National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Miscellaneous Coating Manufacturing Residual Risk and Technology Review, 46610-46651 [2019-18344]

Download as PDF 46610 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 171 / Wednesday, September 4, 2019 / Proposed Rules ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 63 [EPA–HQ–OAR–2018–0747; FRL–9998–69– OAR] National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Miscellaneous Coating Manufacturing Residual Risk and Technology Review Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Proposed rule. AGENCY: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing the results of a residual risk and technology review (RTR) of the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Miscellaneous Coating Manufacturing (MCM NESHAP) facilities, as required by the Clean Air Act (CAA). The EPA is proposing to find risks due to emissions of air toxics to be acceptable from the MCM source category and to determine that the current NESHAP provides an ample margin of safety to protect public health. The EPA identified no new costeffective controls under the technology review to achieve further emissions reductions from process units subject to standards under the NESHAP. The EPA is also proposing revisions related to emissions during periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction (SSM), including clarifying regulatory provisions for certain vent control bypasses; provisions for electronic reporting of performance test results, performance evaluation reports, compliance reports, and Notification of Compliance Status (NOCS) reports; and provisions to conduct periodic performance testing of oxidizers used to reduce emissions of organic hazardous air pollutants (HAP). DATES: Comments. Comments must be received on or before October 21, 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 October 4, 2019. Public hearing. If anyone contacts us requesting a public hearing on or before September 9, 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- jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 SUMMARY: 19:40 Sep 03, 2019 You may send comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– OAR–2018–0747, 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– 2018–0747 in the subject line of the message. • Fax: (202) 566–9744. Attention Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2018– 0747. • Mail: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Docket Center, Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2018– 0747, 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 operations are 8:30 a.m.–4:30 p.m., Monday–Friday (except federal holidays). Instructions: All submissions received must include the 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. Angela Carey, Sector Policies and Programs Division (E143– 01), Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711; telephone number: (919) 541–2187; fax number: (919) 541–0516; and email address: carey.angela@epa.gov. For specific information regarding the risk modeling methodology, contact Ms. Darcie Smith, 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– 2076; fax number: (919) 541–0840; and email address: smith.darcie@epa.gov. For questions about monitoring and testing requirements, contact Mr. Barrett ADDRESSES: RIN 2060–AU16 VerDate Sep<11>2014 air-pollution/miscellaneous-coatingmanufacturing-national-emissionstandards. See SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for information on requesting and registering for a public hearing. Jkt 247001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 Parker, Sector Policies and Programs Division (D243–05), Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711; telephone number: (919) 541– 5635; fax number: (919) 541–4991; and email address: parker.barrett@epa.gov. For information about the applicability of the NESHAP to a particular entity, contact Mr. John Cox, Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, WJC South Building (Mail Code 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. Virginia Hunt at (919) 541–0832 or by email at hunt.virginia@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 a docket for this rulemaking under Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2018–0747. All documents in the docket 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. Instructions. Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2018– 0747. 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 E:\FR\FM\04SEP2.SGM 04SEP2 jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 171 / Wednesday, September 4, 2019 / Proposed Rules 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 VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:40 Sep 03, 2019 Jkt 247001 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 Code of Federal Regulations (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–2018–0747. 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: AEGL acute exposure guideline level AERMOD air dispersion model used by the HEM–3 model CAA Clean Air Act CalEPA California EPA CBI Confidential Business Information CEDRI Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface CFR Code of Federal Regulations EPA Environmental Protection Agency ERPG emergency response planning guideline ERT Electronic Reporting Tool HAP hazardous air pollutant(s) HCl hydrochloric acid HEM–3 Human Exposure Model, Version 1.5.5 HF hydrogen fluoride HI hazard index HQ hazard quotient ICR Information Collection Request IRIS Integrated Risk Information System km kilometer kPa kilopascal MACT maximum achievable control technology MCM miscellaneous coating manufacturing mg/kg-day milligrams per kilogram per day mg/m3 milligrams per cubic meter MIR maximum lifetime (cancer) risk NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards NAICS North American Industry Classification System NEI National Emissions Inventory NESHAP national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants NOCS Notification of Compliance Status NRC National Research Council NTTAA National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act OAQPS Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards OECA Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance OMB Office of Management and Budget PAH polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 46611 PB–HAP hazardous air pollutants known to be persistent and bio-accumulative in the environment PDF portable document format PM particulate matter POM polycyclic organic matter ppm parts per million ppmw parts per million by weight psia pounds per square inch, absolute RBLC Reasonably Available Control Technology, Best Available Control Technology, and Lowest Achievable Emission Rate Clearinghouse REL reference exposure level RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act RfC reference concentration RfD reference dose RTR residual risk and technology review SAB Science Advisory Board SSM startup, shutdown, and malfunction the Court the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit 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 microgram per cubic meter UMRA Unfunded Mandates Reform Act URE unit risk estimate VCS voluntary consensus standards VOC volatile organic compounds Organization of this document. The information in this preamble is organized as follows below. In particular, section IV of this preamble describes the majority of the Agency’s rationale for the proposed actions in this preamble. Section IV.B of this preamble summarizes the results of the risk assessment. Section IV.C of this preamble summarizes the results of our technology review. Section IV.D of this preamble summarizes other changes we are proposing, including general regulatory language changes related to the removal of SSM exemptions, electronic reporting, and other minor clarifications identified as part our review of the NESHAP and as part of the other proposed revisions in this action. Lastly, section IV.E of this preamble summarizes our rationale for the compliance dates we are proposing. 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 is this source category and how does the current NESHAP regulate its 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 DecisionMaking E:\FR\FM\04SEP2.SGM 04SEP2 46612 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 171 / Wednesday, September 4, 2019 / Proposed Rules 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 the source category? IV. Analytical Results and Proposed Decisions A. What are the results of the risk assessment and analyses? B. What are our proposed decisions regarding risk acceptability, ample margin of safety, and adverse environmental effect? C. What are the results and proposed decisions based on our technology review? D. What other actions are we proposing? E. What compliance dates are we proposing? 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 Regulation 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 jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 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 VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:40 Sep 03, 2019 Jkt 247001 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 Manufacture of Paints, Coatings, and Adhesives source category ‘‘is any facility engaged in their manufacture without regard to the particular end-uses or consumers of such products. The manufacturing of these products may occur in any combination at any facility.’’ This source category has since been renamed Miscellaneous Coating Manufacturing (MCM). TABLE 1—NESHAP AND INDUSTRIAL SOURCE CATEGORIES AFFECTED BY THIS PROPOSED ACTION Source Category and NESHAP NAICS Code 1 Miscellaneous Coating Manufacturing Industry ............ 1 North American Industry 3255, 3259 Classification System. B. Where can I get a copy of this document and other related information? In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of this 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/ miscellaneous-coating-manufacturingnational-emission-standards. Following publication in the Federal Register, the EPA will post the Federal Register version of the proposal and key technical documents at this same website. Information on the overall RTR program is available at https:// www3.epa.gov/ttn/atw/rrisk/rtrpg.html. A redline version of the regulatory language that incorporates the proposed changes in this action is available in the docket for this action (Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2018–0747). 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.). 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 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 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 provisions. A more comprehensive discussion appears in the document titled CAA Section 112 Risk and Technology Reviews: Statutory Authority and Methodology, in the docket for this rulemaking. In the first stage of the CAA section 112 standard setting process, the EPA promulgates technology-based standards under CAA section 112(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 provisions 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 provisions, 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-thefloor 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 E:\FR\FM\04SEP2.SGM 04SEP2 jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 171 / Wednesday, September 4, 2019 / Proposed Rules 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 information, including risk estimation uncertainty, and includes a presumptive limit on maximum individual lifetime (cancer) risk (MIR) 1 of approximately 1in-10 thousand.’’ 54 FR 38045, September 14, 1989. If risks are 1 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 19:40 Sep 03, 2019 Jkt 247001 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 or determine that the standards being reviewed provide an ample margin of safety without any revisions. 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 (DC Cir. 2008). Association of Battery Recyclers, Inc. v. EPA, 716 F.3d 667 (DC Cir. 2013). The EPA may consider cost in deciding whether to revise the standards pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6). B. What is this source category and how does the current NESHAP regulate its HAP emissions? 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 ‘‘manufacture of paints, coatings, and adhesives’’ source category ‘‘is any facility engaged in their manufacture without regard to the particular end-uses or consumers of such products. The manufacturing of these products may occur in any combination at any facility.’’ The MCM source category includes the collection of equipment that is used to manufacture coatings at a facility. MCM operations also include cleaning PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 46613 operations. Coatings are materials such as paints, inks, or adhesive that are intended to be applied to a substrate and consist of a mixture of resins, pigments, solvents, and/or other additives, where the material is produced by a manufacturing operation where materials are blended, mixed, diluted, or otherwise formulated. Coatings do not include materials made in processes where a formulation component is synthesized by chemical reaction or separation activity and then transferred to another vessel where it is formulated to produce a material used as a coating, where the synthesized or separated component is not stored prior to formulation. The equipment controlled by the MCM NESHAP includes process vessels, storage tanks for feedstocks and products, equipment leak components (pumps, compressors, agitators, pressure relief devices (PRDs), sampling connection systems, open-ended valves or lines, valves, connectors, and instrumentation systems), wastewater tanks, heat exchangers, and transfer racks. The current NESHAP regulates process vessels and storage tanks based on the volume of the process vessel or storage tank and the maximum true vapor pressure of the organic HAP processed or stored. Control requirements range from the use of tightly fitted lids on process vessels to also capturing and reducing organic HAP emissions through the use of addon controls (i.e., a flare, oxidizer, or condenser). For halogenated vent streams from process vessels and storage tanks, the use of a flare is prohibited, and a halogen reduction device (i.e., an acid gas scrubber) is required after a combustion control device. For storage tanks, facilities may comply with the provisions in 40 CFR part 63, subpart HHHHH, by complying with the provisions in 40 CFR part 63, subpart WW. The NESHAP regulates emissions from equipment leaks at existing sources by requiring compliance with leak inspection and repair provisions using sight, sound, and smell in 40 CFR part 63, subpart R, or alternatively, the leak detection and repair (LDAR) provisions in 40 CFR part 63, subparts TT or UU. New sources are required to comply with the LDAR provisions in 40 CFR part 63, subparts TT or UU. The NESHAP regulates wastewater streams by requiring the use of fixed roofs on wastewater tanks, treating the wastewater (either on-site or off-site) as a hazardous waste under 40 CFR 264, 265, or 266, or using enhanced biological treatment if the wastewater E:\FR\FM\04SEP2.SGM 04SEP2 46614 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 171 / Wednesday, September 4, 2019 / Proposed Rules contains less than 50 parts per million by weight (ppmw) of partially soluble HAP. If the wastewater is treated as a hazardous waste under 40 CFR 264, 265, or 266, it may be treated by steam stripping or incineration. These standards apply only to wastewater streams that contain total partially soluble and soluble HAP at an annual average concentration greater than or equal to 4,000 ppmw and loads greater than or equal to 750 pounds per year (lb/yr) at an existing source or greater than or equal to 1,600 ppmw and any partially soluble and soluble HAP load at a new source. The NESHAP regulates transfer operations if the operation involves the bulk loading of coating products that contain 3.0 million gallons (gal) per year or more of HAP with a weighted average HAP partial pressure greater than or equal to 1.5 pounds per square inch, absolute (psia). Regulated transfer operations are required to reduce emissions by using a closed vent system and a control device (other than a flare) to reduce emissions by at least 75 percent; using a closed vent system and a flare for a non-halogenated vent stream; or using a vapor balancing system. If a non-flare combustion device is used to control a halogenated vent stream, then a halogen reduction device must be used either before or after the combustion device. If used after the combustion device, the halogen reduction device must meet either a minimum 95-percent reduction or a maximum 0.45 kilograms per hour (kg/ hr) emission rate of hydrogen halide or halogen. If used before the combustion device, the halogen reduction device must meet a maximum 0.45 kg/hr emission rate of hydrogen halide or halogen. The NESHAP requires heat exchangers to meet the provisions of subpart F, 40 CFR 63.104. Section 63.104 requires the implementation of a LDAR or monitoring program for heat exchange systems, unless the system meets certain design and operation provisions, or it is a once-through system that meets certain National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit provisions. jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 C. What data collection activities were conducted to support this action? The EPA held discussions with the American Coatings Association and the American Chemistry Council. During these meetings, we obtained supplemental information about the emission inventory, emission processes, control technologies, and speciation profiles. VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:40 Sep 03, 2019 Jkt 247001 D. What other relevant background information and data are available? The EPA used information from the Reasonably Available Control Technology, Best Available Control Technology, and Lowest Achievable Emission Rate Clearinghouse (RBLC) database, reviewed title V permits for each MCM facility, and reviewed NOCS reports. The EPA reviewed the RBLC to identify potential additional control technologies. No additional control technologies applicable to MCM were found in the RBLC. See sections III.B and IV.D of this preamble and the memorandum, ‘‘Technology Review for the Miscellaneous Coating Manufacturing Source Category,’’ which is available in the docket for this action. Lastly, the EPA is incorporating into the docket for this rulemaking, all materials associated with the development of the current MCM standards from Docket ID No. A–96–04 and Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR– 2003–0178. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically at https:// www.regulations.gov/, or in hard copy at the EPA Docket Center, EPA WJC West Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. 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. III. Analytical Procedures and Decision-Making In this section, we describe the analyses performed to support the proposed decisions for the RTR and other issues addressed in this action. 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, PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 ‘‘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.2 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 non-cancer 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 2 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 HAP exposure concentration to the noncancer doseresponse value; the HI is the sum of HQs for HAP that affect the same target organ or organ system. E:\FR\FM\04SEP2.SGM 04SEP2 jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 171 / Wednesday, September 4, 2019 / Proposed Rules 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. In other words, risks that include an MIR above 100-in-1 million may be determined to be acceptable, and risks with an MIR below that level may be determined to be unacceptable, depending on all of the available health information. Similarly, with regard to the ample margin of safety analysis, the EPA stated in the Benzene NESHAP that: ‘‘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 category under review, mobile source emissions, natural source emissions, persistent environmental pollution, or atmospheric transformation in the vicinity of the sources in the category. 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 VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:40 Sep 03, 2019 Jkt 247001 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.’’ 3 In response to the SAB recommendations, the EPA incorporates cumulative risk analyses into its RTR risk assessments, including those reflected in this action. 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 3 Recommendations of the SAB Risk and Technology Review Methods Panel are provided in their report, which is available at: https:// yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/4AB3966E 263D943A8525771F00668381/$File/EPA-SAB-10007-unsigned.pdf. PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 46615 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, we review a variety of data sources in our investigation of potential practices, processes, or controls to consider. See sections II.C and II. D of this preamble for information on the specific data sources that were reviewed as part of the technology review. C. How do we estimate post-MACT risk posed by the source category? 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 E:\FR\FM\04SEP2.SGM 04SEP2 46616 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 171 / Wednesday, September 4, 2019 / Proposed Rules jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 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 assessment. The docket for this rulemaking contains the following document which provides more information on the risk assessment inputs and models: Residual Risk Assessment for the Miscellaneous Coating Manufacturing Source Category in Support of the 2019 Risk and Technology Review Proposed Rule. 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; 4 and described in the SAB review report issued in 2010. They are also consistent with the key recommendations contained in that report. 1. How did we estimate actual emissions and identify the emissions release characteristics? For each facility that we determined to be subject to the MACT standards (see section II.B of this preamble), we gathered emissions data from Version 1 of the 2014 National Emissions Inventory (NEI). For each NEI record, we reviewed the source classification code and emission unit and process descriptions, and then assigned the record to an emission source type regulated by the MACT standards (i.e., each record identified as part of the MCM affected source at each facility was labeled storage tank, waste water, process vessel, equipment leak, or unknown) or an emission source type not regulated by the MACT standards (i.e., each record that was not identified as part of the MCM affected source at each facility was labeled non-source category type). The non-source category 4 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. VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:40 Sep 03, 2019 Jkt 247001 type emissions sources are units or processes that are co-located at one or more of the MCM facilities but are not part of the MCM source category. For example, some of the MCM affected sources are co-located with organic chemical manufacturing operations that are part of a different source category (i.e., Miscellaneous Organic Chemical Manufacturing) which is regulated by a different NESHAP (40 CFR part 63, subpart FFFF). The EPA reviewed permits, contacted EPA Regional offices, and asked the American Coatings Association to review (and revise, if necessary) the NEI-based data described above, including emission values, emission release point parameters, coordinates, and emission process group assignments. We used all this information to reevaluate our emission process group assignments for each NEI record in the modeling file. We also used this information to update emission release point parameter data. In other words, we used the industry response data wherever possible (in lieu of the data we established using the NEI and gap fill procedures), unless the data failed certain quality assurance checks. For further details on the assumptions and methodologies used to estimate actual emissions and identify the emissions release characteristics, see Appendix 1 of Residual Risk Assessment for the Miscellaneous Coating Manufacturing Source Categories in Support of the 2019 Risk and Technology Review Proposed Rule, in Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2018– 0747. 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 provisions 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 (HON) RTR (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 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 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 the risk assessment, we have determined that the actual emissions data are reasonable estimates of the MACT-allowable emissions levels for the MCM source category. In preparation of this RTR, we did not conduct an information collection of the equipment in this source category. Instead, we relied primarily upon the 2014 NEI emissions data and readily available title V permit information to characterize the actual emissions from the source category. In addition, the emission standards in 40 CFR part 63, subpart HHHH are generally equipment and work-practice requirements, rather than numerical emission limits. Therefore, we consider the use of 2014 NEI actual emissions as the best available reasonable approximation of allowable emissions for the risk assessment. 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 category addressed in this action were estimated using the Human Exposure Model (HEM–3).5 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. 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.6 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, 5 For more information about HEM–3, go to https://www.epa.gov/fera/risk-assessment-andmodeling-human-exposure-model-hem. 6 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). E:\FR\FM\04SEP2.SGM 04SEP2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 171 / Wednesday, September 4, 2019 / Proposed Rules jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 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 United States and Puerto Rico. A second library of United States Census Bureau census block 7 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 category. 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 maximum individual risk (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 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, we look to other reputable sources of cancer dose-response values, often using California EPA (CalEPA) UREs, where available. In cases where new, 7 A census block is the smallest geographic area for which census statistics are tabulated. VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:40 Sep 03, 2019 Jkt 247001 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-responseassessment-assessing-health-risksassociated-exposure-hazardous-airpollutants. 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 8 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. 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 8 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— an SAB Advisory, available at https:// yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/214C6E 915BB04E14852570CA007A682C/$File/ecadv0200 1.pdf. PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 46617 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. In this proposed rulemaking, as part of our efforts to continually improve our methodologies to evaluate the risks that HAP emitted from categories of industrial sources pose to human health and the E:\FR\FM\04SEP2.SGM 04SEP2 46618 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 171 / Wednesday, September 4, 2019 / Proposed Rules environment,9 we are revising our treatment of meteorological data to use reasonable worst-case air dispersion conditions in our acute risk screening assessments instead of worst-case air dispersion conditions. This revised treatment of meteorological data and the supporting rationale are described in more detail in Residual Risk Assessment for Miscellaneous Coating Manufacturing Source Category in Support of the 2019 Risk and Technology Review Proposed Rule and in Appendix 5 of the report: Technical Support Document for Acute Risk Screening Assessment. We will be applying this revision in RTR rulemakings proposed on or after June 3, 2019. To assess the potential acute risk to the maximally exposed individual, we use the peak hourly emission rate for each emission point,10 reasonable worst-case air dispersion conditions (i.e., 99th percentile), and the point of highest off-site exposure. Specifically, we assume that peak emissions from the source category and reasonable worstcase air dispersion (i.e., 99th percentile) conditions co-occur and that a person is present at the point of maximum exposure. 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 concentration 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.’’ 11 jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 9 See, e.g., U.S. EPA. Screening Methodologies to Support Risk and Technology Reviews (RTR): A Case Study Analysis (Draft Report, May 2017. https://www3.epa.gov/ttn/atw/rrisk/rtrpg.html). 10 In the absence of hourly emission data, we develop estimates of maximum hourly emission rates by multiplying the average actual annual emission rates by a factor (either a category-specific factor or a default factor of 10) to account for variability. This is documented in Residual Risk Assessment for Miscellaneous Coating Manufacturing Source Category in Support of the 2019 Risk and Technology Review Proposed Rule and in Appendix 5 of the report: Technical Support Document for Acute Risk Screening Assessment. Both are available in the docket for this rulemaking. 11 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 VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:40 Sep 03, 2019 Jkt 247001 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.12 They are guideline levels for ‘‘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.’’ 13 Id. at 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-acute8-hour-and-chronic-reference-exposure-level-relsummary. 12 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). 13 ERPGS Procedures and Responsibilities. March 2014. American Industrial Hygiene Association. PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 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 1 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– 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 this source category, we used the default acute emissions multiplier of 10 to conservatively estimate maximum hourly rates. 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, and no further analysis is performed for these HAP. In cases where an acute HQ from the screening step is greater than 1, we assess the site-specific data to ensure that the acute HQ is at an off-site location. For this source category, the data refinements employed consisted of determining the off-site acute risks for each facility that had an initial HQ greater than 1. These refinements are discussed more fully in the Residual Risk Assessment for the Miscellaneous Coating Manufacturing Source Category in Support of the 2019 Risk and Technology Review Proposed Rule, which is available in the docket for this source category. Available at: https://www.aiha.org/get-involved/ AIHAGuidelineFoundation/EmergencyResponse PlanningGuidelines/Documents/ERPG %20Committee%20Standard%20Operating %20Procedures%20%20-%20March%202014 %20Revision%20%28Updated%2010-2-2014 %29.pdf. E:\FR\FM\04SEP2.SGM 04SEP2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 171 / Wednesday, September 4, 2019 / Proposed Rules jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 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 category emit any HAP known to be persistent and bioaccumulative in the environment, as identified in the EPA’s Air Toxics Risk Assessment Library (see Volume 1, Appendix D, at https:// www.epa.gov/fera/risk-assessment-andmodeling-air-toxics-risk-assessmentreference-library. For the MCM source category, we identified PB–HAP emissions of cadmium compounds, polycyclic organic matter (POM), arsenic compounds, mercury compounds, and lead compounds, so we proceeded to the next step of the evaluation. Except for lead, the human health risk screening assessment for PB–HAP consists of three progressive tiers. In a Tier 1 screening assessment, we determine whether the magnitude of the facility-specific emissions of the PB– HAP warrants further evaluation to characterize human health risk through ingestion exposure. To facilitate this step, we evaluate emissions against 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 POM. Based on the EPA estimates of toxicity and bioaccumulation potential, these pollutants 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/2013-08/ 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.’’ VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:40 Sep 03, 2019 Jkt 247001 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. The Tier 2 screening assessment separates the Tier 1 combine fisher and farmer exposure scenario into fisher, farmer, and gardener scenarios that retain upperbound ingestion rates. 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 and assume the fisher only consumes fish from lakes within that 50 km zone. 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 lakes database. In the Tier 2 farmer scenario, we maintain an assumption that the farm is located within 0.5 km of the facility and that the farmer consumes meat, eggs, dairy, vegetables, and fruit produced near the facility. We may further refine the Tier 2 screening analysis by assessing a gardener scenario to characterize a range of exposures, with the gardener scenario being more plausible in RTR evaluations. Under the gardener scenario, we assume the gardener consumes home-produced eggs, vegetables, and fruit products at the same ingestion rate as the farmer. The Tier 2 screen continues to rely on the high-end food intake assumptions that were applied in Tier 1 for local fish PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 46619 (adult female angler at 99th percentile fish consumption 14) and locally grown or raised foods (90th percentile consumption of locally grown or raised foods for the farmer and gardener scenarios 15). If PB–HAP emission rates do not result in a Tier 2 screening value greater than 1, we consider those PB– HAP emissions to pose risks below a level of concern. If the PB–HAP emission rates for a facility exceed the Tier 2 screening threshold emission rates, we may conduct a Tier 3 screening assessment. 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, locating residential/garden locations for urban and/or rural settings, 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 (a time-series analysis). If necessary, 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 Standard (NAAQS) for lead.16 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 Residual Risk Assessment for the Miscellaneous Coating Manufacturing Source Category in Support of the Risk and Technology Review 2019 Proposed 14 Burger, J. 2002. Daily consumption of wild fish and game: Exposures of high end recreationists. International Journal of Environmental Health Research 12:343–354. 15 U.S. EPA. Exposure Factors Handbook 2011 Edition (Final). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, EPA/600/R–09/052F, 2011. 16 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. E:\FR\FM\04SEP2.SGM 04SEP2 46620 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 171 / Wednesday, September 4, 2019 / Proposed Rules Rule, which is available in the docket for this action. 5. How do we conduct the environmental risk screening assessment? jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 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- VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:40 Sep 03, 2019 Jkt 247001 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 Residual Risk Assessment for the Miscellaneous Coating Manufacturing Source Category in Support of the Risk and Technology Review 2019 Proposed Rule, which is available in the docket for this action. b. Environmental Risk Screening Methodology For the environmental risk screening assessment, the EPA first determined whether any facilities in the MCM source category emitted any of the environmental HAP. For the MCM source category, we identified emissions of the PB–HAP listed above, plus HCl. Because one or more of the environmental HAP evaluated are emitted by at least one facility in the source category, we proceeded to the second step of the evaluation. 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 of pollutant 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 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 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 E:\FR\FM\04SEP2.SGM 04SEP2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 171 / Wednesday, September 4, 2019 / Proposed Rules and on personal comfort and wellbeing.’’ jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 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 Residual Risk Assessment for the Miscellaneous Coating Manufacturing Source Category in Support of the Risk and Technology Review 2019 Proposed Rule, which is available in the 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 this source category, 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. The facility-wide file was then used to analyze risks due to the inhalation of VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:40 Sep 03, 2019 Jkt 247001 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 category addressed in this action. 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 Residual Risk Assessment for the Miscellaneous Coating Manufacturing Source Category in Support of the Risk and Technology Review 2019 Proposed Rule, available through the docket for this action, provides 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 dataset, 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 Residual Risk Assessment for the Miscellaneous Coating Manufacturing Source Category in Support of the Risk and Technology Review 2019 Proposed Rule, which is available in the docket for this action. 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 Dataset Although the development of the RTR emissions dataset involved quality assurance/quality control processes, the accuracy of emissions values will vary PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 46621 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, E:\FR\FM\04SEP2.SGM 04SEP2 46622 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 171 / Wednesday, September 4, 2019 / Proposed Rules 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. jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 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, page 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.17 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.18 Chronic noncancer RfC and 17 IRIS glossary (https://ofmpub.epa.gov/sor_ internet/registry/termreg/searchandretrieve/ glossariesandkeywordlists/search.do?details=& glossaryName=IRIS%20Glossary). 18 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. VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:40 Sep 03, 2019 Jkt 247001 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,19 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 assessment, some HAP emitted by this source category are lacking dose19 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. PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 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 emission rates, meteorology, and the presence of a person. In the acute screening assessment that we conduct under the RTR program, we assume that peak emissions from the source category and reasonable worst-case air dispersion conditions (i.e., 99th percentile) cooccur. We then include the additional assumption that a person is located at this point at the same time. Together, these assumptions represent a reasonable worst-case exposure scenario. In most cases, it is unlikely that a person would be located at the point of maximum exposure during the time when peak emissions and E:\FR\FM\04SEP2.SGM 04SEP2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 171 / Wednesday, September 4, 2019 / Proposed Rules jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 reasonable worst-case air dispersion 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 hydrogen chloride). 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.20 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 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 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 20 In the context of this discussion, the term ‘‘uncertainty’’ as it pertains to exposure and risk encompasses both variability in the range of VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:40 Sep 03, 2019 Jkt 247001 46623 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. 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. PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 IV. Analytical Results and Proposed Decisions A. What are the results of the risk assessment and analyses? As described above, for the MCM source category, we conducted an inhalation risk assessment for all HAP emitted, a multipathway screening assessment on the PB–HAP emitted, and an environmental risk screening assessment on the PB–HAP and acid gases emitted. We present results of the risk assessment briefly below and in more detail in the document titled Residual Risk Assessment for the Miscellaneous Coating Manufacturing Source Category in Support of the 2019 Risk and Technology Review Proposed Rule, which is available in the docket for this rulemaking. 1. Chronic Inhalation Risk Assessment Results Table 2 of this preamble provides a summary of the results of the inhalation risk assessment for the source category. E:\FR\FM\04SEP2.SGM 04SEP2 46624 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 171 / Wednesday, September 4, 2019 / Proposed Rules TABLE 2—MCM INHALATION RISK ASSESSMENT RESULTS 5 Maximum individual cancer risk (in 1 million) 2 Number of facilities 1 43 ........................................................... Population at increased risk of cancer ≥ 1-in-1 million 6 Annual cancer incidence (cases per year) 3,700 Maximum chronic noncancer TOSHI 3 Maximum screening acute noncancer HQ 4 0.4 2 0.002 1 Number of facilities evaluated in the risk analysis. 2 Maximum individual excess lifetime cancer risk due to HAP emissions from the source category. 3 Maximum TOSHI. The target organ system with the highest TOSHI for the source category is respiratory. 4 The maximum estimated acute exposure concentration was divided by available short-term threshold values to develop an array of HQ values. HQ values shown use the lowest available acute threshold value, which in most cases is the REL. When an HQ exceeds 1, we also show the HQ using the next lowest available acute dose-response value. The HQ shown here is for glycol ethers, for which there are no other available acute dose-response values. 5 For this source category, it was determined that baseline allowable emissions are equal to baseline actual emissions and, therefore, the risk summaries are the same. The results of the inhalation risk modeling for both actuals and allowables, as shown in Table 2 of this preamble, indicate the estimated cancer MIR is 6-in-1 million, with chromium (VI) compounds from process vents as the major contributor to the risk. The total estimated cancer incidence from this source category is 0.002 excess cancer cases per year, or one excess case in every 500 years. Approximately 3,700 people are estimated to have cancer risks greater than or equal to 1-in-1 million from HAP emitted from the facilities in this source category. The estimated maximum chronic noncancer TOSHI for the source category is 0.4 (respiratory), driven by emissions of acrylic acid from process vents. No one is exposed to TOSHI levels greater than 1. 2. Screening-Level Acute Risk Assessment Results As shown in Table 2 above, the highest acute HQ based on the reasonable worst-case scenario is 2, based on the REL for glycol ethers. This is the highest HQ that is outside facility boundaries. One facility is estimated to have an HQ greater than 1 based on the REL, which is the only available benchmark for glycol ethers. Acute risk estimates for each facility and pollutant are provided in the risk assessment document, which is available in the docket for this rulemaking. 3. Multipathway Risk Screening Results Potential multipathway health risks under a fisher and farmer/gardener scenario were identified using a threetier screening assessment of the PB– HAP emitted by facilities in this source category. For carcinogenic PB–HAP, one facility emits arsenic compounds, while two facilities emit POM. None of these emissions exceed a Tier 1 cancer screening value for arsenic or POM. For noncarcinogenic PB–HAP, one facility emits cadmium compounds and one facility emits mercury compounds. None of these emissions exceed a Tier 1 noncancer screening value for cadmium or mercury. Further analyses (i.e., Tier 2 or 3 screens) were not performed. For lead compounds, we did not estimate any exceedances of the lead NAAQS. Liquids Distribution), which are not part of this source category. The total estimated cancer incidence is 0.006 excess cancer cases per year. Approximately 50,100 people are estimated to have cancer risks greater than or equal to 1-in-1 million. The estimated maximum chronic noncancer TOSHI is 2 (for the neurological target organ), driven by emissions of hydrogen cyanide from non-source category emissions from carbon fiber production. Approximately 80 people are estimated to be exposed to noncancer HI levels greater than 1. 4. Environmental Risk Screening Results A screening-level evaluation of the potential adverse environmental risk associated with emissions of the PB– HAP listed above, plus acid gases (HCl is the only reported acid gas), indicated that no ecological benchmarks were exceeded. For lead compounds, we did not estimate any exceedances of the secondary lead NAAQS. 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 MCM source category across different demographic groups within the populations living near facilities. 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. 5. Facility-Wide Risk Results The results of the inhalation risk modeling using facility-wide emissions data indicate that the estimated MIR is 20-in-1 million with emissions of hydrazine from sources subject to other standards driving the risk. These include 40 CFR part 63 subpart FFFF (Miscellaneous Organic Chemicals Manufacturing NESHAP), H (Hazardous Organic NESHAP), and EEEE (Organic 6. What demographic groups might benefit from this regulation? jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 TABLE 3—MCM DEMOGRAPHIC RISK ANALYSIS RESULTS Nationwide Total Population ......................................................................................................... VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:40 Sep 03, 2019 Jkt 247001 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 Population with cancer risk at or above 1-in-1 million due to MCM 371,746,049 E:\FR\FM\04SEP2.SGM 3,665 04SEP2 Population with chronic HI above 1 due to MCM 0 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 171 / Wednesday, September 4, 2019 / Proposed Rules 46625 TABLE 3—MCM DEMOGRAPHIC RISK ANALYSIS RESULTS—Continued Population with cancer risk at or above 1-in-1 million due to MCM Nationwide Population with chronic HI above 1 due to MCM White and Minority by Percent White .......................................................................................................................... Minority ...................................................................................................................... 62 38 64 36 0 0 12 0.8 18 7 32 0.05 2 2 0 0 0 0 14 86 29 71 0 0 14 86 19 81 0 0 6 1 0 Minority by Percent African American ....................................................................................................... Native American ........................................................................................................ Hispanic or Latino (includes White and nonwhite) .................................................... Other and Multiracial ................................................................................................. Income by Percent Below Poverty Level .................................................................................................. Above Poverty Level .................................................................................................. Education by Percent Over 25 and without High School Diploma ............................................................... Over 25 and with a High School Diploma ................................................................. Linguistically Isolated by Percent Linguistically Isolated ................................................................................................. jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 The results of the MCM source category demographic analysis indicate that emissions from the source category expose approximately 3,700 people to a cancer risk at or above 1-in-1 million and zero people to a chronic noncancer TOSHI greater than 1. The percentages of the at-risk population in each demographic group (except for African American, Below Poverty Level, Hispanic or Latino, and Above Poverty Level) are similar to (within 5 percent of) their respective nationwide percentages. The African American and Below Poverty Level demographic groups are greater than their respective nationwide percentages, while the Hispanic or Latino (includes White and nonwhite) and Above Poverty Level are lower 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 Miscellaneous Coating Manufacturing Facilities, available in the docket for this action. B. What are our proposed decisions regarding risk acceptability, ample margin of safety, and adverse environmental effect? 1. Risk Acceptability As noted in section II.A of this preamble, the EPA sets standards under VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:40 Sep 03, 2019 Jkt 247001 CAA section 112(f)(2) using a ‘‘two-step standard-setting approach, with an analytical first step to determine an ‘acceptable risk’ that considers all health information, including risk estimation uncertainty, and includes a presumptive limit on MIR of approximately 1-in-10 thousand.’’ (54 FR 38045, September 14, 1989.) In this proposal, the EPA estimated risks based on actual and allowable emissions from MCM sources, and we considered these in determining acceptability. The estimated inhalation cancer risk to the individual most exposed to actual emissions from the source category is 6in-1 million. The estimated cancer incidence due to inhalation exposures is 0.002 excess cancer cases per year, or one excess case every 500 years. Approximately 3,700 people face an increased cancer risk greater than 1-in1 million due to inhalation exposures to HAP emissions from this source category. The estimated maximum chronic noncancer TOSHI from inhalation exposure for this source category is 0.4. Risks for allowable emissions are the same since it was determined that allowable emissions are equal to actual emissions for this source category. The screening assessment of worst-case acute inhalation impacts indicates one facility with an estimated HQ of 2, based on the REL for glycol ethers. Potential multipathway human health risks were estimated using a three-tier PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 screening assessment of the PB–HAP emitted by facilities in this source category, where there were no exceedances of Tier 1 screening values for any PB–HAP emitted and, for lead compounds, no exceedances of the lead NAAQS. In determining whether risks are acceptable for this source category, the EPA considered all available health information and risk estimation uncertainty as described above. The risk results indicate that the inhalation cancer risks to the individual most exposed are far less than 100-in-1 million, which is the presumptive limit of acceptability (see, for example, 54 FR 38045, September 14, 1989). There are no facilities or people exposed at this risk level for either actual or allowable emissions. Also, there are no facilities with an estimated maximum chronic noncancer TOSHI greater than 1. There is one facility with an acute HQ value of 2 based on the REL for glycol ethers; however, given the conservative nature of the acute screening assessment, it is unlikely there are acute impacts from HAP emissions from this category. In addition, there are no exceedances of Tier 1 screening values in the multipathway assessment, nor exceedances of the lead NAAQS. Considering all of the health risk information and factors discussed above, including the uncertainties discussed in section III of this preamble, E:\FR\FM\04SEP2.SGM 04SEP2 46626 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 171 / Wednesday, September 4, 2019 / Proposed Rules jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 the EPA proposes that the risks from the MCM source category are acceptable. 2. Ample Margin of Safety Analysis We next considered whether the existing MACT standards provide an ample margin of safety to protect public health. In addition to considering all the health risks and other health information considered in the risk acceptability determination, in the ample margin of safety analysis we evaluated the cost and feasibility of available control technologies and other measures (including the controls, measures, and costs reviewed under the technology review) that could be applied to the source category to further reduce the risks due to emissions of HAP. As noted in our discussion of the technology review in section IV.C of this preamble, we identified two developments in practices, processes, or control technologies for reducing HAP emissions from process vessels in the MCM source category. As part of the risk review, we evaluated these developments to determine whether they could reduce risks and whether it is necessary to require these developments to provide an ample margin of safety to protect public health. Since the baseline risks are being driven by inorganic HAP from process vessels, we evaluated a control option for inorganic HAP emissions from process vessels located at MCM facilities and considered the resulting health information. The control option that we evaluated for inorganic HAP would be similar to those included in 40 CFR part 63, subpart CCCCCCC, the NESHAP for Area Sources for Paints and Allied Products Manufacturing. Additionally, we evaluated increasing the control efficiency requirements for organic HAP emissions from process vessels. The process vessel options did not result in a decrease to the MIR or to the maximum chronic noncancer TOSHI because the MIR facility already had controls in place. However, there was a reduction seen in the population exposed to a cancer risk of 1-in-1 million from 3,700 to 1,900 due to emissions reductions at other facilities. As described in section IV.C of this preamble though, we determined that these options are not cost effective. Overall, the available options could result in small reductions in population risk, but we did not identify any costeffective options for reducing HAP emissions from the source category. Considering all of the health information presented above, along with the available information regarding the cost of the available options, we propose that the existing standards provide an VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:40 Sep 03, 2019 Jkt 247001 ample margin of safety to protect public health. We are requesting comment on whether there are other control measures for emission sources in this category that are necessary to provide an ample margin of safety to protect public health. In particular, we are requesting that states identify any controls they have already required for these facilities, controls they are currently considering, or any other controls of which they are aware that are being used to control HAP from these sources. 4. Adverse Environmental Effect Based on the results of the environmental risk screening assessment, we are proposing that HAP emissions from the MCM source category do not present an adverse environmental effect. Thus, we are proposing that it is not necessary to set a more stringent standard to prevent, taking into consideration costs, safety, and other relevant factors, an adverse environmental effect. C. What are the results and proposed decisions based on our technology review? Sources of HAP emissions regulated by the MCM NESHAP are process vessels, storage tanks, transfer racks, equipment leaks, wastewater streams, and heat exchange systems. MCM processes occur as batch operations, which involve intermittent or discontinuous feed of raw materials into equipment, and generally involve emptying of the equipment after the operation ceases and prior to beginning a new operation. To inform our technology reviews for these emission sources, we reviewed the EPA’s RBLC and regulatory development efforts for similar sources published after the MCM NESHAP was developed. We then evaluated the impacts of requiring additional controls identified in the technology review for the MCM source category, as described below. 1. Process Vessels Process vessels regulated by the MCM NESHAP are defined as any stationary or portable tank or other vessel with a capacity greater than or equal to 250 gal and in which mixing, blending, diluting, dissolving, temporary holding, and other processing steps occur in the manufacturing of a coating. Process vessels used in MCM generate gaseous streams containing HAP when HAPcontaining materials are present in the vessel and more material is added displacing solvent-laden air from inside the vessel, and during product mixing as the HAP-containing contents are agitated. PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 At existing sources, the HAP emissions from portable vessels must be controlled by fitting the vessels with lids that are kept closed at all times when the vessel contains a HAP, except for material additions and sampling. The HAP emissions from stationary vessels must be controlled by fitting the vessels with lids that are kept closed at all times when the vessel contains a HAP, except for material additions and sampling, and by capturing all emissions and routing the captured emissions to a control device. Organic HAP with a vapor pressure equal to or greater than 0.6 kilopascals (kPa) must be reduced by at least 75 percent by weight, and organic HAP with a vapor pressure less than 0.6 kPa must be reduced by at least 60 percent. At new sources, the HAP emissions from portable and stationary process vessels must be controlled by fitting the vessels with lids that are kept closed at all times when the vessel contains a HAP, except for material additions and sampling. The emissions from both portable and stationary process vessels must be captured and the captured emissions reduced by at least 95 percent, as total organic HAP, using a control device other than a flare, reduced by venting non-halogenated vent streams to a flare, or vented to a condenser. If a condenser is used, the condenser must achieve a specified outlet gas temperature depending on the partial pressure of the HAP contained in the vessel. If a combustion device is used to control a halogenated vent stream, then a halogen reduction device (e.g., a scrubber) must be used to reduce hydrogen halide and halogen HAP by at least 95 percent; or reduce overall emissions of hydrogen halide and halogen HAP to no more than 0.45 kg/ hr. We evaluated two options that could be potentially considered technology developments under CAA section 112(d)(6). In the first option, we considered increasing the control efficiency requirement for process vessels at existing sources to match the control requirement for new sources, which would increase the control efficiency for organic HAP with a vapor pressure equal to or greater than 0.6 kPa from 75 percent to 95 percent. We consider this option to be a new development because several facilities have controlled all process vessels with thermal oxidizers to comply with the NESHAP. We estimated the costs of installing a thermal oxidizer on the six plants in the MCM source category that currently do not have a thermal oxidizer installed on process vessels. We did not estimate E:\FR\FM\04SEP2.SGM 04SEP2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 171 / Wednesday, September 4, 2019 / Proposed Rules jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 costs for catalytic oxidizers because thermal oxidizers are cheaper than catalytic oxidizers. The costs were estimated using the EPA Air Pollution Control Cost Manual cost spreadsheet for thermal oxidizers 21 and the process vent flow rate from NEI or the facility operating permit. The estimated cost effectiveness for these facilities ranged from $20,000 per ton HAP removed to $150,000 per ton HAP removed. The second option that we considered was to require controls to limit particulate matter (PM) HAP emissions from process vessels in which dry materials (e.g., pigments) containing inorganic HAP are added to the process vessel. We considered provisions that would be similar to those included in 40 CFR part 63, subpart CCCCCCC, the NESHAP for Area Sources for Paints and Allied Products Manufacturing. This option would reflect the fact that several facilities subject to 40 CFR part 63, subpart HHHHH have process vessels controlled with fabric filters when dry materials are being added. We estimated costs for both a fabric filter baghouse and a cartridge filter type of particulate control with a flow rate of 1,000 cubic feet per minute, plus 150 feet of flexible duct to capture the fugitive PM when dry matter is being added to the mixing vessel. The estimated cost effectiveness for this option ranged from $310,000 to $2,100,000 per ton of particulate HAP reduced. We also evaluated whether pigments could be added in a wetted or paste form, but not all pigments are available or can be used in wetted or paste form. The EPA did not find the control technology development options considered for process vessels in this technology review to be cost effective, or, in some cases, technologically feasible. Consequently, the EPA proposes that it is not necessary to amend the standards for process vessels under the technology review. Further explanation of the assumptions and methodologies for all options evaluated are provided in the memorandum, Clean Air Act Section 112(d)(6) Technology Review for the Miscellaneous Coatings Manufacturing Source Category, available in the docket to this action. 2. Storage Tanks Storage tanks hold the liquid raw materials used in the coating manufacturing process. Emissions occur from storage tanks through the 21 https://www.epa.gov/economic-and-costanalysis-air-pollution-regulations/cost-reports-andguidance-air-pollution. VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:40 Sep 03, 2019 Jkt 247001 displacement of vapor-laden air as the tank is being filled (working losses) and also due to changes in temperature that cause the vapor-laden air in the head space of the tank to expand (breathing losses). Emissions from vertical tanks can be controlled by installing a floating roof inside the tank. By floating on the surface of the liquid, this roof design eliminates head space above the surface of the liquid and, therefore, minimizes the evaporation of organic vapors inside the tank. An internal floating roof (IFR) tank has a second fixed roof over the floating roof. An external floating roof (EFR) tank has no fixed roof over the floating roof and is exposed to the elements. Emissions from horizontal tanks can be controlled with a closed vent system that captures the emissions and delivers them to either a recovery device or a destruction device. Control devices within the MCM source category include carbon adsorbers and combustion devices. Alternatively, a vapor balancing system can be used to eliminate working loss emissions. In vapor balancing, the displaced vapors from the receiving tank are piped back into the storage vessel from which the liquid product is delivered. No facility in the MCM source category during the original MACT development reported using IFRs, EFRs, or vapor balancing to reduce HAP emissions from any storage tank. The MCM NESHAP regulates two classes of storage tanks. Group 1a storage tanks are storage tanks at existing sources with capacities greater than or equal to 20,000 gal storing material that has a maximum true vapor pressure of total organic HAP greater than or equal to 1.9 psia. Group 1a storage tanks also include storage tanks at new sources with capacities greater than or equal to 25,000 gal storing materials with a maximum true vapor pressure of total HAP greater than or equal to 0.1 psia, as well as storage tanks with capacities greater than or equal to 20,000 gal and less than 25,000 gal storing materials with a maximum true vapor pressure of total HAP greater than or equal to 1.5 psia. Group 1b storage tanks are storage tanks at new sources with capacities greater than or equal to 10,000 gal, storing materials that have a maximum true vapor pressure of total organic HAP greater than or equal to 0.02 psia, and are not Group 1a storage tanks. Emissions from Group 1a storage tanks must be controlled by complying with the provisions of 40 CFR part 63, subpart WW (NESHAP for Storage Vessels (Tanks)—Control Level 2), PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 46627 which is based on the use of an IFR or an EFR; by reducing total organic HAP emissions by at least 90 percent by weight by venting emissions through a closed-vent system to a control device (excluding a flare); or by reducing total organic HAP emissions from the storage tank by venting emissions from a nonhalogenated vent stream through a closed-vent system to a flare. The EPA did not identify in our technology review any developments in practices, processes, and control technologies for storage tanks that were not already considered in the development of the original MACT. Because there were no improvements in the technologies considered under MACT, the EPA proposes that it is not necessary to amend the standards for storage tanks under the technology review. Further explanation of the assumptions and methodologies for all options evaluated are provided in the memorandum, Clean Air Act Section 112(d)(6) Technology Review for the Miscellaneous Coatings Manufacturing Source Category, available in the docket to this action. 3. Transfer Operations Transfer operations involve the bulk loading of coating products into either tanker trucks or tanker rail cars. Transfer operations do not involve the filling of cans, pails, drums, or totes. Most coating manufacturing facilities perform only the filling of cans, pails, drums, or totes with coating products and do not perform transfer operations to tanker trucks or rail cars. A few coating manufacturers perform transfer operations because they provide coatings to facilities, such as coil coating and metal can coating facilities, that use large quantities of certain coatings and store those coatings in large stationary storage tanks. Emissions during transfer operations are generated by the displacement of the solvent vapor-laden air in the receiving tanker truck or rail car as the tank is filled. The extent of the HAP emissions will depend on the HAP content of the material being loaded (i.e., weight percent HAP), the volatility of the HAP in the material being loaded, and the total volume of coating being loaded. The MCM NESHAP regulates the bulk loading of coating products if the coatings contain 3.0 million gal or more per year of HAP with a weighted average HAP partial pressure greater than or equal to 1.5 psia. The MCM NESHAP requires the HAP emissions to be controlled by either venting the emissions through a closed-vent system to any combination of control devices (except a flare) and reducing emissions E:\FR\FM\04SEP2.SGM 04SEP2 46628 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 171 / Wednesday, September 4, 2019 / Proposed Rules jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 by at least 75 percent, by venting the emissions from a non-halogenated vent stream through a closed-vent system to a flare, or by using a vapor balancing system to collect displaced organic HAP vapors and route the vapors to the storage tank from which the liquid being loaded originated or to another storage tank connected by a common header. The EPA did not identify in our technology review any developments in practices, processes, and control technologies for bulk loading of coating products that were not already considered in the development of the original MACT. Because there were no improvements in the technologies considered under MACT, the EPA proposes that it is not necessary to amend the standards for transfer operations under the technology review. Further explanation of the assumptions and methodologies for all options evaluated are provided in the memorandum, Clean Air Act Section 112(d)(6) Technology Review for the Miscellaneous Coatings Manufacturing Source Category, available in the docket to this action. 4. Equipment Leaks In the MCM source category, organic HAP vapors can escape from leaks in connectors, valves, and pumps in liquid piping systems due to mechanical defects in those items. MCM facilities use piping systems to move liquid raw materials from storage tanks to process vessels and then from process vessels to filling operations or bulk transfer operations. Emissions can be minimized through periodic monitoring of the connectors, valves, and pumps to check for leaks and the timely repair of equipment that is found to be leaking. Leak detection can be through sensory monitoring using sight, sound, and smell to detect leaks, or leak detection can be through the use of a monitoring instrument (EPA Method 21) that measures the concentration of organic vapors in parts per million by volume (ppmv) in the air near each of the connectors, valves, and pumps. Different NESHAP that specify the use of instrument monitoring may define a different threshold vapor concentration that constitutes a leak that triggers the need for repair. The MCM NESHAP requires existing sources to comply with the equipment leaks provisions in 40 CFR part 63, subpart R, NESHAP for Gasoline Distribution Facilities (Bulk Gasoline Terminals and Pipeline Breakout Stations); subpart TT, NESHAP for Equipment Leaks, Control Level 1; or subpart UU, NESHAP for Equipment Leaks, Control Level 2. New sources VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:40 Sep 03, 2019 Jkt 247001 must comply with the provisions of subparts UU or TT. Subpart R requires monthly inspections for equipment leaks using sight, sound, or smell. Subpart TT requires the use of instrument monitoring and defines leaks as instrument readings of 10,000 ppmv for valves, pumps, and connectors. Subpart UU also requires the use of instrument monitoring and defines leaks as instrument readings of 500 ppmv for valves, 1,000 ppmv for pumps, and 500 ppmv for connectors. Based on developments in other similar source categories, we identified as a technology alternative to the current standard a more stringent provision for existing sources that would eliminate sensory monitoring and require instrument monitoring with lower leak definitions than specified in 40 CFR part 63, subpart TT. For this alternative, we estimated the incremental emission reductions and cost effectiveness of employing instrument monitoring (EPA Method 21) with an equipment leak defined as instrument readings of 500 ppmv for valves, 2,000 ppmv for pumps, and 500 ppmv for connectors. We estimated the costs of requiring instrument monitoring with more stringent leak definitions for four model plants with 25, 50, 100, or 200 process vessels. The estimated cost effectiveness for these model plants ranged from $107,000 per ton HAP removed to $22,000 per ton HAP removed for the smallest to largest model plant, and these values are higher than organic HAP cost-effectiveness values that we historically have considered cost effective. The EPA does not find the leak detection instrument monitoring option that was evaluated to be cost effective. Consequently, the EPA proposes that it is not necessary to amend the standards for equipment leaks under the technology review. Further explanation of the assumptions and methodologies for all options evaluated are provided in the memorandum, Clean Air Act Section 112(d)(6) Technology Review for the Miscellaneous Coatings Manufacturing Source Category, available in the docket to this action. 5. Wastewater Streams Wastewater that comes in contact with organic HAP-containing materials may be a source of organic HAP emissions as the organic HAP evaporates from the wastewater. In coatings manufacturing, wastewater containing organic HAP may be generated from the cleaning of process vessels and other equipment between batches of different coatings. PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 Emissions can be controlled from wastewater by collecting and moving the wastewater in enclosed pipes and then treating the wastewater to remove the organic HAP. Wastewater containing organic HAP can be collected and treated as hazardous waste in which case it is usually incinerated. It can also be treated by using steam to volatilize the organic HAP and separate it from the wastewater. Finally, if the organic HAP concentration is low enough, it can be treated through enhanced biological treatment in which microorganisms oxidize the organic HAP. The MCM NESHAP regulates wastewater streams that contain total partially soluble and soluble HAP at an annual average concentration greater than or equal to 4,000 ppmw and load greater than or equal to 750 lb/yr at existing sources, or that contain greater than or equal to 1,600 ppmw and any partially soluble and soluble HAP load at new sources. Wastewater tanks used to store regulated wastewater streams must have a fixed roof, which may have openings necessary for proper venting of the tank, such as a pressure/vacuum vent or j-pipe vent. Regulated wastewater streams must be conveyed using hard piping and treated as a hazardous waste in accordance with 40 CFR part 264, 265, or 266 either onsite or offsite. Alternatively, if the wastewater contains less than 50 ppmw of partially soluble HAP, it may be treated in an enhanced biological treatment system that is located either onsite or offsite. Because our technology review identified no developments in practices, processes, or controls for reducing wastewater emissions at MCM facilities, we evaluated developments in other industries with wastewater streams that contain organic HAP. We reviewed three options that were considered in other industry technology reviews for their applicability to the MCM wastewater streams. These options were: (1) Requiring wastewater drain and tank controls at facilities with a total annual benzene quantity of less than 10 megagrams per year (Mg/yr). (2) Requiring specific performance parameters (minimum fraction biodegraded, fbio) for an enhanced biological unit beyond those required in the Benzene NESHAP. (3) Requiring wastewater streams with a volatile organic compound (VOC) content of 750 ppmw or higher to be treated by steam stripping prior to any other treatment process for facilities with high organic loading rates (i.e., facilities with total annualized benzene quantity of 10 Mg/yr or more). E:\FR\FM\04SEP2.SGM 04SEP2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 171 / Wednesday, September 4, 2019 / Proposed Rules jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 The EPA did not find any of the three wastewater stream control options evaluated to be cost effective. Consequently, the EPA proposes that it is not necessary to amend the standards for wastewater streams under the technology review. Further explanation of the assumptions and methodologies for all options evaluated are provided in the memorandum, Clean Air Act Section 112(d)(6) Technology Review for the Miscellaneous Coatings Manufacturing Source Category, available in the docket to this action. 6. Heat Exchange Systems Heat exchangers are devices or collections of devices used to transfer heat from process fluids to another fluid (typically air or water) without intentional direct contact of the process fluid with the cooling fluid (i.e., noncontact heat exchangers). At times, the heat exchanger’s internal tubing material can corrode or crack, allowing some process fluids to mix or become entrained with the cooling water. Pollutants in the process fluids may subsequently be released from the cooling water into the atmosphere when the water is exposed to air (e.g., in a cooling tower for closed-loop systems or at trenches/ponds in a once-through system). The MCM NESHAP regulates heat exchangers by requiring them to meet the provisions in 40 CFR part 63, subpart F, NESHAP for the Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturing Industry. Specifically, under 40 CFR 63.104, facilities are required to monitor the cooling water in the heat exchange system on a periodic basis to detect and repair leaks, unless certain design and operating requirements are met. Those other requirements include operating the system such that the cooling water is at a higher pressure than the process fluid, using an intervening cooling fluid between the water and process fluid and ensuring the intervening fluid is not discharged, using a once-through heat exchange system that is subject to a NPDES permit, or only using the heat exchange system to cool process fluids that meet low-HAP content criteria. The EPA did not identify in our technology review any developments in practices, processes, and control technologies for heat exchange systems that were not already considered in the development of the original MACT. Because there were no improvements in the technologies considered under MACT, the EPA proposes that it is not necessary to amend the standards for heat exchange systems under the technology review. Further explanation of the assumptions and methodologies VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:40 Sep 03, 2019 Jkt 247001 for all options evaluated are provided in the memorandum, Clean Air Act Section 112(d)(6) Technology Review for the Miscellaneous Coatings Manufacturing Source Category, available in the docket to this action. D. What other actions are we proposing? In addition to the proposed decisions described above, we are proposing additional revisions to the NESHAP. We are proposing revisions to the SSM provisions of 40 CFR part 63, subpart HHHHH to be consistent with the Court decision in Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F. 3d 1019 (D.C. Cir. 2008), which vacated rule provisions that exempt sources from the provision to comply with otherwise applicable NESHAP during periods of SSM. We also are proposing to require electronic submittal of notifications, semi-annual reports and compliance reports (which include performance test reports). We are proposing to require periodic performance testing of oxidizers used to demonstrate compliance. We are proposing technical and editorial revisions and corrections. 1. SSM Provisions In its 2008 decision in Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F.3d 1019 (D.C. Cir. 2008), the Court vacated portions of two provisions in the EPA’s CAA section 112 regulations governing the emissions of HAP during periods of SSM. Specifically, the Court vacated the SSM exemption contained in 40 CFR 63.6(f)(1) and 40 CFR 63.6(h)(1), holding that under section 302(k) of the CAA, emissions standards or limitations must be continuous in nature and that the SSM exemption violates the CAA’s requirement that some section 112 standards apply continuously. We are proposing the elimination of the SSM exemption in this rule which appears at 40 CFR 63.8000(a). Consistent with Sierra Club v. EPA, we are proposing standards in this rule that apply at all times. We are also proposing several revisions to Table 10 (the General Provisions Applicability Table) as explained in more detail below. For example, we are proposing to eliminate the incorporation of the General Provisions’ requirement that the source develop an SSM plan. We also are proposing to eliminate and revise certain recordkeeping and reporting requirements related to the SSM exemption as further described below. The EPA has attempted to ensure that the provisions we are proposing to eliminate are inappropriate, unnecessary, or redundant in the absence of the SSM exemption. We are PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 46629 specifically seeking comment on whether we have successfully done so. In addition, as explained in more detail in section IV.D.1.i., below, we are proposing language in 40 CFR 63.8005(h) to clarify that any periods during which a control device is bypassed be included in demonstrating compliance with the emission reduction provisions for process vessels in Table 1 to 40 CFR part 63, subpart HHHHH. As currently specified in 40 CFR 63.8005, 63.8010, and 63.8020, you must establish operating limits for process vessels and storage tanks controlled by closed vent systems and add-on controls, and for wastewater streams controlled by enhanced biological treatment units. This generally means that during startup and shutdown periods, in order for a facility using add-on controls to meet the emissions and operating standards, the add-on control device needs to be turned on and operating at specified levels when the facility begins coating manufacturing operations, and the control equipment needs to continue to be operated until the facility ceases coating manufacturing operations. In some cases, the facility would need to run thermal oxidizers on supplemental fuel whenever there is insufficient concentrations of VOC for the combustion to be self-sustaining. The proposed language in 40 CFR 63.8000(a) requires that the owner or operator operate and maintain the coating manufacturing operations, including pollution control equipment, at all times to minimize emissions, except as explained in more detail in section IV.D.1.i below, to account for bypass periods of the controls for process vessels as proposed in 40 CFR 63.8005(h). 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 (D.C. Cir. 2016). Under CAA section 112, emissions standards for new sources must be no less stringent than the level ‘‘achieved’’ by the best controlled similar source and for existing sources generally must be no E:\FR\FM\04SEP2.SGM 04SEP2 jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 46630 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 171 / Wednesday, September 4, 2019 / Proposed Rules 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. 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 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- VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:40 Sep 03, 2019 Jkt 247001 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. Although no statutory language compels the EPA to set standards for malfunctions, the EPA has the discretion to do so where feasible. For example, in the Petroleum Refinery Sector RTR, the EPA established a work practice standard for unique types of malfunctions that result in releases from PRDs or emergency flaring events because the EPA had information to determine that such work practices reflected the level of control that applies to the best performers. 80 FR 75178, 75211–14 (December 1, 2015). The EPA will consider whether circumstances warrant setting standards for a particular type of malfunction and, if so, whether the EPA has sufficient information to identify the relevant best performing sources and establish a standard for such malfunctions. In this proposal at 40 CFR 63.8005(h), we provide a method to account for control device bypass periods including periods of SSM, in evaluating compliance with the overall control efficiency requirements for process vessels in Table 1, as is discussed further. We encourage commenters to provide any such information. Finally, 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 would determine an appropriate response based on, among other things, the good faith efforts of the source to minimize emissions during malfunction periods, including preventative and corrective actions, as well as root cause analyses to ascertain and rectify excess emissions. The specific changes that we propose to comport the rule with the Sierra Club decision on SSM are listed in paragraphs a through i below: a. 40 CFR 63.8000 General Duty We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table (Table 10) 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 63.8000(a) 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) PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 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 63.8000(a) does not include that language from 40 CFR 63.6(e)(1). We are also proposing to revise the General Provisions table (Table 10) 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 provision being added at 40 CFR 63.8000(a). b. SSM Plan We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table (Table 10) entry for 40 CFR 63.6(e)(3) by consolidating the entries for subparagraphs (i) to (ix) under a single entry for 40 CFR 63.6(e)(3) and 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 provisions related to the SSM plan. As noted, the EPA is proposing to remove the SSM exemptions. Therefore, affected units will be subject to an emission standard during such events. The applicability of a standard during such events will ensure that sources have ample incentive to plan for and achieve compliance and, thus, the SSM plan provisions are no longer necessary. c. Compliance With Standards We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table (Table 10) entry for 40 CFR 63.6(f)(1) by changing the ‘‘yes’’ in column 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 the Sierra Club decision vacated the exemptions contained in this provision and held that the CAA requires that some section 112 standards apply continuously. Consistent with Sierra Club, the EPA is proposing to revise standards in this rule to apply at all times. We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table (Table 10) entry for 40 CFR 63.6(h)(1) by changing the ‘‘yes’’ in column 3 to a ‘‘no.’’ The current language of 40 CFR 63.6(h)(1) exempts sources from opacity standards during periods of SSM. As discussed above, the Court in Sierra Club vacated the exemptions contained in this provision and held that the CAA E:\FR\FM\04SEP2.SGM 04SEP2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 171 / Wednesday, September 4, 2019 / Proposed Rules requires that some section 112 standard apply continuously. Consistent with the Sierra Club decision, the EPA is proposing to revise standards in this rule to apply at all times. jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 d. 40 CFR 63.8005(d) Performance Testing We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table (Table 10) entry for 40 CFR 63.7(e)(1) by changing the ‘‘yes’’ in column 3 to a ‘‘no.’’ Section 63.7(e)(1) describes performance testing provisions. The EPA is instead proposing to add performance testing provisions at 40 CFR 63.8005(d)(5). The performance testing provisions 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 exclude periods of startup or shutdown as representative conditions for conducting performance testing. As in 40 CFR 63.7(e)(1), performance tests conducted under this subpart should not be conducted during malfunctions because conditions during malfunctions are often not representative of normal operating conditions. The EPA is proposing to add language that requires owners or operators to record the process information that is necessary to document operating conditions during tests and include in such record explanations to support that such conditions represent normal operation. Section 63.7(e) requires that owners or operators make available to the Administrator upon request such records ‘‘as may be necessary to determine the condition of the performance test,’’ but does not specifically require the information to be recorded. The regulatory text the EPA is proposing to add clarifies the necessary information and makes explicit the provision to record the information. e. Monitoring We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table (Table 10) entry for 40 CFR 63.8 (c)(1)(i) and (iii) by changing the ‘‘yes’’ in column 3 to a ‘‘no’’ for both entries. The crossreferences to the general duty and SSM plan provisions in those subparagraphs are not necessary in light of other provisions of 40 CFR 63.8 that require good air pollution control practices (40 VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:40 Sep 03, 2019 Jkt 247001 CFR 63.8(c)(1)) and that set out the provisions of a quality control program for monitoring equipment (40 CFR 63.8(d)). We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table (Table 10) entry for 40 CFR 63.8(d) by creating a separate entry for 40 CFR 63.8(d)(3) and by indicating ‘‘no’’ in column 3. The final sentence in 40 CFR 63.8(d)(3) refers to the General Provisions’ SSM plan provision which is no longer applicable. We are proposing to add to the rule at 40 CFR 63.8000(d)(8) text that is identical to 40 CFR 63.8(d)(3) except that the final sentence is replaced with the following sentence: ‘‘The program of corrective action should be included in the plan required under § 63.8(d)(2).’’ f. 40 CFR 63.8080 Recordkeeping We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table (Table 10) entries for 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2) by creating a single row for 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(i) and (ii) and indicating a ‘‘no’’ in column 3. Section 63.10(b)(2)(i) describes the recordkeeping provisions during startup and shutdown. Section 63.10(b)(2)(ii) describes the recordkeeping provisions during a malfunction. These recordkeeping provisions are no longer necessary because we are proposing to remove the exemptions and other special provisions applicable to SSM periods so there is no reason to retain additional recordkeeping for these periods. We are also proposing to replace the references to 40 CFR 63.998(d)(3) and 63.998(c)(1)(ii)(D) through (G) in the former entry for 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(i) with a reference to a new paragraph 40 CFR 63.8080(h) that specifies recordkeeping in the event of any deviation from an emission limitation. The regulatory text we are proposing to add differs from the General Provisions it is replacing in that the General Provisions require the creation and retention of a record of the occurrence and duration of each malfunction of process, air pollution control, and monitoring equipment. We are proposing that this provision apply to any failure to meet an applicable standard and is requiring that the source record the date, time, and duration of the failure rather than the ‘‘occurrence.’’ The EPA is also proposing to add to 40 CFR 63.8080(h) a provision that requires source owners or operators to keep records that include a list of the affected source or equipment and actions taken to minimize emissions, an estimate of the quantity of each regulated pollutant emitted over the standard for which the source failed to meet the standard, and PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 46631 a description of the method used to estimate the emissions. Examples of such estimation methods would include product-loss calculations, mass balance calculations, measurements when available, or engineering judgment based on known process parameters. The EPA is proposing to require that source owners or operators keep records of this information to ensure that there is adequate information to allow us to determine the severity of any failure to meet a standard, and to provide data that may document how the source met the general duty to minimize emissions when the source has failed to meet an applicable standard. We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table (Table 10) entries for 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2) by creating a single row for 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(iv) and (v) and indicating a ‘‘no’’ in column 3. When applicable, 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(iv) requires source owners or operators to record actions taken during SSM events when actions were inconsistent with their SSM plans. The provision in 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(v) requires source owners or operators to record actions taken during SSM events to show that actions taken were consistent with their SSM plans. These provisions will no longer be appropriate because we propose that SSM plans will no longer be required. The provisions previously applicable under 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(iv) and (v) to record corrective actions is now applicable by reference to 40 CFR 63.8080(h). We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table (Table 10) entry for 40 CFR 63.10(c)(15) by changing the ‘‘yes’’ in column 3 to a ‘‘no.’’ The EPA is proposing that 40 CFR 63.10(c)(15) no longer applies. When applicable, the provision allows an owner or operator to use the affected source’s SSM plan or records kept to satisfy the recordkeeping provisions of the SSM plan, specified in 40 CFR 63.6(e), to also satisfy the provisions of 40 CFR 63.10(c)(10) through (12). The EPA is proposing to eliminate this provision because SSM plans would no longer be required; therefore, 40 CFR 63.10(c)(15) would no longer serve any useful purpose for affected sources. g. 40 CFR 63.8075 Reporting We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table (Table 10) entry for 40 CFR 63.10(d)(5)(i) by removing the reference to 40 CFR 63.8075(e)(5) and (6), but retaining the ‘‘no’’ entry. The provisions in 40 CFR 63.8075(e)(5) describe the reporting provisions for SSM in place of those at 40 CFR 63.10(d)(5)(i). To replace the SSM reporting provision, the EPA is E:\FR\FM\04SEP2.SGM 04SEP2 46632 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 171 / Wednesday, September 4, 2019 / Proposed Rules proposing to add reporting provisions to 40 CFR 63.8075(e)(6). The replacement language differs from the General Provisions in that it eliminates periodic SSM reports as a stand-alone report. We are proposing language that requires source owners or operators 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. We are proposing that the report must contain the number, date, time, duration, and the cause of such events (including unknown cause, if applicable), a list of the affected source or equipment, an estimate of the quantity of each regulated pollutant emitted over any emission limit, and a description of the method used to estimate the emissions. Examples of such methods would include product-loss calculations, mass balance calculations, measurements when available, or engineering judgment based on known process parameters. The EPA is proposing this provision 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 owner or operator met the general duty to minimize emissions during a failure to meet an applicable standard. jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 h. Conforming Changes for CrossReferences to Other Subparts We are proposing amendments to account for instances where 40 CFR part 63, subpart HHHHH cross-references other subparts that contain SSM provisions. Proposed 40 CFR 63.8000(f) lists the referenced provisions in subparts SS, TT, and UU of part 63 that contain references to SSM periods that will no longer apply after the compliance date for the proposed amendments. Proposed 40 CFR 63.8000(f)(10) through (f)(22) lists the paragraphs or phrases within the paragraphs that will not apply after the applicable compliance dates for the proposed amendments because they are no longer applicable as a result of the proposed SSM revisions. i. Provisions To Account for Control Device Bypass Periods in Determining Compliance Because we are proposing to remove the SSM provisions and require compliance at all times, we are proposing to amend 40 CFR 63.8000(c) to account for bypass periods in determining compliance with the emission percent reduction provisions VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:40 Sep 03, 2019 Jkt 247001 in Table 1 to 40 CFR part 63, subpart HHHHH for process vessels. These amendments will apply to process vessels with closed vent systems and add-on controls that contain bypass lines that could divert a vent stream to the atmosphere. We are proposing that owners and operators must measure and record during each semiannual compliance period the hours that the control device was bypassed and the source’s total operating hours. They must then use the overall control efficiency required in Table 1, the total operating hours, and the control efficiency of the control device to determine the allowable bypass hours during the semiannual compliance period using proposed Equation 1 in 40 CFR 63.8005(h). These changes are required because SSM periods that may involve bypassing of the control device cannot be excluded and must now be included in determining compliance. j. Safety Devices Because we are proposing to remove the SSM provisions and require compliance at all times, we are proposing to revise 40 CFR 63.8000(b)(2), which allows the opening of a safety device at any time conditions require it to avoid unsafe conditions. We are proposing to revise 40 CFR 63.8000(b)(2) so that opening of a safety device to avoid unsafe conditions is considered a deviation, unless it is a bypass of a control for a process vessel and accounted for as specified in 40 CFR 63.8005(h). We are also proposing to revise 40 CFR 63.8080(c), which is the provision to keep a record of each time a safety device is opened, to add additional recordkeeping provisions consistent with those for other deviations. As a result of these proposed changes, the opening of a safety device would be considered a deviation from the emission limits for sources using closed vent systems and add-on control devices to comply with the emission limitations in 40 CFR part 63, subpart HHHHH, unless it is a bypass of a control for a process vessel and accounted for as specified in 40 CFR 63.8005(h). In the event a safety device is opened, the owners or operators would be required to comply with the general duty provision in 40 CFR 63.8000(a) to minimize emissions at all times, and to report and record information related to deviations as specified in 40 CFR 63.8075 and 63.8080, respectively, unless it is a bypass of a control for a process vessel and accounted for as specified in 40 CFR 63.8005(h). PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 2. Electronic Reporting Provisions Through this proposal, the EPA is proposing that owners and operators of MCM facilities submit electronic copies of required performance test reports, performance evaluation reports, compliance reports, and NOCS reports through the EPA’s Central Data Exchange (CDX) using the Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface (CEDRI). A description of the electronic data submission process is provided in the memorandum, Electronic Reporting Requirements for New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) and National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) Rules, available in Docket ID No. EPA– HQ–OAR–2018–0747. The proposed rule requires that performance test results collected using test methods that are supported by the EPA’s Electronic Reporting Tool (ERT) as listed on the ERT website 22 at the time of the test be submitted in the format generated through the use of the ERT and that other performance test results be submitted in portable document format (PDF) using the attachment module of the ERT. Similarly, performance evaluation results of continuous monitoring systems measuring relative accuracy test audit pollutants that are supported by the ERT at the time of the test must be submitted in the format generated through the use of the ERT and other performance evaluation results be submitted in PDF using the attachment module of the ERT. For performance test reports, performance evaluation reports, compliance reports, and NOCS reports, the proposed rule requires that owners and operators use the appropriate spreadsheet template to submit information to CEDRI. A draft version of the proposed templates for these reports are included in the docket for this rulemaking.23 The EPA specifically requests comment on the content, layout, and overall design of the templates. Additionally, the EPA has identified two broad circumstances in which electronic reporting extensions may be provided. In both circumstances, the decision to accept the claim of needing additional time to report is within the discretion of the Administrator, and reporting should occur as soon as possible. The EPA is providing these potential extensions to protect owners and operators from noncompliance in 22 https://www.epa.gov/electronic-reporting-airemissions/electronic-reporting-tool-ert. 23 See MCM_Compliance_Report_Draft_ Template.xlsx, available at Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– OAR–2018–0747. E:\FR\FM\04SEP2.SGM 04SEP2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 171 / Wednesday, September 4, 2019 / Proposed Rules cases where they cannot successfully submit a report by the reporting deadline for reasons outside of their control. The situation where an extension may be warranted due to outages of the EPA’s CDX or CEDRI which precludes an owner or operator from accessing the system and submitting required reports is addressed in 40 CFR 63.8075(i). The situation where an extension may be warranted due to a force majeure event, which is defined as an event that will be or has been caused by circumstances beyond the control of the affected facility, its contractors, or any entity controlled by the affected facility that prevents an owner or operator from complying with the requirement to submit a report electronically as required by this rule is addressed in 40 CFR 63.8075(j). Examples of such events are acts of nature, acts of war or terrorism, or equipment failure or safety hazards beyond the control of the facility. The electronic submittal of the reports addressed in this proposed rulemaking will increase the usefulness of the data contained in those reports, is in keeping with current trends in data availability and transparency, will further assist in the protection of public health and the environment, will improve compliance by facilitating the ability of regulated facilities to demonstrate compliance with provisions and by facilitating the ability of delegated state, local, tribal, and territorial air agencies and the EPA to assess and determine compliance, and will ultimately reduce burden on regulated facilities, delegated air agencies, and the EPA. Electronic reporting also eliminates paper-based, manual processes, thereby saving time and resources, simplifying data entry, eliminating redundancies, minimizing data reporting errors, and providing data quickly and accurately to the affected facilities, air agencies, the EPA, and the public. Moreover, electronic reporting is consistent with the EPA’s plan 24 to implement Executive Order 13563 and is in keeping with the EPA’s Agencywide 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) Rules, available in Docket ID No. EPA– HQ–OAR–2018–0747. 3. Other Technical Amendments The EPA is proposing to amend 40 CFR 63.8055(b)(4) to remove reference to paragraph (d)(4) of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration’s (OSHA’s) Hazard Communication standard, which dealt with OSHAdefined carcinogens. The EPA is proposing to replace that reference with its own list of HAP that must be regarded as potentially carcinogenic based on the EPA guidelines. Although paragraph (d)(4) of OSHA’s standard was deleted when the Agency adopted the Globally Harmonized System of Hazard Communication in 2012, it was replaced by section A.6.4.2 of mandatory Appendix A of that standard, which reads as follows: ‘‘Where OSHA has included cancer as a health hazard to be considered by classifiers for a chemical covered by 29 CFR part 1910, subpart Z, Toxic and Hazardous Substances, chemical manufacturers, importers, and employers shall classify the chemical as a carcinogen.’’ Thus, where OSHA has 46633 regulated workplace exposure to a chemical based, at least in part, on carcinogenic risk, OSHA requires the chemical to be classified as a carcinogen. OSHA suggests that the EPA should refer to section A.6.4.2 of Appendix A of 29 CFR 1910.1200 in its discussion of 40 CFR 63.8055 and consider chemicals that meet this provision be considered ‘‘OSHA-defined carcinogens.’’ We are proposing to replace these references to carcinogens in 29 CFR 1910.1200(d)(4) with a list (in proposed new Table 11 to 40 CFR part 63, subpart HHHHH) 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 11 to 40 CFR part 63, subpart HHHHH 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), 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). There are several additional revisions that we are proposing to 40 CFR part 63, subpart HHHHH to clarify text or correct typographical errors, grammatical errors, and cross-reference errors. These proposed editorial corrections and clarifications are summarized in Table 4 of this preamble. TABLE 4—SUMMARY OF PROPOSED EDITORIAL AND MINOR CORRECTIONS TO 40 CFR PART 63, SUBPART HHHHH Provision Proposed revision 40 CFR 63.7985(d)(2) .............................................................. 40 CFR 63.8050(c)(3) .............................................................. 40 CFR 63.8075(c)(1) .............................................................. Remove the word ‘‘future.’’ Correct reference to subparagraph (c)(2)(i) to (iii) to (c)(3)(i) to (iii). Clarify the paragraphs to say 63.8005 through 63.8030 to include heat exchangers. Change the reference from (d)(2) to (d)(1). Remove the word ‘‘initial.’’ Clarify the sentence to say, ‘‘You are in compliance with this subpart if you have a storage tank with a fixed roof, closed-vent system, and control device in compliance with 40 CFR part 60, subpart Kb, and you are in compliance with the monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements in this subpart.’’ Correct ‘‘FFFF’’ to ‘‘HHHHH.’’ jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 40 CFR 63.8075(d) .................................................................. 40 CFR 63.8075(d)(2)(ii) .......................................................... 40 CFR 63.8090(b) .................................................................. Table 8 to 40 CFR part 63, subpart HHHHH .......................... 24 EPA’s Final Plan for Periodic Retrospective Reviews, August 2011. Available at: https:// www.regulations.gov/document?D=EPA-HQ-OAR2018-0747. 25 E-Reporting Policy Statement for EPA Regulations, September 2013. Available at: https:// VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:40 Sep 03, 2019 Jkt 247001 www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-03/ documents/epa-ereporting-policy-statement-201309-30.pdf. 26 Digital Government: Building a 21st Century Platform to Better Serve the American People, May 2012. Available at: https:// PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/ omb/egov/digital-government/digitalgovernment.html. E:\FR\FM\04SEP2.SGM 04SEP2 jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 46634 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 171 / Wednesday, September 4, 2019 / Proposed Rules 4. 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 provisions in the MCM 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 testing and ongoing continuous parametric monitoring, to ensure ongoing compliance with the standards. Although ongoing monitoring of operating parameters is required by the NESHAP and is conducted by owners or operators, as control devices age over time, the destruction efficiency of the control devices can be compromised due to various factors. The EPA published several documents that identify potential control device operational problems that could decrease emission reduction efficiency, including, but not limited to the following: Corrosion due to halogens in HAP exhaust for thermal oxidizers, catalyst deactivation or poisoning for catalytic oxidizers, leaking valves for regenerative oxidizers, adsorbent plugging and fouling for adsorbers, and changing waste stream temperatures and absorption characteristics for condensers and concentrators.27 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. Based on the need for vigilance in maintaining equipment to stem degradation, in this action, we are proposing to require periodic 27 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 Technologies for Low Concentration Organic Vapor Gas Streams, EPA–456/R–95–003, May 1995. VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:40 Sep 03, 2019 Jkt 247001 performance testing of certain add-on control devices on a 5-year cycle and removing the allowance for demonstration of compliance using a design evaluation for ‘‘small control devices,’’ defined as controlling less than 10 tons of HAP per year. We are not proposing to revise performance demonstration requirements for condensers because outlet gas temperature correlates directly with control efficiency and continuous monitoring of outlet gas temperature provides a direct indication of whether control efficiency has been met. Likewise, the proposed performance testing provision of incineration control devices allows an exception from periodic testing for facilities using instruments to continuously measure VOC emissions. Using VOC continuous emissions monitoring systems (CEMS) would be a direct indicator of compliance. The use of VOC CEMS to demonstrate compliance would obviate the need for initial or periodic control device testing. Our available data indicates that the oxidizers are the only other control device used to comply with this standard. Incinerators, however, could experience this degradation and reduced control efficiency that would not be captured with operating parameter monitoring of temperature. We have identified several states with MCM facilities that already require such testing every 5 years synchronized with 40 CFR part 70 air operating permit renewals. The proposed periodic performance testing provisions would require owners or operators of facilities complying with the standards using a closed vent system to control 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, the owners or operators would conduct periodic testing before they renew their operating permits, but no longer than 5 years following the previous performance test. Additionally, owners or operators of 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 provision would require periodic air emissions testing to measure organic HAP destruction or removal efficiency at the inlet and outlet of the thermal oxidizer. The emissions would be measured as total gaseous organic mass emissions as carbon using either EPA PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 Method 18 of appendix A–6 to 40 CFR part 60, or 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 provision, which includes a control device emissions destruction or removal efficiency test using EPA Method 18, 25 or 25A, would be approximately $19,000 per control device every 5 years for those sources not already required by their title V operating permit to conduct testing at least every 5 years. The cost estimate is included in the memorandum titled Draft Costs/Impacts of the 40 CFR part 63 Subpart HHHHH Monitoring Review Revisions, in the MCM Docket. Based on the development of cost estimates for other NESHAP, we know that certain states typically require periodic testing as a condition of renewing title V operating permits. We have assumed that facilities located in these states are currently required to conduct periodic performance tests as a condition of their 40 CFR part 70 operating permits, and the proposed periodic testing would not add any new testing provisions and the estimated costs would not apply to these facilities. We have assumed that facilities in other states would have additional testing provisions and costs. Periodic performance tests ensure that any thermal oxidizers 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. What compliance dates are we proposing? Amendments to the MCM NESHAP proposed in this rulemaking for adoption under CAA section 112(d)(2) and (3) are subject to the compliance deadlines outlined in the CAA under section 112(i). For all of the provisions we are proposing under CAA sections 112(d)(2) and (3), we are proposing all affected source owners or operators must comply with all of the amendments no later than 3 years after the effective date of the final rule, or upon startup, whichever is later. For existing sources, CAA section 112(i) provides that the compliance date be as expeditious as practicable, but no later than 3 years after the effective date of the standard. (‘‘Section 112(i)(3)’s three-year maximum compliance period applies generally to any emission standard . . . promulgated under [section 112].’’ Association of Battery Recyclers v. EPA, 716 F.3d 667, 672 (D.C. Cir. 2013)). In determining what compliance period is E:\FR\FM\04SEP2.SGM 04SEP2 jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 171 / Wednesday, September 4, 2019 / Proposed Rules as expeditious as practicable, we consider the amount of time needed to plan and construct projects and change operating procedures. As provided in CAA section 112(i), all new affected sources would comply with these provisions by the effective date of the final amendments to the MCM NESHAP or upon startup, whichever is later. All affected facilities would have to continue to meet the current provisions of 40 CFR part 63, subpart HHHHH 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). We are proposing to change the provisions for SSM by removing the exemption from the emission limitations (i.e., emission limits, operating limits, and work practice standards) during SSM periods and by removing the provision to develop and implement an SSM plan. We are also proposing that owners and operators will now need to take into account control device bypass periods, even if during SSM periods, when demonstrating compliance with the percent emission reduction provisions for process vessels in Table 1 to 40 CFR part 63, subpart HHHHH. Our experience with similar industries further shows that this sort of regulated facility generally requires a substantial time period to read and understand the amended rule provisions; 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 provisions. It is also possible that some facilities may need to upgrade their emission capture and control systems because of the proposed changes to the bypass provisions in the compliance calculations. These upgrades may require additional time to evaluate the current control system, plan for needed upgrades, and then design, purchase, and install those upgrades. From our assessment of the time frame needed for compliance with the entirety of the revised requirements related to the SSM provisions, including the need to account for bypass periods, the EPA considers a period of 3 years to be the most expeditious compliance period practicable and, thus, is proposing that existing affected sources be in compliance with 40 CFR part 63, subpart HHHHH’s revised SSM VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:40 Sep 03, 2019 Jkt 247001 provisions within 3 years of the final amendment’s effective date. Therefore, for all affected sources that commence construction or reconstruction on or before September 4, 2019, we are proposing that it is necessary to provide 3 years after the effective date of the final rule (or upon startup, whichever is later) for owners and operators to comply with the provisions that have been amended to remove the exemption from the emission limitations during SSM periods. For all affected sources that commenced construction or reconstruction after September 4, 2019, we are proposing that owners and operators comply with the amended provisions by the effective date of the final rule (or upon startup, whichever is later). As discussed elsewhere in this preamble, we are also proposing to add a provision 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. Regarding electronic reporting, our experience with similar industries shows that a time period of a minimum of 90 days, and, more typically, 180 days, is generally necessary 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. From our assessment of the time frame needed for compliance with the new electronic reporting provisions, the EPA considers a period of 180 days to be the most expeditious compliance period practicable and, thus, is proposing that all sources would begin complying with the new electronic reporting provisions beginning no later than 180 days after 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 provisions and the time needed to make the adjustments for compliance with any of the revised provisions. We note that information provided may result in changes to the proposed compliance dates. PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 46635 V. Summary of Cost, Environmental, and Economic Impacts A. What are the affected sources? Currently, 43 major sources subject to the MCM NESHAP are operating in the United States. The affected source under the NESHAP is the facility-wide collection of equipment used to manufacture coatings and includes all process vessels; storage tanks for feedstocks and products; components such as pumps, compressors, agitators, pressure relief devices, sampling connection systems, open-ended valves or lines, valves, connectors, and instrumentation systems; wastewater tanks; transfer racks; and cleaning operations. A coating is defined as material such as paint, ink, or adhesive that is intended to be applied to a substrate and consists of a mixture of resins, pigments, solvents, and/or other additives, where the material is produced by a manufacturing operation where materials are blended, mixed, diluted, or otherwise formulated. B. What are the air quality impacts? At the current level of control, estimated emissions of volatile organic HAP from the MCM source category are approximately 405 tpy. The proposed amendments require that all 43 major sources in the MCM source category 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 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 and would, therefore, have no indirect or secondary air emissions impacts. C. What are the cost impacts? We estimate that to comply with the proposed amendments each facility in the MCM source category will experience increased reporting and recordkeeping costs. The recordkeeping and reporting costs are presented in E:\FR\FM\04SEP2.SGM 04SEP2 jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 46636 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 171 / Wednesday, September 4, 2019 / Proposed Rules section VIII.C of this preamble. The costs include time 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 provision 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. We are also proposing a provision for performance testing no less frequently than every 5 years for sources in the MCM source category using add-on controls to demonstrate compliance. We estimate that 12 facilities subject to the MCM NESHAP and using add-on control devices would incur costs to conduct control device performance testing because they are not required by their permits to conduct testing every 5 years. This total does not include facilities in the MCM 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. The total cost for all 12 facilities to test their addon control devices in a single year, plus one facility completing a retest to account for 5 percent of control devices failing to pass the first test, would be $247,000. The total annualized testing cost, including retests, is approximately $57,000 per year at an interest rate of 5.25 percent and an additional $6,000 in reporting costs per facility in the year in which the test occurs for the MCM source category. For further information on the potential costs, see the cost tables in the memoranda titled Estimated Costs/Impacts of the 40 CFR part 63 Subpart HHHHH Monitoring Review Revisions, May 2019, and the Economic Impact and Small Business Screening Assessments for Proposed Amendments to National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Miscellaneous Coating Manufacturing Facilities (Subpart HHHHH), in the MCM Docket. D. What are the economic impacts? The economic impact analysis is designed to inform decision-makers about the potential economic consequences of a regulatory action. For the current proposal, the EPA estimated VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:40 Sep 03, 2019 Jkt 247001 the cost of becoming familiar with the rule and re-evaluating previously developed SSM record systems and performing periodic emissions testing at certain facilities with add-on controls that are not already required to perform testing. To assess the maximum potential impact, the largest cost expected to be experienced in any 1 year is compared to the total sales for the ultimate owner of the affected facilities to estimate the total burden for each facility. For the proposed revisions to the MCM NESHAP, the 2019 equivalent annualized value (in 2018$) of the costs over the period 2020–2026 is $66,000 assuming a 3-percent discount rate and $73,000 assuming a 7-percent discount rate. The 43 affected facilities are owned by 27 different parent companies, and the total costs associated with the proposed amendments range from 0.000005 to 0.025 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. Two of the facilities potentially affected by the proposed revisions to the MCM NESHAP are small entities. However, the costs associated with the proposed amendments for these two affected small entities range from 0.002 to 0.025 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 are provided in the technical document titled Economic Impact and Small Business Screening Assessments for Proposed Amendments to the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Miscellaneous Coating Manufacturing (Subpart HHHHH), available in the MCM Docket. 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. 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 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 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 receiving additional data that may improve the risk assessments and other analyses. We are specifically interested in receiving any improvements to the data used in the site-specific emissions profiles used for risk modeling. Such data should include supporting documentation in sufficient detail to allow characterization of the quality and representativeness of the data or information. Section VII of this preamble provides more information on submitting data. VII. Submitting Data Corrections The site-specific emissions profiles used in the source category risk and demographic analyses and instructions are available for download on the RTR website at https://www.epa.gov/ stationary-sources-air-pollution/ miscellaneous-coating-manufacturingnational-emission-standards. The data files include detailed information for each HAP emissions release point for the facilities in the source category. If you believe that the data are not representative or are inaccurate, please identify the data in question, provide your reason for concern, and provide any ‘‘improved’’ data that you have, if available. When you submit data, we request that you provide documentation of the basis for the revised values to support your suggested changes. To submit comments on the data downloaded from the RTR website, complete the following steps: 1. Within this downloaded file, enter suggested revisions to the data fields appropriate for that information. 2. Fill in the commenter information fields for each suggested revision (i.e., commenter name, commenter organization, commenter email address, commenter phone number, and revision comments). 3. Gather documentation for any suggested emissions revisions (e.g., performance test reports, material balance calculations). 4. Send the entire downloaded file with suggested revisions in Microsoft® Access format and all accompanying documentation to Docket ID No. EPA– HQ–OAR–2018–0747 (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 E:\FR\FM\04SEP2.SGM 04SEP2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 171 / Wednesday, September 4, 2019 / Proposed Rules 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:// www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-airpollution/miscellaneous-coatingmanufacturing-national-emissionstandards. 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. jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 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. The ICR document that the EPA prepared has been assigned EPA ICR number 2115.06. You can find a copy of the ICR in the MCM Docket (Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2018–0747), and it is briefly summarized here. The EPA is proposing to revise the SSM provisions of the rule, proposing to require periodic testing of control devices, 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 HHHHH. Respondents/affected entities: Facilities manufacturing surface coatings. Respondent’s obligation to respond: Mandatory (40 CFR part 63, subpart HHHHH). Estimated number of respondents: In the 3 years after the amendments are final, approximately 43 respondents per year would be subject to the NESHAP and no additional respondents are expected to become subject to the NESHAP during that period. VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:40 Sep 03, 2019 Jkt 247001 Frequency of response: The total number of responses in year 1 is 175, in year 2 is 46, and in year 3 is 85. Total estimated burden: The average annual burden of the proposed amendments to the 43 MCM facilities over the 3 years if the amendments are finalized is estimated to be 565 hours (per year). The average annual burden to the Agency over the 3 years after the amendments are final is estimated to be 116 hours (per year). Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b). Total estimated cost: The average annual cost of the proposed amendments to the MCM facilities is $65,000 in labor costs in the first 3 years after the amendments are final. The average annual capital and operation and maintenance costs are $82,000. The total average annual agency cost of the proposed amendments over the first 3 years after the amendments are final is estimated to be $5,500. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for the EPA’s regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9. Submit your comments on the Agency’s need for this information, the accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden to the EPA using the docket identified at the beginning of this rule. You may also send your ICR-related comments to OMB’s Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs via email to 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 October 4, 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. In making this determination, the impact of concern is any significant adverse economic impact on small entities. An agency may certify that a rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities if the rule relieves regulatory burden, has no net burden, or otherwise has a positive economic effect on the small entities subject to the rule. The annualized costs associated with the proposed amendments in this action for the affected small entities is described in section V.D above and additional PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 46637 detail is provided in the economic impact memorandums associated with this action. We have, therefore, concluded that this action will have no net regulatory burden for all directly regulated small entities. E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) This action does not contain an unfunded mandate of $100 million or more as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531–1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. The action imposes no enforceable duty on any state, local, or tribal governments or the private sector. F. Executive Order 13132: Federalism This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. G. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments This action does not have tribal implications as specified in Executive Order 13175. No tribal facilities are known to be engaged in any of the industries that would be affected by this action (MCM). 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, and IV.A, B, and C of this preamble, and are further documented in the Miscellaneous Coating Manufacturing Risk Assessment Report, in the MCM Docket. 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. E:\FR\FM\04SEP2.SGM 04SEP2 jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 46638 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 171 / Wednesday, September 4, 2019 / Proposed Rules J. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) and 1 CFR Part 51 This action involves technical standards. Therefore, the EPA conducted searches for the MCM NESHAP through the Enhanced National Standards Systems Network (NSSN) Database managed by the American National Standards Institute (ANSI). We also contacted voluntary consensus standards (VCS) organizations and accessed and searched their databases. We conducted searches for EPA Methods 1, 1A, 2, 2A, 2C, 2D, 2F, 2G, 3, 3A, 3B, 4, 18, 21, 22, 24, 25, 25A, 25D, 26, 26A, and 29 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A; 301, 305, 311, 316, and 320 of 40 CFR part 63, appendix A; 624, 625, 1624, 1625, 1666, and 1671 of 40 CFR part 136, appendix A; and 8260, 8260B (SW–846), 8270, Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste, Physical/Chemical Methods, EPA Publication SW–846 third edition. During the EPA’s VCS search, if the title or abstract (if provided) of the VCS described technical sampling and analytical procedures that are similar to the EPA’s reference method, the EPA ordered a copy of the standard and reviewed it as a potential equivalent method. We reviewed all potential standards to determine the practicality of the VCS for this rule. This review requires significant method validation data that meet the requirements of EPA Method 301 for accepting alternative methods or scientific, engineering, and policy equivalence to procedures in the EPA reference methods. The EPA may reconsider determinations of impracticality when additional information is available for particular VCS. No applicable VCS were identified for EPA Methods 1A, 2A, 2D, 2F, 2G, 21, 22, 25D, 305, 316, 625, 1624, 1625, 1666, 1671, 8260, 8260B (SW–846), and 8270. The following VCS were identified as acceptable alternatives to the EPA test methods for the purpose of this rule. The EPA proposes to use the VCS ANSI/ASME PTC 19–10–1981 Part 10 (2010), ‘‘Flue and Exhaust Gas Analyses,’’ as an acceptable alternative to EPA Method 3B for the manual procedures only and not the instrumental procedures. This method determines quantitatively the gaseous constituents of exhausts resulting from stationary combustion sources. Additionally, the EPA proposes to use the VCS ASTM D6420–18, ‘‘Standard Test Method for Determination of Gaseous Organic Compounds by Direct Interface Gas Chromatography-Mass VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:40 Sep 03, 2019 Jkt 247001 Spectrometry,’’ as an acceptable alternative to EPA Method 18 with the following caveats. This ASTM procedure has been approved by the EPA as an alternative to EPA Method 18 only when the target compounds are all known and the target compounds are all listed in ASTM D6420 as measurable. We are proposing that ASTM D6420–18 should not be used for methane and ethane because the atomic mass is less than 35; and ASTM D6420 should never be specified as a total VOC method. This test method employs a direct interface gas chromatograph/mass spectrometer to identify and quantify VOC. The EPA proposes to use the VCS ASTM D2369–10(2015) el, ’’Test Method for Volatile Content of Coatings’’; ASTM D2697–03 (2014), ‘‘Standard Test Method for Volume Nonvolatile Matter in Clear or Pigmented Coatings’’; and ASTM D3960–98, ‘‘ ’Standard Practice for Determining VOC Content of Paints and Related Coatings,’’ as acceptable alternatives to EPA Method 24. The ASTM D2369–10 (2015) method describes a procedure for the determination of the weight percent volatile content of solvent borne and waterborne coatings. The ASTM D2697– 03 (2014) method is intended to provide a measure of the volume of dry coating obtainable from a given volume of liquid coating. The ASTM D3960–98 method measures the VOC content of solvent borne and waterborne paints and related coatings as determined from the quantity of material released from a sample under specified bake conditions and subtracting exempt volatile compounds and water if present. The EPA proposes to use the VCS CARB Method 310, ‘‘Determination of VOC in Consumer Products and Reactive Organic Compounds in Aerosol Coating Products,’’ as an acceptable alternative to EPA Method 311. Method 310 determines the total volatile material in a product and the presence of any compounds and is also used to determine the percent by weight of the reactive organic compounds contained in aerosol coating products. In addition, the EPA proposes to use the VCS ASTM D6348–12e1, ‘‘Determination of Gaseous Compounds by Extractive Direct Interface Fourier Transform (FTIR) Spectroscopy,’’ as an acceptable alternative to EPA Method 320 of appendix A to 40 CFR part 63 with caveats requiring inclusion of selected annexes to the standard as mandatory. We are proposing the test plan preparation and implementation in the Annexes to ASTM D6348–12e1, Sections Al through A8 are mandatory; and in ASTM D6348–12e1, Annex A5 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 (Analyte Spiking Technique), the percent (%) R must be determined for each target analyte (Equation A5.5). We are proposing that in order for the test data to be acceptable for a compound, %R must be 70% ≥ R ≤ 130%. If the %R value does not meet this criterion for a target compound, the test data is not acceptable for that compound and the test must be repeated for that analyte (i.e., the sampling and/or analytical procedure should be adjusted before a retest). We are proposing that the %R value for each compound be reported in the test report, and all field measurements must be corrected with the calculated %R value for that compound by using the following equation: Reported Results = (Measured Concentration in the Stack × 100)/% R. The ASTM D6348–12e1 method is an extractive FTIR based field test method is used to quantify gas phase concentrations of multiple target analytes from stationary source effluent. The six ASTM methods (ASTM D6420–18, ASTM D2369–10(2015)el, ASTM D6348–12e1, ASTM D2697–03 (2014), ASTM D3960–98, and ASTM D6348–03) are available at ASTM International, 1850 M Street NW, Suite 1030, Washington, DC 20036. See https://www.astm.org/. The CARB method (VCS CARB Method 310) is available at CARB, 1001 I Street, Sacramento, CA 95814. See https:// ww2.arb.ca.gov/. The ANSI/ASME PTC 19 10 1981 Part 10 (2010) method is available at American National Standards Institute (ANSI), 1899 L Street NW, 11th floor, Washington, DC 20036 and the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME), Three Park Avenue, New York, NY 10016– 5990 See https://wwww.ansi.org and https://www.asme.org. Finally, the search identified seven other VCS that were potentially applicable for this rule in lieu of the EPA reference methods. After reviewing the available standards, the EPA determined that seven candidate VCS identified for measuring emissions of pollutants or their surrogates subject to emission standards in the rule would not be practical due to lack of equivalency, documentation, validation data and other important technical and policy considerations. Additional information for the VCS search and determinations can be found in the memorandum, Voluntary Consensus Standard Results for National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Miscellaneous Coatings Manufacturing, E:\FR\FM\04SEP2.SGM 04SEP2 jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 171 / Wednesday, September 4, 2019 / Proposed Rules which is available in the docket for this action. 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 the EPA should use such standards in this regulation. for this decision is contained in section IV of this preamble and the technical report titled Risk and Technology Review—Analysis of Demographic Factors for Populations Living Near Miscellaneous Coating Manufacturing Operations, January 2019, which is available in the MCM Docket. 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, 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 and IV.B of this preamble and the technical report titled Risk and Technology Review—Analysis of Demographic Factors for Populations Living Near Miscellaneous Coating Manufacturing Operations, January 2019, available in the MCM Docket. As discussed in sections IV.A and B of this preamble, we performed a demographic analysis for the MCM 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 MCM source category across different social, demographic, and economic groups within the populations living near operations identified as having the highest risks. The results of the MCM source category demographic analysis indicate that approximately 3,700 people are exposed to a cancer risk greater than or equal to 1-in-1 million and no one is exposed to a chronic noncancer HI greater than 1. For those people with a cancer risk greater than or equal to 1-in1 million, the African American and Below Poverty Level demographic groups are 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 List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63 VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:40 Sep 03, 2019 Jkt 247001 Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Hazardous substances, Incorporation by reference, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Dated: August 15, 2019. Andrew R. Wheeler, Administrator. For the reasons set forth 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—[Amended] 2. Section 63.14 is amended by: a. Adding paragraph (e)(2), b. Revising paragraphs (h)(26), and (30); ■ c. Redesignating paragraphs (h)(92) through (111) as paragraphs (h)(94) through (113) and paragraphs (h)(50) through (h)(91) as paragraphs (h)(51) through (h)(92), respectively; ■ d. Adding new paragraph (h)(50); ■ e. Revising newly redesignated paragraph (h)(85); ■ f. Adding new paragraph (h)(93); ■ g. Redesignating paragraphs (k)(1) through (k)(5) as paragraphs (k)(2) through (k)(6); and ■ h. Adding new paragraph (k)(1). The revisions and additions read as follows: ■ ■ ■ § 63.14 Incorporations by reference. * * * * * (e) * * * (2) ANSI/ASME PTC 19.10–1981 (2010), Flue and Exhaust Gas Analyses (Part 10, Instruments and Apparatus), re-issued 2010, IBR approved for § 63.8000(d). * * * * * (h) * * * (26) ASTM D2369–10 (Reapproved 2015)e, Standard Test Method for Volatile Content of Coatings, approved June 1, 2015, IBR approved for §§ 63.4141(a) and (b), 63.4161(h), PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 46639 63.4321(e), 63.4341(e), 63.4351(d), 63.4741(a), 63.4941(a) and (b), 63.4961(j), and 63.8055(b). * * * * * (30) ASTM D2697–03 (Reapproved 2014), Standard Test Method for Volume Nonvolatile Matter in Clear or Pigmented Coatings, IBR approved for §§ 63.4141(b), 63.4741(a) and (b), 63.4941(b),, and 63.8055(b). * * * * * (50) ASTM D3960–98, Standard Practice for Determining Volatile Organic Compound (VOC) Content of Paints and Related Coatings IBR approved for § 63.8055(b). * * * * * (85) ASTM D6348–12e1, Standard Test Method for Determination of Gaseous Compounds by Extractive Direct Interface Fourier Transform Infrared (FTIR) Spectroscopy, Approved February 1, 2012, IBR approved for §§ 63.1571(a), and 63.8000(d). * * * * * (93) ASTM D6420–18, Standard Test Method for Determination of Gaseous Organic Compounds by Direct Interface Gas Chromatography-Mass Spectrometry, IBR approved for § 63.8000(d). * * * * * (k) * * * (1) Method 310, ‘‘Determination of Volatile Organic Compounds in Consumer Products and Reactive Organic Compounds in Aerosol Coating Products,’’ amended August 1, 2014, IBR approved for § 63.8055(b). * * * * * Subpart HHHHH—National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Miscellaneous Coating Manufacturing 3. Section 63.7985 is amended by revising paragraphs (a)(1) through (3), paragraph (b) introductory text, paragraphs (b)(1) through (3), and (d)(1) through (4) to read as follows: ■ § 63.7985 Am I subject to the requirements in this subpart? (a) * * * (1) Are located at or are part of a major source of hazardous air pollutants (HAP) emissions, as defined in section 112(a) of the Clean Air Act (CAA); (2) Manufacture coatings as defined in § 63.8105; (3) Process, use, or produce HAP; and * * * * * (b) Miscellaneous coating manufacturing operations include the facility-wide collection of equipment described in paragraphs (b)(1) through (4) of this section that is used to E:\FR\FM\04SEP2.SGM 04SEP2 46640 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 171 / Wednesday, September 4, 2019 / Proposed Rules manufacture coatings as defined in § 63.8105. Miscellaneous coating manufacturing operations also include cleaning operations. (1) Process vessels; (2) Storage tanks for feedstocks and products; (3) Components such as pumps, compressors, agitators, pressure relief devices, sampling connection systems, open-ended valves or lines, valves, connectors, and instrumentation systems; and * * * * * (d) * * * (1) Research and development facilities, as defined in section 112(c)(7) of the CAA; (2) The affiliated operations located at an affected source under subparts GG (National Emission Standards for Aerospace Manufacturing and Rework Facilities), KK (National Emission Standards for the Printing and Publishing Industry), JJJJ (NESHAP: Paper and Other Web Coating), MMMM (National Emission Standards for Miscellaneous Metal Parts and Products Surface Coating Operations) and SSSS (NESHAP: Surface Coating of Metal Coil) of this part. Affiliated operations include, but are not limited to, mixing or dissolving of coating ingredients; coating mixing for viscosity adjustment, color tint or additive blending, or pH adjustment; cleaning of coating lines and coating line parts; handling and storage of coatings and solvent; and conveyance and treatment of wastewater; (3) Ancillary equipment such as boilers and incinerators (only those not used to comply with the emission limits in Tables 1 through 5 to this subpart), chillers and refrigeration systems, and other equipment that is not directly involved in the manufacturing of a coating (i.e., it operates as a closed system, and materials are not combined with materials used to manufacture the coating); (4) Quality assurance/quality control laboratories; or * * * * * ■ 4. Section 63.7995 is amended by revising paragraph (a) introductory text and paragraph (b), and adding paragraph (e) to read as follows: jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 § 63.7995 When do I have to comply with this subpart? * * * * * (a) Except as specified in paragraph (e) of this section, if you have a new affected source, you must comply with this subpart according to the requirements in paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) of this section. * * * VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:40 Sep 03, 2019 Jkt 247001 (b) Except as specified in paragraphs (e) of this section, if you have an existing affected source on December 11, 2003, then you must comply with the requirements for existing sources in this subpart no later than December 11, 2006. * * * * * (e) All affected sources that commenced construction or reconstruction on or before [DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE Federal Register], must be in compliance with the requirements listed in paragraphs (e)(1) through (5) of this section upon initial startup or [date 3 years after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register], whichever is later. All affected sources that commenced construction or reconstruction after [DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE Federal Register], must be in compliance with the requirements listed in paragraphs (e)(1) through (5) of this section upon initial startup, or [date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register], whichever is later. (1) The general requirements specified in § 63.8000(a)(2), (b)(2), (d)(8), and (f); and § 63.8005(d)(5) and (h). (2) The reporting requirements specified in § 63.8075(e)(5), (e)(6)(ii)(B), (e)(6)(ii)(D), (e)(6)(iii)(C), and (e)(6)(iii)(E). (3) The recordkeeping requirements specified in § 63.8080(c), (e), (f), (h), and (i). (4) The definitions specified in § 63.8105. (5) The general provisions as specified in Table 10 to subpart HHHHH. ■ 5. Section 63.8000 is amended by: ■ a. Revising paragraphs (a), (b)(2), (c)(3), introductory text to paragraph (d)(1), and paragraphs (d)(1)(i) and (iii); ■ e. Removing and reserving paragraph (d)(2); ■ f. Revising paragraphs (d)(3),(4)(i)(A), (ii)(C), and (iv); and ■ h. Adding paragraphs (d)(8), (e), and (f). The revisions and additions read as follows: § 63.8000 What are my general requirements for complying with this subpart? (a) You must comply with paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) of this section. (1) Except as specified in paragraph (a)(2) of this section, you must be in compliance with the emission limits and work practice standards in Tables 1 through 5 to this subpart at all times, except during periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction. You must meet the requirements specified in paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section. PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 You must meet the requirements specified in §§ 63.8005 through 63.8025 (or the alternative means of compliance in § 63.8050), except as specified in paragraph (d) of this section. You must meet the notification, reporting, and recordkeeping requirements specified in §§ 63.8070, 63.8075, and 63.8080. (2) Beginning no later than the compliance dates specified in § 63.7995(e), paragraph (a)(1) of this section no longer applies. Instead, beginning no later than the compliance dates specified in § 63.7995(e), you must be in compliance with the emission limits and work practice standards in Tables 1 through 5 to this subpart at all times. You must meet the requirements specified in paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section. You must meet the requirements specified in §§ 63.8005 through 63.8030 (or the alternative means of compliance in § 63.8050), except as specified in paragraph (d) of this section. You must meet the notification, reporting, and recordkeeping requirements specified in §§ 63.8070, 63.8075, and 63.8080. (b) * * * (2) You must comply with paragraphs (b)(2)(i) and (ii) of this section. (i) Except as specified in paragraph (b)(2)(ii) of this section, opening of a safety device, as defined in § 63.8105, is allowed at any time conditions require it to avoid unsafe conditions. (ii) Beginning no later than the compliance dates specified in § 63.7995(e), paragraph (b)(2)(i) of this section no longer applies. Instead, opening of a safety device, as defined in § 63.8105, is considered a deviation, as defined in § 63.8105, unless it is a bypass of a control for a process vessel and accounted for as specified in § 63.8005(h). (c) * * * (3) If you use a halogen reduction device to reduce hydrogen halide and halogen HAP emissions that are generated by combusting halogenated vent streams, you must meet the requirements of § 63.994, except as specified in paragraph (f) of this section, and the requirements referenced therein. If you use a halogen reduction device before a combustion device, you must determine the halogen atom emission rate prior to the combustion device according to the procedures in § 63.115(d)(2)(v). (d) * * * (1) Requirements for performance tests. The requirements specified in paragraphs (d)(1)(i) through (vi) of this section apply instead of or in addition to the requirements for performance testing of control devices as specified in subpart SS of 40 CFR part 63. E:\FR\FM\04SEP2.SGM 04SEP2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 171 / Wednesday, September 4, 2019 / Proposed Rules (i) Conduct gas molecular weight analysis using Method 3, 3A, or 3B in appendix A to 40 CFR part 60. As an alternative to EPA Method 3B for the manual procedures only and not the instrumental procedures, you may use ANSI/ASME PTC 19–10–1981 Part 10(incorporated by reference, see § 63.14) as an acceptable alternative. * * * * * (iii) As an alternative to using Method 18, Method 25/25A, or Method 26/26A of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A, to comply with any of the emission limits specified in Tables 1 through 6 to this subpart you may use the alternatives specified in paragraphs (d)(1)(iii)(A) or (B) of this section. (A) As an alternative to using Method 18, Method 25/25A, or Method 26/26A of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A, you may use Method 320 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A. When using Method 320, you must follow the analyte spiking procedures of section 13 of Method 320, unless you demonstrate that the complete spiking procedure has been conducted at a similar source. As an alternative to Method 320 of Appendix A to 40 CFR part 63, you may use ASTM Method D6348–12e1 (incorporated by reference, see § 63.14), with the caveats that the test plan preparation and implementation in the Annexes to ASTM Method D6348–12el, Sections Al through A8 are mandatory; and in ASTM Method D6348–12e1 Annex A5 (Analyte Spiking Technique), the percent (%) R must be determined for each target analyte (Equation A5.5). In order for the test data to be acceptable for a compound, %R must be 70% ≥ R ≤130%. If the %R value does not meet this criterion for a target compound, the test data is not acceptable for that compound and the test must be repeated for that analyte (i.e., the sampling and/ or analytical procedure should be adjusted before a retest). The %R value for each compound must be reported in the test report, and all field measurements must be corrected with the calculated %R value for that compound by using the following equation: jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 Reported Results = (Measured Concentration in the Stack × 100)/% R. (B) As an alternative to using EPA Method 18, you may also use ASTM D6420–18 (incorporated by reference, see § 63.14), but only when the target compounds are all known and the target compounds are all listed in ASTM D6420–18 as measurable; ASTM D6420– 18 should not be used for methane and VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:40 Sep 03, 2019 Jkt 247001 ethane; and ASTM D6420–18 may not be used as a total VOC method. * * * * * (vi) You must conduct periodic performance tests and establish the operating limits required by §§ 63.8005(e), 63.8010(b)(1), and 63,8050(d)(3) within 5 years following the previous performance test. You must conduct the initial or 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. (2) [Reserved] (3) Periodic verification. For a control device with total inlet HAP emissions less than 1 ton per year (tpy), you must establish at least one operating limit for a parameter that you will measure and record at least once per averaging period (i.e., daily or block) to verify that the control device is operating properly. You may elect to measure the same parameter that is required for control devices that control inlet HAP emissions equal to or greater than 1 tpy. If the parameter will not be measured continuously, you must request approval of your proposed procedure in the precompliance report. You must identify the operating limit or range and the measurement frequency, and you must provide rationale to support how these measurements demonstrate the control device is operating properly. (4) * * * (i) * * * (A) If you wish to use a CEMS other than a Fourier Transform Infrared Spectroscopy (FTIR) meeting the requirements of Performance Specification 15 or a hydrogen chloride (HCl) CEMS meeting the requirements of Performance Specification 18 and Quality Assurance Procedure 6 to measure hydrogen halide and halogen HAP before we promulgate a Performance Specification for such CEMS, you must prepare a monitoring plan and submit it for approval in accordance with the procedures specified in § 63.8. * * * * * (ii) * * * (C) For CEMS meeting Performance Specification 8 used to monitor PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 46641 performance of a noncombustion device, determine the predominant organic HAP using either process knowledge or the screening procedures of Method 18 on the control device inlet stream, calibrate the monitor on the predominant organic HAP, and report the results as C1. Use Method 18, ASTM D6420–18, or any approved alternative as the reference method for the relative accuracy tests, and report the results as C1. * * * * * (iv) The CEMS data must be reduced to operating day or operating block averages computed using valid data, except monitoring data also are sufficient to constitute a valid hour of data if measured values are available for at least two of the 15-minute periods during an hour when calibration, quality assurance, or maintenance activities are being performed. An operating block is a period of time from the beginning to end of batch operations in the manufacturing of a coating. Operating block averages may be used only for process vessel data. * * * * * (8) Beginning no later than the compliance dates specified in § 63.7995(e), in lieu of the requirements specified in § 63.8(d)(3), you must keep the written quality control program procedures required by § 63.8(d)(2) on record for the life of the affected source or until the affected source is no longer subject to the provisions of this part, to be made available for inspection, upon request, by the Administrator. If the performance evaluation plan is revised, you shall keep previous (i.e., superseded) versions of the performance evaluation plan on record to be made available for inspection, upon request, by the Administrator, for a period of 5 years after each revision to the plan. The program of corrective action should be included in the plan required under § 63.8(d)(2). (e) General Duty. Beginning no later than [DATE 180 DAYS AFTER THE DATE THE FINAL RULE IS PUBLISHED IN THE Federal Register], at all times, you 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 you to make any further efforts to reduce emissions if levels required by the applicable standard have been achieved. Determination of whether a source is operating in compliance with operation and maintenance E:\FR\FM\04SEP2.SGM 04SEP2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 171 / Wednesday, September 4, 2019 / Proposed Rules requirements will be based on information available to the Administrator which may include, but is not limited to, monitoring results, review of operation and maintenance procedures, review of operation and maintenance records, and inspection of the source. (f) Beginning no later than the compliance dates specified in § 63.7995(e), the referenced provisions specified in paragraphs (f)(1) through (22) of this section do not apply when demonstrating compliance with this subpart through referenced provisions of subpart SS, subpart UU, and subpart TT of this part. (1) § 63.983(a)(5) of subpart SS. (2) The phrase ‘‘except during periods of start-up, shutdown and malfunction as specified in the referencing subpart’’ in § 63.984(a) of subpart SS. (3) The phrase ‘‘except during periods of start-up, shutdown and malfunction as specified in the referencing subpart’’ in § 63.985(a) of subpart SS. (4) The phrase ‘‘other than start-ups, shutdowns, or malfunctions’’ in § 63.994(c)(1)(ii)(D) of subpart SS. (5) § 63.996(c)(2)(ii) of subpart SS. (6) § 63.997(e)(1)(i) of subpart SS. (7) The term ‘‘breakdowns’’ from §§ 63.998(b)(2)(i) of subpart SS. (8) § 63.998(b)(2)(iii) of subpart SS. (9) The phrase ‘‘other than periods of startups, shutdowns, and malfunctions’’ from § 63.998(b)(5)(i)(A) of subpart SS. (10) The phrase ‘‘other than periods of startups, shutdowns, and malfunctions’’ from § 63.998(b)(5)(i)(C) of subpart SS. (11) The phrase ‘‘, except as provided in paragraphs (b)(6)(i)(A) and (B) of this section’’ from § 63.998(b)(6)(i) of subpart SS. (12) The second sentence of § 63.998(b)(6)(ii) of subpart SS. (13) § 63.998(c)(1)(ii)(D), (E), (F), and (G) of subpart SS. (14) § 63.998(d)(1)(ii) of subpart SS. (15) § 63.998(d)(3)(i) and (ii) of subpart SS. (16) The phrase ‘‘may be included as part of the startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan, as required by the referencing subpart for the source, or’’ from § 63.1005(e)(4)(i) of subpart TT. (17) The phrase ‘‘(except periods of startup, shutdown, or malfunction)’’ from § 63.1007(e)(1)(ii)(A) of subpart TT. (18) The phrase ‘‘(except during periods of startup, shutdown, or malfunction)’’ from § 63.1009(e)(1)(i)(A) of subpart TT. (19) The phrase ‘‘(except during periods of startup, shutdown, or malfunction)’’ from § 63.1012(b)(1) of subpart TT. (20) The phrase ‘‘(except periods of startup, shutdown, or malfunction)’’ VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:40 Sep 03, 2019 Jkt 247001 from § 63.1026(e)(1)(ii)(A) of subpart UU. (21) The phrase ‘‘(except periods of startup, shutdown, or malfunction)’’ from § 63.1028(e)(1)(i)(A) of subpart UU. (22) The phrase ‘‘(except periods of startup, shutdown, or malfunction)’’ from § 63.1031(b)(1) of subpart UU. ■ 6. Section 63.8005 is amended by: ■ a. Revising paragraph (a)(2); ■ b. Revising paragraph (d)(1) and adding paragraph (d)(5); ■ c. Revising paragraph (e) introductory text and paragraph (e)(2); ■ d. Revising paragraph (g); and ■ e. Adding paragraph (h) The revisions and addition read as follows: § 63.8005 What requirements apply to my process vessels? (a) * * * (2) For each control device used to comply with Table 1 to this subpart, you must comply with subpart SS of this part 63 as specified in § 63.8000(c), except as specified in § 63.8000(d) and (f), and paragraphs (b) through (g) of this section. * * * * * (d) * * * (1) To demonstrate initial compliance with a percent reduction emission limit in Table 1 to this subpart, you must conduct the performance test or design evaluation under conditions as specified in § 63.7(e)(1), except as specified in paragraph (d)(5) of this section, and except that the performance test or design evaluation must be conducted under worst-case conditions. Also, the performance test for a control device used to control emissions from process vessels must be conducted according to § 63.1257(b)(8), including the submittal of a site-specific test plan for approval prior to testing. The requirements in § 63.997(e)(1)(i) and (iii) also do not apply for performance tests conducted to determine compliance with the emission limits for process vessels. * * * * * (5) Beginning no later than the compliance dates specified in § 63.7995(e), § 63.7(e)(1) no longer applies and performance tests shall be conducted under such conditions as the Administrator specifies to the owner or operator based on representative performance of the affected source for the period being tested. Representative conditions exclude periods of startup and shutdown unless specified by the Administrator or an applicable subpart. The owner or operator may not conduct performance tests during periods of malfunction. The owner or operator must record the process information that is necessary to document operating PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 conditions during the test and include in such record an explanation to support that such conditions represent normal operation. Upon request, the owner or operator shall make available to the Administrator such records as may be necessary to determine the conditions of performance tests. (e) Establishing operating limits. You must establish operating limits under the conditions required for your initial compliance demonstration and periodic performance tests, except you may elect to establish operating limit(s) for conditions other than those under which a performance test was conducted as specified in paragraph (e)(1) of this section and, if applicable, paragraph (e)(2) of this section. * * * * * (2) If you elect to establish separate operating limits for different emission episodes, you must maintain records as specified in § 63.8080(g) of each point at which you change from one operating limit to another, even if the duration of the monitoring for an operating limit is less than 15 minutes. * * * * * (g) Flow indicators. If flow to a control device could be intermittent, you must install, calibrate, and operate a flow indicator at the inlet or outlet of the control device to identify periods of no flow. Periods of no flow may not be used in daily or block averages. (h) On and after the compliance date specified in § 63.7995(e), when determining compliance with the percent emission reduction requirements in Table 1 to this subpart, you must account for the time that the control device was bypassed. You must use Equation 1 of this section to determine the allowable total hours of bypass for each semi-annual compliance period. To demonstrate compliance, the actual total hours of bypass must not exceed the allowable total hours of bypass calculated by Equation 1 of this section. Tbyp = Total allowable source operating time (hours) when the control device for stationary process vessels can be bypassed during the semiannual compliance period for any reason. R = Control efficiency of control device, percent, as determined by Equation 6 in § 63.997(e)(2)(iv)(C). OCE = The applicable percent emission reduction requirement in Table 1 to this subpart. Top = Total source operating time (hours) for stationary process vessels during the semiannual compliance period. 7. Section 63.8010 is amended by revising paragraph (a) to read as follows: ■ E:\FR\FM\04SEP2.SGM 04SEP2 EP04SE19.000</GPH> jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 46642 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 171 / Wednesday, September 4, 2019 / Proposed Rules § 63.8010 What requirements apply to my storage tanks? (a) You must meet each emission limit in Table 2 to this subpart that applies to your storage tanks, and you must meet each applicable requirement specified in § 63.8000(b). For each control device used to comply with Table 2 to this subpart, you must comply with subpart SS of this part 63 as specified in § 63.8000(c), except as specified in § 63.8000(d) and (f), and paragraphs (b) through (d) of this section. * * * * * ■ 8. Section 63.8025 is amended by revising paragraph (a) to read as follows: § 63.8025 What requirements apply to my transfer operations? (a) You must comply with each emission limit and work practice standard in Table 5 to this subpart that applies to your transfer operations, and you must meet all applicable requirements specified in § 63.8000(b). For each control device used to comply with Table 5 to this subpart, you must comply with subpart SS of this part 63 as specified in § 63.8000(c), except as specified in § 63.8000(d) and (f), and paragraph (b) of this section. * * * * * ■ 9. Section 63.8050 is amended by adding paragraphs (c)(3)(i) through (c)(3)(iii) to read as follows: § 63.8050 How do I comply with emissions averaging for stationary process vessels at existing sources? jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 * * * * * (c) * * * (3) * * * (i) If emissions are routed through a closed-vent system to a condenser control device, determine controlled emissions using the procedures specified in § 63.1257(d)(3). (ii) If emissions are routed through a closed-vent system to any control device other than a condenser, determine actual emissions after determining the efficiency of the control device using the procedures in subpart SS of this part 63 as specified in § 63.8000(c). (iii) If the vessel is vented to the atmosphere, then actual emissions are equal to the uncontrolled emissions estimated in accordance with paragraph (c)(1) of this section. * * * * * ■ 10. Section 63.8055 is amended by revising paragraphs (b)(1), (2), and (4) to read as follows: § 63.8055 How do I comply with a weight percent HAP limit in coating products? * * * * * (b) * * * (1) Method 311 (appendix A to 40 CFR part 63). As an alternative to VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:40 Sep 03, 2019 Jkt 247001 Method 311, you may use California Air Resources Board Method 310, Determination of Volatile Organic Compounds in Consumer Products and Reactive Organic Compounds in Aerosol Coating Products for use with aerosol cans. (2) Method 24 (appendix A to 40 CFR part 60). You may use Method 24 to determine the mass fraction of volatile matter and use that value as a substitute for the mass fraction of HAP, or one of the alternatives in paragraph (b)(1)(i) through (iii) of this section. (i) ASTM D2369–10(2015)e, (incorporated by reference, see § 63.14); (ii) ASTM D2697–03 (2014) (incorporated by reference, see § 63.14); or (iii) ASTM D3960–98 (incorporated by reference, see § 63.14). * * * * * (4) You may rely on formulation data from raw material suppliers if it represents each organic HAP that is present at 0.1 percent by mass or more for the HAP listed in Table 11 to this subpart, and at 1.0 percent by mass or more for other compounds. If the HAP weight percent estimated based on formulation data conflicts with the results of a test conducted according to paragraphs (b)(1) through (3) of this section, then there is a rebuttal presumption that the test results are accurate unless, after consultation, you demonstrate to the satisfaction of the permitting authority that the test results are not accurate and that the formulation data are more appropriate. ■ 11. Section 63.8070 is amended by revising paragraph (c) to read as follows: § 63.8070 What notifications must I submit and when? * * * * * (c) Notification of performance test. If you are required to conduct a performance test, you must submit a notification of intent to conduct a performance test at least 60 calendar days before the performance test is scheduled to begin as required in § 63.7(b)(1). For any performance test required as part of the compliance procedures for process vessels in Table 1 to this subpart, you must also submit the test plan required by § 63.7(c) and the emission profile with the notification of the performance test. ■ 12. Section 63.8075 is amended by: ■ a. Revising paragraph (c)(1); ■ b. Revising paragraph (d) introductory text and paragraphs (d)(1) and (d)(2)(ii); ■ c. Revising paragraph (e)(5) introductory text and paragraph (e)(6)(ii)(B); ■ d. Adding paragraph (e)(6)(ii)(D); PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 46643 e. Revising paragraph (e)(6)(iii) introductory text and paragraphs (e)(6)(iii)(C) and (e)(6)(iii)(E); ■ f. Adding paragraph (e)(6)(iii)(L); ■ g. Removing and reserving paragraph (e)(8)(ii)(B); and ■ h. Adding paragraphs (f) through (k). The revisions and additions read as follows: ■ § 63.8075 when? What reports must I submit and * * * * * (c) * * * (1) Requests for approval to set operating limits for parameters other than those specified in §§ 63.8005 through 63.8030, including parameters for enhanced biological treatment units. Alternatively, you may make these requests according to § 63.8(f). * * * * * (d) Notification of compliance status report. You must submit a notification of compliance status report according to the schedule in paragraph (d)(1) of this section, and the notification of compliance status report must include the information specified in paragraph (d)(2) of this section. (1) You must submit the notification of compliance status report no later than 150 days after the applicable compliance date specified in § 63.7995. You must submit a separate notification of compliance status report after the applicable compliance date specified in § 63.7995(e). (2) * * * (ii) The results of performance tests, engineering analyses, design evaluations, flare compliance assessments, inspections and repairs, and calculations used to demonstrate compliance according to §§ 63.8005 through 63.8030 and 63.8055. For performance tests, results must include descriptions of sampling and analysis procedures and quality assurance procedures. * * * * * (e) * * * (5) For each SSM during which excess emissions occur, the compliance report must include the information specified in paragraphs (e)(5)(i) and (ii) of this section. On and after the compliance date specified in § 63.7995(e), these paragraphs (e)(5), (e)(5)(i), and (e)(5)(ii) of this section no longer apply. * * * * * (6) * * * (ii) * * * (B) Before the compliance date specified in § 63.7995(e), information on the number, duration, and cause of deviations (including unknown cause, if applicable), as applicable, and the E:\FR\FM\04SEP2.SGM 04SEP2 jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 46644 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 171 / Wednesday, September 4, 2019 / Proposed Rules corrective action taken. On and after the compliance date specified in § 63.7995(e), report the number of failures to meet an applicable standard. For each instance, report the date, time and duration of each failure. For each failure the report must include a list of the affected sources or equipment, an estimate of the quantity of each regulated pollutant emitted over any emission limit, a description of the method used to estimate the emissions, and the cause of deviations (including unknown cause, if applicable), as applicable, and the corrective action taken. * * * * * (D) On and after the compliance date specified in § 63.7995(e), report the total bypass hours, as monitored according to the provisions of § 63.8080(h). (iii) For each deviation from an emission limit or operating limit occurring at an affected source where you are using a CMS to comply with the emission limit in this subpart, you must include the information in paragraphs (e)(6)(iii)(A) through (L) of this section. This includes periods of SSM. * * * * * (C) Before the compliance date specified in § 63.7995(e), the date and time that each deviation started and stopped, and whether each deviation occurred during a period of startup, shutdown, or malfunction or during another period. On and after the compliance date specified in § 63.7995(e), report the number of failures to meet an applicable standard. For each instance, report the date, time and duration of each failure. For each failure the report must include a list of the affected sources or equipment, an estimate of the quantity of each regulated pollutant emitted over any emission limit, a description of the method used to estimate the emissions, and the cause of deviations (including unknown cause, if applicable), as applicable, and the corrective action taken. * * * * * (E) Before the compliance date specified in § 63.7995(e), a breakdown of the total duration of the deviations during the reporting period into those that are due to startup, shutdown, control equipment problems, process problems, other known causes, and other unknown causes. On and after the compliance date specified in § 63.7995(e), a breakdown of the total duration of the deviations during the reporting period into those that are due to control equipment problems, process VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:40 Sep 03, 2019 Jkt 247001 problems, other known causes, and other unknown causes. * * * * * (L) A summary of the total duration of CMS data unavailability during the reporting period, and the total duration as a percent of the total source operating time during that reporting period. * * * * * (f) Performance test report. On and after [DATE 181 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE Federal Register], within 60 days after the date of completing each performance test required by §§ 63.8000, 63.8005, or 63.8010 of this subpart, you must submit the results of the performance test following the procedures specified in paragraphs (f)(1) through (3) of this section. The requirements of this paragraph (f) do not affect the schedule for completing performance tests specified in §§ 63.8000, 63.8005, and 63.8010. (1) Data collected using test methods supported by the EPA’s Electronic Reporting Tool (ERT) as listed on the EPA’s ERT website (https:// www.epa.gov/electronic-reporting-airemissions/electronic-reporting-tool-ert) at the time of the test. Submit the results of the performance test to the EPA via the Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface (CEDRI), which can be accessed through the EPA’s Central Data Exchange (CDX) (https:// cdx.epa.gov/). The data must be submitted in a file format generated through the use of the EPA’s ERT. Alternatively, you may submit an electronic file consistent with the extensible markup language (XML) schema listed on the EPA’s ERT website. Submit the results of the performance test to the EPA via the Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface (CEDRI), which can be accessed through the EPA’s Central Data Exchange (CDX) (https:// cdx.epa.gov/). The data must be submitted in a file format generated through the use of the EPA’s ERT. Alternatively, you may submit an electronic file consistent with the extensible markup language (XML) schema listed on the EPA’s ERT website. (2) Data collected using test methods that are not supported by the EPA’s ERT as listed on the EPA’s ERT website at the time of the test. The results of the performance test must be included as an attachment in the ERT or an alternate electronic file consistent with the XML schema listed on the EPA’s ERT website. Submit the ERT generated package or alternative file to the EPA via CEDRI. PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 (3) Confidential business information (CBI). If you claim that some of the performance test information being submitted under paragraph (f) of this section is CBI, you must submit a complete file, including information claimed to be CBI, to the EPA. The file must be generated through the use of the EPA’s ERT or an alternate electronic file consistent with the XML schema listed on the EPA’s ERT website. Submit the file on a compact disc, flash drive, or other commonly used electronic storage medium and clearly mark the medium as CBI. Mail the electronic medium to U.S. EPA/OAPQS/CORE CBI Office, Attention: Group Leader, Measurement Policy Group, MD C404–02, 4930 Old Page Rd., Durham, NC 27703. The same file with the CBI omitted must be submitted to the EPA via the EPA’s CDX as described in paragraph (f) of this section. (g) Performance evaluation report. On and after [DATE 181 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE Federal Register], within 60 days after the date of completing each continuous monitoring system (CMS) performance evaluation (as defined in § 63.2), you must submit the results of the performance evaluation following the procedures specified in paragraphs (g)(1) through (3) of this section. (1) Performance evaluations of CMS measuring relative accuracy test audit (RATA) pollutants that are supported by the EPA’s ERT as listed on the EPA’s ERT website at the time of the evaluation. Submit the results of the performance evaluation to the EPA via CEDRI, which can be accessed through the EPA’s CDX. The data must be submitted in a file format generated through the use of the EPA’s ERT. Alternatively, you may submit an electronic file consistent with the XML schema listed on the EPA’s ERT website. (2) Performance evaluations of CMS measuring RATA pollutants that are not supported by the EPA’s ERT as listed on the EPA’s ERT website at the time of the evaluation. The results of the performance evaluation must be included as an attachment in the ERT or an alternate electronic file consistent with the XML schema listed on the EPA’s ERT website. Submit the ERT generated package or alternative file to the EPA via CEDRI. (3) Confidential business information (CBI). If you claim some of the information submitted under paragraph (a) of this section is CBI, you must submit a complete file, including information claimed to be CBI, to the EPA. The file must be generated through E:\FR\FM\04SEP2.SGM 04SEP2 jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 171 / Wednesday, September 4, 2019 / Proposed Rules the use of the EPA’s ERT or an alternate electronic file consistent with the XML schema listed on the EPA’s ERT website. Submit the file on a compact disc, flash drive, or other commonly used electronic storage medium and clearly mark the medium as CBI. Mail the electronic medium to U.S. EPA/ OAQPS/CORE CBI Office, Attention: Group Leader, Measurement Policy Group, MD C404–02, 4930 Old Page Rd., Durham, NC 27703. The same file with the CBI omitted must be submitted to the EPA via the EPA’s CDX as described in paragraph (a) of this section. (h) You must submit to the Administrator initial compliance reports, notification of compliance status reports, and compliance reports of the following information. Beginning on and after [DATE 181 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE Federal Register], submit all subsequent reports following the procedure specified in paragraph (i) of this section. (i) If you are required to submit reports following the procedure specified in this paragraph, you must submit reports to the EPA via CEDRI, which can be accessed through the EPA’s Central Data Exchange (CDX) (https://cdx.epa.gov). (1) Compliance reports. The requirements of this paragraph (i) do not affect the schedule for submitting the initial notification or the notification of compliance status reports. You must use the appropriate electronic compliance report template on the CEDRI website (https://www.epa.gov/electronicreporting-air-emissions/complianceand-emissions-data-reporting-interfacecedri) for this subpart. The date report templates become available will be listed on the CEDRI website. (2) Initial notification reports and notification of compliance status reports. You must upload to CEDRI a PDF file of each initial notification and of each notification of compliance status. (3) All reports. The report must be submitted by the deadline specified in this subpart, regardless of the method in which the report is submitted. If you claim some of the information required to be submitted via CEDRI is confidential business information (CBI), submit a complete report, including information claimed to be CBI, to the EPA. The report must be generated using the appropriate form on the CEDRI website, where applicable. Submit the file on a compact disc, flash drive, or other commonly used electronic storage medium and clearly mark the medium as CBI. Mail the electronic medium to U.S. EPA/OAQPS/ VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:40 Sep 03, 2019 Jkt 247001 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. (j) Extensions for CDX/CEDRI Outages and Force Majeure Events. If you are required to electronically submit a report through CEDRI in the EPA’s CDX, you may assert a claim of EPA system outage for failure to timely comply with the reporting requirement. To assert a claim of EPA system outage, you must meet the requirements outlined in paragraphs (j)(1) through (7) of this section. (1) You must have been or will be precluded from accessing CEDRI and submitting a required report within the time prescribed due to an outage of either the EPA’s CEDRI or CDX systems. (2) The outage must have occurred within the period of time beginning five business days prior to the date that the submission is due. (3) The outage may be planned or unplanned/ (4) You must submit notification to the Administrator in writing as soon as possible following the date you first knew, or through due diligence should have known, that the event may cause or caused a delay in reporting. (5) You must provide to the Administrator a written description identifying: (i) The date(s) and time(s) when CDX or CEDRI was accessed and the system was unavailable; (ii) A rationale for attributing the delay in reporting beyond the regulatory deadline to EPA system outage; (iii) Measures taken or to be taken to minimize the delay in reporting; and (iv) The date by which you propose to report, or if you have already met the reporting requirement at the time of the notification, the date you reported. (6) The decision to accept the claim of EPA system outage and allow an extension to the reporting deadline is solely within the discretion of the Administrator. (7) In any circumstance, the report must be submitted electronically as soon as possible after the outage is resolved. (k) If you are required to electronically submit a report through CEDRI in the EPA’s CDX, you may assert a claim of force majeure for failure to timely comply with the reporting requirement. To assert a claim of force majeure, you must meet the requirements outlined in paragraphs (k)(1) through (5) of this section. PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 46645 (1) You may submit a claim if a force majeure event is about to occur, occurs, or has occurred or there are lingering effects from such an event within the period of time beginning five business days prior to the date the submission is due. For purposes of this section, a force majeure event is defined as an event that will be or has been caused by circumstances beyond the control of the affected facility, its contractors, or any entity controlled by the affected facility that prevents you from complying with the requirement to submit a report electronically within the time period prescribed. Examples of such events are acts of nature (e.g., hurricanes, earthquakes, or floods), acts of war or terrorism, or equipment failure or safety hazard beyond the control of the affected facility (e.g., large scale power outage). (2) You must submit notification to the Administrator in writing as soon as possible following the date you first knew, or through due diligence should have known, that the event may cause or has caused a delay in reporting. (3) You must provide to the Administrator: (i) A written description of the force majeure event; (ii) A rationale for attributing the delay in reporting beyond the regulatory deadline to the force majeure event; (iii) Measures taken or to be taken to minimize the delay in reporting; and (iv) The date by which you propose to report, or if you have already met the reporting requirement at the time of the notification, the date you reported. (4) The decision to accept the claim of force majeure and allow an extension to the reporting deadline is solely within the discretion of the Administrator. (5) In any circumstance, the reporting must occur as soon as possible after the force majeure event occurs. ■ 13. Section 63.8080 is amended by: ■ a. Revising the introductory paragraph; ■ b. Revising paragraphs (c), (e), and (f); and ■ c. Adding paragraphs (h) through (j). The revisions and additions read as follows: § 63.8080 What records must I keep? You must keep the records specified in paragraphs (a) through (h) of this section. * * * * * (c) Before the compliance date specified in § 63.7995(e), a record of each time a safety device is opened to avoid unsafe conditions in accordance with § 63.8000(b)(2). On and after the compliance date specified in E:\FR\FM\04SEP2.SGM 04SEP2 jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 46646 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 171 / Wednesday, September 4, 2019 / Proposed Rules § 63.7995(e), the information in this paragraph (c). (1) The source, nature, and cause of the opening. (2) The date, time, and duration of the opening. (3) An estimate of the quantity of total HAP emitted during the opening and the method used for determining this quantity. * * * * * (e) Before the compliance date specified in § 63.7995(e), for each CEMS, you must keep the records of the date and time that each deviation started and stopped, and whether the deviation occurred during a period of startup, shutdown, or malfunction or during another period. On and after the compliance date specified in § 63.7995(e), for each CEMS, you must keep the records of the date and time that each deviation started and stopped, and whether the deviation occurred during a period of startup, shutdown, or malfunction or during another period. (f) Before the compliance date specified in § 63.7995(e), in the SSMP required by § 63.6(e)(3), you are not required to include Group 2 or nonaffected emission points. For equipment leaks only, the SSMP requirement is limited to control devices and is optional for other equipment. On and after the compliance date specified in § 63.7995(e), the requirements of this paragraph (f) no longer apply. * * * * * (h) On and after the compliance date specified in § 63.7995(e), records of the total source operating time (hours) for stationary process vessels during the semiannual compliance period, and the source operating time (hours) when the control device for stationary process vessels was bypassed during the semiannual compliance period for any reason, as used in determining compliance with the percent emission reduction requirements in Table 1 to this subpart, as specified in § 63.8005(h). (i) On and after the compliance date specified in § 63.7995(e), for each deviation from an emission limitation reported under § 63.8075(e)(5), a record of the information specified in paragraphs (i)(1) and (2) of this section, as applicable. (1) In the event that an affected unit fails to meet an applicable standard, record the number of failures. For each failure record the date, time and duration of each failure. VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:40 Sep 03, 2019 Jkt 247001 (2) For each failure to meet an applicable standard, record and retain a list of the affected sources or equipment, an estimate of the quantity of each regulated pollutant emitted over any emission limit and a description of the method used to estimate the emissions. (j) Any records required to be maintained by this subpart that are submitted electronically via the EPA’s CEDRI may be maintained in electronic format. This ability to maintain electronic copies does not affect the requirement for facilities to make records, data, and reports available upon request to a delegated air agency or the EPA as part of an on-site compliance evaluation. ■ 14. Section 63.8090 is amended by revising paragraph (b) to read as follows: § 63.8090 What compliance options do I have if part of my plant is subject to both this subpart and another subpart? * * * * * (b) Compliance with 40 CFR part 60, subpart Kb. After the compliance dates specified in § 63.7995, you are in compliance with this subpart for any storage tank that is assigned to miscellaneous coating manufacturing operations and that is both controlled with a floating roof and in compliance with the provisions of 40 CFR part 60, subpart Kb. You are in compliance with this subpart if you have a storage tank with a fixed roof, closed-vent system, and control device in compliance with 40 CFR part 60, subpart Kb, and you are in compliance with the monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements in this subpart. You must also identify in your notification of compliance status report required by § 63.8075(d) which storage tanks are in compliance with 40 CFR part 60, subpart Kb. * * * * * ■ 15. Section 63.8105 is amended by: ■ a. In paragraph (g), revising the definitions for ‘‘Deviation’’ and ‘‘Process vessel vent’’; and ■ b. In paragraph (g), removing the definition for ‘‘Small control device’’. The revisions read as follows: § 63.8105 subpart? What definitions apply to this * * * * * (g) * * * Deviation means any instance in which an affected source subject to this subpart, or an owner or operator of such a source: PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 (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; (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) Before the compliance date specified in § 63.7995(e), 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. On and after the compliance date specified in § 63.7995(e), this paragraph (3) no longer applies. * * * * * Process vessel vent means a vent from a process vessel or vents from multiple process vessels that are manifolded together into a common header, through which a HAP-containing gas stream is, or has the potential to be, released to the atmosphere. Emission streams that are undiluted and uncontrolled containing less than 50 ppmv HAP, as determined through process knowledge that no HAP are present in the emission stream or using an engineering assessment as discussed in § 63.1257(d)(2)(ii), test data using Method 18 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A, or any other test method that has been validated according to the procedures in Method 301 of appendix A of this part, are not considered process vessel vents. Flexible elephant trunk systems when used with closed vent systems and drawing ambient air (i.e., the system is not ducted, piped, or otherwise connected to the unit operations) away from operators when vessels are opened are not process vessel vents. Process vessel vents do not include vents on storage tanks, wastewater emission sources, or pieces of equipment subject to the requirements in Table 3 of this subpart. A gas stream going to a fuel gas system is not a process vessel vent. A gas stream routed to a process for a process purpose is not a § 63.8075 vent. * * * * * ■ 16. Table 1 to Subpart HHHHH of Part 63 is amended by revising row 4 to read as follows: * * * * * E:\FR\FM\04SEP2.SGM 04SEP2 46647 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 171 / Wednesday, September 4, 2019 / Proposed Rules TABLE 1 TO SUBPART HHHHH OF PART 63—EMISSION LIMITS AND WORK PRACTICE STANDARDS FOR PROCESS VESSELS * * * * * * * For each . . . You must . . . And you must . . . * * * 4. Halogenated vent stream from a process vessel subject to the requirements of item 2 or 3 of this table for which you use a combustion control device to control organic HAP emissions. * a. Use a halogen reduction device after the combustion control device; or b. Use a halogen reduction device before the combustion control device. * * * i. Reduce overall emissions of hydrogen halide and halogen HAP by ≥95 percent; or ii. Reduce overall emissions of hydrogen halide and halogen HAP to ≤0.45 kilogram per hour (kg/hr). Reduce the halogen atom mass emission rate to ≤0.45 kg/hr. 17. Table 3 to Subpart HHHHH of Part 63 is revised to read as follows: As required in § 63.8015, you must meet each requirement in the following table that applies to your equipment leaks. requirements of this subpart are listed in TABLE 3 TO SUBPART HHHHH OF PART 63—REQUIREMENTS FOR the following table: EQUIPMENT LEAKS—Continued * * * * * ■ TABLE 3 TO SUBPART HHHHH OF PART 63—REQUIREMENTS FOR EQUIPMENT LEAKS For all . . . You must . . . 1. Equipment that is in organic HAP service at an existing source. a. Comply with the requirements in §§ 63.424(a) through (d) and 63.428(e), (f), and (h)(4), except as specified in § 63.8015(b); or b. Comply with the requirements of subpart TT of this part, except as specified in § 63.8000(f); or c. Comply with the requirements of subpart UU of this part, except as specified in §§ 63.8000(f) and 63.8015(c) and (d). 19. Table 9 to Subpart HHHHH of Part 63 is amended by adding rows 4 and 5 to read as follows: As required in § 63.8075(a) and (b), you must submit each report that applies to you on the schedule shown in the following table: ■ For all . . . You must . . . 2. Equipment that is in organic HAP service at a new source. a. Comply with the requirements of subpart TT of this part, except as specified in § 63.8000(f); or b. Comply with the requirements of subpart UU of this part, except as specified in §§ 63.8000(f) and 63.8015(c) and (d). 18. The title of Table 8 to Subpart HHHHH of Part 63 is amended to read as follows: ■ Table 8 to Subpart HHHHH of Part 63— Soluble Hazardous Air Pollutants As specified in § 63.8020, the soluble HAP in wastewater that are subject to management and treatment TABLE 9 TO SUBPART HHHHH OF PART 63—REQUIREMENTS FOR REPORTS You must submit a . . . The report must contain . . . * * 4. Performance test report ............. * The information § 63.8075(f). The information § 63.8075(g). 5. Performance evaluation report .. 20. Table 10 to Subpart HHHHH of Pat 63 is revised to read as follows: ■ specified specified You must submit the report . . . * * * * in Within 60 days after completing each performance test according to the requirements in § 63.8075(f). in Within 60 days after completing each continuous monitoring system (CMS) performance evaluation according to the requirements in § 63.8075(g). As specified in § 63.8095, the parts of the General Provisions that apply to you are shown in the following table: jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 TABLE 10 TO SUBPART HHHHH OF PART 63—APPLICABILITY OF GENERAL PROVISIONS TO SUBPART HHHHH Citation Subject § 63.1 ......................................... § 63.2 ......................................... § 63.3 ......................................... § 63.4 ......................................... § 63.5 ......................................... § 63.6(a) .................................... Applicability ...................................................... Definitions ......................................................... Units and Abbreviations ................................... Prohibited Activities .......................................... Construction/Reconstruction ............................ Applicability ...................................................... VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:40 Sep 03, 2019 Jkt 247001 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Explanation Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. E:\FR\FM\04SEP2.SGM 04SEP2 46648 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 171 / Wednesday, September 4, 2019 / Proposed Rules TABLE 10 TO SUBPART HHHHH OF PART 63—APPLICABILITY OF GENERAL PROVISIONS TO SUBPART HHHHH— Continued Citation Subject § 63.6(b)(1)–(4) ......................... Compliance Dates for New and Reconstructed sources. Notification ........................................................ [Reserved] ........................................................ Compliance Dates for New and Reconstructed Area Sources That Become Major. Compliance Dates for Existing Sources .......... [Reserved] ........................................................ Compliance Dates for Existing Area Sources That Become Major. [Reserved] ........................................................ General Duty to minimize emissions ............... § 63.6(b)(5) ................................ § 63.6(b)(6) ................................ § 63.6(b)(7) ................................ § 63.6(c)(1)–(2) .......................... § 63.6(c)(3)–(4) .......................... § 63.6(c)(5) ................................ § 63.6(d) .................................... § 63.6(e)(1)(i) ............................. § 63.6(e)(1)(ii) ............................ Requirement to correct malfunctions as soon as possible. § 63.6(e)(1)(iii)–(2) ..................... § 63.6(e)(3) ................................ Operation & Maintenance ................................ Startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan ........ § 63.6(f)(1) ................................. Compliance Except During SSM ..................... § 63.6(f)(2)–(3) .......................... § 63.6(g)(1)–(3) ......................... § 63.6(h)(1) ................................ Methods for Determining Compliance ............. Alternative Standard ......................................... SSM Exemption ............................................... § 63.6(h)(2)–(9) ......................... Opacity/Visible Emission (VE) Standards ........ § 63.6(i)(1)–(14) ......................... § 63.6(j) ..................................... § 63.7(a)(1)–(2) ......................... § 63.7(a)(3)–(4) ......................... Compliance Extension ..................................... Presidential Compliance Exemption ................ Performance Test Dates .................................. CAA Section 114 Authority, Force Majeure ..... § 63.7(b)(1) ................................ § 63.7(b)(2) ................................ § 63.7(c) .................................... Notification of Performance Test ..................... Notification of Rescheduling ............................ Quality Assurance/Test Plan ............................ § 63.7(d) .................................... § 63.7(e)(1) ................................ Testing Facilities .............................................. Conditions for Conducting Performance Tests § 63.7(e)(2) ................................ § 63.7(e)(3) ................................ § 63.7(f) ..................................... § 63.7(g) .................................... § 63.7(h) .................................... § 63.8(a)(1) ................................ § 63.8(a)(2) ................................ § 63.8(a)(3) ................................ § 63.8(a)(4) ................................ § 63.8(b)(1) ................................ § 63.8(b)(2)–(3) ......................... § 63.8(c)(1)(i) ............................. Conditions for Conducting Performance Tests Test Run Duration ............................................ Alternative Test Method ................................... Performance Test Data Analysis ..................... Waiver of Tests ................................................ Applicability of Monitoring Requirements ......... Performance Specifications ............................. [Reserved] ........................................................ Monitoring with Flares ...................................... Monitoring ......................................................... Multiple Effluents and Multiple Monitoring Systems. Monitoring System Operation and Maintenance. Maintain and operate CMS .............................. § 63.8(c)(1)(ii) ............................ § 63.8(c)(1)(iii) ........................... Routine repairs ................................................. Requirement to develop SSM plan for CMS ... § 63.8(c)(2)–(3) .......................... Monitoring System Installation ......................... § 63.8(c)(1) ................................ jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 Explanation VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:40 Sep 03, 2019 Jkt 247001 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes, before the compliance date specified in § 63.7995(e). No, on and after the compliance date specified in § 63.7995(e). See 63.8000(a) for general duty requirement. Yes, before the compliance date specified in § 63.7995(e). No, on and after the compliance date specified in § 63.7995(e). Yes. Yes, before the compliance date specified in § 63.7995(e). No, on and after the compliance date specified in § 63.7995(e). Yes, before the compliance date specified in § 63.7995(e). No, on and after the compliance date specified in § 63.7995(e). Yes. Yes. Yes, before the compliance date specified in § 63.7995(e). No, on and after the compliance date specified in § 63.7995(e). Only for flares for which Method 22 observations are required as part of a flare compliance assessment. Yes. Yes. Yes, except substitute 150 days for 180 days. Yes, and these paragraphs also apply to flare compliance assessments as specified under § 63.997(b)(2). Yes. Yes. Yes, except the test plan must be submitted with the notification of the performance test if the control device controls process vessels. Yes. Yes, before the compliance date specified in § 63.7995(e), except that performance tests for process vessels must be conducted under worst-case conditions as specified in § 63.8005. No, on and after the compliance date specified in § 63.7995(e). See § 63.8005(d). Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes, before the compliance date specified in § 63.7995(e). No, on and after the compliance date specified in § 63.7995(e). See § 63.8000(a) for the general duty to maintain and operate each CMS. Yes. Yes, before the compliance date specified in § 63.7995(e). No, on and after the compliance date specified in § 63.7995(e). Yes. E:\FR\FM\04SEP2.SGM 04SEP2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 171 / Wednesday, September 4, 2019 / Proposed Rules 46649 jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 TABLE 10 TO SUBPART HHHHH OF PART 63—APPLICABILITY OF GENERAL PROVISIONS TO SUBPART HHHHH— Continued Citation Subject Explanation § 63.8(c)(4) ................................ Requirements ................................................... § 63.8(c)(4)(i) ............................. § 63.8(c)(4)(ii) ............................ § 63.8(c)(5) ................................ § 63.8(c)(6) ................................ CMS Requirements .......................................... CMS requirements ........................................... COMS Minimum Procedures ........................... CMS Requirements .......................................... § 63.8(c)(7)–(8) .......................... CMS Requirements .......................................... § 63.8(d)(1)–(2) ......................... CMS Quality Control ........................................ § 63.8(d)(3) ................................ Written procedures for CMS ............................ § 63.8(e) .................................... CMS Performance Evaluation .......................... § 63.8(f)(1)–(5) .......................... Alternative Monitoring Method ......................... § 63.8(f)(6) ................................. § 63.8(g)(1)–(4) ......................... Alternative to Relative Accuracy Test .............. Data Reduction ................................................ § 63.8(g)(5) ................................ Data Reduction ................................................ § 63.9(a) .................................... § 63.9(b)(1)–(5) ......................... § 63.9(c) .................................... § 63.9(d) .................................... § 63.9(e) .................................... § 63.9(f) ..................................... § 63.9(g) .................................... Notification Requirements ................................ Initial Notifications ............................................ Request for Compliance Extension ................. Notification of Special Compliance Requirements for New Source. Notification of Performance Test ..................... Notification of VE/Opacity Test ........................ Additional Notifications When Using CMS ....... Only for CEMS; requirements for CPMS are specified in referenced subpart SS of this part. This subpart does not contain requirements for continuous opacity monitoring systems (COMS). No. This subpart does not require COMS. Yes. No. This subpart does not contain opacity or VE limits. Only for CEMS; requirements for CPMS are specified in referenced subpart SS of this part. Only for CEMS. Requirements for CPMS are specified in referenced subpart SS of this part. Only for CEMS; requirements for CPMS are specified in referenced subpart SS of this part. Yes, before the compliance date specified in § 63.7995(e). No, on and after the compliance date specified in § 63.7995(e). See § 63.8000(d)(8). Section 63.8(e)(6)(ii) does not apply because this subpart does not require COMS. Other sections apply only for CEMS; requirements for CPMS are specified in referenced subpart SS of this part. Yes, except you may also request approval using the precompliance report. Only for CEMS. Only when using CEMS, except § 63.8(g)(2) does not apply because data reduction requirements for CEMS are specified in § 63.8000(d)(4)(iv). The requirements for COMS do not apply because this subpart has no opacity or VE limits. No. Requirements for CEMS are specified in § 63.8000(d)(4). Requirements for CPMS are specified in referenced subpart SS of this part. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. § 63.9(h)(1)–(6) ......................... Notification of Compliance Status .................... § 63.9(i) ..................................... § 63.9(j) ..................................... Adjustment of Submittal Deadlines .................. Change in Previous Information ...................... § 63.10(a) .................................. § 63.10(b)(1) .............................. § 63.10(b)(2)(i)–(ii) ..................... Recordkeeping/Reporting ................................. Recordkeeping/Reporting ................................. Records related to SSM ................................... § 63.10(b)(2)(iii) ......................... § 63.10(b)(2)(iv)–(v) ................... Records related to maintenance of air pollution control equipment. Records related to SSM ................................... § 63.10(b)(2)(vi), (x), and (xi) .... CMS Records ................................................... § 63.10(b)(2)(vii)–(ix) ................. § 63.10(b)(2)(xii) ........................ § 63.10(b)(2)(xiii) ....................... § 63.10(b)(2)(xiv) ....................... § 63.10(b)(3) .............................. § 63.10(c)(1)–(6),(9)–(14) .......... Records Records Records Records Records Records § 63.10(c)(7)–(8), (15) ............... § 63.10(d)(1) .............................. § 63.10(d)(2) .............................. § 63.10(d)(3) .............................. Records ............................................................ General Reporting Requirements .................... Report of Performance Test Results ............... Reporting Opacity or VE Observations ............ VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:40 Sep 03, 2019 Jkt 247001 ............................................................ ............................................................ ............................................................ ............................................................ ............................................................ ............................................................ PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 Yes. No. This subpart does not contain opacity or VE limits. Only for CEMS; requirements for CPMS are specified in referenced subpart SS of this part. Yes, except this subpart has no opacity or VE limits, and § 63.9(h)(2) does not apply because § 63.8075(d) specifies the required contents and due date of the notification of compliance status report. Yes. No, § 63.8075(e)(8) specifies reporting requirements for process changes. Yes. Yes. No. Before the compliance date specified in § 63.7995(e), see §§ 63.998(d)(3) and 63.998(c)(1)(ii)(D) through (G) for recordkeeping requirements for periods of SSM. On and after the compliance date specified in § 63.7995(e), see § 63.8080(i). Yes. Yes, before the compliance date specified in § 63.7995(e). No, on and after the compliance date specified in § 63.7995(e). Only for CEMS; requirements for CPMS are specified in referenced subpart SS of this part. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Only for CEMS; requirements for CPMS are specified in referenced subpart SS of this part. No. Recordkeeping requirements are specified in § 63.8080. Yes. Yes. No. This subpart does not contain opacity or VE limits. E:\FR\FM\04SEP2.SGM 04SEP2 46650 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 171 / Wednesday, September 4, 2019 / Proposed Rules TABLE 10 TO SUBPART HHHHH OF PART 63—APPLICABILITY OF GENERAL PROVISIONS TO SUBPART HHHHH— Continued Citation Subject Explanation § 63.10(d)(4) .............................. § 63.10(d)(5)(i) ........................... Progress Reports ............................................. SSM Reports .................................................... § 63.10(d)(5)(ii) .......................... § 63.10(e)(1)–(2) ....................... Immediate SSM Reports .................................. Additional CMS Reports ................................... § 63.10(e)(3) .............................. § 63.10(e)(3)(i)–(iii) .................... § 63.10(e)(3)(iv)–(v) ................... § 63.10(e)(3)(vi–viii) ................... Reports ............................................................. Reports ............................................................. Excess Emissions Reports .............................. Excess Emissions Report and Summary Report. Reporting COMS data ...................................... Waiver for Recordkeeping/Reporting ............... Control and work practice requirements .......... Delegation ........................................................ Addresses ........................................................ Incorporation by Reference .............................. Availability of Information ................................. Yes. No. Before the compliance date specified in § 63.7995(e), see § 63.8075(e)(5) and (6) for the SSM reporting requirements. On and after the compliance date specified in § 63.7995(e), these requirements no longer apply. No. Only for CEMS, but § 63.10(e)(2)(ii) does not apply because this subpart does not require COMS. No. Reporting requirements are specified in § 63.8075. No. Reporting requirements are specified in § 63.8075. No. Reporting requirements are specified in § 63.8075. No. Reporting requirements are specified in § 63.8075. § 63.10(e)(4) .............................. § 63.10(f) ................................... § 63.11 ....................................... § 63.12 ....................................... § 63.13 ....................................... § 63.14 ....................................... § 63.15 ....................................... No. This subpart does not contain opacity or VE limits. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. 21. Table 11 to Subpart HHHHH of Part 63 is added to read as follows: ■ TABLE 11 TO SUBPART HHHHH 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 jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD 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 ............................................................................................................................................................... 3,37′-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 ......................................................................................................................................................................... VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:40 Sep 03, 2019 Jkt 247001 PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\04SEP2.SGM 04SEP2 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 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 171 / Wednesday, September 4, 2019 / Proposed Rules 46651 TABLE 11 TO SUBPART HHHHH 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. 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 ......................................................................................................................................................................... [FR Doc. 2019–18344 Filed 9–3–19; 8:45 am] jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 BILLING CODE 6560–50–P VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:40 Sep 03, 2019 Jkt 247001 PO 00000 Frm 00043 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 9990 E:\FR\FM\04SEP2.SGM 04SEP2 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

Agencies

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 171 (Wednesday, September 4, 2019)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 46610-46651]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-18344]



[[Page 46609]]

Vol. 84

Wednesday,

No. 171

September 4, 2019

Part II





 Environmental Protection Agency





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





40 CFR Part 63





National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Miscellaneous 
Coating Manufacturing Residual Risk and Technology Review; Proposed 
Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 84 , No. 171 / Wednesday, September 4, 2019 / 
Proposed Rules

[[Page 46610]]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 63

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2018-0747; FRL-9998-69-OAR]
RIN 2060-AU16


National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: 
Miscellaneous Coating Manufacturing Residual Risk and Technology Review

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing 
the results of a residual risk and technology review (RTR) of the 
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for 
Miscellaneous Coating Manufacturing (MCM NESHAP) facilities, as 
required by the Clean Air Act (CAA). The EPA is proposing to find risks 
due to emissions of air toxics to be acceptable from the MCM source 
category and to determine that the current NESHAP provides an ample 
margin of safety to protect public health. The EPA identified no new 
cost-effective controls under the technology review to achieve further 
emissions reductions from process units subject to standards under the 
NESHAP. The EPA is also proposing revisions related to emissions during 
periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction (SSM), including 
clarifying regulatory provisions for certain vent control bypasses; 
provisions for electronic reporting of performance test results, 
performance evaluation reports, compliance reports, and Notification of 
Compliance Status (NOCS) reports; and provisions to conduct periodic 
performance testing of oxidizers used to reduce emissions of organic 
hazardous air pollutants (HAP).

DATES: 
    Comments. Comments must be received on or before October 21, 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 October 4, 2019.
    Public hearing. If anyone contacts us requesting a public hearing 
on or before September 9, 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/miscellaneous-coating-manufacturing-national-emission-standards. 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-2018-0747, 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-2018-0747 in the subject line of the message.
     Fax: (202) 566-9744. Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2018-0747.
     Mail: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Docket 
Center, Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2018-0747, 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 operations are 8:30 a.m.-4:30 p.m., 
Monday-Friday (except federal holidays).
    Instructions: All submissions received must include the 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. Angela Carey, Sector Policies and Programs Division 
(E143-01), Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 
27711; telephone number: (919) 541-2187; fax number: (919) 541-0516; 
and email address: [email protected]. For specific information 
regarding the risk modeling methodology, contact Ms. Darcie Smith, 
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) 
541-2076; fax number: (919) 541-0840; and email address: 
[email protected]. For questions about monitoring and testing 
requirements, contact Mr. Barrett Parker, Sector Policies and Programs 
Division (D243-05), Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 
27711; telephone number: (919) 541-5635; fax number: (919) 541-4991; 
and email address: [email protected]. For information about the 
applicability of the NESHAP to a particular entity, contact Mr. John 
Cox, Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance, U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency, WJC South Building (Mail Code 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. Virginia Hunt at (919) 541-0832 
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 a docket for this rulemaking under 
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2018-0747. All documents in the docket 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.
    Instructions. Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2018-0747. 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

[[Page 46611]]

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 Code of Federal Regulations 
(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-2018-0747.
    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:

AEGL acute exposure guideline level
AERMOD air dispersion model used by the HEM-3 model
CAA Clean Air Act
CalEPA California EPA
CBI Confidential Business Information
CEDRI Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
ERPG emergency response planning guideline
ERT Electronic Reporting Tool
HAP hazardous air pollutant(s)
HCl hydrochloric acid
HEM-3 Human Exposure Model, Version 1.5.5
HF hydrogen fluoride
HI hazard index
HQ hazard quotient
ICR Information Collection Request
IRIS Integrated Risk Information System
km kilometer
kPa kilopascal
MACT maximum achievable control technology
MCM miscellaneous coating manufacturing
mg/kg-day milligrams per kilogram per day
mg/m\3\ milligrams per cubic meter
MIR maximum lifetime (cancer) risk
NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards
NAICS North American Industry Classification System
NEI National Emissions Inventory
NESHAP national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants
NOCS Notification of Compliance Status
NRC National Research Council
NTTAA National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
OAQPS Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
OECA Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance
OMB Office of Management and Budget
PAH polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons
PB-HAP hazardous air pollutants known to be persistent and bio-
accumulative in the environment
PDF portable document format
PM particulate matter
POM polycyclic organic matter
ppm parts per million
ppmw parts per million by weight
psia pounds per square inch, absolute
RBLC Reasonably Available Control Technology, Best Available Control 
Technology, and Lowest Achievable Emission Rate Clearinghouse
REL reference exposure level
RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act
RfC reference concentration
RfD reference dose
RTR residual risk and technology review
SAB Science Advisory Board
SSM startup, shutdown, and malfunction
the Court the United States Court of Appeals for the District of 
Columbia Circuit
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/m\3\ microgram per cubic meter
UMRA Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
URE unit risk estimate
VCS voluntary consensus standards
VOC volatile organic compounds

    Organization of this document. The information in this preamble is 
organized as follows below. In particular, section IV of this preamble 
describes the majority of the Agency's rationale for the proposed 
actions in this preamble.
    Section IV.B of this preamble summarizes the results of the risk 
assessment. Section IV.C of this preamble summarizes the results of our 
technology review. Section IV.D of this preamble summarizes other 
changes we are proposing, including general regulatory language changes 
related to the removal of SSM exemptions, electronic reporting, and 
other minor clarifications identified as part our review of the NESHAP 
and as part of the other proposed revisions in this action. Lastly, 
section IV.E of this preamble summarizes our rationale for the 
compliance dates we are proposing.

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 is this source category and how does the current NESHAP 
regulate its 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

[[Page 46612]]

    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 the source 
category?
IV. Analytical Results and Proposed Decisions
    A. What are the results of the risk assessment and analyses?
    B. What are our proposed decisions regarding risk acceptability, 
ample margin of safety, and adverse environmental effect?
    C. What are the results and proposed decisions based on our 
technology review?
    D. What other actions are we proposing?
    E. What compliance dates are we proposing?
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 Regulation 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 
Manufacture of Paints, Coatings, and Adhesives source category ``is any 
facility engaged in their manufacture without regard to the particular 
end-uses or consumers of such products. The manufacturing of these 
products may occur in any combination at any facility.'' This source 
category has since been renamed Miscellaneous Coating Manufacturing 
(MCM).

    Table 1--NESHAP and Industrial Source Categories Affected By This
                             Proposed Action
------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Source Category and NESHAP                 NAICS Code \1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Miscellaneous Coating Manufacturing Industry............      3255, 3259
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ North American Industry Classification System.

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

    In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of 
this 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/miscellaneous-coating-manufacturing-national-emission-standards. Following 
publication in the Federal Register, the EPA will post the Federal 
Register version of the proposal and key technical documents at this 
same website. Information on the overall RTR program is available at 
https://www3.epa.gov/ttn/atw/rrisk/rtrpg.html.
    A redline version of the regulatory language that incorporates the 
proposed changes in this action is available in the docket for this 
action (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2018-0747).

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.). 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 provisions. A more comprehensive discussion appears in 
the document titled CAA Section 112 Risk and Technology Reviews: 
Statutory Authority and Methodology, in the docket for this rulemaking.
    In the first stage of the CAA section 112 standard setting process, 
the EPA promulgates technology-based standards under CAA section 112(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 
provisions 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 provisions, 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

[[Page 46613]]

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 
information, including risk estimation uncertainty, and includes a 
presumptive limit on maximum individual lifetime (cancer) risk (MIR) 
\1\ 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 or determine that the standards being 
reviewed provide an ample margin of safety without any revisions. 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 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 (DC Cir. 2008). 
Association of Battery Recyclers, Inc. v. EPA, 716 F.3d 667 (DC Cir. 
2013). The EPA may consider cost in deciding whether to revise the 
standards pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6).

B. What is this source category and how does the current NESHAP 
regulate its HAP emissions?

    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 ``manufacture of paints, coatings, and adhesives'' source category 
``is any facility engaged in their manufacture without regard to the 
particular end-uses or consumers of such products. The manufacturing of 
these products may occur in any combination at any facility.''
    The MCM source category includes the collection of equipment that 
is used to manufacture coatings at a facility. MCM operations also 
include cleaning operations. Coatings are materials such as paints, 
inks, or adhesive that are intended to be applied to a substrate and 
consist of a mixture of resins, pigments, solvents, and/or other 
additives, where the material is produced by a manufacturing operation 
where materials are blended, mixed, diluted, or otherwise formulated. 
Coatings do not include materials made in processes where a formulation 
component is synthesized by chemical reaction or separation activity 
and then transferred to another vessel where it is formulated to 
produce a material used as a coating, where the synthesized or 
separated component is not stored prior to formulation.
    The equipment controlled by the MCM NESHAP includes process 
vessels, storage tanks for feedstocks and products, equipment leak 
components (pumps, compressors, agitators, pressure relief devices 
(PRDs), sampling connection systems, open-ended valves or lines, 
valves, connectors, and instrumentation systems), wastewater tanks, 
heat exchangers, and transfer racks.
    The current NESHAP regulates process vessels and storage tanks 
based on the volume of the process vessel or storage tank and the 
maximum true vapor pressure of the organic HAP processed or stored. 
Control requirements range from the use of tightly fitted lids on 
process vessels to also capturing and reducing organic HAP emissions 
through the use of add-on controls (i.e., a flare, oxidizer, or 
condenser). For halogenated vent streams from process vessels and 
storage tanks, the use of a flare is prohibited, and a halogen 
reduction device (i.e., an acid gas scrubber) is required after a 
combustion control device. For storage tanks, facilities may comply 
with the provisions in 40 CFR part 63, subpart HHHHH, by complying with 
the provisions in 40 CFR part 63, subpart WW.
    The NESHAP regulates emissions from equipment leaks at existing 
sources by requiring compliance with leak inspection and repair 
provisions using sight, sound, and smell in 40 CFR part 63, subpart R, 
or alternatively, the leak detection and repair (LDAR) provisions in 40 
CFR part 63, subparts TT or UU. New sources are required to comply with 
the LDAR provisions in 40 CFR part 63, subparts TT or UU.
    The NESHAP regulates wastewater streams by requiring the use of 
fixed roofs on wastewater tanks, treating the wastewater (either on-
site or off-site) as a hazardous waste under 40 CFR 264, 265, or 266, 
or using enhanced biological treatment if the wastewater

[[Page 46614]]

contains less than 50 parts per million by weight (ppmw) of partially 
soluble HAP. If the wastewater is treated as a hazardous waste under 40 
CFR 264, 265, or 266, it may be treated by steam stripping or 
incineration. These standards apply only to wastewater streams that 
contain total partially soluble and soluble HAP at an annual average 
concentration greater than or equal to 4,000 ppmw and loads greater 
than or equal to 750 pounds per year (lb/yr) at an existing source or 
greater than or equal to 1,600 ppmw and any partially soluble and 
soluble HAP load at a new source.
    The NESHAP regulates transfer operations if the operation involves 
the bulk loading of coating products that contain 3.0 million gallons 
(gal) per year or more of HAP with a weighted average HAP partial 
pressure greater than or equal to 1.5 pounds per square inch, absolute 
(psia). Regulated transfer operations are required to reduce emissions 
by using a closed vent system and a control device (other than a flare) 
to reduce emissions by at least 75 percent; using a closed vent system 
and a flare for a non-halogenated vent stream; or using a vapor 
balancing system. If a non-flare combustion device is used to control a 
halogenated vent stream, then a halogen reduction device must be used 
either before or after the combustion device. If used after the 
combustion device, the halogen reduction device must meet either a 
minimum 95-percent reduction or a maximum 0.45 kilograms per hour (kg/
hr) emission rate of hydrogen halide or halogen. If used before the 
combustion device, the halogen reduction device must meet a maximum 
0.45 kg/hr emission rate of hydrogen halide or halogen.
    The NESHAP requires heat exchangers to meet the provisions of 
subpart F, 40 CFR 63.104. Section 63.104 requires the implementation of 
a LDAR or monitoring program for heat exchange systems, unless the 
system meets certain design and operation provisions, or it is a once-
through system that meets certain National Pollution Discharge 
Elimination System (NPDES) permit provisions.

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

    The EPA held discussions with the American Coatings Association and 
the American Chemistry Council. During these meetings, we obtained 
supplemental information about the emission inventory, emission 
processes, control technologies, and speciation profiles.

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

    The EPA used information from the Reasonably Available Control 
Technology, Best Available Control Technology, and Lowest Achievable 
Emission Rate Clearinghouse (RBLC) database, reviewed title V permits 
for each MCM facility, and reviewed NOCS reports. The EPA reviewed the 
RBLC to identify potential additional control technologies. No 
additional control technologies applicable to MCM were found in the 
RBLC. See sections III.B and IV.D of this preamble and the memorandum, 
``Technology Review for the Miscellaneous Coating Manufacturing Source 
Category,'' which is available in the docket for this action.
    Lastly, the EPA is incorporating into the docket for this 
rulemaking, all materials associated with the development of the 
current MCM standards from Docket ID No. A-96-04 and Docket ID No. EPA-
HQ-OAR-2003-0178. Publicly available docket materials are available 
either electronically at https://www.regulations.gov/, or in hard copy 
at the EPA Docket Center, EPA WJC West Building, Room 3334, 1301 
Constitution Ave. 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.

III. Analytical Procedures and Decision-Making

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

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.\2\ 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:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ 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 HAP 
exposure concentration to the noncancer dose-response value; 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 non-cancer 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

[[Page 46615]]

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. In other words, risks that include an MIR above 100-in-1 million 
may be determined to be acceptable, and risks with an MIR below that 
level may be determined to be unacceptable, depending on all of the 
available health information. Similarly, with regard to the ample 
margin of safety analysis, the EPA stated in the Benzene NESHAP that: 
``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 category under 
review, mobile source emissions, natural source emissions, persistent 
environmental pollution, or atmospheric transformation in the vicinity 
of the sources in the category.
    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.'' \3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Recommendations of the SAB Risk and Technology Review 
Methods 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In response to the SAB recommendations, the EPA incorporates 
cumulative risk analyses into its RTR risk assessments, including those 
reflected in this action. 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, we review a variety of data sources in our investigation of 
potential practices, processes, or controls to consider. See sections 
II.C and II. D of this preamble for information on the specific data 
sources that were reviewed as part of the technology review.

C. How do we estimate post-MACT risk posed by the source category?

    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

[[Page 46616]]

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 assessment. The docket for this rulemaking contains 
the following document which provides more information on the risk 
assessment inputs and models: Residual Risk Assessment for the 
Miscellaneous Coating Manufacturing Source Category in Support of the 
2019 Risk and Technology Review Proposed Rule. 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; \4\ and described in the SAB review 
report issued in 2010. They are also consistent with the key 
recommendations contained in that report.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. How did we estimate actual emissions and identify the emissions 
release characteristics?
    For each facility that we determined to be subject to the MACT 
standards (see section II.B of this preamble), we gathered emissions 
data from Version 1 of the 2014 National Emissions Inventory (NEI). For 
each NEI record, we reviewed the source classification code and 
emission unit and process descriptions, and then assigned the record to 
an emission source type regulated by the MACT standards (i.e., each 
record identified as part of the MCM affected source at each facility 
was labeled storage tank, waste water, process vessel, equipment leak, 
or unknown) or an emission source type not regulated by the MACT 
standards (i.e., each record that was not identified as part of the MCM 
affected source at each facility was labeled non-source category type). 
The non-source category type emissions sources are units or processes 
that are co-located at one or more of the MCM facilities but are not 
part of the MCM source category. For example, some of the MCM affected 
sources are co-located with organic chemical manufacturing operations 
that are part of a different source category (i.e., Miscellaneous 
Organic Chemical Manufacturing) which is regulated by a different 
NESHAP (40 CFR part 63, subpart FFFF).
    The EPA reviewed permits, contacted EPA Regional offices, and asked 
the American Coatings Association to review (and revise, if necessary) 
the NEI-based data described above, including emission values, emission 
release point parameters, coordinates, and emission process group 
assignments. We used all this information to reevaluate our emission 
process group assignments for each NEI record in the modeling file. We 
also used this information to update emission release point parameter 
data. In other words, we used the industry response data wherever 
possible (in lieu of the data we established using the NEI and gap fill 
procedures), unless the data failed certain quality assurance checks.
    For further details on the assumptions and methodologies used to 
estimate actual emissions and identify the emissions release 
characteristics, see Appendix 1 of Residual Risk Assessment for the 
Miscellaneous Coating Manufacturing Source Categories in Support of the 
2019 Risk and Technology Review Proposed Rule, in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2018-0747.
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 provisions 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 (HON) RTR (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 the risk assessment, we have determined that the actual 
emissions data are reasonable estimates of the MACT-allowable emissions 
levels for the MCM source category. In preparation of this RTR, we did 
not conduct an information collection of the equipment in this source 
category. Instead, we relied primarily upon the 2014 NEI emissions data 
and readily available title V permit information to characterize the 
actual emissions from the source category. In addition, the emission 
standards in 40 CFR part 63, subpart HHHH are generally equipment and 
work-practice requirements, rather than numerical emission limits. 
Therefore, we consider the use of 2014 NEI actual emissions as the best 
available reasonable approximation of allowable emissions for the risk 
assessment.
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 category addressed in this action were 
estimated using the Human Exposure Model (HEM-3).\5\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 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.\6\ 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,

[[Page 46617]]

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 United 
States and Puerto Rico. A second library of United States Census Bureau 
census block \7\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 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).
    \7\ 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 category. 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 maximum individual risk (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 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, 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 \8\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 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--an 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. In this proposed rulemaking, as part of our efforts 
to continually improve our methodologies to evaluate the risks that HAP 
emitted from categories of industrial sources pose to human health and 
the

[[Page 46618]]

environment,\9\ we are revising our treatment of meteorological data to 
use reasonable worst-case air dispersion conditions in our acute risk 
screening assessments instead of worst-case air dispersion conditions. 
This revised treatment of meteorological data and the supporting 
rationale are described in more detail in Residual Risk Assessment for 
Miscellaneous Coating Manufacturing Source Category in Support of the 
2019 Risk and Technology Review Proposed Rule and in Appendix 5 of the 
report: Technical Support Document for Acute Risk Screening Assessment. 
We will be applying this revision in RTR rulemakings proposed on or 
after June 3, 2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See, e.g., U.S. EPA. Screening Methodologies to Support Risk 
and Technology Reviews (RTR): A Case Study Analysis (Draft Report, 
May 2017. https://www3.epa.gov/ttn/atw/rrisk/rtrpg.html).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To assess the potential acute risk to the maximally exposed 
individual, we use the peak hourly emission rate for each emission 
point,\10\ reasonable worst-case air dispersion conditions (i.e., 99th 
percentile), and the point of highest off-site exposure. Specifically, 
we assume that peak emissions from the source category and reasonable 
worst-case air dispersion (i.e., 99th percentile) conditions co-occur 
and that a person is present at the point of maximum exposure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ In the absence of hourly emission data, we develop 
estimates of maximum hourly emission rates by multiplying the 
average actual annual emission rates by a factor (either a category-
specific factor or a default factor of 10) to account for 
variability. This is documented in Residual Risk Assessment for 
Miscellaneous Coating Manufacturing Source Category in Support of 
the 2019 Risk and Technology Review Proposed Rule and in Appendix 5 
of the report: Technical Support Document for Acute Risk Screening 
Assessment. Both are available in the docket for this rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 concentration 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.'' \11\ 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.\12\ They are 
guideline levels for ``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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 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.
    \12\ 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.'' \13\ 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 1 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 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 this source category, we used the default acute emissions 
multiplier of 10 to conservatively estimate maximum hourly rates.
    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, and no further analysis is performed for these HAP. In 
cases where an acute HQ from the screening step is greater than 1, we 
assess the site-specific data to ensure that the acute HQ is at an off-
site location. For this source category, the data refinements employed 
consisted of determining the off-site acute risks for each facility 
that had an initial HQ greater than 1. These refinements are discussed 
more fully in the Residual Risk Assessment for the Miscellaneous 
Coating Manufacturing Source Category in Support of the 2019 Risk and 
Technology Review Proposed Rule, which is available in the docket for 
this source category.

[[Page 46619]]

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 category emit any HAP known to be 
persistent and bioaccumulative in the environment, 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 MCM source category, we identified PB-HAP emissions of 
cadmium compounds, polycyclic organic matter (POM), arsenic compounds, 
mercury compounds, and lead compounds, so we proceeded to the next step 
of the evaluation. Except for lead, the human health risk screening 
assessment for PB-HAP consists of three progressive tiers. In a Tier 1 
screening assessment, we determine whether the magnitude of the 
facility-specific emissions of the PB-HAP warrants further evaluation 
to characterize human health risk through ingestion exposure. To 
facilitate this step, we evaluate emissions against 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 POM. Based on the EPA estimates of toxicity and 
bioaccumulation potential, these pollutants 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/2013-08/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. The Tier 2 screening assessment separates the Tier 1 
combine fisher and farmer exposure scenario into fisher, farmer, and 
gardener scenarios that retain upper-bound ingestion rates.
    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 and assume the fisher only consumes fish from 
lakes within that 50 km zone. 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 lakes database.
    In the Tier 2 farmer scenario, we maintain an assumption that the 
farm is located within 0.5 km of the facility and that the farmer 
consumes meat, eggs, dairy, vegetables, and fruit produced near the 
facility. We may further refine the Tier 2 screening analysis by 
assessing a gardener scenario to characterize a range of exposures, 
with the gardener scenario being more plausible in RTR evaluations. 
Under the gardener scenario, we assume the gardener consumes home-
produced eggs, vegetables, and fruit products at the same ingestion 
rate as the farmer. The Tier 2 screen continues to rely on the high-end 
food intake assumptions that were applied in Tier 1 for local fish 
(adult female angler at 99th percentile fish consumption \14\) and 
locally grown or raised foods (90th percentile consumption of locally 
grown or raised foods for the farmer and gardener scenarios \15\). If 
PB-HAP emission rates do not result in a Tier 2 screening value greater 
than 1, we consider those PB-HAP emissions to pose risks below a level 
of concern. If the PB-HAP emission rates for a facility exceed the Tier 
2 screening threshold emission rates, we may conduct a Tier 3 screening 
assessment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ Burger, J. 2002. Daily consumption of wild fish and game: 
Exposures of high end recreationists. International Journal of 
Environmental Health Research 12:343-354.
    \15\ U.S. EPA. Exposure Factors Handbook 2011 Edition (Final). 
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, EPA/600/R-09/
052F, 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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, locating 
residential/garden locations for urban and/or rural settings, 
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 (a time-series analysis). If necessary, 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 
Standard (NAAQS) for lead.\16\ Values below the level of the primary 
(health-based) lead NAAQS are considered to have a low potential for 
multipathway risk.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 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 Residual Risk Assessment for the Miscellaneous Coating 
Manufacturing Source Category in Support of the Risk and Technology 
Review 2019 Proposed

[[Page 46620]]

Rule, which is available in the 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-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 Residual Risk 
Assessment for the Miscellaneous Coating Manufacturing Source Category 
in Support of the Risk and Technology Review 2019 Proposed Rule, which 
is available in the docket for this action.
b. Environmental Risk Screening Methodology
    For the environmental risk screening assessment, the EPA first 
determined whether any facilities in the MCM source category emitted 
any of the environmental HAP. For the MCM source category, we 
identified emissions of the PB-HAP listed above, plus HCl. Because one 
or more of the environmental HAP evaluated are emitted by at least one 
facility in the source category, we proceeded to the second step of the 
evaluation.
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 of pollutant 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

[[Page 46621]]

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 
Residual Risk Assessment for the Miscellaneous Coating Manufacturing 
Source Category in Support of the Risk and Technology Review 2019 
Proposed Rule, which is available in the 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 this source category, 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. 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 category addressed in this action. 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 Residual Risk 
Assessment for the Miscellaneous Coating Manufacturing Source Category 
in Support of the Risk and Technology Review 2019 Proposed Rule, 
available through the docket for this action, provides 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 dataset, 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 Residual Risk Assessment for the 
Miscellaneous Coating Manufacturing Source Category in Support of the 
Risk and Technology Review 2019 Proposed Rule, which is available in 
the docket for this action. 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 Dataset
    Although the development of the RTR emissions dataset 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,

[[Page 46622]]

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, page 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.\17\ 
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.\18\ 
Chronic noncancer RfC and 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,\19\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ IRIS glossary (https://ofmpub.epa.gov/sor_internet/registry/termreg/searchandretrieve/glossariesandkeywordlists/search.do?details=&glossaryName=IRIS%20Glossary).
    \18\ 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.
    \19\ 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 emission rates, meteorology, and the presence of a 
person. In the acute screening assessment that we conduct under the RTR 
program, we assume that peak emissions from the source category and 
reasonable worst-case air dispersion conditions (i.e., 99th percentile) 
co-occur. We then include the additional assumption that a person is 
located at this point at the same time. Together, these assumptions 
represent a reasonable worst-case exposure scenario. In most cases, it 
is unlikely that a person would be located at the point of maximum 
exposure during the time when peak emissions and

[[Page 46623]]

reasonable worst-case air dispersion 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 hydrogen 
chloride). 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.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ 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 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 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 results of the risk assessment and analyses?

    As described above, for the MCM source category, we conducted an 
inhalation risk assessment for all HAP emitted, a multipathway 
screening assessment on the PB-HAP emitted, and an environmental risk 
screening assessment on the PB-HAP and acid gases emitted. We present 
results of the risk assessment briefly below and in more detail in the 
document titled Residual Risk Assessment for the Miscellaneous Coating 
Manufacturing Source Category in Support of the 2019 Risk and 
Technology Review Proposed Rule, which is available in the docket for 
this rulemaking.
1. Chronic Inhalation Risk Assessment Results
    Table 2 of this preamble provides a summary of the results of the 
inhalation risk assessment for the source category.

[[Page 46624]]



                                                   Table 2--MCM Inhalation Risk Assessment Results \5\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Maximum         Population at
                                                           individual cancer  increased risk of    Annual cancer     Maximum chronic   Maximum screening
                 Number of facilities \1\                      risk (in 1      cancer >= 1-in-1   incidence (cases   noncancer TOSHI    acute noncancer
                                                              million) \2\         million           per year)             \3\               HQ \4\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
43.......................................................                  6              3,700              0.002                0.4                  2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Number of facilities evaluated in the risk analysis.
\2\ Maximum individual excess lifetime cancer risk due to HAP emissions from the source category.
\3\ Maximum TOSHI. The target organ system with the highest TOSHI for the source category is respiratory.
\4\ The maximum estimated acute exposure concentration was divided by available short-term threshold values to develop an array of HQ values. HQ values
  shown use the lowest available acute threshold value, which in most cases is the REL. When an HQ exceeds 1, we also show the HQ using the next lowest
  available acute dose-response value. The HQ shown here is for glycol ethers, for which there are no other available acute dose-response values.
\5\ For this source category, it was determined that baseline allowable emissions are equal to baseline actual emissions and, therefore, the risk
  summaries are the same.

    The results of the inhalation risk modeling for both actuals and 
allowables, as shown in Table 2 of this preamble, indicate the 
estimated cancer MIR is 6-in-1 million, with chromium (VI) compounds 
from process vents as the major contributor to the risk. The total 
estimated cancer incidence from this source category is 0.002 excess 
cancer cases per year, or one excess case in every 500 years. 
Approximately 3,700 people are estimated to have cancer risks greater 
than or equal to 1-in-1 million from HAP emitted from the facilities in 
this source category. The estimated maximum chronic noncancer TOSHI for 
the source category is 0.4 (respiratory), driven by emissions of 
acrylic acid from process vents. No one is exposed to TOSHI levels 
greater than 1.
2. Screening-Level Acute Risk Assessment Results
    As shown in Table 2 above, the highest acute HQ based on the 
reasonable worst-case scenario is 2, based on the REL for glycol 
ethers. This is the highest HQ that is outside facility boundaries. One 
facility is estimated to have an HQ greater than 1 based on the REL, 
which is the only available benchmark for glycol ethers. Acute risk 
estimates for each facility and pollutant are provided in the risk 
assessment document, which is available in the docket for this 
rulemaking.
3. Multipathway Risk Screening Results
    Potential multipathway health risks under a fisher and farmer/
gardener scenario were identified using a three-tier screening 
assessment of the PB-HAP emitted by facilities in this source category. 
For carcinogenic PB-HAP, one facility emits arsenic compounds, while 
two facilities emit POM. None of these emissions exceed a Tier 1 cancer 
screening value for arsenic or POM. For noncarcinogenic PB-HAP, one 
facility emits cadmium compounds and one facility emits mercury 
compounds. None of these emissions exceed a Tier 1 noncancer screening 
value for cadmium or mercury. Further analyses (i.e., Tier 2 or 3 
screens) were not performed. For lead compounds, we did not estimate 
any exceedances of the lead NAAQS.
4. Environmental Risk Screening Results
    A screening-level evaluation of the potential adverse environmental 
risk associated with emissions of the PB-HAP listed above, plus acid 
gases (HCl is the only reported acid gas), indicated that no ecological 
benchmarks were exceeded. For lead compounds, we did not estimate any 
exceedances of the secondary lead NAAQS.
5. Facility-Wide Risk Results
    The results of the inhalation risk modeling using facility-wide 
emissions data indicate that the estimated MIR is 20-in-1 million with 
emissions of hydrazine from sources subject to other standards driving 
the risk. These include 40 CFR part 63 subpart FFFF (Miscellaneous 
Organic Chemicals Manufacturing NESHAP), H (Hazardous Organic NESHAP), 
and EEEE (Organic Liquids Distribution), which are not part of this 
source category. The total estimated cancer incidence is 0.006 excess 
cancer cases per year. Approximately 50,100 people are estimated to 
have cancer risks greater than or equal to 1-in-1 million. The 
estimated maximum chronic noncancer TOSHI is 2 (for the neurological 
target organ), driven by emissions of hydrogen cyanide from non-source 
category emissions from carbon fiber production. Approximately 80 
people are estimated to be exposed to noncancer HI levels greater than 
1.
6. 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 MCM source category 
across different demographic groups within the populations living near 
facilities.
    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--MCM Demographic Risk Analysis Results
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                             Population with
                                                                            cancer risk at or   Population with
                                                             Nationwide        above 1-in-1     chronic HI above
                                                                              million due to      1 due to MCM
                                                                                   MCM
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Population.......................................        371,746,049              3,665                  0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 46625]]

 
                                          White and Minority by Percent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
White..................................................                 62                 64                  0
Minority...............................................                 38                 36                  0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                               Minority by Percent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
African American.......................................                 12                 32                  0
Native American........................................                0.8               0.05                  0
Hispanic or Latino (includes White and nonwhite).......                 18                  2                  0
Other and Multiracial..................................                  7                  2                  0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                Income by Percent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Below Poverty Level....................................                 14                 29                  0
Above Poverty Level....................................                 86                 71                  0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              Education by Percent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Over 25 and without High School Diploma................                 14                 19                  0
Over 25 and with a High School Diploma.................                 86                 81                  0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       Linguistically Isolated by Percent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Linguistically Isolated................................                  6                  1                  0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The results of the MCM source category demographic analysis 
indicate that emissions from the source category expose approximately 
3,700 people to a cancer risk at or above 1-in-1 million and zero 
people to a chronic noncancer TOSHI greater than 1. The percentages of 
the at-risk population in each demographic group (except for African 
American, Below Poverty Level, Hispanic or Latino, and Above Poverty 
Level) are similar to (within 5 percent of) their respective nationwide 
percentages. The African American and Below Poverty Level demographic 
groups are greater than their respective nationwide percentages, while 
the Hispanic or Latino (includes White and nonwhite) and Above Poverty 
Level are lower 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 Miscellaneous 
Coating Manufacturing Facilities, available in the docket for this 
action.

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

1. Risk Acceptability
    As noted in section II.A of this preamble, the EPA sets standards 
under CAA section 112(f)(2) using a ``two-step standard-setting 
approach, with an analytical first step to determine an `acceptable 
risk' that considers all health information, including risk estimation 
uncertainty, and includes a presumptive limit on MIR of approximately 
1-in-10 thousand.'' (54 FR 38045, September 14, 1989.) In this 
proposal, the EPA estimated risks based on actual and allowable 
emissions from MCM sources, and we considered these in determining 
acceptability. The estimated inhalation cancer risk to the individual 
most exposed to actual emissions from the source category is 6-in-1 
million. The estimated cancer incidence due to inhalation exposures is 
0.002 excess cancer cases per year, or one excess case every 500 years. 
Approximately 3,700 people face an increased cancer risk greater than 
1-in-1 million due to inhalation exposures to HAP emissions from this 
source category. The estimated maximum chronic noncancer TOSHI from 
inhalation exposure for this source category is 0.4. Risks for 
allowable emissions are the same since it was determined that allowable 
emissions are equal to actual emissions for this source category. The 
screening assessment of worst-case acute inhalation impacts indicates 
one facility with an estimated HQ of 2, based on the REL for glycol 
ethers.
    Potential multipathway human health risks were estimated using a 
three-tier screening assessment of the PB-HAP emitted by facilities in 
this source category, where there were no exceedances of Tier 1 
screening values for any PB-HAP emitted and, for lead compounds, no 
exceedances of the lead NAAQS.
    In determining whether risks are acceptable for this source 
category, the EPA considered all available health information and risk 
estimation uncertainty as described above. The risk results indicate 
that the inhalation cancer risks to the individual most exposed are far 
less than 100-in-1 million, which is the presumptive limit of 
acceptability (see, for example, 54 FR 38045, September 14, 1989). 
There are no facilities or people exposed at this risk level for either 
actual or allowable emissions. Also, there are no facilities with an 
estimated maximum chronic noncancer TOSHI greater than 1. There is one 
facility with an acute HQ value of 2 based on the REL for glycol 
ethers; however, given the conservative nature of the acute screening 
assessment, it is unlikely there are acute impacts from HAP emissions 
from this category. In addition, there are no exceedances of Tier 1 
screening values in the multipathway assessment, nor exceedances of the 
lead NAAQS. Considering all of the health risk information and factors 
discussed above, including the uncertainties discussed in section III 
of this preamble,

[[Page 46626]]

the EPA proposes that the risks from the MCM source category are 
acceptable.
2. Ample Margin of Safety Analysis
    We next considered whether the existing MACT standards provide an 
ample margin of safety to protect public health. In addition to 
considering all the health risks and other health information 
considered in the risk acceptability determination, in the ample margin 
of safety analysis we evaluated the cost and feasibility of available 
control technologies and other measures (including the controls, 
measures, and costs reviewed under the technology review) that could be 
applied to the source category to further reduce the risks due to 
emissions of HAP. As noted in our discussion of the technology review 
in section IV.C of this preamble, we identified two developments in 
practices, processes, or control technologies for reducing HAP 
emissions from process vessels in the MCM source category. As part of 
the risk review, we evaluated these developments to determine whether 
they could reduce risks and whether it is necessary to require these 
developments to provide an ample margin of safety to protect public 
health.
    Since the baseline risks are being driven by inorganic HAP from 
process vessels, we evaluated a control option for inorganic HAP 
emissions from process vessels located at MCM facilities and considered 
the resulting health information. The control option that we evaluated 
for inorganic HAP would be similar to those included in 40 CFR part 63, 
subpart CCCCCCC, the NESHAP for Area Sources for Paints and Allied 
Products Manufacturing. Additionally, we evaluated increasing the 
control efficiency requirements for organic HAP emissions from process 
vessels. The process vessel options did not result in a decrease to the 
MIR or to the maximum chronic noncancer TOSHI because the MIR facility 
already had controls in place. However, there was a reduction seen in 
the population exposed to a cancer risk of 1-in-1 million from 3,700 to 
1,900 due to emissions reductions at other facilities. As described in 
section IV.C of this preamble though, we determined that these options 
are not cost effective. Overall, the available options could result in 
small reductions in population risk, but we did not identify any cost-
effective options for reducing HAP emissions from the source category.
    Considering all of the health information presented above, along 
with the available information regarding the cost of the available 
options, we propose that the existing standards provide an ample margin 
of safety to protect public health. We are requesting comment on 
whether there are other control measures for emission sources in this 
category that are necessary to provide an ample margin of safety to 
protect public health. In particular, we are requesting that states 
identify any controls they have already required for these facilities, 
controls they are currently considering, or any other controls of which 
they are aware that are being used to control HAP from these sources.
4. Adverse Environmental Effect
    Based on the results of the environmental risk screening 
assessment, we are proposing that HAP emissions from the MCM source 
category do not present an adverse environmental effect. Thus, we are 
proposing that it is not necessary to set a more stringent standard to 
prevent, taking into consideration costs, safety, and other relevant 
factors, an adverse environmental effect.

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

    Sources of HAP emissions regulated by the MCM NESHAP are process 
vessels, storage tanks, transfer racks, equipment leaks, wastewater 
streams, and heat exchange systems. MCM processes occur as batch 
operations, which involve intermittent or discontinuous feed of raw 
materials into equipment, and generally involve emptying of the 
equipment after the operation ceases and prior to beginning a new 
operation. To inform our technology reviews for these emission sources, 
we reviewed the EPA's RBLC and regulatory development efforts for 
similar sources published after the MCM NESHAP was developed. We then 
evaluated the impacts of requiring additional controls identified in 
the technology review for the MCM source category, as described below.
1. Process Vessels
    Process vessels regulated by the MCM NESHAP are defined as any 
stationary or portable tank or other vessel with a capacity greater 
than or equal to 250 gal and in which mixing, blending, diluting, 
dissolving, temporary holding, and other processing steps occur in the 
manufacturing of a coating. Process vessels used in MCM generate 
gaseous streams containing HAP when HAP-containing materials are 
present in the vessel and more material is added displacing solvent-
laden air from inside the vessel, and during product mixing as the HAP-
containing contents are agitated.
    At existing sources, the HAP emissions from portable vessels must 
be controlled by fitting the vessels with lids that are kept closed at 
all times when the vessel contains a HAP, except for material additions 
and sampling. The HAP emissions from stationary vessels must be 
controlled by fitting the vessels with lids that are kept closed at all 
times when the vessel contains a HAP, except for material additions and 
sampling, and by capturing all emissions and routing the captured 
emissions to a control device. Organic HAP with a vapor pressure equal 
to or greater than 0.6 kilopascals (kPa) must be reduced by at least 75 
percent by weight, and organic HAP with a vapor pressure less than 0.6 
kPa must be reduced by at least 60 percent.
    At new sources, the HAP emissions from portable and stationary 
process vessels must be controlled by fitting the vessels with lids 
that are kept closed at all times when the vessel contains a HAP, 
except for material additions and sampling. The emissions from both 
portable and stationary process vessels must be captured and the 
captured emissions reduced by at least 95 percent, as total organic 
HAP, using a control device other than a flare, reduced by venting non-
halogenated vent streams to a flare, or vented to a condenser. If a 
condenser is used, the condenser must achieve a specified outlet gas 
temperature depending on the partial pressure of the HAP contained in 
the vessel. If a combustion device is used to control a halogenated 
vent stream, then a halogen reduction device (e.g., a scrubber) must be 
used to reduce hydrogen halide and halogen HAP by at least 95 percent; 
or reduce overall emissions of hydrogen halide and halogen HAP to no 
more than 0.45 kg/hr.
    We evaluated two options that could be potentially considered 
technology developments under CAA section 112(d)(6). In the first 
option, we considered increasing the control efficiency requirement for 
process vessels at existing sources to match the control requirement 
for new sources, which would increase the control efficiency for 
organic HAP with a vapor pressure equal to or greater than 0.6 kPa from 
75 percent to 95 percent. We consider this option to be a new 
development because several facilities have controlled all process 
vessels with thermal oxidizers to comply with the NESHAP.
    We estimated the costs of installing a thermal oxidizer on the six 
plants in the MCM source category that currently do not have a thermal 
oxidizer installed on process vessels. We did not estimate

[[Page 46627]]

costs for catalytic oxidizers because thermal oxidizers are cheaper 
than catalytic oxidizers. The costs were estimated using the EPA Air 
Pollution Control Cost Manual cost spreadsheet for thermal oxidizers 
\21\ and the process vent flow rate from NEI or the facility operating 
permit. The estimated cost effectiveness for these facilities ranged 
from $20,000 per ton HAP removed to $150,000 per ton HAP removed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ https://www.epa.gov/economic-and-cost-analysis-air-pollution-regulations/cost-reports-and-guidance-air-pollution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The second option that we considered was to require controls to 
limit particulate matter (PM) HAP emissions from process vessels in 
which dry materials (e.g., pigments) containing inorganic HAP are added 
to the process vessel. We considered provisions that would be similar 
to those included in 40 CFR part 63, subpart CCCCCCC, the NESHAP for 
Area Sources for Paints and Allied Products Manufacturing. This option 
would reflect the fact that several facilities subject to 40 CFR part 
63, subpart HHHHH have process vessels controlled with fabric filters 
when dry materials are being added.
    We estimated costs for both a fabric filter baghouse and a 
cartridge filter type of particulate control with a flow rate of 1,000 
cubic feet per minute, plus 150 feet of flexible duct to capture the 
fugitive PM when dry matter is being added to the mixing vessel. The 
estimated cost effectiveness for this option ranged from $310,000 to 
$2,100,000 per ton of particulate HAP reduced. We also evaluated 
whether pigments could be added in a wetted or paste form, but not all 
pigments are available or can be used in wetted or paste form.
    The EPA did not find the control technology development options 
considered for process vessels in this technology review to be cost 
effective, or, in some cases, technologically feasible. Consequently, 
the EPA proposes that it is not necessary to amend the standards for 
process vessels under the technology review. Further explanation of the 
assumptions and methodologies for all options evaluated are provided in 
the memorandum, Clean Air Act Section 112(d)(6) Technology Review for 
the Miscellaneous Coatings Manufacturing Source Category, available in 
the docket to this action.
2. Storage Tanks
    Storage tanks hold the liquid raw materials used in the coating 
manufacturing process. Emissions occur from storage tanks through the 
displacement of vapor-laden air as the tank is being filled (working 
losses) and also due to changes in temperature that cause the vapor-
laden air in the head space of the tank to expand (breathing losses).
    Emissions from vertical tanks can be controlled by installing a 
floating roof inside the tank. By floating on the surface of the 
liquid, this roof design eliminates head space above the surface of the 
liquid and, therefore, minimizes the evaporation of organic vapors 
inside the tank. An internal floating roof (IFR) tank has a second 
fixed roof over the floating roof. An external floating roof (EFR) tank 
has no fixed roof over the floating roof and is exposed to the 
elements.
    Emissions from horizontal tanks can be controlled with a closed 
vent system that captures the emissions and delivers them to either a 
recovery device or a destruction device. Control devices within the MCM 
source category include carbon adsorbers and combustion devices. 
Alternatively, a vapor balancing system can be used to eliminate 
working loss emissions. In vapor balancing, the displaced vapors from 
the receiving tank are piped back into the storage vessel from which 
the liquid product is delivered.
    No facility in the MCM source category during the original MACT 
development reported using IFRs, EFRs, or vapor balancing to reduce HAP 
emissions from any storage tank.
    The MCM NESHAP regulates two classes of storage tanks. Group 1a 
storage tanks are storage tanks at existing sources with capacities 
greater than or equal to 20,000 gal storing material that has a maximum 
true vapor pressure of total organic HAP greater than or equal to 1.9 
psia. Group 1a storage tanks also include storage tanks at new sources 
with capacities greater than or equal to 25,000 gal storing materials 
with a maximum true vapor pressure of total HAP greater than or equal 
to 0.1 psia, as well as storage tanks with capacities greater than or 
equal to 20,000 gal and less than 25,000 gal storing materials with a 
maximum true vapor pressure of total HAP greater than or equal to 1.5 
psia.
    Group 1b storage tanks are storage tanks at new sources with 
capacities greater than or equal to 10,000 gal, storing materials that 
have a maximum true vapor pressure of total organic HAP greater than or 
equal to 0.02 psia, and are not Group 1a storage tanks.
    Emissions from Group 1a storage tanks must be controlled by 
complying with the provisions of 40 CFR part 63, subpart WW (NESHAP for 
Storage Vessels (Tanks)--Control Level 2), which is based on the use of 
an IFR or an EFR; by reducing total organic HAP emissions by at least 
90 percent by weight by venting emissions through a closed-vent system 
to a control device (excluding a flare); or by reducing total organic 
HAP emissions from the storage tank by venting emissions from a non-
halogenated vent stream through a closed-vent system to a flare.
    The EPA did not identify in our technology review any developments 
in practices, processes, and control technologies for storage tanks 
that were not already considered in the development of the original 
MACT. Because there were no improvements in the technologies considered 
under MACT, the EPA proposes that it is not necessary to amend the 
standards for storage tanks under the technology review. Further 
explanation of the assumptions and methodologies for all options 
evaluated are provided in the memorandum, Clean Air Act Section 
112(d)(6) Technology Review for the Miscellaneous Coatings 
Manufacturing Source Category, available in the docket to this action.
3. Transfer Operations
    Transfer operations involve the bulk loading of coating products 
into either tanker trucks or tanker rail cars. Transfer operations do 
not involve the filling of cans, pails, drums, or totes. Most coating 
manufacturing facilities perform only the filling of cans, pails, 
drums, or totes with coating products and do not perform transfer 
operations to tanker trucks or rail cars. A few coating manufacturers 
perform transfer operations because they provide coatings to 
facilities, such as coil coating and metal can coating facilities, that 
use large quantities of certain coatings and store those coatings in 
large stationary storage tanks.
    Emissions during transfer operations are generated by the 
displacement of the solvent vapor-laden air in the receiving tanker 
truck or rail car as the tank is filled. The extent of the HAP 
emissions will depend on the HAP content of the material being loaded 
(i.e., weight percent HAP), the volatility of the HAP in the material 
being loaded, and the total volume of coating being loaded. The MCM 
NESHAP regulates the bulk loading of coating products if the coatings 
contain 3.0 million gal or more per year of HAP with a weighted average 
HAP partial pressure greater than or equal to 1.5 psia. The MCM NESHAP 
requires the HAP emissions to be controlled by either venting the 
emissions through a closed-vent system to any combination of control 
devices (except a flare) and reducing emissions

[[Page 46628]]

by at least 75 percent, by venting the emissions from a non-halogenated 
vent stream through a closed-vent system to a flare, or by using a 
vapor balancing system to collect displaced organic HAP vapors and 
route the vapors to the storage tank from which the liquid being loaded 
originated or to another storage tank connected by a common header.
    The EPA did not identify in our technology review any developments 
in practices, processes, and control technologies for bulk loading of 
coating products that were not already considered in the development of 
the original MACT. Because there were no improvements in the 
technologies considered under MACT, the EPA proposes that it is not 
necessary to amend the standards for transfer operations under the 
technology review. Further explanation of the assumptions and 
methodologies for all options evaluated are provided in the memorandum, 
Clean Air Act Section 112(d)(6) Technology Review for the Miscellaneous 
Coatings Manufacturing Source Category, available in the docket to this 
action.
4. Equipment Leaks
    In the MCM source category, organic HAP vapors can escape from 
leaks in connectors, valves, and pumps in liquid piping systems due to 
mechanical defects in those items. MCM facilities use piping systems to 
move liquid raw materials from storage tanks to process vessels and 
then from process vessels to filling operations or bulk transfer 
operations.
    Emissions can be minimized through periodic monitoring of the 
connectors, valves, and pumps to check for leaks and the timely repair 
of equipment that is found to be leaking. Leak detection can be through 
sensory monitoring using sight, sound, and smell to detect leaks, or 
leak detection can be through the use of a monitoring instrument (EPA 
Method 21) that measures the concentration of organic vapors in parts 
per million by volume (ppmv) in the air near each of the connectors, 
valves, and pumps. Different NESHAP that specify the use of instrument 
monitoring may define a different threshold vapor concentration that 
constitutes a leak that triggers the need for repair.
    The MCM NESHAP requires existing sources to comply with the 
equipment leaks provisions in 40 CFR part 63, subpart R, NESHAP for 
Gasoline Distribution Facilities (Bulk Gasoline Terminals and Pipeline 
Breakout Stations); subpart TT, NESHAP for Equipment Leaks, Control 
Level 1; or subpart UU, NESHAP for Equipment Leaks, Control Level 2. 
New sources must comply with the provisions of subparts UU or TT. 
Subpart R requires monthly inspections for equipment leaks using sight, 
sound, or smell. Subpart TT requires the use of instrument monitoring 
and defines leaks as instrument readings of 10,000 ppmv for valves, 
pumps, and connectors. Subpart UU also requires the use of instrument 
monitoring and defines leaks as instrument readings of 500 ppmv for 
valves, 1,000 ppmv for pumps, and 500 ppmv for connectors.
    Based on developments in other similar source categories, we 
identified as a technology alternative to the current standard a more 
stringent provision for existing sources that would eliminate sensory 
monitoring and require instrument monitoring with lower leak 
definitions than specified in 40 CFR part 63, subpart TT. For this 
alternative, we estimated the incremental emission reductions and cost 
effectiveness of employing instrument monitoring (EPA Method 21) with 
an equipment leak defined as instrument readings of 500 ppmv for 
valves, 2,000 ppmv for pumps, and 500 ppmv for connectors. We estimated 
the costs of requiring instrument monitoring with more stringent leak 
definitions for four model plants with 25, 50, 100, or 200 process 
vessels. The estimated cost effectiveness for these model plants ranged 
from $107,000 per ton HAP removed to $22,000 per ton HAP removed for 
the smallest to largest model plant, and these values are higher than 
organic HAP cost-effectiveness values that we historically have 
considered cost effective.
    The EPA does not find the leak detection instrument monitoring 
option that was evaluated to be cost effective. Consequently, the EPA 
proposes that it is not necessary to amend the standards for equipment 
leaks under the technology review. Further explanation of the 
assumptions and methodologies for all options evaluated are provided in 
the memorandum, Clean Air Act Section 112(d)(6) Technology Review for 
the Miscellaneous Coatings Manufacturing Source Category, available in 
the docket to this action.
5. Wastewater Streams
    Wastewater that comes in contact with organic HAP-containing 
materials may be a source of organic HAP emissions as the organic HAP 
evaporates from the wastewater. In coatings manufacturing, wastewater 
containing organic HAP may be generated from the cleaning of process 
vessels and other equipment between batches of different coatings.
    Emissions can be controlled from wastewater by collecting and 
moving the wastewater in enclosed pipes and then treating the 
wastewater to remove the organic HAP. Wastewater containing organic HAP 
can be collected and treated as hazardous waste in which case it is 
usually incinerated. It can also be treated by using steam to 
volatilize the organic HAP and separate it from the wastewater. 
Finally, if the organic HAP concentration is low enough, it can be 
treated through enhanced biological treatment in which microorganisms 
oxidize the organic HAP.
    The MCM NESHAP regulates wastewater streams that contain total 
partially soluble and soluble HAP at an annual average concentration 
greater than or equal to 4,000 ppmw and load greater than or equal to 
750 lb/yr at existing sources, or that contain greater than or equal to 
1,600 ppmw and any partially soluble and soluble HAP load at new 
sources. Wastewater tanks used to store regulated wastewater streams 
must have a fixed roof, which may have openings necessary for proper 
venting of the tank, such as a pressure/vacuum vent or j-pipe vent. 
Regulated wastewater streams must be conveyed using hard piping and 
treated as a hazardous waste in accordance with 40 CFR part 264, 265, 
or 266 either onsite or offsite. Alternatively, if the wastewater 
contains less than 50 ppmw of partially soluble HAP, it may be treated 
in an enhanced biological treatment system that is located either 
onsite or offsite.
    Because our technology review identified no developments in 
practices, processes, or controls for reducing wastewater emissions at 
MCM facilities, we evaluated developments in other industries with 
wastewater streams that contain organic HAP. We reviewed three options 
that were considered in other industry technology reviews for their 
applicability to the MCM wastewater streams. These options were:
    (1) Requiring wastewater drain and tank controls at facilities with 
a total annual benzene quantity of less than 10 megagrams per year (Mg/
yr).
    (2) Requiring specific performance parameters (minimum fraction 
biodegraded, fbio) for an enhanced biological unit beyond those 
required in the Benzene NESHAP.
    (3) Requiring wastewater streams with a volatile organic compound 
(VOC) content of 750 ppmw or higher to be treated by steam stripping 
prior to any other treatment process for facilities with high organic 
loading rates (i.e., facilities with total annualized benzene quantity 
of 10 Mg/yr or more).

[[Page 46629]]

    The EPA did not find any of the three wastewater stream control 
options evaluated to be cost effective. Consequently, the EPA proposes 
that it is not necessary to amend the standards for wastewater streams 
under the technology review. Further explanation of the assumptions and 
methodologies for all options evaluated are provided in the memorandum, 
Clean Air Act Section 112(d)(6) Technology Review for the Miscellaneous 
Coatings Manufacturing Source Category, available in the docket to this 
action.
6. Heat Exchange Systems
    Heat exchangers are devices or collections of devices used to 
transfer heat from process fluids to another fluid (typically air or 
water) without intentional direct contact of the process fluid with the 
cooling fluid (i.e., non-contact heat exchangers).
    At times, the heat exchanger's internal tubing material can corrode 
or crack, allowing some process fluids to mix or become entrained with 
the cooling water. Pollutants in the process fluids may subsequently be 
released from the cooling water into the atmosphere when the water is 
exposed to air (e.g., in a cooling tower for closed-loop systems or at 
trenches/ponds in a once-through system).
    The MCM NESHAP regulates heat exchangers by requiring them to meet 
the provisions in 40 CFR part 63, subpart F, NESHAP for the Synthetic 
Organic Chemical Manufacturing Industry. Specifically, under 40 CFR 
63.104, facilities are required to monitor the cooling water in the 
heat exchange system on a periodic basis to detect and repair leaks, 
unless certain design and operating requirements are met. Those other 
requirements include operating the system such that the cooling water 
is at a higher pressure than the process fluid, using an intervening 
cooling fluid between the water and process fluid and ensuring the 
intervening fluid is not discharged, using a once-through heat exchange 
system that is subject to a NPDES permit, or only using the heat 
exchange system to cool process fluids that meet low-HAP content 
criteria.
    The EPA did not identify in our technology review any developments 
in practices, processes, and control technologies for heat exchange 
systems that were not already considered in the development of the 
original MACT. Because there were no improvements in the technologies 
considered under MACT, the EPA proposes that it is not necessary to 
amend the standards for heat exchange systems under the technology 
review. Further explanation of the assumptions and methodologies for 
all options evaluated are provided in the memorandum, Clean Air Act 
Section 112(d)(6) Technology Review for the Miscellaneous Coatings 
Manufacturing Source Category, available in the docket to this action.

D. What other actions are we proposing?

    In addition to the proposed decisions described above, we are 
proposing additional revisions to the NESHAP. We are proposing 
revisions to the SSM provisions of 40 CFR part 63, subpart HHHHH to be 
consistent with the Court decision in Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F. 3d 
1019 (D.C. Cir. 2008), which vacated rule provisions that exempt 
sources from the provision to comply with otherwise applicable NESHAP 
during periods of SSM. We also are proposing to require electronic 
submittal of notifications, semi-annual reports and compliance reports 
(which include performance test reports). We are proposing to require 
periodic performance testing of oxidizers used to demonstrate 
compliance. We are proposing technical and editorial revisions and 
corrections.
1. SSM Provisions
    In its 2008 decision in Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F.3d 1019 (D.C. 
Cir. 2008), the Court vacated portions of two provisions in the EPA's 
CAA section 112 regulations governing the emissions of HAP during 
periods of SSM. Specifically, the Court vacated the SSM exemption 
contained in 40 CFR 63.6(f)(1) and 40 CFR 63.6(h)(1), holding that 
under section 302(k) of the CAA, emissions standards or limitations 
must be continuous in nature and that the SSM exemption violates the 
CAA's requirement that some section 112 standards apply continuously.
    We are proposing the elimination of the SSM exemption in this rule 
which appears at 40 CFR 63.8000(a). Consistent with Sierra Club v. EPA, 
we are proposing standards in this rule that apply at all times. We are 
also proposing several revisions to Table 10 (the General Provisions 
Applicability Table) as explained in more detail below. For example, we 
are proposing to eliminate the incorporation of the General Provisions' 
requirement that the source develop an SSM plan. We also are proposing 
to eliminate and revise certain recordkeeping and reporting 
requirements related to the SSM exemption as further described below.
    The EPA has attempted to ensure that the provisions we are 
proposing to eliminate are inappropriate, unnecessary, or redundant in 
the absence of the SSM exemption. We are specifically seeking comment 
on whether we have successfully done so.
    In addition, as explained in more detail in section IV.D.1.i., 
below, we are proposing language in 40 CFR 63.8005(h) to clarify that 
any periods during which a control device is bypassed be included in 
demonstrating compliance with the emission reduction provisions for 
process vessels in Table 1 to 40 CFR part 63, subpart HHHHH. As 
currently specified in 40 CFR 63.8005, 63.8010, and 63.8020, you must 
establish operating limits for process vessels and storage tanks 
controlled by closed vent systems and add-on controls, and for 
wastewater streams controlled by enhanced biological treatment units. 
This generally means that during startup and shutdown periods, in order 
for a facility using add-on controls to meet the emissions and 
operating standards, the add-on control device needs to be turned on 
and operating at specified levels when the facility begins coating 
manufacturing operations, and the control equipment needs to continue 
to be operated until the facility ceases coating manufacturing 
operations. In some cases, the facility would need to run thermal 
oxidizers on supplemental fuel whenever there is insufficient 
concentrations of VOC for the combustion to be self-sustaining. The 
proposed language in 40 CFR 63.8000(a) requires that the owner or 
operator operate and maintain the coating manufacturing operations, 
including pollution control equipment, at all times to minimize 
emissions, except as explained in more detail in section IV.D.1.i 
below, to account for bypass periods of the controls for process 
vessels as proposed in 40 CFR 63.8005(h).
    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 (D.C. Cir. 2016). Under CAA section 112, 
emissions standards for new sources must be no less stringent than the 
level ``achieved'' by the best controlled similar source and for 
existing sources generally must be no

[[Page 46630]]

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.
    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.
    Although no statutory language compels the EPA to set standards for 
malfunctions, the EPA has the discretion to do so where feasible. For 
example, in the Petroleum Refinery Sector RTR, the EPA established a 
work practice standard for unique types of malfunctions that result in 
releases from PRDs or emergency flaring events because the EPA had 
information to determine that such work practices reflected the level 
of control that applies to the best performers. 80 FR 75178, 75211-14 
(December 1, 2015). The EPA will consider whether circumstances warrant 
setting standards for a particular type of malfunction and, if so, 
whether the EPA has sufficient information to identify the relevant 
best performing sources and establish a standard for such malfunctions. 
In this proposal at 40 CFR 63.8005(h), we provide a method to account 
for control device bypass periods including periods of SSM, in 
evaluating compliance with the overall control efficiency requirements 
for process vessels in Table 1, as is discussed further. We encourage 
commenters to provide any such information. Finally, 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 would determine 
an appropriate response based on, among other things, the good faith 
efforts of the source to minimize emissions during malfunction periods, 
including preventative and corrective actions, as well as root cause 
analyses to ascertain and rectify excess emissions.
    The specific changes that we propose to comport the rule with the 
Sierra Club decision on SSM are listed in paragraphs a through i below:
a. 40 CFR 63.8000 General Duty
    We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table (Table 10) 
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 
63.8000(a) 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 
63.8000(a) does not include that language from 40 CFR 63.6(e)(1).
    We are also proposing to revise the General Provisions table (Table 
10) 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 provision being added at 40 CFR 63.8000(a).
b. SSM Plan
    We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table (Table 10) 
entry for 40 CFR 63.6(e)(3) by consolidating the entries for 
subparagraphs (i) to (ix) under a single entry for 40 CFR 63.6(e)(3) 
and 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 provisions related to the SSM plan. As 
noted, the EPA is proposing to remove the SSM exemptions. Therefore, 
affected units will be subject to an emission standard during such 
events. The applicability of a standard during such events will ensure 
that sources have ample incentive to plan for and achieve compliance 
and, thus, the SSM plan provisions are no longer necessary.
c. Compliance With Standards
    We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table (Table 10) 
entry for 40 CFR 63.6(f)(1) by changing the ``yes'' in column 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 the Sierra Club decision vacated the exemptions contained in 
this provision and held that the CAA requires that some section 112 
standards apply continuously. Consistent with Sierra Club, the EPA is 
proposing to revise standards in this rule to apply at all times.
    We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table (Table 10) 
entry for 40 CFR 63.6(h)(1) by changing the ``yes'' in column 3 to a 
``no.'' The current language of 40 CFR 63.6(h)(1) exempts sources from 
opacity standards during periods of SSM. As discussed above, the Court 
in Sierra Club vacated the exemptions contained in this provision and 
held that the CAA

[[Page 46631]]

requires that some section 112 standard apply continuously. Consistent 
with the Sierra Club decision, the EPA is proposing to revise standards 
in this rule to apply at all times.
d. 40 CFR 63.8005(d) Performance Testing
    We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table (Table 10) 
entry for 40 CFR 63.7(e)(1) by changing the ``yes'' in column 3 to a 
``no.'' Section 63.7(e)(1) describes performance testing provisions. 
The EPA is instead proposing to add performance testing provisions at 
40 CFR 63.8005(d)(5). The performance testing provisions 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 exclude periods of startup 
or shutdown as representative conditions for conducting performance 
testing. As in 40 CFR 63.7(e)(1), performance tests conducted under 
this subpart should not be conducted during malfunctions because 
conditions during malfunctions are often not representative of normal 
operating conditions. The EPA is proposing to add language that 
requires owners or operators to record the process information that is 
necessary to document operating conditions during tests and include in 
such record explanations to support that such conditions represent 
normal operation. Section 63.7(e) requires that owners or operators 
make available to the Administrator upon request such records ``as may 
be necessary to determine the condition of the performance test,'' but 
does not specifically require the information to be recorded. The 
regulatory text the EPA is proposing to add clarifies the necessary 
information and makes explicit the provision to record the information.
e. Monitoring
    We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table (Table 10) 
entry for 40 CFR 63.8 (c)(1)(i) and (iii) by changing the ``yes'' in 
column 3 to a ``no'' for both entries. The cross-references to the 
general duty and SSM plan provisions in those subparagraphs are not 
necessary in light of other provisions of 40 CFR 63.8 that require good 
air pollution control practices (40 CFR 63.8(c)(1)) and that set out 
the provisions of a quality control program for monitoring equipment 
(40 CFR 63.8(d)).
    We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table (Table 10) 
entry for 40 CFR 63.8(d) by creating a separate entry for 40 CFR 
63.8(d)(3) and by indicating ``no'' in column 3. The final sentence in 
40 CFR 63.8(d)(3) refers to the General Provisions' SSM plan provision 
which is no longer applicable. We are proposing to add to the rule at 
40 CFR 63.8000(d)(8) text that is identical to 40 CFR 63.8(d)(3) except 
that the final sentence is replaced with the following sentence: ``The 
program of corrective action should be included in the plan required 
under Sec.  63.8(d)(2).''
f. 40 CFR 63.8080 Recordkeeping
    We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table (Table 10) 
entries for 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2) by creating a single row for 40 CFR 
63.10(b)(2)(i) and (ii) and indicating a ``no'' in column 3. Section 
63.10(b)(2)(i) describes the recordkeeping provisions during startup 
and shutdown. Section 63.10(b)(2)(ii) describes the recordkeeping 
provisions during a malfunction. These recordkeeping provisions are no 
longer necessary because we are proposing to remove the exemptions and 
other special provisions applicable to SSM periods so there is no 
reason to retain additional recordkeeping for these periods. We are 
also proposing to replace the references to 40 CFR 63.998(d)(3) and 
63.998(c)(1)(ii)(D) through (G) in the former entry for 40 CFR 
63.10(b)(2)(i) with a reference to a new paragraph 40 CFR 63.8080(h) 
that specifies recordkeeping in the event of any deviation from an 
emission limitation. The regulatory text we are proposing to add 
differs from the General Provisions it is replacing in that the General 
Provisions require the creation and retention of a record of the 
occurrence and duration of each malfunction of process, air pollution 
control, and monitoring equipment. We are proposing that this provision 
apply to any failure to meet an applicable standard and is requiring 
that the source record the date, time, and duration of the failure 
rather than the ``occurrence.'' The EPA is also proposing to add to 40 
CFR 63.8080(h) a provision that requires source owners or operators to 
keep records that include a list of the affected source or equipment 
and actions taken to minimize emissions, an estimate of the quantity of 
each regulated pollutant emitted over the standard for which the source 
failed to meet the standard, and a description of the method used to 
estimate the emissions. Examples of such estimation methods would 
include product-loss calculations, mass balance calculations, 
measurements when available, or engineering judgment based on known 
process parameters. The EPA is proposing to require that source owners 
or operators keep records of this information to ensure that there is 
adequate information to allow us to determine the severity of any 
failure to meet a standard, and to provide data that may document how 
the source met the general duty to minimize emissions when the source 
has failed to meet an applicable standard.
    We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table (Table 10) 
entries for 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2) by creating a single row for 40 CFR 
63.10(b)(2)(iv) and (v) and indicating a ``no'' in column 3. When 
applicable, 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(iv) requires source owners or operators 
to record actions taken during SSM events when actions were 
inconsistent with their SSM plans. The provision in 40 CFR 
63.10(b)(2)(v) requires source owners or operators to record actions 
taken during SSM events to show that actions taken were consistent with 
their SSM plans. These provisions will no longer be appropriate because 
we propose that SSM plans will no longer be required. The provisions 
previously applicable under 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(iv) and (v) to record 
corrective actions is now applicable by reference to 40 CFR 63.8080(h).
    We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table (Table 10) 
entry for 40 CFR 63.10(c)(15) by changing the ``yes'' in column 3 to a 
``no.'' The EPA is proposing that 40 CFR 63.10(c)(15) no longer 
applies. When applicable, the provision allows an owner or operator to 
use the affected source's SSM plan or records kept to satisfy the 
recordkeeping provisions of the SSM plan, specified in 40 CFR 63.6(e), 
to also satisfy the provisions of 40 CFR 63.10(c)(10) through (12). The 
EPA is proposing to eliminate this provision because SSM plans would no 
longer be required; therefore, 40 CFR 63.10(c)(15) would no longer 
serve any useful purpose for affected sources.
g. 40 CFR 63.8075 Reporting
    We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table (Table 10) 
entry for 40 CFR 63.10(d)(5)(i) by removing the reference to 40 CFR 
63.8075(e)(5) and (6), but retaining the ``no'' entry. The provisions 
in 40 CFR 63.8075(e)(5) describe the reporting provisions for SSM in 
place of those at 40 CFR 63.10(d)(5)(i). To replace the SSM reporting 
provision, the EPA is

[[Page 46632]]

proposing to add reporting provisions to 40 CFR 63.8075(e)(6). The 
replacement language differs from the General Provisions in that it 
eliminates periodic SSM reports as a stand-alone report. We are 
proposing language that requires source owners or operators 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. We are proposing that the report must contain 
the number, date, time, duration, and the cause of such events 
(including unknown cause, if applicable), a list of the affected source 
or equipment, an estimate of the quantity of each regulated pollutant 
emitted over any emission limit, and a description of the method used 
to estimate the emissions.
    Examples of such methods would include product-loss calculations, 
mass balance calculations, measurements when available, or engineering 
judgment based on known process parameters. The EPA is proposing this 
provision 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 owner or operator met the general duty to minimize 
emissions during a failure to meet an applicable standard.
h. Conforming Changes for Cross-References to Other Subparts
    We are proposing amendments to account for instances where 40 CFR 
part 63, subpart HHHHH cross-references other subparts that contain SSM 
provisions. Proposed 40 CFR 63.8000(f) lists the referenced provisions 
in subparts SS, TT, and UU of part 63 that contain references to SSM 
periods that will no longer apply after the compliance date for the 
proposed amendments. Proposed 40 CFR 63.8000(f)(10) through (f)(22) 
lists the paragraphs or phrases within the paragraphs that will not 
apply after the applicable compliance dates for the proposed amendments 
because they are no longer applicable as a result of the proposed SSM 
revisions.
i. Provisions To Account for Control Device Bypass Periods in 
Determining Compliance
    Because we are proposing to remove the SSM provisions and require 
compliance at all times, we are proposing to amend 40 CFR 63.8000(c) to 
account for bypass periods in determining compliance with the emission 
percent reduction provisions in Table 1 to 40 CFR part 63, subpart 
HHHHH for process vessels. These amendments will apply to process 
vessels with closed vent systems and add-on controls that contain 
bypass lines that could divert a vent stream to the atmosphere. We are 
proposing that owners and operators must measure and record during each 
semiannual compliance period the hours that the control device was 
bypassed and the source's total operating hours. They must then use the 
overall control efficiency required in Table 1, the total operating 
hours, and the control efficiency of the control device to determine 
the allowable bypass hours during the semiannual compliance period 
using proposed Equation 1 in 40 CFR 63.8005(h). These changes are 
required because SSM periods that may involve bypassing of the control 
device cannot be excluded and must now be included in determining 
compliance.
j. Safety Devices
    Because we are proposing to remove the SSM provisions and require 
compliance at all times, we are proposing to revise 40 CFR 
63.8000(b)(2), which allows the opening of a safety device at any time 
conditions require it to avoid unsafe conditions. We are proposing to 
revise 40 CFR 63.8000(b)(2) so that opening of a safety device to avoid 
unsafe conditions is considered a deviation, unless it is a bypass of a 
control for a process vessel and accounted for as specified in 40 
CFR[thinsp]63.8005(h). We are also proposing to revise 40 CFR 
63.8080(c), which is the provision to keep a record of each time a 
safety device is opened, to add additional recordkeeping provisions 
consistent with those for other deviations. As a result of these 
proposed changes, the opening of a safety device would be considered a 
deviation from the emission limits for sources using closed vent 
systems and add-on control devices to comply with the emission 
limitations in 40 CFR part 63, subpart HHHHH, unless it is a bypass of 
a control for a process vessel and accounted for as specified in 40 
CFR[thinsp]63.8005(h). In the event a safety device is opened, the 
owners or operators would be required to comply with the general duty 
provision in 40 CFR 63.8000(a) to minimize emissions at all times, and 
to report and record information related to deviations as specified in 
40 CFR 63.8075 and 63.8080, respectively, unless it is a bypass of a 
control for a process vessel and accounted for as specified in 40 
CFR[thinsp]63.8005(h).
2. Electronic Reporting Provisions
    Through this proposal, the EPA is proposing that owners and 
operators of MCM facilities submit electronic copies of required 
performance test reports, performance evaluation reports, compliance 
reports, and NOCS reports through the EPA's Central Data Exchange (CDX) 
using the Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface (CEDRI). A 
description of the electronic data submission process is provided in 
the memorandum, Electronic Reporting Requirements for New Source 
Performance Standards (NSPS) and National Emission Standards for 
Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) Rules, available in Docket ID No. 
EPA-HQ-OAR-2018-0747. The proposed rule requires that performance test 
results collected using test methods that are supported by the EPA's 
Electronic Reporting Tool (ERT) as listed on the ERT website \22\ at 
the time of the test be submitted in the format generated through the 
use of the ERT and that other performance test results be submitted in 
portable document format (PDF) using the attachment module of the ERT. 
Similarly, performance evaluation results of continuous monitoring 
systems measuring relative accuracy test audit pollutants that are 
supported by the ERT at the time of the test must be submitted in the 
format generated through the use of the ERT and other performance 
evaluation results be submitted in PDF using the attachment module of 
the ERT.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ https://www.epa.gov/electronic-reporting-air-emissions/electronic-reporting-tool-ert.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For performance test reports, performance evaluation reports, 
compliance reports, and NOCS reports, the proposed rule requires that 
owners and operators use the appropriate spreadsheet template to submit 
information to CEDRI. A draft version of the proposed templates for 
these reports are included in the docket for this rulemaking.\23\ The 
EPA specifically requests comment on the content, layout, and overall 
design of the templates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ See MCM_Compliance_Report_Draft_Template.xlsx, available at 
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2018-0747.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additionally, the EPA has identified two broad circumstances in 
which electronic reporting extensions may be provided. In both 
circumstances, the decision to accept the claim of needing additional 
time to report is within the discretion of the Administrator, and 
reporting should occur as soon as possible. The EPA is providing these 
potential extensions to protect owners and operators from noncompliance 
in

[[Page 46633]]

cases where they cannot successfully submit a report by the reporting 
deadline for reasons outside of their control. The situation where an 
extension may be warranted due to outages of the EPA's CDX or CEDRI 
which precludes an owner or operator from accessing the system and 
submitting required reports is addressed in 40 CFR 63.8075(i). The 
situation where an extension may be warranted due to a force majeure 
event, which is defined as an event that will be or has been caused by 
circumstances beyond the control of the affected facility, its 
contractors, or any entity controlled by the affected facility that 
prevents an owner or operator from complying with the requirement to 
submit a report electronically as required by this rule is addressed in 
40 CFR 63.8075(j). Examples of such events are acts of nature, acts of 
war or terrorism, or equipment failure or safety hazards beyond the 
control of the facility.
    The electronic submittal of the reports addressed in this proposed 
rulemaking will increase the usefulness of the data contained in those 
reports, is in keeping with current trends in data availability and 
transparency, will further assist in the protection of public health 
and the environment, will improve compliance by facilitating the 
ability of regulated facilities to demonstrate compliance with 
provisions and by facilitating the ability of delegated state, local, 
tribal, and territorial air agencies and the EPA to assess and 
determine compliance, and will ultimately reduce burden on regulated 
facilities, delegated air agencies, and the EPA. Electronic reporting 
also eliminates paper-based, manual processes, thereby saving time and 
resources, simplifying data entry, eliminating redundancies, minimizing 
data reporting errors, and providing data quickly and accurately to the 
affected facilities, air agencies, the EPA, and the public. Moreover, 
electronic reporting is consistent with the EPA's plan \24\ to 
implement Executive Order 13563 and is in keeping with 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) Rules, 
available in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2018-0747.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ EPA's Final Plan for Periodic Retrospective Reviews, August 
2011. Available at: https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=EPA-HQ-OAR-2018-0747.
    \25\ E-Reporting Policy Statement for EPA Regulations, September 
2013. Available at: https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-03/documents/epa-ereporting-policy-statement-2013-09-30.pdf.
    \26\ Digital Government: Building a 21st Century Platform to 
Better Serve the American People, May 2012. Available at: https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/omb/egov/digital-government/digital-government.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Other Technical Amendments
    The EPA is proposing to amend 40 CFR 63.8055(b)(4) to remove 
reference to paragraph (d)(4) of the Occupational Safety and Health 
Administration's (OSHA's) Hazard Communication standard, which dealt 
with OSHA-defined carcinogens. The EPA is proposing to replace that 
reference with its own list of HAP that must be regarded as potentially 
carcinogenic based on the EPA guidelines. Although paragraph (d)(4) of 
OSHA's standard was deleted when the Agency adopted the Globally 
Harmonized System of Hazard Communication in 2012, it was replaced by 
section A.6.4.2 of mandatory Appendix A of that standard, which reads 
as follows:
    ``Where OSHA has included cancer as a health hazard to be 
considered by classifiers for a chemical covered by 29 CFR part 1910, 
subpart Z, Toxic and Hazardous Substances, chemical manufacturers, 
importers, and employers shall classify the chemical as a carcinogen.'' 
Thus, where OSHA has regulated workplace exposure to a chemical based, 
at least in part, on carcinogenic risk, OSHA requires the chemical to 
be classified as a carcinogen. OSHA suggests that the EPA should refer 
to section A.6.4.2 of Appendix A of 29 CFR 1910.1200 in its discussion 
of 40 CFR 63.8055 and consider chemicals that meet this provision be 
considered ``OSHA-defined carcinogens.''
    We are proposing to replace these references to carcinogens in 29 
CFR 1910.1200(d)(4) with a list (in proposed new Table 11 to 40 CFR 
part 63, subpart HHHHH) 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 11 to 40 CFR 
part 63, subpart HHHHH 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), 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).
    There are several additional revisions that we are proposing to 40 
CFR part 63, subpart HHHHH to clarify text or correct typographical 
errors, grammatical errors, and cross-reference errors. These proposed 
editorial corrections and clarifications are summarized in Table 4 of 
this preamble.

 Table 4--Summary of Proposed Editorial and Minor Corrections to 40 CFR
                         Part 63, Subpart HHHHH
------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Provision                        Proposed revision
------------------------------------------------------------------------
40 CFR 63.7985(d)(2)...................  Remove the word ``future.''
40 CFR 63.8050(c)(3)...................  Correct reference to
                                          subparagraph (c)(2)(i) to
                                          (iii) to (c)(3)(i) to (iii).
40 CFR 63.8075(c)(1)...................  Clarify the paragraphs to say
                                          63.8005 through 63.8030 to
                                          include heat exchangers.
40 CFR 63.8075(d)......................  Change the reference from
                                          (d)(2) to (d)(1).
40 CFR 63.8075(d)(2)(ii)...............  Remove the word ``initial.''
40 CFR 63.8090(b)......................  Clarify the sentence to say,
                                          ``You are in compliance with
                                          this subpart if you have a
                                          storage tank with a fixed
                                          roof, closed-vent system, and
                                          control device in compliance
                                          with 40 CFR part 60, subpart
                                          Kb, and you are in compliance
                                          with the monitoring,
                                          recordkeeping, and reporting
                                          requirements in this
                                          subpart.''
Table 8 to 40 CFR part 63, subpart       Correct ``FFFF'' to ``HHHHH.''
 HHHHH.
------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 46634]]

4. 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 provisions in the MCM 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 testing and 
ongoing continuous parametric monitoring, to ensure ongoing compliance 
with the standards.
    Although ongoing monitoring of operating parameters is required by 
the NESHAP and is conducted by owners or operators, as control devices 
age over time, the destruction efficiency of the control devices can be 
compromised due to various factors. The EPA published several documents 
that identify potential control device operational problems that could 
decrease emission reduction efficiency, including, but not limited to 
the following: Corrosion due to halogens in HAP exhaust for thermal 
oxidizers, catalyst deactivation or poisoning for catalytic oxidizers, 
leaking valves for regenerative oxidizers, adsorbent plugging and 
fouling for adsorbers, and changing waste stream temperatures and 
absorption characteristics for condensers and concentrators.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ 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 Technologies for Low 
Concentration Organic Vapor Gas Streams, EPA-456/R-95-003, May 1995.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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. Based on the need for vigilance in maintaining 
equipment to stem degradation, in this action, we are proposing to 
require periodic performance testing of certain add-on control devices 
on a 5-year cycle and removing the allowance for demonstration of 
compliance using a design evaluation for ``small control devices,'' 
defined as controlling less than 10 tons of HAP per year. We are not 
proposing to revise performance demonstration requirements for 
condensers because outlet gas temperature correlates directly with 
control efficiency and continuous monitoring of outlet gas temperature 
provides a direct indication of whether control efficiency has been 
met. Likewise, the proposed performance testing provision of 
incineration control devices allows an exception from periodic testing 
for facilities using instruments to continuously measure VOC emissions. 
Using VOC continuous emissions monitoring systems (CEMS) would be a 
direct indicator of compliance. The use of VOC CEMS to demonstrate 
compliance would obviate the need for initial or periodic control 
device testing. Our available data indicates that the oxidizers are the 
only other control device used to comply with this standard. 
Incinerators, however, could experience this degradation and reduced 
control efficiency that would not be captured with operating parameter 
monitoring of temperature.
    We have identified several states with MCM facilities that already 
require such testing every 5 years synchronized with 40 CFR part 70 air 
operating permit renewals.
    The proposed periodic performance testing provisions would require 
owners or operators of facilities complying with the standards using a 
closed vent system to control 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, the owners or operators would conduct periodic testing 
before they renew their operating permits, but no longer than 5 years 
following the previous performance test. Additionally, owners or 
operators of 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 provision would require periodic air emissions 
testing to measure organic HAP destruction or removal efficiency at the 
inlet and outlet of the thermal oxidizer. The emissions would be 
measured as total gaseous organic mass emissions as carbon using either 
EPA Method 18 of appendix A-6 to 40 CFR part 60, or 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 provision, 
which includes a control device emissions destruction or removal 
efficiency test using EPA Method 18, 25 or 25A, would be approximately 
$19,000 per control device every 5 years for those sources not already 
required by their title V operating permit to conduct testing at least 
every 5 years. The cost estimate is included in the memorandum titled 
Draft Costs/Impacts of the 40 CFR part 63 Subpart HHHHH Monitoring 
Review Revisions, in the MCM Docket. Based on the development of cost 
estimates for other NESHAP, we know that certain states typically 
require periodic testing as a condition of renewing title V operating 
permits. We have assumed that facilities located in these states are 
currently required to conduct periodic performance tests as a condition 
of their 40 CFR part 70 operating permits, and the proposed periodic 
testing would not add any new testing provisions and the estimated 
costs would not apply to these facilities. We have assumed that 
facilities in other states would have additional testing provisions and 
costs. Periodic performance tests ensure that any thermal oxidizers 
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. What compliance dates are we proposing?

    Amendments to the MCM NESHAP proposed in this rulemaking for 
adoption under CAA section 112(d)(2) and (3) are subject to the 
compliance deadlines outlined in the CAA under section 112(i).
    For all of the provisions we are proposing under CAA sections 
112(d)(2) and (3), we are proposing all affected source owners or 
operators must comply with all of the amendments no later than 3 years 
after the effective date of the final rule, or upon startup, whichever 
is later. For existing sources, CAA section 112(i) provides that the 
compliance date be as expeditious as practicable, but no later than 3 
years after the effective date of the standard. (``Section 112(i)(3)'s 
three-year maximum compliance period applies generally to any emission 
standard . . . promulgated under [section 112].'' Association of 
Battery Recyclers v. EPA, 716 F.3d 667, 672 (D.C. Cir. 2013)). In 
determining what compliance period is

[[Page 46635]]

as expeditious as practicable, we consider the amount of time needed to 
plan and construct projects and change operating procedures. As 
provided in CAA section 112(i), all new affected sources would comply 
with these provisions by the effective date of the final amendments to 
the MCM NESHAP or upon startup, whichever is later.
    All affected facilities would have to continue to meet the current 
provisions of 40 CFR part 63, subpart HHHHH 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).
    We are proposing to change the provisions for SSM by removing the 
exemption from the emission limitations (i.e., emission limits, 
operating limits, and work practice standards) during SSM periods and 
by removing the provision to develop and implement an SSM plan. We are 
also proposing that owners and operators will now need to take into 
account control device bypass periods, even if during SSM periods, when 
demonstrating compliance with the percent emission reduction provisions 
for process vessels in Table 1 to 40 CFR part 63, subpart HHHHH.
    Our experience with similar industries further shows that this sort 
of regulated facility generally requires a substantial time period to 
read and understand the amended rule provisions; 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 provisions. It is also possible that some 
facilities may need to upgrade their emission capture and control 
systems because of the proposed changes to the bypass provisions in the 
compliance calculations. These upgrades may require additional time to 
evaluate the current control system, plan for needed upgrades, and then 
design, purchase, and install those upgrades. From our assessment of 
the time frame needed for compliance with the entirety of the revised 
requirements related to the SSM provisions, including the need to 
account for bypass periods, the EPA considers a period of 3 years to be 
the most expeditious compliance period practicable and, thus, is 
proposing that existing affected sources be in compliance with 40 CFR 
part 63, subpart HHHHH's revised SSM provisions within 3 years of the 
final amendment's effective date.
    Therefore, for all affected sources that commence construction or 
reconstruction on or before September 4, 2019, we are proposing that it 
is necessary to provide 3 years after the effective date of the final 
rule (or upon startup, whichever is later) for owners and operators to 
comply with the provisions that have been amended to remove the 
exemption from the emission limitations during SSM periods. For all 
affected sources that commenced construction or reconstruction after 
September 4, 2019, we are proposing that owners and operators comply 
with the amended provisions by the effective date of the final rule (or 
upon startup, whichever is later).
    As discussed elsewhere in this preamble, we are also proposing to 
add a provision 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. Regarding electronic reporting, our 
experience with similar industries shows that a time period of a 
minimum of 90 days, and, more typically, 180 days, is generally 
necessary 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. From our assessment of the time frame needed for 
compliance with the new electronic reporting provisions, the EPA 
considers a period of 180 days to be the most expeditious compliance 
period practicable and, thus, is proposing that all sources would begin 
complying with the new electronic reporting provisions beginning no 
later than 180 days after 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 provisions and the time 
needed to make the adjustments for compliance with any of the revised 
provisions. 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, 43 major sources subject to the MCM NESHAP are operating 
in the United States. The affected source under the NESHAP is the 
facility-wide collection of equipment used to manufacture coatings and 
includes all process vessels; storage tanks for feedstocks and 
products; components such as pumps, compressors, agitators, pressure 
relief devices, sampling connection systems, open-ended valves or 
lines, valves, connectors, and instrumentation systems; wastewater 
tanks; transfer racks; and cleaning operations. A coating is defined as 
material such as paint, ink, or adhesive that is intended to be applied 
to a substrate and consists of a mixture of resins, pigments, solvents, 
and/or other additives, where the material is produced by a 
manufacturing operation where materials are blended, mixed, diluted, or 
otherwise formulated.

B. What are the air quality impacts?

    At the current level of control, estimated emissions of volatile 
organic HAP from the MCM source category are approximately 405 tpy.
    The proposed amendments require that all 43 major sources in the 
MCM source category 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 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 and would, therefore, have no indirect 
or secondary air emissions impacts.

C. What are the cost impacts?

    We estimate that to comply with the proposed amendments each 
facility in the MCM source category will experience increased reporting 
and recordkeeping costs. The recordkeeping and reporting costs are 
presented in

[[Page 46636]]

section VIII.C of this preamble. The costs include time 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 provision 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.
    We are also proposing a provision for performance testing no less 
frequently than every 5 years for sources in the MCM source category 
using add-on controls to demonstrate compliance. We estimate that 12 
facilities subject to the MCM NESHAP and using add-on control devices 
would incur costs to conduct control device performance testing because 
they are not required by their permits to conduct testing every 5 
years. This total does not include facilities in the MCM 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. The total cost for all 12 facilities to 
test their add-on control devices in a single year, plus one facility 
completing a retest to account for 5 percent of control devices failing 
to pass the first test, would be $247,000. The total annualized testing 
cost, including retests, is approximately $57,000 per year at an 
interest rate of 5.25 percent and an additional $6,000 in reporting 
costs per facility in the year in which the test occurs for the MCM 
source category. For further information on the potential costs, see 
the cost tables in the memoranda titled Estimated Costs/Impacts of the 
40 CFR part 63 Subpart HHHHH Monitoring Review Revisions, May 2019, and 
the Economic Impact and Small Business Screening Assessments for 
Proposed Amendments to National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air 
Pollutants for Miscellaneous Coating Manufacturing Facilities (Subpart 
HHHHH), in the MCM Docket.

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 proposal, 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 1 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 MCM NESHAP, the 2019 equivalent 
annualized value (in 2018$) of the costs over the period 2020-2026 is 
$66,000 assuming a 3-percent discount rate and $73,000 assuming a 7-
percent discount rate. The 43 affected facilities are owned by 27 
different parent companies, and the total costs associated with the 
proposed amendments range from 0.000005 to 0.025 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. Two of 
the facilities potentially affected by the proposed revisions to the 
MCM NESHAP are small entities. However, the costs associated with the 
proposed amendments for these two affected small entities range from 
0.002 to 0.025 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 are provided in the 
technical document titled Economic Impact and Small Business Screening 
Assessments for Proposed Amendments to the National Emission Standards 
for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Miscellaneous Coating Manufacturing 
(Subpart HHHHH), available in the MCM Docket.

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

VII. Submitting Data Corrections

    The site-specific emissions profiles used in the source category 
risk and demographic analyses and instructions are available for 
download on the RTR website at https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/miscellaneous-coating-manufacturing-national-emission-standards. The data files include detailed information for each HAP 
emissions release point for the facilities in the source category.
    If you believe that the data are not representative or are 
inaccurate, please identify the data in question, provide your reason 
for concern, and provide any ``improved'' data that you have, if 
available. When you submit data, we request that you provide 
documentation of the basis for the revised values to support your 
suggested changes. To submit comments on the data downloaded from the 
RTR website, complete the following steps:
    1. Within this downloaded file, enter suggested revisions to the 
data fields appropriate for that information.
    2. Fill in the commenter information fields for each suggested 
revision (i.e., commenter name, commenter organization, commenter email 
address, commenter phone number, and revision comments).
    3. Gather documentation for any suggested emissions revisions 
(e.g., performance test reports, material balance calculations).
    4. Send the entire downloaded file with suggested revisions in 
Microsoft[supreg] Access format and all accompanying documentation to 
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2018-0747 (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

[[Page 46637]]

facilities. The file should contain all suggested changes for all 
sources at that facility (or facilities). We request that all data 
revision comments be submitted in the form of updated Microsoft[supreg] 
Excel files that are generated by the Microsoft[supreg] Access file. 
These files are provided on the RTR website at https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/miscellaneous-coating-manufacturing-national-emission-standards.

VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

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

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

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

B. Executive Order 13771: Reducing 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. The ICR document that the 
EPA prepared has been assigned EPA ICR number 2115.06. You can find a 
copy of the ICR in the MCM Docket (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2018-0747), 
and it is briefly summarized here.
    The EPA is proposing to revise the SSM provisions of the rule, 
proposing to require periodic testing of control devices, 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 HHHHH.
    Respondents/affected entities: Facilities manufacturing surface 
coatings.
    Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (40 CFR part 63, 
subpart HHHHH).
    Estimated number of respondents: In the 3 years after the 
amendments are final, approximately 43 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 
175, in year 2 is 46, and in year 3 is 85.
    Total estimated burden: The average annual burden of the proposed 
amendments to the 43 MCM facilities over the 3 years if the amendments 
are finalized is estimated to be 565 hours (per year). The average 
annual burden to the Agency over the 3 years after the amendments are 
final is estimated to be 116 hours (per year). Burden is defined at 5 
CFR 1320.3(b).
    Total estimated cost: The average annual cost of the proposed 
amendments to the MCM facilities is $65,000 in labor costs in the first 
3 years after the amendments are final. The average annual capital and 
operation and maintenance costs are $82,000. The total average annual 
agency cost of the proposed amendments over the first 3 years after the 
amendments are final is estimated to be $5,500.
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required 
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a 
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for the 
EPA's regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9.
    Submit your comments on the Agency's need for this information, the 
accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods 
for minimizing respondent burden to the EPA using the docket identified 
at the beginning of this rule. You may also send your ICR-related 
comments to OMB's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs via 
email to [email protected], Attention: Desk Officer for the 
EPA. Since OMB is required to make a decision concerning the ICR 
between 30 and 60 days after receipt, OMB must receive comments no 
later than October 4, 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. In 
making this determination, the impact of concern is any significant 
adverse economic impact on small entities. An agency may certify that a 
rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial 
number of small entities if the rule relieves regulatory burden, has no 
net burden, or otherwise has a positive economic effect on the small 
entities subject to the rule. The annualized costs associated with the 
proposed amendments 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. We have, 
therefore, concluded that this action will have no net regulatory 
burden for all directly regulated small entities.

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

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

F. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

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

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

    This action does not have tribal implications as specified in 
Executive Order 13175. No tribal facilities are known to be engaged in 
any of the industries that would be affected by this action (MCM). 
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, and IV.A, B, and C of this preamble, and are 
further documented in the Miscellaneous Coating Manufacturing Risk 
Assessment Report, in the MCM Docket.

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.

[[Page 46638]]

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

    This action involves technical standards. Therefore, the EPA 
conducted searches for the MCM NESHAP through the Enhanced National 
Standards Systems Network (NSSN) Database managed by the American 
National Standards Institute (ANSI). We also contacted voluntary 
consensus standards (VCS) organizations and accessed and searched their 
databases. We conducted searches for EPA Methods 1, 1A, 2, 2A, 2C, 2D, 
2F, 2G, 3, 3A, 3B, 4, 18, 21, 22, 24, 25, 25A, 25D, 26, 26A, and 29 of 
40 CFR part 60, appendix A; 301, 305, 311, 316, and 320 of 40 CFR part 
63, appendix A; 624, 625, 1624, 1625, 1666, and 1671 of 40 CFR part 
136, appendix A; and 8260, 8260B (SW-846), 8270, Test Methods for 
Evaluating Solid Waste, Physical/Chemical Methods, EPA Publication SW-
846 third edition. During the EPA's VCS search, if the title or 
abstract (if provided) of the VCS described technical sampling and 
analytical procedures that are similar to the EPA's reference method, 
the EPA ordered a copy of the standard and reviewed it as a potential 
equivalent method. We reviewed all potential standards to determine the 
practicality of the VCS for this rule. This review requires significant 
method validation data that meet the requirements of EPA Method 301 for 
accepting alternative methods or scientific, engineering, and policy 
equivalence to procedures in the EPA reference methods. The EPA may 
reconsider determinations of impracticality when additional information 
is available for particular VCS.
    No applicable VCS were identified for EPA Methods 1A, 2A, 2D, 2F, 
2G, 21, 22, 25D, 305, 316, 625, 1624, 1625, 1666, 1671, 8260, 8260B 
(SW-846), and 8270. The following VCS were identified as acceptable 
alternatives to the EPA test methods for the purpose of this rule.
    The EPA proposes to use the VCS ANSI/ASME PTC 19-10-1981 Part 10 
(2010), ``Flue and Exhaust Gas Analyses,'' as an acceptable alternative 
to EPA Method 3B for the manual procedures only and not the 
instrumental procedures. This method determines quantitatively the 
gaseous constituents of exhausts resulting from stationary combustion 
sources.
    Additionally, the EPA proposes to use the VCS ASTM D6420-18, 
``Standard Test Method for Determination of Gaseous Organic Compounds 
by Direct Interface Gas Chromatography-Mass Spectrometry,'' as an 
acceptable alternative to EPA Method 18 with the following caveats. 
This ASTM procedure has been approved by the EPA as an alternative to 
EPA Method 18 only when the target compounds are all known and the 
target compounds are all listed in ASTM D6420 as measurable. We are 
proposing that ASTM D6420-18 should not be used for methane and ethane 
because the atomic mass is less than 35; and ASTM D6420 should never be 
specified as a total VOC method. This test method employs a direct 
interface gas chromatograph/mass spectrometer to identify and quantify 
VOC.
    The EPA proposes to use the VCS ASTM D2369-10(2015) el, ''Test 
Method for Volatile Content of Coatings''; ASTM D2697-03 (2014), 
``Standard Test Method for Volume Nonvolatile Matter in Clear or 
Pigmented Coatings''; and ASTM D3960-98, `` 'Standard Practice for 
Determining VOC Content of Paints and Related Coatings,'' as acceptable 
alternatives to EPA Method 24. The ASTM D2369-10 (2015) method 
describes a procedure for the determination of the weight percent 
volatile content of solvent borne and waterborne coatings. The ASTM 
D2697-03 (2014) method is intended to provide a measure of the volume 
of dry coating obtainable from a given volume of liquid coating. The 
ASTM D3960-98 method measures the VOC content of solvent borne and 
waterborne paints and related coatings as determined from the quantity 
of material released from a sample under specified bake conditions and 
subtracting exempt volatile compounds and water if present.
    The EPA proposes to use the VCS CARB Method 310, ``Determination of 
VOC in Consumer Products and Reactive Organic Compounds in Aerosol 
Coating Products,'' as an acceptable alternative to EPA Method 311. 
Method 310 determines the total volatile material in a product and the 
presence of any compounds and is also used to determine the percent by 
weight of the reactive organic compounds contained in aerosol coating 
products.
    In addition, the EPA proposes to use the VCS ASTM D6348-12e1, 
``Determination of Gaseous Compounds by Extractive Direct Interface 
Fourier Transform (FTIR) Spectroscopy,'' as an acceptable alternative 
to EPA Method 320 of appendix A to 40 CFR part 63 with caveats 
requiring inclusion of selected annexes to the standard as mandatory. 
We are proposing the test plan preparation and implementation in the 
Annexes to ASTM D6348-12e1, Sections Al through A8 are mandatory; and 
in ASTM D6348-12e1, Annex A5 (Analyte Spiking Technique), the percent 
(%) R must be determined for each target analyte (Equation A5.5). We 
are proposing that in order for the test data to be acceptable for a 
compound, %R must be 70% >= R <= 130%. If the %R value does not meet 
this criterion for a target compound, the test data is not acceptable 
for that compound and the test must be repeated for that analyte (i.e., 
the sampling and/or analytical procedure should be adjusted before a 
retest). We are proposing that the %R value for each compound be 
reported in the test report, and all field measurements must be 
corrected with the calculated %R value for that compound by using the 
following equation:

Reported Results = (Measured Concentration in the Stack x 100)/% R.

    The ASTM D6348-12e1 method is an extractive FTIR based field test 
method is used to quantify gas phase concentrations of multiple target 
analytes from stationary source effluent.
    The six ASTM methods (ASTM D6420-18, ASTM D2369-10(2015)el, ASTM 
D6348-12e1, ASTM D2697-03 (2014), ASTM D3960-98, and ASTM D6348-03) are 
available at ASTM International, 1850 M Street NW, Suite 1030, 
Washington, DC 20036. See https://www.astm.org/. The CARB method (VCS 
CARB Method 310) is available at CARB, 1001 I Street, Sacramento, CA 
95814. See https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/. The ANSI/ASME PTC 19 10 1981 Part 
10 (2010) method is available at American National Standards Institute 
(ANSI), 1899 L Street NW, 11th floor, Washington, DC 20036 and the 
American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME), Three Park Avenue, New 
York, NY 10016-5990 See https://wwww.ansi.org and https://www.asme.org.
    Finally, the search identified seven other VCS that were 
potentially applicable for this rule in lieu of the EPA reference 
methods. After reviewing the available standards, the EPA determined 
that seven candidate VCS identified for measuring emissions of 
pollutants or their surrogates subject to emission standards in the 
rule would not be practical due to lack of equivalency, documentation, 
validation data and other important technical and policy 
considerations. Additional information for the VCS search and 
determinations can be found in the memorandum, Voluntary Consensus 
Standard Results for National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air 
Pollutants: Miscellaneous Coatings Manufacturing,

[[Page 46639]]

which is available in the docket for this action.
    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 the EPA should use such standards 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 
and IV.B of this preamble and the technical report titled Risk and 
Technology Review--Analysis of Demographic Factors for Populations 
Living Near Miscellaneous Coating Manufacturing Operations, January 
2019, available in the MCM Docket.
    As discussed in sections IV.A and B of this preamble, we performed 
a demographic analysis for the MCM 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 MCM source category across different social, 
demographic, and economic groups within the populations living near 
operations identified as having the highest risks.
    The results of the MCM source category demographic analysis 
indicate that approximately 3,700 people are exposed to a cancer risk 
greater than or equal to 1-in-1 million and no one is exposed to a 
chronic noncancer HI greater than 1. For those people with a cancer 
risk greater than or equal to 1-in-1 million, the African American and 
Below Poverty Level demographic groups are 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 report titled Risk and Technology Review--
Analysis of Demographic Factors for Populations Living Near 
Miscellaneous Coating Manufacturing Operations, January 2019, which is 
available in the MCM Docket.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63

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

    Dated: August 15, 2019.
Andrew R. Wheeler,
Administrator.
    For the reasons set forth 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--[Amended]

0
2. Section 63.14 is amended by:
0
a. Adding paragraph (e)(2),
0
b. Revising paragraphs (h)(26), and (30);
0
c. Redesignating paragraphs (h)(92) through (111) as paragraphs (h)(94) 
through (113) and paragraphs (h)(50) through (h)(91) as paragraphs 
(h)(51) through (h)(92), respectively;
0
d. Adding new paragraph (h)(50);
0
e. Revising newly redesignated paragraph (h)(85);
0
f. Adding new paragraph (h)(93);
0
g. Redesignating paragraphs (k)(1) through (k)(5) as paragraphs (k)(2) 
through (k)(6); and
0
h. Adding new paragraph (k)(1).
    The revisions and additions read as follows:


Sec.  63.14   Incorporations by reference.

* * * * *
    (e) * * *
    (2) ANSI/ASME PTC 19.10-1981 (2010), Flue and Exhaust Gas Analyses 
(Part 10, Instruments and Apparatus), re-issued 2010, IBR approved for 
Sec.  63.8000(d).
* * * * *
    (h) * * *
    (26) ASTM D2369-10 (Reapproved 2015)e, Standard Test Method for 
Volatile Content of Coatings, approved June 1, 2015, IBR approved for 
Sec. Sec.  63.4141(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 63.8055(b).
* * * * *
    (30) ASTM D2697-03 (Reapproved 2014), Standard Test Method for 
Volume Nonvolatile Matter in Clear or Pigmented Coatings, IBR approved 
for Sec. Sec.  63.4141(b), 63.4741(a) and (b), 63.4941(b),, and 
63.8055(b).
* * * * *
    (50) ASTM D3960-98, Standard Practice for Determining Volatile 
Organic Compound (VOC) Content of Paints and Related Coatings IBR 
approved for Sec.  63.8055(b).
* * * * *
    (85) ASTM D6348-12e1, Standard Test Method for Determination of 
Gaseous Compounds by Extractive Direct Interface Fourier Transform 
Infrared (FTIR) Spectroscopy, Approved February 1, 2012, IBR approved 
for Sec. Sec.  63.1571(a), and 63.8000(d).
* * * * *
    (93) ASTM D6420-18, Standard Test Method for Determination of 
Gaseous Organic Compounds by Direct Interface Gas Chromatography-Mass 
Spectrometry, IBR approved for Sec.  63.8000(d).
* * * * *
    (k) * * *
    (1) Method 310, ``Determination of Volatile Organic Compounds in 
Consumer Products and Reactive Organic Compounds in Aerosol Coating 
Products,'' amended August 1, 2014, IBR approved for Sec.  63.8055(b).
* * * * *

Subpart HHHHH--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air 
Pollutants: Miscellaneous Coating Manufacturing

0
3. Section 63.7985 is amended by revising paragraphs (a)(1) through 
(3), paragraph (b) introductory text, paragraphs (b)(1) through (3), 
and (d)(1) through (4) to read as follows:


Sec.  63.7985   Am I subject to the requirements in this subpart?

    (a) * * *
    (1) Are located at or are part of a major source of hazardous air 
pollutants (HAP) emissions, as defined in section 112(a) of the Clean 
Air Act (CAA);
    (2) Manufacture coatings as defined in Sec.  63.8105;
    (3) Process, use, or produce HAP; and
* * * * *
    (b) Miscellaneous coating manufacturing operations include the 
facility-wide collection of equipment described in paragraphs (b)(1) 
through (4) of this section that is used to

[[Page 46640]]

manufacture coatings as defined in Sec.  63.8105. Miscellaneous coating 
manufacturing operations also include cleaning operations.
    (1) Process vessels;
    (2) Storage tanks for feedstocks and products;
    (3) Components such as pumps, compressors, agitators, pressure 
relief devices, sampling connection systems, open-ended valves or 
lines, valves, connectors, and instrumentation systems; and
* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (1) Research and development facilities, as defined in section 
112(c)(7) of the CAA;
    (2) The affiliated operations located at an affected source under 
subparts GG (National Emission Standards for Aerospace Manufacturing 
and Rework Facilities), KK (National Emission Standards for the 
Printing and Publishing Industry), JJJJ (NESHAP: Paper and Other Web 
Coating), MMMM (National Emission Standards for Miscellaneous Metal 
Parts and Products Surface Coating Operations) and SSSS (NESHAP: 
Surface Coating of Metal Coil) of this part. Affiliated operations 
include, but are not limited to, mixing or dissolving of coating 
ingredients; coating mixing for viscosity adjustment, color tint or 
additive blending, or pH adjustment; cleaning of coating lines and 
coating line parts; handling and storage of coatings and solvent; and 
conveyance and treatment of wastewater;
    (3) Ancillary equipment such as boilers and incinerators (only 
those not used to comply with the emission limits in Tables 1 through 5 
to this subpart), chillers and refrigeration systems, and other 
equipment that is not directly involved in the manufacturing of a 
coating (i.e., it operates as a closed system, and materials are not 
combined with materials used to manufacture the coating);
    (4) Quality assurance/quality control laboratories; or
* * * * *
0
4. Section 63.7995 is amended by revising paragraph (a) introductory 
text and paragraph (b), and adding paragraph (e) to read as follows:


Sec.  63.7995   When do I have to comply with this subpart?

* * * * *
    (a) Except as specified in paragraph (e) of this section, if you 
have a new affected source, you must comply with this subpart according 
to the requirements in paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) of this section.
     * * *
    (b) Except as specified in paragraphs (e) of this section, if you 
have an existing affected source on December 11, 2003, then you must 
comply with the requirements for existing sources in this subpart no 
later than December 11, 2006.
* * * * *
    (e) All affected sources that commenced construction or 
reconstruction on or before [DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN 
THE Federal Register], must be in compliance with the requirements 
listed in paragraphs (e)(1) through (5) of this section upon initial 
startup or [date 3 years after date of publication of final rule in the 
Federal Register], whichever is later. All affected sources that 
commenced construction or reconstruction after [DATE OF PUBLICATION OF 
THE FINAL RULE IN THE Federal Register], must be in compliance with the 
requirements listed in paragraphs (e)(1) through (5) of this section 
upon initial startup, or [date of publication of final rule in the 
Federal Register], whichever is later.
    (1) The general requirements specified in Sec.  63.8000(a)(2), 
(b)(2), (d)(8), and (f); and Sec.  63.8005(d)(5) and (h).
    (2) The reporting requirements specified in Sec.  63.8075(e)(5), 
(e)(6)(ii)(B), (e)(6)(ii)(D), (e)(6)(iii)(C), and (e)(6)(iii)(E).
    (3) The recordkeeping requirements specified in Sec.  63.8080(c), 
(e), (f), (h), and (i).
    (4) The definitions specified in Sec.  63.8105.
    (5) The general provisions as specified in Table 10 to subpart 
HHHHH.
0
5. Section 63.8000 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraphs (a), (b)(2), (c)(3), introductory text to 
paragraph (d)(1), and paragraphs (d)(1)(i) and (iii);
0
e. Removing and reserving paragraph (d)(2);
0
f. Revising paragraphs (d)(3),(4)(i)(A), (ii)(C), and (iv); and
0
h. Adding paragraphs (d)(8), (e), and (f).
    The revisions and additions read as follows:


Sec.  63.8000   What are my general requirements for complying with 
this subpart?

    (a) You must comply with paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) of this section.
    (1) Except as specified in paragraph (a)(2) of this section, you 
must be in compliance with the emission limits and work practice 
standards in Tables 1 through 5 to this subpart at all times, except 
during periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction. You must meet the 
requirements specified in paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section. You 
must meet the requirements specified in Sec. Sec.  63.8005 through 
63.8025 (or the alternative means of compliance in Sec.  63.8050), 
except as specified in paragraph (d) of this section. You must meet the 
notification, reporting, and recordkeeping requirements specified in 
Sec. Sec.  63.8070, 63.8075, and 63.8080.
    (2) Beginning no later than the compliance dates specified in Sec.  
63.7995(e), paragraph (a)(1) of this section no longer applies. 
Instead, beginning no later than the compliance dates specified in 
Sec.  63.7995(e), you must be in compliance with the emission limits 
and work practice standards in Tables 1 through 5 to this subpart at 
all times. You must meet the requirements specified in paragraphs (b) 
and (c) of this section. You must meet the requirements specified in 
Sec. Sec.  63.8005 through 63.8030 (or the alternative means of 
compliance in Sec.  63.8050), except as specified in paragraph (d) of 
this section. You must meet the notification, reporting, and 
recordkeeping requirements specified in Sec. Sec.  63.8070, 63.8075, 
and 63.8080.
    (b) * * *
    (2) You must comply with paragraphs (b)(2)(i) and (ii) of this 
section.
    (i) Except as specified in paragraph (b)(2)(ii) of this section, 
opening of a safety device, as defined in Sec.  63.8105, is allowed at 
any time conditions require it to avoid unsafe conditions.
    (ii) Beginning no later than the compliance dates specified in 
Sec.  63.7995(e), paragraph (b)(2)(i) of this section no longer 
applies. Instead, opening of a safety device, as defined in Sec.  
63.8105, is considered a deviation, as defined in Sec.  63.8105, unless 
it is a bypass of a control for a process vessel and accounted for as 
specified in Sec.  63.8005(h).
    (c) * * *
    (3) If you use a halogen reduction device to reduce hydrogen halide 
and halogen HAP emissions that are generated by combusting halogenated 
vent streams, you must meet the requirements of Sec.  63.994, except as 
specified in paragraph (f) of this section, and the requirements 
referenced therein. If you use a halogen reduction device before a 
combustion device, you must determine the halogen atom emission rate 
prior to the combustion device according to the procedures in Sec.  
63.115(d)(2)(v).
    (d) * * *
    (1) Requirements for performance tests. The requirements specified 
in paragraphs (d)(1)(i) through (vi) of this section apply instead of 
or in addition to the requirements for performance testing of control 
devices as specified in subpart SS of 40 CFR part 63.

[[Page 46641]]

    (i) Conduct gas molecular weight analysis using Method 3, 3A, or 3B 
in appendix A to 40 CFR part 60. As an alternative to EPA Method 3B for 
the manual procedures only and not the instrumental procedures, you may 
use ANSI/ASME PTC 19-10-1981 Part 10(incorporated by reference, see 
Sec.  63.14) as an acceptable alternative.
* * * * *
    (iii) As an alternative to using Method 18, Method 25/25A, or 
Method 26/26A of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A, to comply with any of the 
emission limits specified in Tables 1 through 6 to this subpart you may 
use the alternatives specified in paragraphs (d)(1)(iii)(A) or (B) of 
this section.
    (A) As an alternative to using Method 18, Method 25/25A, or Method 
26/26A of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A, you may use Method 320 of 40 CFR 
part 60, appendix A. When using Method 320, you must follow the analyte 
spiking procedures of section 13 of Method 320, unless you demonstrate 
that the complete spiking procedure has been conducted at a similar 
source. As an alternative to Method 320 of Appendix A to 40 CFR part 
63, you may use ASTM Method D6348-12e1 (incorporated by reference, see 
Sec.  63.14), with the caveats that the test plan preparation and 
implementation in the Annexes to ASTM Method D6348-12el, Sections Al 
through A8 are mandatory; and in ASTM Method D6348-12e1 Annex A5 
(Analyte Spiking Technique), the percent (%) R must be determined for 
each target analyte (Equation A5.5). In order for the test data to be 
acceptable for a compound, %R must be 70% >= R <=130%. If the %R value 
does not meet this criterion for a target compound, the test data is 
not acceptable for that compound and the test must be repeated for that 
analyte (i.e., the sampling and/or analytical procedure should be 
adjusted before a retest). The %R value for each compound must be 
reported in the test report, and all field measurements must be 
corrected with the calculated %R value for that compound by using the 
following equation:

Reported Results = (Measured Concentration in the Stack x 100)/% R.

    (B) As an alternative to using EPA Method 18, you may also use ASTM 
D6420-18 (incorporated by reference, see Sec.  63.14), but only when 
the target compounds are all known and the target compounds are all 
listed in ASTM D6420-18 as measurable; ASTM D6420-18 should not be used 
for methane and ethane; and ASTM D6420-18 may not be used as a total 
VOC method.
* * * * *
    (vi) You must conduct periodic performance tests and establish the 
operating limits required by Sec. Sec.  63.8005(e), 63.8010(b)(1), and 
63,8050(d)(3) within 5 years following the previous performance test. 
You must conduct the initial or 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.
    (2) [Reserved]
    (3) Periodic verification. For a control device with total inlet 
HAP emissions less than 1 ton per year (tpy), you must establish at 
least one operating limit for a parameter that you will measure and 
record at least once per averaging period (i.e., daily or block) to 
verify that the control device is operating properly. You may elect to 
measure the same parameter that is required for control devices that 
control inlet HAP emissions equal to or greater than 1 tpy. If the 
parameter will not be measured continuously, you must request approval 
of your proposed procedure in the precompliance report. You must 
identify the operating limit or range and the measurement frequency, 
and you must provide rationale to support how these measurements 
demonstrate the control device is operating properly.
    (4) * * *
    (i) * * *
    (A) If you wish to use a CEMS other than a Fourier Transform 
Infrared Spectroscopy (FTIR) meeting the requirements of Performance 
Specification 15 or a hydrogen chloride (HCl) CEMS meeting the 
requirements of Performance Specification 18 and Quality Assurance 
Procedure 6 to measure hydrogen halide and halogen HAP before we 
promulgate a Performance Specification for such CEMS, you must prepare 
a monitoring plan and submit it for approval in accordance with the 
procedures specified in Sec.  63.8.
* * * * *
    (ii) * * *
    (C) For CEMS meeting Performance Specification 8 used to monitor 
performance of a noncombustion device, determine the predominant 
organic HAP using either process knowledge or the screening procedures 
of Method 18 on the control device inlet stream, calibrate the monitor 
on the predominant organic HAP, and report the results as 
C1. Use Method 18, ASTM D6420-18, or any approved 
alternative as the reference method for the relative accuracy tests, 
and report the results as C1.
* * * * *
    (iv) The CEMS data must be reduced to operating day or operating 
block averages computed using valid data, except monitoring data also 
are sufficient to constitute a valid hour of data if measured values 
are available for at least two of the 15-minute periods during an hour 
when calibration, quality assurance, or maintenance activities are 
being performed. An operating block is a period of time from the 
beginning to end of batch operations in the manufacturing of a coating. 
Operating block averages may be used only for process vessel data.
* * * * *
    (8) Beginning no later than the compliance dates specified in Sec.  
63.7995(e), in lieu of the requirements specified in Sec.  63.8(d)(3), 
you must keep the written quality control program procedures required 
by Sec.  63.8(d)(2) on record for the life of the affected source or 
until the affected source is no longer subject to the provisions of 
this part, to be made available for inspection, upon request, by the 
Administrator. If the performance evaluation plan is revised, you shall 
keep previous (i.e., superseded) versions of the performance evaluation 
plan on record to be made available for inspection, upon request, by 
the Administrator, for a period of 5 years after each revision to the 
plan. The program of corrective action should be included in the plan 
required under Sec.  63.8(d)(2).
    (e) General Duty. Beginning no later than [DATE 180 DAYS AFTER THE 
DATE THE FINAL RULE IS PUBLISHED IN THE Federal Register], at all 
times, you 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 you to make any further efforts to reduce 
emissions if levels required by the applicable standard have been 
achieved. Determination of whether a source is operating in compliance 
with operation and maintenance

[[Page 46642]]

requirements will be based on information available to the 
Administrator which may include, but is not limited to, monitoring 
results, review of operation and maintenance procedures, review of 
operation and maintenance records, and inspection of the source.
    (f) Beginning no later than the compliance dates specified in Sec.  
63.7995(e), the referenced provisions specified in paragraphs (f)(1) 
through (22) of this section do not apply when demonstrating compliance 
with this subpart through referenced provisions of subpart SS, subpart 
UU, and subpart TT of this part.
    (1) Sec.  63.983(a)(5) of subpart SS.
    (2) The phrase ``except during periods of start-up, shutdown and 
malfunction as specified in the referencing subpart'' in Sec.  
63.984(a) of subpart SS.
    (3) The phrase ``except during periods of start-up, shutdown and 
malfunction as specified in the referencing subpart'' in Sec.  
63.985(a) of subpart SS.
    (4) The phrase ``other than start-ups, shutdowns, or malfunctions'' 
in Sec.  63.994(c)(1)(ii)(D) of subpart SS.
    (5) Sec.  63.996(c)(2)(ii) of subpart SS.
    (6) Sec.  63.997(e)(1)(i) of subpart SS.
    (7) The term ``breakdowns'' from Sec. Sec.  63.998(b)(2)(i) of 
subpart SS.
    (8) Sec.  63.998(b)(2)(iii) of subpart SS.
    (9) The phrase ``other than periods of startups, shutdowns, and 
malfunctions'' from Sec.  63.998(b)(5)(i)(A) of subpart SS.
    (10) The phrase ``other than periods of startups, shutdowns, and 
malfunctions'' from Sec.  63.998(b)(5)(i)(C) of subpart SS.
    (11) The phrase ``, except as provided in paragraphs (b)(6)(i)(A) 
and (B) of this section'' from Sec.  63.998(b)(6)(i) of subpart SS.
    (12) The second sentence of Sec.  63.998(b)(6)(ii) of subpart SS.
    (13) Sec.  63.998(c)(1)(ii)(D), (E), (F), and (G) of subpart SS.
    (14) Sec.  63.998(d)(1)(ii) of subpart SS.
    (15) Sec.  63.998(d)(3)(i) and (ii) of subpart SS.
    (16) The phrase ``may be included as part of the startup, shutdown, 
and malfunction plan, as required by the referencing subpart for the 
source, or'' from Sec.  63.1005(e)(4)(i) of subpart TT.
    (17) The phrase ``(except periods of startup, shutdown, or 
malfunction)'' from Sec.  63.1007(e)(1)(ii)(A) of subpart TT.
    (18) The phrase ``(except during periods of startup, shutdown, or 
malfunction)'' from Sec.  63.1009(e)(1)(i)(A) of subpart TT.
    (19) The phrase ``(except during periods of startup, shutdown, or 
malfunction)'' from Sec.  63.1012(b)(1) of subpart TT.
    (20) The phrase ``(except periods of startup, shutdown, or 
malfunction)'' from Sec.  63.1026(e)(1)(ii)(A) of subpart UU.
    (21) The phrase ``(except periods of startup, shutdown, or 
malfunction)'' from Sec.  63.1028(e)(1)(i)(A) of subpart UU.
    (22) The phrase ``(except periods of startup, shutdown, or 
malfunction)'' from Sec.  63.1031(b)(1) of subpart UU.
0
6. Section 63.8005 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraph (a)(2);
0
b. Revising paragraph (d)(1) and adding paragraph (d)(5);
0
c. Revising paragraph (e) introductory text and paragraph (e)(2);
0
d. Revising paragraph (g); and
0
e. Adding paragraph (h)
    The revisions and addition read as follows:


Sec.  63.8005   What requirements apply to my process vessels?

    (a) * * *
    (2) For each control device used to comply with Table 1 to this 
subpart, you must comply with subpart SS of this part 63 as specified 
in Sec.  63.8000(c), except as specified in Sec.  63.8000(d) and (f), 
and paragraphs (b) through (g) of this section.
* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (1) To demonstrate initial compliance with a percent reduction 
emission limit in Table 1 to this subpart, you must conduct the 
performance test or design evaluation under conditions as specified in 
Sec.  63.7(e)(1), except as specified in paragraph (d)(5) of this 
section, and except that the performance test or design evaluation must 
be conducted under worst-case conditions. Also, the performance test 
for a control device used to control emissions from process vessels 
must be conducted according to Sec.  63.1257(b)(8), including the 
submittal of a site-specific test plan for approval prior to testing. 
The requirements in Sec.  63.997(e)(1)(i) and (iii) also do not apply 
for performance tests conducted to determine compliance with the 
emission limits for process vessels.
* * * * *
    (5) Beginning no later than the compliance dates specified in Sec.  
63.7995(e), Sec.  63.7(e)(1) no longer applies and performance tests 
shall be conducted under such conditions as the Administrator specifies 
to the owner or operator based on representative performance of the 
affected source for the period being tested. Representative conditions 
exclude periods of startup and shutdown unless specified by the 
Administrator or an applicable subpart. The owner or operator may not 
conduct performance tests during periods of malfunction. The owner or 
operator must record the process information that is necessary to 
document operating conditions during the test and include in such 
record an explanation to support that such conditions represent normal 
operation. Upon request, the owner or operator shall make available to 
the Administrator such records as may be necessary to determine the 
conditions of performance tests.
    (e) Establishing operating limits. You must establish operating 
limits under the conditions required for your initial compliance 
demonstration and periodic performance tests, except you may elect to 
establish operating limit(s) for conditions other than those under 
which a performance test was conducted as specified in paragraph (e)(1) 
of this section and, if applicable, paragraph (e)(2) of this section.
* * * * *
    (2) If you elect to establish separate operating limits for 
different emission episodes, you must maintain records as specified in 
Sec.  63.8080(g) of each point at which you change from one operating 
limit to another, even if the duration of the monitoring for an 
operating limit is less than 15 minutes.
* * * * *
    (g) Flow indicators. If flow to a control device could be 
intermittent, you must install, calibrate, and operate a flow indicator 
at the inlet or outlet of the control device to identify periods of no 
flow. Periods of no flow may not be used in daily or block averages.
    (h) On and after the compliance date specified in Sec.  63.7995(e), 
when determining compliance with the percent emission reduction 
requirements in Table 1 to this subpart, you must account for the time 
that the control device was bypassed. You must use Equation 1 of this 
section to determine the allowable total hours of bypass for each semi-
annual compliance period. To demonstrate compliance, the actual total 
hours of bypass must not exceed the allowable total hours of bypass 
calculated by Equation 1 of this section.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP04SE19.000

Tbyp = Total allowable source operating time (hours) when the 
control device for stationary process vessels can be bypassed during 
the semiannual compliance period for any reason.
R = Control efficiency of control device, percent, as determined by 
Equation 6 in Sec.  63.997(e)(2)(iv)(C).
OCE = The applicable percent emission reduction requirement in Table 
1 to this subpart.
Top = Total source operating time (hours) for stationary process 
vessels during the semiannual compliance period.

0
7. Section 63.8010 is amended by revising paragraph (a) to read as 
follows:

[[Page 46643]]

Sec.  63.8010   What requirements apply to my storage tanks?

    (a) You must meet each emission limit in Table 2 to this subpart 
that applies to your storage tanks, and you must meet each applicable 
requirement specified in Sec.  63.8000(b). For each control device used 
to comply with Table 2 to this subpart, you must comply with subpart SS 
of this part 63 as specified in Sec.  63.8000(c), except as specified 
in Sec.  63.8000(d) and (f), and paragraphs (b) through (d) of this 
section.
* * * * *
0
8. Section 63.8025 is amended by revising paragraph (a) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  63.8025   What requirements apply to my transfer operations?

    (a) You must comply with each emission limit and work practice 
standard in Table 5 to this subpart that applies to your transfer 
operations, and you must meet all applicable requirements specified in 
Sec.  63.8000(b). For each control device used to comply with Table 5 
to this subpart, you must comply with subpart SS of this part 63 as 
specified in Sec.  63.8000(c), except as specified in Sec.  63.8000(d) 
and (f), and paragraph (b) of this section.
* * * * *
0
9. Section 63.8050 is amended by adding paragraphs (c)(3)(i) through 
(c)(3)(iii) to read as follows:


Sec.  63.8050   How do I comply with emissions averaging for stationary 
process vessels at existing sources?

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (3) * * *
    (i) If emissions are routed through a closed-vent system to a 
condenser control device, determine controlled emissions using the 
procedures specified in Sec.  63.1257(d)(3).
    (ii) If emissions are routed through a closed-vent system to any 
control device other than a condenser, determine actual emissions after 
determining the efficiency of the control device using the procedures 
in subpart SS of this part 63 as specified in Sec.  63.8000(c).
    (iii) If the vessel is vented to the atmosphere, then actual 
emissions are equal to the uncontrolled emissions estimated in 
accordance with paragraph (c)(1) of this section.
* * * * *
0
10. Section 63.8055 is amended by revising paragraphs (b)(1), (2), and 
(4) to read as follows:


Sec.  63.8055   How do I comply with a weight percent HAP limit in 
coating products?

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (1) Method 311 (appendix A to 40 CFR part 63). As an alternative to 
Method 311, you may use California Air Resources Board Method 310, 
Determination of Volatile Organic Compounds in Consumer Products and 
Reactive Organic Compounds in Aerosol Coating Products for use with 
aerosol cans.
    (2) Method 24 (appendix A to 40 CFR part 60). You may use Method 24 
to determine the mass fraction of volatile matter and use that value as 
a substitute for the mass fraction of HAP, or one of the alternatives 
in paragraph (b)(1)(i) through (iii) of this section.
    (i) ASTM D2369-10(2015)e, (incorporated by reference, see Sec.  
63.14);
    (ii) ASTM D2697-03 (2014) (incorporated by reference, see Sec.  
63.14); or
    (iii) ASTM D3960-98 (incorporated by reference, see Sec.  63.14).
* * * * *
    (4) You may rely on formulation data from raw material suppliers if 
it represents each organic HAP that is present at 0.1 percent by mass 
or more for the HAP listed in Table 11 to this subpart, and at 1.0 
percent by mass or more for other compounds. If the HAP weight percent 
estimated based on formulation data conflicts with the results of a 
test conducted according to paragraphs (b)(1) through (3) of this 
section, then there is a rebuttal presumption that the test results are 
accurate unless, after consultation, you demonstrate to the 
satisfaction of the permitting authority that the test results are not 
accurate and that the formulation data are more appropriate.
0
11. Section 63.8070 is amended by revising paragraph (c) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  63.8070   What notifications must I submit and when?

* * * * *
    (c) Notification of performance test. If you are required to 
conduct a performance test, you must submit a notification of intent to 
conduct a performance test at least 60 calendar days before the 
performance test is scheduled to begin as required in Sec.  63.7(b)(1). 
For any performance test required as part of the compliance procedures 
for process vessels in Table 1 to this subpart, you must also submit 
the test plan required by Sec.  63.7(c) and the emission profile with 
the notification of the performance test.
0
12. Section 63.8075 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraph (c)(1);
0
b. Revising paragraph (d) introductory text and paragraphs (d)(1) and 
(d)(2)(ii);
0
c. Revising paragraph (e)(5) introductory text and paragraph 
(e)(6)(ii)(B);
0
d. Adding paragraph (e)(6)(ii)(D);
0
e. Revising paragraph (e)(6)(iii) introductory text and paragraphs 
(e)(6)(iii)(C) and (e)(6)(iii)(E);
0
f. Adding paragraph (e)(6)(iii)(L);
0
g. Removing and reserving paragraph (e)(8)(ii)(B); and
0
h. Adding paragraphs (f) through (k).
    The revisions and additions read as follows:


Sec.  63.8075   What reports must I submit and when?

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (1) Requests for approval to set operating limits for parameters 
other than those specified in Sec. Sec.  63.8005 through 63.8030, 
including parameters for enhanced biological treatment units. 
Alternatively, you may make these requests according to Sec.  63.8(f).
* * * * *
    (d) Notification of compliance status report. You must submit a 
notification of compliance status report according to the schedule in 
paragraph (d)(1) of this section, and the notification of compliance 
status report must include the information specified in paragraph 
(d)(2) of this section.
    (1) You must submit the notification of compliance status report no 
later than 150 days after the applicable compliance date specified in 
Sec.  63.7995. You must submit a separate notification of compliance 
status report after the applicable compliance date specified in Sec.  
63.7995(e).
    (2) * * *
    (ii) The results of performance tests, engineering analyses, design 
evaluations, flare compliance assessments, inspections and repairs, and 
calculations used to demonstrate compliance according to Sec. Sec.  
63.8005 through 63.8030 and 63.8055. For performance tests, results 
must include descriptions of sampling and analysis procedures and 
quality assurance procedures.
* * * * *
    (e) * * *
    (5) For each SSM during which excess emissions occur, the 
compliance report must include the information specified in paragraphs 
(e)(5)(i) and (ii) of this section. On and after the compliance date 
specified in Sec.  63.7995(e), these paragraphs (e)(5), (e)(5)(i), and 
(e)(5)(ii) of this section no longer apply.
* * * * *
    (6) * * *
    (ii) * * *
    (B) Before the compliance date specified in Sec.  63.7995(e), 
information on the number, duration, and cause of deviations (including 
unknown cause, if applicable), as applicable, and the

[[Page 46644]]

corrective action taken. On and after the compliance date specified in 
Sec.  63.7995(e), report the number of failures to meet an applicable 
standard. For each instance, report the date, time and duration of each 
failure. For each failure the report must include a list of the 
affected sources or equipment, an estimate of the quantity of each 
regulated pollutant emitted over any emission limit, a description of 
the method used to estimate the emissions, and the cause of deviations 
(including unknown cause, if applicable), as applicable, and the 
corrective action taken.
* * * * *
    (D) On and after the compliance date specified in Sec.  63.7995(e), 
report the total bypass hours, as monitored according to the provisions 
of Sec.  63.8080(h).
    (iii) For each deviation from an emission limit or operating limit 
occurring at an affected source where you are using a CMS to comply 
with the emission limit in this subpart, you must include the 
information in paragraphs (e)(6)(iii)(A) through (L) of this section. 
This includes periods of SSM.
* * * * *
    (C) Before the compliance date specified in Sec.  63.7995(e), the 
date and time that each deviation started and stopped, and whether each 
deviation occurred during a period of startup, shutdown, or malfunction 
or during another period. On and after the compliance date specified in 
Sec.  63.7995(e), report the number of failures to meet an applicable 
standard. For each instance, report the date, time and duration of each 
failure. For each failure the report must include a list of the 
affected sources or equipment, an estimate of the quantity of each 
regulated pollutant emitted over any emission limit, a description of 
the method used to estimate the emissions, and the cause of deviations 
(including unknown cause, if applicable), as applicable, and the 
corrective action taken.
* * * * *
    (E) Before the compliance date specified in Sec.  63.7995(e), a 
breakdown of the total duration of the deviations during the reporting 
period into those that are due to startup, shutdown, control equipment 
problems, process problems, other known causes, and other unknown 
causes. On and after the compliance date specified in Sec.  63.7995(e), 
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.
* * * * *
    (L) A summary of the total duration of CMS data unavailability 
during the reporting period, and the total duration as a percent of the 
total source operating time during that reporting period.
* * * * *
    (f) Performance test report. On and after [DATE 181 DAYS AFTER DATE 
OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE Federal Register], within 60 days 
after the date of completing each performance test required by 
Sec. Sec.  63.8000, 63.8005, or 63.8010 of this subpart, you must 
submit the results of the performance test following the procedures 
specified in paragraphs (f)(1) through (3) of this section. The 
requirements of this paragraph (f) do not affect the schedule for 
completing performance tests specified in Sec. Sec.  63.8000, 63.8005, 
and 63.8010.
    (1) Data collected using test methods supported by the EPA's 
Electronic Reporting Tool (ERT) as listed on the EPA's ERT website 
(https://www.epa.gov/electronic-reporting-air-emissions/electronic-reporting-tool-ert) at the time of the test. Submit the results of the 
performance test to the EPA via the Compliance and Emissions Data 
Reporting Interface (CEDRI), which can be accessed through the EPA's 
Central Data Exchange (CDX) (https://cdx.epa.gov/). The data must be 
submitted in a file format generated through the use of the EPA's ERT. 
Alternatively, you may submit an electronic file consistent with the 
extensible markup language (XML) schema listed on the EPA's ERT 
website. Submit the results of the performance test to the EPA via the 
Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface (CEDRI), which can be 
accessed through the EPA's Central Data Exchange (CDX) (https://cdx.epa.gov/). The data must be submitted in a file format generated 
through the use of the EPA's ERT. Alternatively, you may submit an 
electronic file consistent with the extensible markup language (XML) 
schema listed on the EPA's ERT website.
    (2) Data collected using test methods that are not supported by the 
EPA's ERT as listed on the EPA's ERT website at the time of the test. 
The results of the performance test must be included as an attachment 
in the ERT or an alternate electronic file consistent with the XML 
schema listed on the EPA's ERT website. Submit the ERT generated 
package or alternative file to the EPA via CEDRI.
    (3) Confidential business information (CBI). If you claim that some 
of the performance test information being submitted under paragraph (f) 
of this section is CBI, you must submit a complete file, including 
information claimed to be CBI, to the EPA. The file must be generated 
through the use of the EPA's ERT or an alternate electronic file 
consistent with the XML schema listed on the EPA's ERT website. Submit 
the file on a compact disc, flash drive, or other commonly used 
electronic storage medium and clearly mark the medium as CBI. Mail the 
electronic medium to U.S. EPA/OAPQS/CORE CBI Office, Attention: Group 
Leader, Measurement Policy Group, MD C404-02, 4930 Old Page Rd., 
Durham, NC 27703. The same file with the CBI omitted must be submitted 
to the EPA via the EPA's CDX as described in paragraph (f) of this 
section.
    (g) Performance evaluation report. On and after [DATE 181 DAYS 
AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE Federal Register], 
within 60 days after the date of completing each continuous monitoring 
system (CMS) performance evaluation (as defined in Sec.  63.2), you 
must submit the results of the performance evaluation following the 
procedures specified in paragraphs (g)(1) through (3) of this section.
    (1) Performance evaluations of CMS measuring relative accuracy test 
audit (RATA) pollutants that are supported by the EPA's ERT as listed 
on the EPA's ERT website at the time of the evaluation. Submit the 
results of the performance evaluation to the EPA via CEDRI, which can 
be accessed through the EPA's CDX. The data must be submitted in a file 
format generated through the use of the EPA's ERT. Alternatively, you 
may submit an electronic file consistent with the XML schema listed on 
the EPA's ERT website.
    (2) Performance evaluations of CMS measuring RATA pollutants that 
are not supported by the EPA's ERT as listed on the EPA's ERT website 
at the time of the evaluation. The results of the performance 
evaluation must be included as an attachment in the ERT or an alternate 
electronic file consistent with the XML schema listed on the EPA's ERT 
website. Submit the ERT generated package or alternative file to the 
EPA via CEDRI.
    (3) Confidential business information (CBI). If you claim some of 
the information submitted under paragraph (a) of this section is CBI, 
you must submit a complete file, including information claimed to be 
CBI, to the EPA. The file must be generated through

[[Page 46645]]

the use of the EPA's ERT or an alternate electronic file consistent 
with the XML schema listed on the EPA's ERT website. Submit the file on 
a compact disc, flash drive, or other commonly used electronic storage 
medium and clearly mark the medium as CBI. Mail the electronic medium 
to U.S. EPA/OAQPS/CORE CBI Office, Attention: Group Leader, Measurement 
Policy Group, MD C404-02, 4930 Old Page Rd., Durham, NC 27703. The same 
file with the CBI omitted must be submitted to the EPA via the EPA's 
CDX as described in paragraph (a) of this section.
    (h) You must submit to the Administrator initial compliance 
reports, notification of compliance status reports, and compliance 
reports of the following information. Beginning on and after [DATE 181 
DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE Federal Register], 
submit all subsequent reports following the procedure specified in 
paragraph (i) of this section.
    (i) If you are required to submit reports following the procedure 
specified in this paragraph, you must submit reports to the EPA via 
CEDRI, which can be accessed through the EPA's Central Data Exchange 
(CDX) (https://cdx.epa.gov).
    (1) Compliance reports. The requirements of this paragraph (i) do 
not affect the schedule for submitting the initial notification or the 
notification of compliance status reports. You must use the appropriate 
electronic compliance report template on the CEDRI website (https://www.epa.gov/electronic-reporting-air-emissions/compliance-and-emissions-data-reporting-interface-cedri) for this subpart. The date 
report templates become available will be listed on the CEDRI website.
    (2) Initial notification reports and notification of compliance 
status reports.
    You must upload to CEDRI a PDF file of each initial notification 
and of each notification of compliance status.
    (3) All reports. The report must be submitted by the deadline 
specified in this subpart, regardless of the method in which the report 
is submitted. If you claim some of the information required to be 
submitted via CEDRI is confidential business information (CBI), submit 
a complete report, including information claimed to be CBI, to the EPA. 
The report must be generated using the appropriate form on the CEDRI 
website, where applicable. Submit the file on a compact disc, flash 
drive, or other commonly used electronic storage medium and clearly 
mark the medium as CBI. Mail the electronic medium to U.S. EPA/OAQPS/
CORE CBI Office, Attention: Group Leader, Measurement Policy Group, MD 
C404-02, 4930 Old Page Rd., Durham, NC 27703. The same file with the 
CBI omitted shall be submitted to the EPA via the EPA's CDX as 
described earlier in this paragraph.
    (j) Extensions for CDX/CEDRI Outages and Force Majeure Events. If 
you are required to electronically submit a report through CEDRI in the 
EPA's CDX, you may assert a claim of EPA system outage for failure to 
timely comply with the reporting requirement. To assert a claim of EPA 
system outage, you must meet the requirements outlined in paragraphs 
(j)(1) through (7) of this section.
    (1) You must have been or will be precluded from accessing CEDRI 
and submitting a required report within the time prescribed due to an 
outage of either the EPA's CEDRI or CDX systems.
    (2) The outage must have occurred within the period of time 
beginning five business days prior to the date that the submission is 
due.
    (3) The outage may be planned or unplanned/
    (4) You must submit notification to the Administrator in writing as 
soon as possible following the date you first knew, or through due 
diligence should have known, that the event may cause or caused a delay 
in reporting.
    (5) You must provide to the Administrator a written description 
identifying:
    (i) The date(s) and time(s) when CDX or CEDRI was accessed and the 
system was unavailable;
    (ii) A rationale for attributing the delay in reporting beyond the 
regulatory deadline to EPA system outage;
    (iii) Measures taken or to be taken to minimize the delay in 
reporting; and
    (iv) The date by which you propose to report, or if you have 
already met the reporting requirement at the time of the notification, 
the date you reported.
    (6) The decision to accept the claim of EPA system outage and allow 
an extension to the reporting deadline is solely within the discretion 
of the Administrator.
    (7) In any circumstance, the report must be submitted 
electronically as soon as possible after the outage is resolved.
    (k) If you are required to electronically submit a report through 
CEDRI in the EPA's CDX, you may assert a claim of force majeure for 
failure to timely comply with the reporting requirement. To assert a 
claim of force majeure, you must meet the requirements outlined in 
paragraphs (k)(1) through (5) of this section.
    (1) You may submit a claim if a force majeure event is about to 
occur, occurs, or has occurred or there are lingering effects from such 
an event within the period of time beginning five business days prior 
to the date the submission is due. For purposes of this section, a 
force majeure event is defined as an event that will be or has been 
caused by circumstances beyond the control of the affected facility, 
its contractors, or any entity controlled by the affected facility that 
prevents you from complying with the requirement to submit a report 
electronically within the time period prescribed. Examples of such 
events are acts of nature (e.g., hurricanes, earthquakes, or floods), 
acts of war or terrorism, or equipment failure or safety hazard beyond 
the control of the affected facility (e.g., large scale power outage).
    (2) You must submit notification to the Administrator in writing as 
soon as possible following the date you first knew, or through due 
diligence should have known, that the event may cause or has caused a 
delay in reporting.
    (3) You must provide to the Administrator:
    (i) A written description of the force majeure event;
    (ii) A rationale for attributing the delay in reporting beyond the 
regulatory deadline to the force majeure event;
    (iii) Measures taken or to be taken to minimize the delay in 
reporting; and
    (iv) The date by which you propose to report, or if you have 
already met the reporting requirement at the time of the notification, 
the date you reported.
    (4) The decision to accept the claim of force majeure and allow an 
extension to the reporting deadline is solely within the discretion of 
the Administrator.
    (5) In any circumstance, the reporting must occur as soon as 
possible after the force majeure event occurs.
0
13. Section 63.8080 is amended by:
0
a. Revising the introductory paragraph;
0
b. Revising paragraphs (c), (e), and (f); and
0
c. Adding paragraphs (h) through (j).
    The revisions and additions read as follows:


Sec.  63.8080  What records must I keep?

    You must keep the records specified in paragraphs (a) through (h) 
of this section.
* * * * *
    (c) Before the compliance date specified in Sec.  63.7995(e), a 
record of each time a safety device is opened to avoid unsafe 
conditions in accordance with Sec.  63.8000(b)(2). On and after the 
compliance date specified in

[[Page 46646]]

Sec.  63.7995(e), the information in this paragraph (c).
    (1) The source, nature, and cause of the opening.
    (2) The date, time, and duration of the opening.
    (3) An estimate of the quantity of total HAP emitted during the 
opening and the method used for determining this quantity.
* * * * *
    (e) Before the compliance date specified in Sec.  63.7995(e), for 
each CEMS, you must keep the records of the date and time that each 
deviation started and stopped, and whether the deviation occurred 
during a period of startup, shutdown, or malfunction or during another 
period. On and after the compliance date specified in Sec.  63.7995(e), 
for each CEMS, you must keep the records of the date and time that each 
deviation started and stopped, and whether the deviation occurred 
during a period of startup, shutdown, or malfunction or during another 
period.
    (f) Before the compliance date specified in Sec.  63.7995(e), in 
the SSMP required by Sec.  63.6(e)(3), you are not required to include 
Group 2 or non-affected emission points. For equipment leaks only, the 
SSMP requirement is limited to control devices and is optional for 
other equipment. On and after the compliance date specified in Sec.  
63.7995(e), the requirements of this paragraph (f) no longer apply.
* * * * *
    (h) On and after the compliance date specified in Sec.  63.7995(e), 
records of the total source operating time (hours) for stationary 
process vessels during the semiannual compliance period, and the source 
operating time (hours) when the control device for stationary process 
vessels was bypassed during the semiannual compliance period for any 
reason, as used in determining compliance with the percent emission 
reduction requirements in Table 1 to this subpart, as specified in 
Sec.  63.8005(h).
    (i) On and after the compliance date specified in Sec.  63.7995(e), 
for each deviation from an emission limitation reported under Sec.  
63.8075(e)(5), a record of the information specified in paragraphs 
(i)(1) and (2) of this section, as applicable.
    (1) In the event that an affected unit fails to meet an applicable 
standard, record the number of failures. For each failure record the 
date, time and duration of each failure.
    (2) For each failure to meet an applicable standard, record and 
retain a list of the affected sources or equipment, an estimate of the 
quantity of each regulated pollutant emitted over any emission limit 
and a description of the method used to estimate the emissions.
    (j) Any records required to be maintained by this subpart that are 
submitted electronically via the EPA's CEDRI may be maintained in 
electronic format. This ability to maintain electronic copies does not 
affect the requirement for facilities to make records, data, and 
reports available upon request to a delegated air agency or the EPA as 
part of an on-site compliance evaluation.
0
14. Section 63.8090 is amended by revising paragraph (b) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  63.8090   What compliance options do I have if part of my plant 
is subject to both this subpart and another subpart?

* * * * *
    (b) Compliance with 40 CFR part 60, subpart Kb. After the 
compliance dates specified in Sec.  63.7995, you are in compliance with 
this subpart for any storage tank that is assigned to miscellaneous 
coating manufacturing operations and that is both controlled with a 
floating roof and in compliance with the provisions of 40 CFR part 60, 
subpart Kb. You are in compliance with this subpart if you have a 
storage tank with a fixed roof, closed-vent system, and control device 
in compliance with 40 CFR part 60, subpart Kb, and you are in 
compliance with the monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting 
requirements in this subpart. You must also identify in your 
notification of compliance status report required by Sec.  63.8075(d) 
which storage tanks are in compliance with 40 CFR part 60, subpart Kb.
* * * * *
0
15. Section 63.8105 is amended by:
0
a. In paragraph (g), revising the definitions for ``Deviation'' and 
``Process vessel vent''; and
0
b. In paragraph (g), removing the definition for ``Small control 
device''.
    The revisions read as follows:


Sec.  63.8105   What definitions apply to this subpart?

* * * * *
    (g) * * *
    Deviation 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;
    (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) Before the compliance date specified in Sec.  63.7995(e), 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. On and after 
the compliance date specified in Sec.  63.7995(e), this paragraph (3) 
no longer applies.
* * * * *
    Process vessel vent means a vent from a process vessel or vents 
from multiple process vessels that are manifolded together into a 
common header, through which a HAP-containing gas stream is, or has the 
potential to be, released to the atmosphere. Emission streams that are 
undiluted and uncontrolled containing less than 50 ppmv HAP, as 
determined through process knowledge that no HAP are present in the 
emission stream or using an engineering assessment as discussed in 
Sec.  63.1257(d)(2)(ii), test data using Method 18 of 40 CFR part 60, 
appendix A, or any other test method that has been validated according 
to the procedures in Method 301 of appendix A of this part, are not 
considered process vessel vents. Flexible elephant trunk systems when 
used with closed vent systems and drawing ambient air (i.e., the system 
is not ducted, piped, or otherwise connected to the unit operations) 
away from operators when vessels are opened are not process vessel 
vents. Process vessel vents do not include vents on storage tanks, 
wastewater emission sources, or pieces of equipment subject to the 
requirements in Table 3 of this subpart. A gas stream going to a fuel 
gas system is not a process vessel vent. A gas stream routed to a 
process for a process purpose is not a Sec.  63.8075 vent.
* * * * *
0
16. Table 1 to Subpart HHHHH of Part 63 is amended by revising row 4 to 
read as follows:
* * * * *

[[Page 46647]]



 Table 1 to Subpart HHHHH of Part 63--Emission Limits and Work Practice
                      Standards for Process Vessels
                              * * * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      And you must . . .
         For each . . .             You must . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                              * * * * * * *
4. Halogenated vent stream from   a. Use a halogen    i. Reduce overall
 a process vessel subject to the   reduction device    emissions of
 requirements of item 2 or 3 of    after the           hydrogen halide
 this table for which you use a    combustion          and halogen HAP
 combustion control device to      control device;     by >=95 percent;
 control organic HAP emissions.    or                  or
                                  b. Use a halogen    ii. Reduce overall
                                   reduction device    emissions of
                                   before the          hydrogen halide
                                   combustion          and halogen HAP
                                   control device.     to <=0.45
                                                       kilogram per hour
                                                       (kg/hr).
                                                      Reduce the halogen
                                                       atom mass
                                                       emission rate to
                                                       <=0.45 kg/hr.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

0
17. Table 3 to Subpart HHHHH of Part 63 is revised to read as follows:
    As required in Sec.  63.8015, you must meet each requirement in the 
following table that applies to your equipment leaks.

  Table 3 to Subpart HHHHH of Part 63--Requirements for Equipment Leaks
------------------------------------------------------------------------
             For all . . .                        You must . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Equipment that is in organic HAP      a. Comply with the requirements
 service at an existing source.           in Sec.  Sec.   63.424(a)
                                          through (d) and 63.428(e),
                                          (f), and (h)(4), except as
                                          specified in Sec.
                                          63.8015(b); or
                                         b. Comply with the requirements
                                          of subpart TT of this part,
                                          except as specified in Sec.
                                          63.8000(f); or
                                         c. Comply with the requirements
                                          of subpart UU of this part,
                                          except as specified in Sec.
                                          Sec.   63.8000(f)
                                          and[thinsp]63.8015(c) and (d).
2. Equipment that is in organic HAP      a. Comply with the requirements
 service at a new source.                 of subpart TT of this part,
                                          except as specified in Sec.
                                          63.8000(f); or
                                         b. Comply with the requirements
                                          of subpart UU of this part,
                                          except as specified in Sec.
                                          Sec.   63.8000(f)[thinsp]and
                                          63.8015(c) and (d).
------------------------------------------------------------------------

0
18. The title of Table 8 to Subpart HHHHH of Part 63 is amended to read 
as follows:

Table 8 to Subpart HHHHH of Part 63--Soluble Hazardous Air Pollutants

    As specified in Sec.  63.8020, the soluble HAP in wastewater that 
are subject to management and treatment requirements of this subpart 
are listed in the following table:
* * * * *
0
19. Table 9 to Subpart HHHHH of Part 63 is amended by adding rows 4 and 
5 to read as follows:
    As required in Sec.  63.8075(a) and (b), you must submit each 
report that applies to you on the schedule shown in the following 
table:

      Table 9 to Subpart HHHHH of Part 63--Requirements for Reports
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                 The report must    You must submit the
    You must submit a . . .       contain . . .         report . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                              * * * * * * *
4. Performance test report....  The information    Within 60 days after
                                 specified in       completing each
                                 Sec.               performance test
                                 63.8075(f).        according to the
                                                    requirements in Sec.
                                                      63.8075(f).
5. Performance evaluation       The information    Within 60 days after
 report.                         specified in       completing each
                                 Sec.               continuous
                                 63.8075(g).        monitoring system
                                                    (CMS) performance
                                                    evaluation according
                                                    to the requirements
                                                    in Sec.
                                                    63.8075(g).
------------------------------------------------------------------------

0
20. Table 10 to Subpart HHHHH of Pat 63 is revised to read as follows:
    As specified in Sec.  63.8095, the parts of the General Provisions 
that apply to you are shown in the following table:

     Table 10 to Subpart HHHHH of Part 63--Applicability of General
                       Provisions to Subpart HHHHH
------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Citation                  Subject            Explanation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec.   63.1...................  Applicability....  Yes.
Sec.   63.2...................  Definitions......  Yes.
Sec.   63.3...................  Units and          Yes.
                                 Abbreviations.
Sec.   63.4...................  Prohibited         Yes.
                                 Activities.
Sec.   63.5...................  Construction/      Yes.
                                 Reconstruction.
Sec.   63.6(a)................  Applicability....  Yes.

[[Page 46648]]

 
Sec.   63.6(b)(1)-(4).........  Compliance Dates   Yes.
                                 for New and
                                 Reconstructed
                                 sources.
Sec.   63.6(b)(5).............  Notification.....  Yes.
Sec.   63.6(b)(6).............  [Reserved].......  .....................
Sec.   63.6(b)(7).............  Compliance Dates   Yes.
                                 for New and
                                 Reconstructed
                                 Area Sources
                                 That Become
                                 Major.
Sec.   63.6(c)(1)-(2).........  Compliance Dates   Yes.
                                 for Existing
                                 Sources.
Sec.   63.6(c)(3)-(4).........  [Reserved].......  .....................
Sec.   63.6(c)(5).............  Compliance Dates   Yes.
                                 for Existing
                                 Area Sources
                                 That Become
                                 Major.
Sec.   63.6(d)................  [Reserved].......  .....................
Sec.   63.6(e)(1)(i)..........  General Duty to    Yes, before the
                                 minimize           compliance date
                                 emissions.         specified in Sec.
                                                    63.7995(e). No, on
                                                    and after the
                                                    compliance date
                                                    specified in Sec.
                                                    63.7995(e). See
                                                    63.8000(a) for
                                                    general duty
                                                    requirement.
Sec.   63.6(e)(1)(ii).........  Requirement to     Yes, before the
                                 correct            compliance date
                                 malfunctions as    specified in Sec.
                                 soon as possible.  63.7995(e). No, on
                                                    and after the
                                                    compliance date
                                                    specified in Sec.
                                                    63.7995(e).
Sec.   63.6(e)(1)(iii)-(2)....  Operation &        Yes.
                                 Maintenance.
Sec.   63.6(e)(3).............  Startup,           Yes, before the
                                 shutdown, and      compliance date
                                 malfunction plan.  specified in Sec.
                                                    63.7995(e). No, on
                                                    and after the
                                                    compliance date
                                                    specified in Sec.
                                                    63.7995(e).
Sec.   63.6(f)(1).............  Compliance Except  Yes, before the
                                 During SSM.        compliance date
                                                    specified in Sec.
                                                    63.7995(e). No, on
                                                    and after the
                                                    compliance date
                                                    specified in Sec.
                                                    63.7995(e).
Sec.   63.6(f)(2)-(3).........  Methods for        Yes.
                                 Determining
                                 Compliance.
Sec.   63.6(g)(1)-(3).........  Alternative        Yes.
                                 Standard.
Sec.   63.6(h)(1).............  SSM Exemption....  Yes, before the
                                                    compliance date
                                                    specified in Sec.
                                                    63.7995(e). No, on
                                                    and after the
                                                    compliance date
                                                    specified in Sec.
                                                    63.7995(e).
Sec.   63.6(h)(2)-(9).........  Opacity/Visible    Only for flares for
                                 Emission (VE)      which Method 22
                                 Standards.         observations are
                                                    required as part of
                                                    a flare compliance
                                                    assessment.
Sec.   63.6(i)(1)-(14)........  Compliance         Yes.
                                 Extension.
Sec.   63.6(j)................  Presidential       Yes.
                                 Compliance
                                 Exemption.
Sec.   63.7(a)(1)-(2).........  Performance Test   Yes, except
                                 Dates.             substitute 150 days
                                                    for 180 days.
Sec.   63.7(a)(3)-(4).........  CAA Section 114    Yes, and these
                                 Authority, Force   paragraphs also
                                 Majeure.           apply to flare
                                                    compliance
                                                    assessments as
                                                    specified under Sec.
                                                      63.997(b)(2).
Sec.   63.7(b)(1).............  Notification of    Yes.
                                 Performance Test.
Sec.   63.7(b)(2).............  Notification of    Yes.
                                 Rescheduling.
Sec.   63.7(c)................  Quality Assurance/ Yes, except the test
                                 Test Plan.         plan must be
                                                    submitted with the
                                                    notification of the
                                                    performance test if
                                                    the control device
                                                    controls process
                                                    vessels.
Sec.   63.7(d)................  Testing            Yes.
                                 Facilities.
Sec.   63.7(e)(1).............  Conditions for     Yes, before the
                                 Conducting         compliance date
                                 Performance        specified in Sec.
                                 Tests.             63.7995(e), except
                                                    that performance
                                                    tests for process
                                                    vessels must be
                                                    conducted under
                                                    worst-case
                                                    conditions as
                                                    specified in Sec.
                                                    63.8005. No, on and
                                                    after the compliance
                                                    date specified in
                                                    Sec.   63.7995(e).
                                                    See Sec.
                                                    63.8005(d).
Sec.   63.7(e)(2).............  Conditions for     Yes.
                                 Conducting
                                 Performance
                                 Tests.
Sec.   63.7(e)(3).............  Test Run Duration  Yes.
Sec.   63.7(f)................  Alternative Test   Yes.
                                 Method.
Sec.   63.7(g)................  Performance Test   Yes.
                                 Data Analysis.
Sec.   63.7(h)................  Waiver of Tests..  Yes.
Sec.   63.8(a)(1).............  Applicability of   Yes.
                                 Monitoring
                                 Requirements.
Sec.   63.8(a)(2).............  Performance        Yes.
                                 Specifications.
Sec.   63.8(a)(3).............  [Reserved].......  .....................
Sec.   63.8(a)(4).............  Monitoring with    Yes.
                                 Flares.
Sec.   63.8(b)(1).............  Monitoring.......  Yes.
Sec.   63.8(b)(2)-(3).........  Multiple           Yes.
                                 Effluents and
                                 Multiple
                                 Monitoring
                                 Systems.
Sec.   63.8(c)(1).............  Monitoring System  Yes.
                                 Operation and
                                 Maintenance.
Sec.   63.8(c)(1)(i)..........  Maintain and       Yes, before the
                                 operate CMS.       compliance date
                                                    specified in Sec.
                                                    63.7995(e). No, on
                                                    and after the
                                                    compliance date
                                                    specified in Sec.
                                                    63.7995(e). See Sec.
                                                      63.8000(a) for the
                                                    general duty to
                                                    maintain and operate
                                                    each CMS.
Sec.   63.8(c)(1)(ii).........  Routine repairs..  Yes.
Sec.   63.8(c)(1)(iii)........  Requirement to     Yes, before the
                                 develop SSM plan   compliance date
                                 for CMS.           specified in Sec.
                                                    63.7995(e). No, on
                                                    and after the
                                                    compliance date
                                                    specified in Sec.
                                                    63.7995(e).
Sec.   63.8(c)(2)-(3).........  Monitoring System  Yes.
                                 Installation.

[[Page 46649]]

 
Sec.   63.8(c)(4).............  Requirements.....  Only for CEMS;
                                                    requirements for
                                                    CPMS are specified
                                                    in referenced
                                                    subpart SS of this
                                                    part. This subpart
                                                    does not contain
                                                    requirements for
                                                    continuous opacity
                                                    monitoring systems
                                                    (COMS).
Sec.   63.8(c)(4)(i)..........  CMS Requirements.  No. This subpart does
                                                    not require COMS.
Sec.   63.8(c)(4)(ii).........  CMS requirements.  Yes.
Sec.   63.8(c)(5).............  COMS Minimum       No. This subpart does
                                 Procedures.        not contain opacity
                                                    or VE limits.
Sec.   63.8(c)(6).............  CMS Requirements.  Only for CEMS;
                                                    requirements for
                                                    CPMS are specified
                                                    in referenced
                                                    subpart SS of this
                                                    part.
Sec.   63.8(c)(7)-(8).........  CMS Requirements.  Only for CEMS.
                                                    Requirements for
                                                    CPMS are specified
                                                    in referenced
                                                    subpart SS of this
                                                    part.
Sec.   63.8(d)(1)-(2).........  CMS Quality        Only for CEMS;
                                 Control.           requirements for
                                                    CPMS are specified
                                                    in referenced
                                                    subpart SS of this
                                                    part.
Sec.   63.8(d)(3).............  Written            Yes, before the
                                 procedures for     compliance date
                                 CMS.               specified in Sec.
                                                    63.7995(e). No, on
                                                    and after the
                                                    compliance date
                                                    specified in Sec.
                                                    63.7995(e). See Sec.
                                                      63.8000(d)(8).
Sec.   63.8(e)................  CMS Performance    Section
                                 Evaluation.        63.8(e)(6)(ii) does
                                                    not apply because
                                                    this subpart does
                                                    not require COMS.
                                                    Other sections apply
                                                    only for CEMS;
                                                    requirements for
                                                    CPMS are specified
                                                    in referenced
                                                    subpart SS of this
                                                    part.
Sec.   63.8(f)(1)-(5).........  Alternative        Yes, except you may
                                 Monitoring         also request
                                 Method.            approval using the
                                                    precompliance
                                                    report.
Sec.   63.8(f)(6).............  Alternative to     Only for CEMS.
                                 Relative
                                 Accuracy Test.
Sec.   63.8(g)(1)-(4).........  Data Reduction...  Only when using CEMS,
                                                    except Sec.
                                                    63.8(g)(2) does not
                                                    apply because data
                                                    reduction
                                                    requirements for
                                                    CEMS are specified
                                                    in Sec.
                                                    63.8000(d)(4)(iv).
                                                    The requirements for
                                                    COMS do not apply
                                                    because this subpart
                                                    has no opacity or VE
                                                    limits.
Sec.   63.8(g)(5).............  Data Reduction...  No. Requirements for
                                                    CEMS are specified
                                                    in Sec.
                                                    63.8000(d)(4).
                                                    Requirements for
                                                    CPMS are specified
                                                    in referenced
                                                    subpart SS of this
                                                    part.
Sec.   63.9(a)................  Notification       Yes.
                                 Requirements.
Sec.   63.9(b)(1)-(5).........  Initial            Yes.
                                 Notifications.
Sec.   63.9(c)................  Request for        Yes.
                                 Compliance
                                 Extension.
Sec.   63.9(d)................  Notification of    Yes.
                                 Special
                                 Compliance
                                 Requirements for
                                 New Source.
Sec.   63.9(e)................  Notification of    Yes.
                                 Performance Test.
Sec.   63.9(f)................  Notification of    No. This subpart does
                                 VE/Opacity Test.   not contain opacity
                                                    or VE limits.
Sec.   63.9(g)................  Additional         Only for CEMS;
                                 Notifications      requirements for
                                 When Using CMS.    CPMS are specified
                                                    in referenced
                                                    subpart SS of this
                                                    part.
Sec.   63.9(h)(1)-(6).........  Notification of    Yes, except this
                                 Compliance         subpart has no
                                 Status.            opacity or VE
                                                    limits, and Sec.
                                                    63.9(h)(2) does not
                                                    apply because Sec.
                                                    63.8075(d) specifies
                                                    the required
                                                    contents and due
                                                    date of the
                                                    notification of
                                                    compliance status
                                                    report.
Sec.   63.9(i)................  Adjustment of      Yes.
                                 Submittal
                                 Deadlines.
Sec.   63.9(j)................  Change in          No, Sec.
                                 Previous           63.8075(e)(8)
                                 Information.       specifies reporting
                                                    requirements for
                                                    process changes.
Sec.   63.10(a)...............  Recordkeeping/     Yes.
                                 Reporting.
Sec.   63.10(b)(1)............  Recordkeeping/     Yes.
                                 Reporting.
Sec.   63.10(b)(2)(i)-(ii)....  Records related    No. Before the
                                 to SSM.            compliance date
                                                    specified in Sec.
                                                    63.7995(e), see Sec.
                                                     Sec.   63.998(d)(3)
                                                    and
                                                    63.998(c)(1)(ii)(D)
                                                    through (G) for
                                                    recordkeeping
                                                    requirements for
                                                    periods of SSM. On
                                                    and after the
                                                    compliance date
                                                    specified in Sec.
                                                    63.7995(e), see Sec.
                                                      63.8080(i).
Sec.   63.10(b)(2)(iii).......  Records related    Yes.
                                 to maintenance
                                 of air pollution
                                 control
                                 equipment.
Sec.   63.10(b)(2)(iv)-(v)....  Records related    Yes, before the
                                 to SSM.            compliance date
                                                    specified in Sec.
                                                    63.7995(e). No, on
                                                    and after the
                                                    compliance date
                                                    specified in Sec.
                                                    63.7995(e).
Sec.   63.10(b)(2)(vi), (x),    CMS Records......  Only for CEMS;
 and (xi).                                          requirements for
                                                    CPMS are specified
                                                    in referenced
                                                    subpart SS of this
                                                    part.
Sec.   63.10(b)(2)(vii)-(ix)..  Records..........  Yes.
Sec.   63.10(b)(2)(xii).......  Records..........  Yes.
Sec.   63.10(b)(2)(xiii)......  Records..........  Yes.
Sec.   63.10(b)(2)(xiv).......  Records..........  Yes.
Sec.   63.10(b)(3)............  Records..........  Yes.
Sec.   63.10(c)(1)-(6),(9)-     Records..........  Only for CEMS;
 (14).                                              requirements for
                                                    CPMS are specified
                                                    in referenced
                                                    subpart SS of this
                                                    part.
Sec.   63.10(c)(7)-(8), (15)..  Records..........  No. Recordkeeping
                                                    requirements are
                                                    specified in Sec.
                                                    63.8080.
Sec.   63.10(d)(1)............  General Reporting  Yes.
                                 Requirements.
Sec.   63.10(d)(2)............  Report of          Yes.
                                 Performance Test
                                 Results.
Sec.   63.10(d)(3)............  Reporting Opacity  No. This subpart does
                                 or VE              not contain opacity
                                 Observations.      or VE limits.

[[Page 46650]]

 
Sec.   63.10(d)(4)............  Progress Reports.  Yes.
Sec.   63.10(d)(5)(i).........  SSM Reports......  No. Before the
                                                    compliance date
                                                    specified in Sec.
                                                    63.7995(e), see Sec.
                                                      63.8075(e)(5) and
                                                    (6) for the SSM
                                                    reporting
                                                    requirements. On and
                                                    after the compliance
                                                    date specified in
                                                    Sec.   63.7995(e),
                                                    these requirements
                                                    no longer apply.
Sec.   63.10(d)(5)(ii)........  Immediate SSM      No.
                                 Reports.
Sec.   63.10(e)(1)-(2)........  Additional CMS     Only for CEMS, but
                                 Reports.           Sec.
                                                    63.10(e)(2)(ii) does
                                                    not apply because
                                                    this subpart does
                                                    not require COMS.
Sec.   63.10(e)(3)............  Reports..........  No. Reporting
                                                    requirements are
                                                    specified in Sec.
                                                    63.8075.
Sec.   63.10(e)(3)(i)-(iii)...  Reports..........  No. Reporting
                                                    requirements are
                                                    specified in Sec.
                                                    63.8075.
Sec.   63.10(e)(3)(iv)-(v)....  Excess Emissions   No. Reporting
                                 Reports.           requirements are
                                                    specified in Sec.
                                                    63.8075.
Sec.   63.10(e)(3)(vi-viii)...  Excess Emissions   No. Reporting
                                 Report and         requirements are
                                 Summary Report.    specified in Sec.
                                                    63.8075.
Sec.   63.10(e)(4)............  Reporting COMS     No. This subpart does
                                 data.              not contain opacity
                                                    or VE limits.
Sec.   63.10(f)...............  Waiver for         Yes.
                                 Recordkeeping/
                                 Reporting.
Sec.   63.11..................  Control and work   Yes.
                                 practice
                                 requirements.
Sec.   63.12..................  Delegation.......  Yes.
Sec.   63.13..................  Addresses........  Yes.
Sec.   63.14..................  Incorporation by   Yes.
                                 Reference.
Sec.   63.15..................  Availability of    Yes.
                                 Information.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

0
21. Table 11 to Subpart HHHHH of Part 63 is added to read as follows:

 Table 11 to Subpart HHHHH 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
3,37'-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

[[Page 46651]]

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


[FR Doc. 2019-18344 Filed 9-3-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P

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