) * * *
    (2) Solvent recovery system using performance test and continuous 
monitoring compliance demonstration. For each solvent recovery system 
used to control one or more coil coating stations for which you choose 
to comply by means of performance testing of capture efficiency, 
continuous emission monitoring of the control device, and continuous 
monitoring of a capture system operating parameter, each month of the 
12-month compliance period you must meet the requirements of paragraphs 
(g)(2)(i) and (ii) of this section:
* * * * *
    (3) Oxidizer using performance tests and continuous monitoring of 
operating parameters compliance demonstration. For each oxidizer used 
to control emissions from one or more work stations for which you 
choose to demonstrate compliance through performance tests of capture 
efficiency, control device efficiency, and continuous monitoring of 
capture system and control device operating parameters, each month of 
the 12-month compliance period you must meet the requirements of 
paragraphs (g)(3)(i) through (iii) of this section:
* * * * *
    (4) Oxidizer using continuous emission monitoring compliance 
demonstration. For each oxidizer used to control emissions from one or 
more work stations for which you choose to demonstrate compliance 
through capture efficiency testing, continuous emission monitoring of 
the control device, and continuous monitoring of a capture system 
operating parameter, each month of the 12-month compliance period you 
must meet the requirements in paragraphs (g)(4)(i) and (ii) of this 
section:
* * * * *
    (h) * * *
    (6) * * *
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP04JN19.000
    
* * * * *
    (i) Capture and control system compliance demonstration procedures 
using a CPMS for a coil coating line. If you use an add-on control 
device, to demonstrate compliance for each capture system and each 
control device through performance tests and continuous monitoring of 
capture system and control device operating parameters, you must meet 
the requirements in paragraphs (i)(1) through (3) of this section.
    (1) Conduct performance tests according to the schedule in Table 1 
to Sec.  63.5160 to determine the control device destruction or removal 
efficiency, DRE, according to Sec.  63.5160(d) and Table 1 to Sec.  
63.5160.
* * * * *
0
36. Section 63.5180 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraphs (f) introductory text and (f)(1);
0
b. Removing and reserving paragraph (f)(2);
0
c. Revising paragraphs (g)(2)(v), (h) introductory text, (h)(2) and 
(3);
0
d. Adding paragraph (h)(4); and
0
e. Revising paragraphs (i) introductory text, (i)(1) through (4), 
(i)(6), and (i)(9).
    The revisions and addition read as follows:


Sec.  63.5180  What reports must I submit?

* * * * *
    (f) Before [date 181 days after publication of final rule in the 
Federal Register], you must submit start-up, shutdown, and malfunction 
reports as specified in Sec.  63.10(d)(5) if you use a control device 
to comply with this subpart.
    (1) Before [date 181 days after publication of final rule in the 
Federal Register], if your actions during a start-up, shutdown, or 
malfunction of an affected source (including actions taken to correct a 
malfunction) are not completely consistent with the procedures 
specified in the source's start-up, shutdown, and malfunction plan 
specified in Sec.  63.6 (e)(3) and required before [date 181 days after 
publication of final rule in the Federal Register], you must state such 
information in the report. The start-up, shutdown, or malfunction 
report will consist of a letter containing the name, title, and 
signature of the responsible official who is certifying its accuracy, 
that will be submitted to the Administrator. Separate start-up, 
shutdown, or malfunction reports are not required if the information is 
included in the report specified in paragraph (g) of this section. The 
startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan and start-up, shutdown, and 
malfunction report are no longer required on and after [date 181 days 
after publication of final rule in the Federal Register].
* * * * *
    (g) * * *
    (2) * * *
    (v) A statement that there were no deviations from the applicable 
emission

[[Page 25967]]

limit in Sec.  63.5120 or the applicable operating limit(s) established 
according to Sec.  63.5121 during the reporting period, and that no 
CEMS were inoperative, inactive, malfunctioning, out-of-control, 
repaired, or adjusted.
    (h) You must submit, for each deviation occurring at an affected 
source where you are not using CEMS to comply with the standards in 
this subpart, the semi-annual compliance report containing the 
information in paragraphs (g)(2)(i) through (iv) of this section and 
the information in paragraphs (h)(1) through (4) of this section:
* * * * *
    (2) Before [date 181 days after publication of final rule in the 
Federal Register], you must provide information on the number, 
duration, and cause of deviations (including unknown cause, if 
applicable) as applicable, and the corrective action taken. On and 
after [date 181 days after publication of final rule in the Federal 
Register], you must provide information on the number, date, time, 
duration, and cause of deviations from an emission limit in Sec.  
63.5120 or any applicable operating limit established according to 
Sec.  63.5121 (including unknown cause, if applicable) as applicable, 
and the corrective action taken.
    (3) Before [date 181 days after publication of final rule in the 
Federal Register], you must provide information on the number, 
duration, and cause for continuous parameter monitoring system downtime 
incidents (including unknown cause other than downtime associated with 
zero and span and other daily calibration checks, if applicable). On 
and after [date 181 days after publication of final rule in the Federal 
Register], you must provide the information specified in paragraphs 
(h)(3)(i) and (ii) of this section.
    (i) Number, date, time, duration, cause (including unknown cause), 
and descriptions of corrective actions taken for continuous parameter 
monitoring systems that are inoperative (except for zero (low-level) 
and high-level checks).
    (ii) Number, date, time, duration, cause (including unknown cause), 
and descriptions of corrective actions taken for continuous parameter 
monitoring systems that are out of control as specified in Sec.  
63.8(c)(7).
    (4) On and after [date 181 days after publication of final rule in 
the Federal Register], for each deviation from an emission limit in 
Sec.  63.5120 or any applicable operating limit established according 
to Sec.  63.5121, you must provide a list of the affected source or 
equipment, an estimate of the quantity of each regulated pollutant 
emitted over any emission limit in Sec.  63.5120, a description of the 
method used to estimate the emissions, and the actions you took to 
minimize emissions in accordance with Sec.  63.5140(b).
    (i) You must submit, for each deviation from the applicable 
emission limit in Sec.  63.5120 or the applicable operation limit(s) 
established according to Sec.  63.5121 occurring at an affected source 
where you are using CEMS to comply with the standards in this subpart, 
the semi-annual compliance report containing the information in 
paragraphs (g)(2)(i) through (iv) of this section, and the information 
in paragraphs (i)(1) through (12) of this section:
    (1) The date and time that each malfunction of the capture system 
or add-on control devices started and stopped.
    (2) Before [date 181 days after publication of final rule in the 
Federal Register], the date and time that each CEMS was inoperative, 
except for zero (low-level) and high-level checks. On and after [date 
181 days after publication of final rule in the Federal Register], for 
each instance that the CEMS was inoperative, except for zero (low-
level) and high-level checks, the date, time, and duration that the 
CEMS was inoperative; the cause (including unknown cause) for the CEMS 
being inoperative; and a description of corrective actions taken.
    (3) Before [date 181 days after publication of final rule in the 
Federal Register], the date and time that each CEMS was out-of-control, 
including the information in Sec.  63.8(c)(8). On and after [date 181 
days after publication of final rule in the Federal Register], for each 
instance that the CEMS was out-of-control, as specified in Sec.  
63.8(c)(7), the date, time, and duration that the CEMS was out-of-
control; the cause (including unknown cause) for the CEMS being out-of-
control; and descriptions of corrective actions taken.
    (4) Before [date 181 days after publication of final rule in the 
Federal Register], the date and time that each deviation started and 
stopped, and whether each deviation occurred during a period of start-
up, shutdown, or malfunction or during another period. On and after 
[date 181 days after publication of final rule in the Federal 
Register], the date, time, and duration of each deviation from an 
emission limit in Sec.  63.5120. For each deviation, an estimate of the 
quantity of each regulated pollutant emitted over any emission limit in 
Sec.  63.5120 to this subpart, and a description of the method used to 
estimate the emissions.
* * * * *
    (6) Before [date 181 days after publication of final rule in the 
Federal Register], a breakdown of the total duration of the deviations 
during the reporting period into those that are due to start-up, 
shutdown, control equipment problems, process problems, other known 
causes, and other unknown causes. On and after [date 181 days after 
publication of final rule in the Federal Register], 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.
* * * * *
    (9) Before [date 181 days after publication of final rule in the 
Federal Register], a brief description of the metal coil coating line. 
On and after [date 181 days after publication of final rule in the 
Federal Register], a list of the affected source or equipment, 
including a brief description of the metal coil coating line.
* * * * *
0
37. Section 63.5181 is added to read as follows:


Sec.  63.5181  What are my electronic reporting requirements?

    (a) Beginning no later than [date 181 days after publication of 
final rule in the Federal Register], you must submit the results of 
each performance test as required in Sec.  63.5180(e) following the 
procedure specified in paragraphs (a)(1) through (3) of this section.
    (1) For data collected using test methods supported by the EPA's 
Electronic Reporting Tool (ERT) as listed on the EPA's ERT website 
(https://www.epa.gov/electronic-reporting-air-emissions/electronic-reporting-tool-ert) at the time of the test, you must submit the 
results of the performance test to the EPA via the Compliance and 
Emissions Data Reporting Interface (CEDRI). The CEDRI interface can be 
accessed through the EPA's Central Data Exchange (CDX) (https://cdx.epa.gov/). Performance test data must be submitted in a file format 
generated through the use of the EPA's ERT or an alternate electronic 
file format consistent with the extensible markup language (XML) schema 
listed on the EPA's ERT website.
    (2) For data collected using test methods that are not supported by 
the EPA's ERT as listed on the EPA's ERT website at the time of the 
test, you must submit the results of the performance test in portable 
document format (PDF)

[[Page 25968]]

using the attachment module of the ERT.
    (3) If you claim that some of the performance test information 
being submitted under paragraph (a)(1) of this section is confidential 
business information (CBI), you must submit a complete file generated 
through the use of the EPA's ERT or an alternate electronic file 
consistent with the XML schema listed on the EPA's ERT website, 
including information claimed to be CBI, on a compact disc, flash drive 
or other commonly used electronic storage medium to the EPA. The 
electronic medium must be clearly marked as CBI and mailed to U.S. EPA/
OAQPS/CORE CBI Office, Attention: Group Leader, Measurement Policy 
Group, MD C404-02, 4930 Old Page Rd., Durham, NC 27703. The same ERT or 
alternate file with the CBI omitted must be submitted to the EPA via 
the EPA's CDX as described in paragraph (a)(1) of this section.
    (b) Beginning on [date 181 days after publication of final rule in 
the Federal Register], the owner or operator shall submit the initial 
notifications required in Sec.  63.9(b) and the notification of 
compliance status required in Sec.  63.9(h) and Sec.  63.5180(d) to the 
EPA via the CEDRI. The CEDRI interface can be accessed through the 
EPA's CDX (https://cdx.epa.gov). The owner or operator must upload to 
CEDRI an electronic copy of each applicable notification in PDF. The 
applicable notification must be submitted by the deadline specified in 
this subpart, regardless of the method in which the reports are 
submitted. Owners or operators who claim that some of the information 
required to be submitted via CEDRI is confidential business information 
(CBI) shall submit a complete report generated using the appropriate 
form in CEDRI or an alternate electronic file consistent with the 
extensible markup language (XML) schema listed on the EPA's CEDRI 
website, including information claimed to be CBI, on a compact disc, 
flash drive, or other commonly used electronic storage medium to the 
EPA. The electronic medium shall be clearly marked as CBI and mailed to 
U.S. EPA/OAQPS/CORE CBI Office, Attention: Group Leader, Measurement 
Policy Group, MD C404-02, 4930 Old Page Rd., Durham, NC 27703. The same 
file with the CBI omitted shall be submitted to the EPA via the EPA's 
CDX as described earlier in this paragraph.
    (c) Beginning on [date 1 year after publication of final rule in 
the Federal Register], or once the reporting template has been 
available on the CEDRI website for 1 year, whichever date is later, the 
owner or operator shall submit the semiannual compliance report 
required in Sec.  63.5180(g) through (i), as applicable, to the EPA via 
the CEDRI. The CEDRI interface can be accessed through the EPA's CDX 
(https://cdx.epa.gov). The owner or operator must use the appropriate 
electronic template on the CEDRI website for this subpart (https://www.epa.gov/electronic-reporting-air-emissions/compliance-and-emissions-data-reporting-interface-cedri). The date on which the report 
templates become available will be listed on the CEDRI website. If the 
reporting form for the semiannual compliance report specific to this 
subpart is not available in CEDRI at the time that the report is due, 
you must submit the report to the Administrator at the appropriate 
addresses listed in Sec.  63.13. Once the form has been available in 
CEDRI for 1 year, you must begin submitting all subsequent reports via 
CEDRI. The reports must be submitted by the deadlines specified in this 
subpart, regardless of the method in which the reports are submitted. 
Owners or operators who claim that some of the information required to 
be submitted via CEDRI is confidential business information (CBI) shall 
submit a complete report generated using the appropriate form in CEDRI, 
including information claimed to be CBI, on a compact disc, flash 
drive, or other commonly used electronic storage medium to the EPA. The 
electronic medium shall be clearly marked as CBI and mailed to U.S. 
EPA/OAQPS/CORE CBI Office, Attention: Group Leader, Measurement Policy 
Group, MD C404-02, 4930 Old Page Rd., Durham, NC 27703. The same file 
with the CBI omitted shall be submitted to the EPA via the EPA's CDX as 
described earlier in this paragraph.
    (d) If you are required to electronically submit a report through 
the Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface (CEDRI) in the 
EPA's Central Data Exchange (CDX), and due to a planned or actual 
outage of either the EPA's CEDRI or CDX systems within the period of 
time beginning 5 business days prior to the date that the submission is 
due, you will be or are precluded from accessing CEDRI or CDX and 
submitting a required report within the time prescribed, you may assert 
a claim of EPA system outage for failure to timely comply with the 
reporting requirement. You must submit notification to the 
Administrator in writing as soon as possible following the date you 
first knew, or through due diligence should have known, that the event 
may cause or caused a delay in reporting. You must provide to the 
Administrator a written description identifying the date, time and 
length of the outage; a rationale for attributing the delay in 
reporting beyond the regulatory deadline to the EPA system outage; 
describe the measures taken or to be taken to minimize the delay in 
reporting; and identify a date by which you propose to report, or if 
you have already met the reporting requirement at the time of the 
notification, the date you reported. In any circumstance, the report 
must be submitted electronically as soon as possible after the outage 
is resolved. The decision to accept the claim of EPA system outage and 
allow an extension to the reporting deadline is solely within the 
discretion of the Administrator.
    (e) If you are required to electronically submit a report through 
CEDRI in the EPA's CDX and a force majeure event is about to occur, 
occurs, or has occurred or there are lingering effects from such an 
event within the period of time beginning 5 business days prior to the 
date the submission is due, the owner or operator may assert a claim of 
force majeure for failure to timely comply with the reporting 
requirement. For the purposes of this section, a force majeure event is 
defined as an event that will be or has been caused by circumstances 
beyond the control of the affected facility, its contractors, or any 
entity controlled by the affected facility that prevents you from 
complying with the requirement to submit a report electronically within 
the time period prescribed. Examples of such events are acts of nature 
(e.g., hurricanes, earthquakes, or floods), acts of war or terrorism, 
or equipment failure or safety hazard beyond the control of the 
affected facility (e.g., large scale power outage). If you intend to 
assert a claim of force majeure, you must submit notification to the 
Administrator in writing as soon as possible following the date you 
first knew, or through due diligence should have known, that the event 
may cause or caused a delay in reporting. You must provide to the 
Administrator a written description of the force majeure event and a 
rationale for attributing the delay in reporting beyond the regulatory 
deadline to the force majeure event; describe the measures taken or to 
be taken to minimize the delay in reporting; and identify a date by 
which you propose to report, or if you have already met the reporting 
requirement at the time of the notification, the date you reported. In 
any circumstance, the reporting must occur as soon as possible after 
the force

[[Page 25969]]

majeure event occurs. The decision to accept the claim of force majeure 
and allow an extension to the reporting deadline is solely within the 
discretion of the Administrator.
0
38. Section 63.5190 is amended by adding paragraphs (a)(5) and (c) to 
read as follows:


Sec.  63.5190  What records must I maintain?

    (a) * * *
    (5) On and after [date 181 days after date of publication of final 
rule in the Federal Register], for each deviation from an emission 
limitation reported under Sec.  63.5180(h) or (i), a record of the 
information specified in paragraphs (a)(5)(i) through (iv) of this 
section, as applicable.
    (i) The date, time, and duration of the deviation, as reported 
under Sec.  63.5180(h) and (i).
    (ii) A list of the affected sources or equipment for which the 
deviation occurred and the cause of the deviation, as reported under 
Sec.  63.5180(h) and (i).
    (iii) An estimate of the quantity of each regulated pollutant 
emitted over any applicable emission limit in Sec.  63.5120 to this 
subpart or any applicable operating limit established according to 
Sec.  63.5121 to this subpart, and a description of the method used to 
calculate the estimate, as reported under Sec.  63.5180(h) and (i).
    (iv) A record of actions taken to minimize emissions in accordance 
with Sec.  63.5140(b) and any corrective actions taken to return the 
affected unit to its normal or usual manner of operation.
* * * * *
    (c) Any records required to be maintained by this subpart that are 
in reports that were 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
39. Table 2 to subpart SSSS of part 63 is revised to read as follows:

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

    You must comply with the applicable General Provisions requirements 
according to the following table:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 Applicable to subpart
     General provisions reference              Subject                    SSSS                 Explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec.   63.1(a)(1)-(4)................  General Applicability..  Yes....................
Sec.   63.1(a)(6)....................  Source Category Listing  Yes....................
Sec.   63.1(a)(10)-(12)..............  Timing and Overlap       Yes....................
                                        Clarifications.
Sec.   63.1(b)(1)....................  Initial Applicability    Yes....................  Applicability to
                                        Determination.                                    Subpart SSSS is also
                                                                                          specified in Sec.
                                                                                          63.5090.
Sec.   63.1(b)(3)....................  Applicability            Yes....................
                                        Determination
                                        Recordkeeping.
Sec.   63.1(c)(1)....................  Applicability after      Yes....................
                                        Standard Established.
Sec.   63.1(c)(2)....................  Applicability of Permit  Yes....................
                                        Program for Area
                                        Sources.
Sec.   63.1(c)(5)....................  Extensions and           Yes....................
                                        Notifications.
Sec.   63.1(e).......................  Applicability of Permit  Yes....................
                                        Program Before
                                        Relevant Standard is
                                        Set.
Sec.   63.2..........................  Definitions............  Yes....................  Additional definitions
                                                                                          are specified in Sec.
                                                                                           63.5110.
Sec.   63.3..........................  Units and Abbreviations  Yes....................
Sec.   63.4(a)(1)-(2)................  Prohibited Activities..  Yes....................
Sec.   63.4(b)-(c)...................  Circumvention/           Yes....................
                                        Fragmentation.
Sec.   63.5(a).......................  Construction/            Yes....................
                                        Reconstruction.
Sec.   63.5(b)(1), (3), (4), (6).....  Requirements for         Yes....................
                                        Existing, Newly
                                        Constructed, and
                                        Reconstructed Sources.
Sec.   63.5(d)(1)(i)-(ii)(F),          Application for          Yes....................  Only total HAP
 (d)(1)(ii)(H), (d)(1)(ii)(J),          Approval of                                       emissions in terms of
 (d)(1)(iii), (d)(2)-(4).               Construction/                                     tons per year are
                                        Reconstruction.                                   required for Sec.
                                                                                          63.5(d)(1)(ii)(H).
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-
                                        Applicability.
Sec.   63.6(b)(1)-(5), (b)(7)........  Compliance Dates for     Yes....................  Section 63.5130
                                        New and Reconstructed                             specifies the
                                        Sources.                                          compliance dates.
Sec.   63.6(c)(1), (2), (5)..........  Compliance Dates for     Yes....................  Section 63.5130
                                        Existing Sources.                                 specifies the
                                                                                          compliance dates.
Sec.   63.6(e)(1)(i)-(ii)............  General Duty to          Yes before [date 181     See Sec.   63.5140(b)
                                        Minimize Emissions and   days after date of       for general duty
                                        Requirement to Correct   publication of final     requirement.
                                        Malfunctions As Soon     rule in the Federal
                                        As Possible.             Register].
                                                                No on and after [date
                                                                 181 days after date of
                                                                 publication of final
                                                                 rule in the Federal
                                                                 Register]..
Sec.   63.6(e)(1)(iii)...............  Operation and            Yes....................
                                        Maintenance
                                        Requirements.

[[Page 25970]]

 
Sec.   63.6(e)(3)(i), (e)(3)(iii)-     SSMP Requirements......  Yes before [date 181
 (ix).                                                           days after date of
                                                                 publication of final
                                                                 rule in the Federal
                                                                 Register].
                                                                No on and after [date
                                                                 181 days after date of
                                                                 publication of final
                                                                 rule in the Federal
                                                                 Register]..
Sec.   63.6(f)(1)....................  SSM Exemption..........  Yes before [date 181     See Sec.   63.5140(b)
                                                                 days after date of       for general duty
                                                                 publication of final     requirement.
                                                                 rule in the Federal
                                                                 Register].
                                                                No on and after [date
                                                                 181 days after date of
                                                                 publication of final
                                                                 rule in the Federal
                                                                 Register]..
Sec.   63.6(f)(2)-(3)................  Compliance with Non-     Yes....................
                                        Opacity Emission
                                        Standards.
Sec.   63.6(g).......................  Alternative Non-Opacity  Yes....................
                                        Emission Standard.
Sec.   63.6(h).......................  Compliance with Opacity/ No.....................  Subpart SSSS does not
                                        Visible Emission                                  establish opacity
                                        Standards.                                        standards or visible
                                                                                          emission standards.
Sec.   63.6(i)(1)-(14), (i)(16)......  Extension of Compliance  Yes....................
                                        and Administrator's
                                        Authority.
Sec.   63.6(j).......................  Presidential Compliance  Yes....................
                                        Exemption.
Sec.   63.7(a)-(d) except (a)(2)(i)-   Performance Test         Yes....................
 (viii).                                Requirements.
Sec.   63.7(e)(1)....................  Performance Testing....  Yes before [date 181     See Sec.
                                                                 days after date of       63.5160(d)(2).
                                                                 publication of final
                                                                 rule in the Federal
                                                                 Register].
                                                                No on and after [date
                                                                 181 days after date of
                                                                 publication of final
                                                                 rule in the Federal
                                                                 Register]..
Sec.   63.7(e)(2)-(4)................  Conduct of Performance   Yes....................
                                        Tests.
Sec.   63.7(f).......................  Alternative Test Method  Yes....................  EPA retains approval
                                                                                          authority.
Sec.   63.7(g)-(h)...................  Data Analysis and        Yes....................
                                        Waiver of Tests.
Sec.   63.8(a)(1)-(2)................  Monitoring               Yes....................  Additional requirements
                                        Requirements--Applicab                            for monitoring are
                                        ility.                                            specified in Sec.
                                                                                          63.5150(a).
Sec.   63.8(a)(4)....................  Additional Monitoring    No.....................  Subpart SSSS does not
                                        Requirements.                                     have monitoring
                                                                                          requirements for
                                                                                          flares.
Sec.   63.8(b).......................  Conduct of Monitoring..  Yes....................
Sec.   63.8(c)(1)....................  Operation and            Yes before [date 181     Section 63.5150(a)
                                        Maintenance of           days after date of       specifies the
                                        Continuous Monitoring    publication of final     requirements for the
                                        System (CMS).            rule in the Federal      operation of CMS for
                                                                 Register].               capture systems and
                                                                No on and after [date     add-on control devices
                                                                 181 days after date of   at sources using these
                                                                 publication of final     to comply.
                                                                 rule in the Federal
                                                                 Register].
Sec.   63.8(c)(2)-(3)................  CMS Operation and        Yes....................  Applies only to
                                        Maintenance.                                      monitoring of capture
                                                                                          system and add-on
                                                                                          control device
                                                                                          efficiency at sources
                                                                                          using these to comply
                                                                                          with the standards.
                                                                                          Additional
                                                                                          requirements for CMS
                                                                                          operations and
                                                                                          maintenance are
                                                                                          specified in Sec.
                                                                                          63.5170.
Sec.   63.8(c)(4)-(5)................  CMS Continuous           No.....................  Subpart SSSS does not
                                        Operation Procedures.                             require COMS.
Sec.   63.8(c)(6)-(8)................  CMS Requirements.......  Yes....................  Provisions only apply
                                                                                          if CEMS are used.
Sec.   63.8(d)-(e)...................  CMS Quality Control,     Yes....................  Provisions only apply
                                        Written Procedures,                               if CEMS are used.
                                        and Performance
                                        Evaluation.
Sec.   63.8(f)(1)-(5)................  Use of an Alternative    Yes....................  EPA retains approval
                                        Monitoring Method.                                authority.
Sec.   63.8(f)(6)....................  Alternative to Relative  No.....................  Section 63.8(f)(6)
                                        Accuracy Test.                                    provisions are not
                                                                                          applicable because
                                                                                          subpart SSSS does not
                                                                                          require CEMS.
Sec.   63.8(g).......................  Data Reduction.........  No.....................  Sections 63.5170,
                                                                                          63.5140, 63.5150, and
                                                                                          63.5150 specify
                                                                                          monitoring data
                                                                                          reduction.
Sec.   63.9(a).......................  Notification of          Yes....................
                                        Applicability.
Sec.   63.9(b)(1)....................  Initial Notifications..  Yes....................

[[Page 25971]]

 
Sec.   63.9(b)(2)....................  Initial Notifications..  Yes....................  With the exception that
                                                                                          Sec.   63.5180(b)(1)
                                                                                          provides 2 years after
                                                                                          the proposal date for
                                                                                          submittal of the
                                                                                          initial notification
                                                                                          for existing sources.
Sec.   63.9(b)(4)(i), (b)(4)(v),       Application for          Yes....................
 (b)(5).                                Approval of
                                        Construction or
                                        Reconstruction.
Sec.   63.9(c)-(e)...................  Request for Extension    Yes....................  Notification of
                                        of Compliance, New                                performance test
                                        Source Notification                               requirement applies
                                        for Special Compliance                            only to capture system
                                        Requirements, and                                 and add-on control
                                        Notification of                                   device performance
                                        Performance Test.                                 tests at sources using
                                                                                          these to comply with
                                                                                          the standards.
Sec.   63.9(f).......................  Notification of Visible  No.....................  Subpart SSSS does not
                                        Emissions/Opacity Test.                           require opacity and
                                                                                          visible emissions
                                                                                          observations.
Sec.   63.9(g).......................  Additional               No.....................  Provisions for COMS are
                                        Notifications When                                not applicable.
                                        Using CMS.
Sec.   63.9(h)(1)-(3)................  Notification of          Yes....................  Section 63.5130
                                        Compliance Status.                                specifies the dates
                                                                                          for submitting the
                                                                                          notification of
                                                                                          compliance status.
Sec.   63.9(h)(5)-(6)................  Clarifications.........  Yes....................
Sec.   63.9(i).......................  Adjustment of Submittal  Yes....................
                                        Deadlines.
Sec.   63.9(j).......................  Change in Previous       Yes....................
                                        Information.
Sec.   63.10(a)......................  Recordkeeping/           Yes....................
                                        Reporting--Applicabili
                                        ty and General
                                        Information.
Sec.   63.10(b)(1)...................  General Recordkeeping    Yes....................  Additional requirements
                                        Requirements.                                     are specified in Sec.
                                                                                           63.5190.
Sec.   63.10(b)(2)(i)-(ii)...........  Recordkeeping of         Yes before [date 181     See Sec.
                                        Occurrence and           days after date of       63.5190(a)(5).
                                        Duration of Startups     publication of final
                                        and Shutdowns and        rule in the Federal
                                        Recordkeeping of         Register].
                                        Failures to Meet        No on and after [date
                                        Standards.               181 days after date of
                                                                 publication of final
                                                                 rule in the Federal
                                                                 Register].
Sec.   63.10(b)(2)(iii)..............  Maintenance Records....  Yes....................
Sec.   63.10(b)(2)(iv)-(v)...........  Actions Taken to         Yes before [date 181     See Sec.
                                        Minimize Emissions       days after date of       63.5190(a)(5).
                                        During Startup,          publication of final
                                        Shutdown, and            rule in the Federal
                                        Malfunction.             Register].
                                                                No on and after [date
                                                                 181 days after date of
                                                                 publication of final
                                                                 rule in the Federal
                                                                 Register].
Sec.   63.10(b)(2)(vi)...............  Recordkeeping for CMS    Yes before [date 181     See Sec.
                                        Malfunctions.            days after date of       63.5190(a)(5).
                                                                 publication of final
                                                                 rule in the Federal
                                                                 Register].
                                                                No on and after [date
                                                                 181 days after date of
                                                                 publication of final
                                                                 rule in the Federal
                                                                 Register]..
Sec.   63.10(b)(2)(vii)-(xiv)........  Other CMS Requirements.  Yes....................
Sec.   63.10(b)(3)...................  Recordkeeping            Yes....................
                                        Requirements for
                                        Applicability
                                        Determinations.
Sec.   63.10(c)......................  Additional CMS           No.....................  See Sec.
                                        Recordkeeping                                     63.5190(a)(5).
                                        Requirements.
Sec.   63.10(d)(1)-(2)...............  General Reporting        Yes....................  Additional requirements
                                        Requirements and                                  are specified in Sec.
                                        Report of Performance                              63.5180(e).
                                        Test Results.
Sec.   63.10(d)(3)...................  Reporting Opacity or     No.....................  Subpart SSSS does not
                                        Visible Emissions                                 require opacity and
                                        Observations.                                     visible emissions
                                                                                          observations.
Sec.   63.10(d)(4)...................  Progress Reports for     Yes....................
                                        Sources with
                                        Compliance Extensions.
Sec.   63.10(d)(5)...................  Startup, Shutdown,       Yes before [date 181
                                        Malfunction Reports.     days after date of
                                                                 publication of final
                                                                 rule in the Federal
                                                                 Register].
                                                                No on and after [date
                                                                 181 days after date of
                                                                 publication of final
                                                                 rule in the Federal
                                                                 Register].
Sec.   63.10(e)......................  Additional Reporting     No.....................
                                        Requirements for
                                        Sources with CMS.
Sec.   63.10(f)......................  Recordkeeping/Reporting  Yes....................
                                        Waiver.
Sec.   63.11.........................  Control Device           No.....................  Subpart SSSS does not
                                        Requirements/Flares.                              specify use of flares
                                                                                          for compliance.
Sec.   63.12.........................  State Authority and      Yes....................
                                        Delegations.

[[Page 25972]]

 
Sec.   63.13(a)......................  Addresses..............  Yes before [date 181
                                                                 days after date of
                                                                 publication of final
                                                                 rule in the Federal
                                                                 Register].
                                                                No on and after [date
                                                                 181 days after date of
                                                                 publication of final
                                                                 rule in the Federal
                                                                 Register].
Sec.   63.13(b)......................  Submittal to State       Yes....................
                                        Agencies.
Sec.   63.13(c)......................  Submittal to State       Yes before [date 181
                                        Agencies.                days after date of
                                                                 publication of final
                                                                 rule in the Federal
                                                                 Register].
                                                                No unless the state
                                                                 requires the submittal
                                                                 via CEDRI, on and
                                                                 after [date 181 days
                                                                 after date of
                                                                 publication of final
                                                                 rule in the Federal
                                                                 Register].
Sec.   63.14.........................  Incorporation by         Yes....................  Subpart SSSS includes
                                        Reference.                                        provisions for
                                                                                          alternative ASTM and
                                                                                          ASME test methods that
                                                                                          are incorporated by
                                                                                          reference.
Sec.   63.15.........................  Availability of          Yes....................
                                        Information/
                                        Confidentiality.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

0
40. Table 3 to subpart SSSS of part 63 is added to read as follows:

  Table 3 to Subpart SSSS of Part 63--List of Hazardous Air Pollutants
 That Must Be Counted Toward Total Organic HAP Content if Present at 0.1
                         Percent or More by Mass
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                      Chemical name                           CAS No.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane...............................         79-34-5
1,1,2-Trichloroethane...................................         79-00-5
1,1-Dimethylhydrazine...................................         57-14-7
1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane.............................         96-12-8
1,2-Diphenylhydrazine...................................        122-66-7
1,3-Butadiene...........................................        106-99-0
1,3-Dichloropropene.....................................        542-75-6
1,4-Dioxane.............................................        123-91-1
2,4,6-Trichlorophenol...................................         88-06-2
2,4/2,6-Dinitrotoluene (mixture)........................      25321-14-6
2,4-Dinitrotoluene......................................        121-14-2
2,4-Toluene diamine.....................................         95-80-7
2-Nitropropane..........................................         79-46-9
3,3'-Dichlorobenzidine..................................         91-94-1
3,3'-Dimethoxybenzidine.................................        119-90-4
3,3'-Dimethylbenzidine..................................        119-93-7
4,4'-Methylene bis(2-chloroaniline).....................        101-14-4
Acetaldehyde............................................         75-07-0
Acrylamide..............................................         79-06-1
Acrylonitrile...........................................        107-13-1
Allyl chloride..........................................        107-05-1
alpha-Hexachlorocyclohexane (a-HCH).....................        319-84-6
Aniline.................................................         62-53-3
Benzene.................................................         71-43-2
Benzidine...............................................         92-87-5
Benzotrichloride........................................         98-07-7
Benzyl chloride.........................................        100-44-7
beta-Hexachlorocyclohexane (b-HCH)......................        319-85-7
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate..............................        117-81-7
Bis(chloromethyl)ether..................................        542-88-1
Bromoform...............................................         75-25-2
Captan..................................................        133-06-2
Carbon tetrachloride....................................         56-23-5
Chlordane...............................................         57-74-9
Chlorobenzilate.........................................        510-15-6
Chloroform..............................................         67-66-3
Chloroprene.............................................        126-99-8
Cresols (mixed).........................................       1319-77-3
DDE.....................................................       3547-04-4
Dichloroethyl ether.....................................        111-44-4
Dichlorvos..............................................         62-73-7
Epichlorohydrin.........................................        106-89-8

[[Page 25973]]

 
Ethyl acrylate..........................................        140-88-5
Ethylene dibromide......................................        106-93-4
Ethylene dichloride.....................................        107-06-2
Ethylene oxide..........................................         75-21-8
Ethylene thiourea.......................................         96-45-7
Ethylidene dichloride (1,1-Dichloroethane)..............         75-34-3
Formaldehyde............................................         50-00-0
Heptachlor..............................................         76-44-8
Hexachlorobenzene.......................................        118-74-1
Hexachlorobutadiene.....................................         87-68-3
Hexachloroethane........................................         67-72-1
Hydrazine...............................................        302-01-2
Isophorone..............................................         78-59-1
Lindane (hexachlorocyclohexane, all isomers)............         58-89-9
m-Cresol................................................        108-39-4
Methylene chloride......................................         75-09-2
Naphthalene.............................................         91-20-3
Nitrobenzene............................................         98-95-3
Nitrosodimethylamine....................................         62-75-9
o-Cresol................................................         95-48-7
o-Toluidine.............................................         95-53-4
Parathion...............................................         56-38-2
p-Cresol................................................        106-44-5
p-Dichlorobenzene.......................................        106-46-7
Pentachloronitrobenzene.................................         82-68-8
Pentachlorophenol.......................................         87-86-5
Propoxur................................................        114-26-1
Propylene dichloride....................................         78-87-5
Propylene oxide.........................................         75-56-9
Quinoline...............................................         91-22-5
Tetrachloroethene.......................................        127-18-4
Toxaphene...............................................       8001-35-2
Trichloroethylene.......................................         79-01-6
Trifluralin.............................................       1582-09-8
Vinyl bromide...........................................        593-60-2
Vinyl chloride..........................................         75-01-4
Vinylidene chloride.....................................         75-35-4
------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2019-10068 Filed 6-3-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.