National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Paper and Other Web Coating Residual Risk and Technology Review, 49382-49433 [2019-19101]

Download as PDF 49382 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 182 / Thursday, September 19, 2019 / Proposed Rules ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 63 [EPA–HQ–OAR–2018–0416; FRL–9999–14– OAR] RIN 2060–AU22 Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Proposed rule. AGENCY: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is conducting the residual risk and technology review (RTR) of the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for the Paper and Other Web Coating (POWC) source category that is required under the Clean Air Act (CAA). We are proposing to find the risks due to emissions of air toxics to be acceptable from this source category and that the current NESHAP provides an ample margin of safety to protect public health. Further, we identified no new cost-effective controls under the technology review that would achieve significant further emissions reductions, and, thus, are proposing to find that no revisions are necessary based on developments in practices, processes, or control technologies. In addition to performing the RTR, we are proposing certain amendments to the POWC NESHAP. Specifically, the EPA is proposing to add a compliance demonstration equation that accounts for retained volatiles in the web coating; to amend provisions addressing periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction (SSM); to add repeat testing and electronic reporting requirements; and to make technical and editorial changes. The EPA is proposing these amendments to improve the effectiveness of the NESHAP. DATES: Comments. Comments must be received on or before November 4, 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 21, 2019. Public hearing. If anyone contacts us requesting a public hearing on or before September 24, 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 jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 SUMMARY: 17:51 Sep 18, 2019 You may send comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– OAR–2018–0416, 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– 2018–0416 in the subject line of the message. • Fax: (202) 566–9744. Attention Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2018– 0416. • Mail: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Docket Center, Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2018– 0416, Mail Code 28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20460. • Hand/Courier Delivery: EPA Docket Center, WJC West Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20004. The Docket Center’s hours of operation are 8:30 a.m.–4:30 p.m., Monday–Friday (except federal holidays). Instructions: All submissions received must include the 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 Dr. Kelley Spence, Sector Policies and Programs Division (Mail Code E143–03), Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711; telephone number: (919) 541– 3158; fax number: (919) 541–0516; and email address: spence.kelley@epa.gov. For specific information regarding the risk modeling methodology, contact Mr. James Hirtz, Health and Environmental Impacts Division (C539–02), Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711; telephone number: (919) 541– 0881; fax number: (919) 541–0840; and email address: hirtz.james@epa.gov. For questions about monitoring and testing ADDRESSES: National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Paper and Other Web Coating Residual Risk and Technology Review VerDate Sep<11>2014 https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sourcesair-pollution/paper-and-other-webcoating-national-emission-standardshazardous-0. See SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for information on requesting and registering for a public hearing. Jkt 247001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 requirements, contact Mr. Barrett Parker, Sector Policies and Programs Division (Mail Code 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 2221A), 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–2018–0416. 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– 0416. 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\19SEP2.SGM 19SEP2 jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 182 / Thursday, September 19, 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 17:51 Sep 18, 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–2018–0416. 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 ANSI American National Standards Institute ASME American Society of Mechanical Engineers ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials CAA Clean Air Act CalEPA California EPA CBI Confidential Business Information CDX Central Data Exchange CEDRI Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface CFR Code of Federal Regulations DGME diethylene glycol monoethyl ether ECHO Enforcement and Compliance History Online EPA Environmental Protection Agency ERPG emergency response planning guideline ERT Electronic Reporting Tool GACT generally available control technology 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 IBR incorporation by reference ICR Information Collection Request IRIS Integrated Risk Information System km kilometer MACT maximum achievable control technology MIR maximum individual 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 NRDC Natural Resources Defense Council PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 49383 NSPS new source performance standards NTTAA National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act OAQPS Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards OMB Office of Management and Budget PB–HAP hazardous air pollutants known to be persistent and bioaccumulative in the environment PDF portable document format POM polycyclic organic matter POWC paper and other web coating ppm parts per million ppmv parts per million by volume PRA Paperwork Reduction Act QA quality assurance RBLC Reasonably Available Control Technology/Best Available Control Technology/Lowest Achievable Emission Rate Clearinghouse REL reference exposure level RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act RfC reference concentration RTR residual risk and technology review SAB Science Advisory Board SSM startup, shutdown, and malfunction TCE trichloroethylene TOSHI target organ-specific hazard index tpy tons per year TRI Toxics Release Inventory TRIM.FaTE Total Risk Integrated Methodology.Fate, Transport, and Ecological Exposure model UF uncertainty factor UMRA Unfunded Mandates Reform Act URE unit risk estimate U.S.C. United States Code USGS U.S. Geological Survey VCS voluntary consensus standards VOC volatile organic compound(s) Organization of this document. The information in this preamble is organized as follows: I. General Information A. Does this action apply to me? B. Where can I get a copy of this document and other related information? II. Background A. What is the statutory authority for this action? B. What 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 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? E:\FR\FM\19SEP2.SGM 19SEP2 49384 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 182 / Thursday, September 19, 2019 / Proposed Rules 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 category that is 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. This proposed action will not affect federal, state, local, and tribal government entities. 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 POWC source category is any facility engaged in the coating of paper, plastic film, metallic foil, and other web surfaces. The category may include, but is not limited to, decorative coatings on gift wraps or packaging. The source category does not include printing operations covered under the Printing and Publishing NESHAP (40 CFR part 63, subpart KK). TABLE 1—NESHAP AND INDUSTRIAL SOURCE CATEGORIES AFFECTED BY THIS PROPOSED ACTION Source category NESHAP NAICS code 1 Paper and Other Web Coating ....................... Paper and Other Web Coating ....................... 322220, 322121, 326113, 326112, 325992, 327993. 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/paperand-other-web-coating-nationalemission-standards-hazardous-0. 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–2018–0416). jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 II. Background A. What is the statutory authority for this action? The statutory authority for this action is provided by sections 112 and 301 of the CAA, as amended (42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.). Section 112 of the CAA establishes a two-stage regulatory process to develop standards for VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:51 Sep 18, 2019 Jkt 247001 emissions of hazardous air pollutants (HAP) from stationary sources. Generally, the first stage involves establishing technology-based standards and the second stage involves evaluating those standards that are based on maximum achievable control technology (MACT) to determine whether additional standards are needed to address any remaining risk associated with HAP emissions. This second stage is commonly referred to as the ‘‘residual risk review.’’ In addition to the residual risk review, the CAA also requires the EPA to review standards set under CAA section 112 every 8 years to determine if there are ‘‘developments in practices, processes, or control technologies’’ that may be appropriate to incorporate into the standards. This review is commonly referred to as the ‘‘technology review.’’ When the two reviews are combined into a single rulemaking, it is commonly referred to as the ‘‘risk and technology review.’’ The discussion that follows identifies the most relevant statutory sections and briefly explains the contours of the methodology used to implement these statutory requirements. A more comprehensive discussion appears in the document titled CAA Section 112 Risk and Technology Reviews: Statutory Authority and Methodology, in the docket for this rulemaking. PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 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 requirements for major source standards and area source standards. ‘‘Major sources’’ are those that emit or have the potential to emit 10 tons per year (tpy) or more of a single HAP or 25 tpy or more of any combination of HAP. All other sources are ‘‘area sources.’’ For major sources, CAA section 112(d)(2) provides that the technology-based NESHAP must reflect the maximum degree of emission reductions of HAP achievable (after considering cost, energy requirements, and non-air quality health and environmental impacts). These standards are commonly referred to as MACT standards. CAA section 112(d)(3) also establishes a minimum control level for MACT standards, known as the MACT ‘‘floor.’’ The EPA must also consider control options that are more stringent than the floor. Standards more stringent than the floor are commonly referred to as beyond-the-floor standards. In certain instances, as provided in CAA section 112(h), the EPA may set work practice E:\FR\FM\19SEP2.SGM 19SEP2 jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 182 / Thursday, September 19, 2019 / Proposed Rules standards where it is not feasible to prescribe or enforce a numerical emission standard. For area sources, CAA section 112(d)(5) gives the EPA discretion to set standards based on generally available control technologies or management practices (GACT standards) in lieu of MACT standards. The second stage in standard-setting focuses on identifying and addressing any remaining (i.e., ‘‘residual’’) risk according to CAA section 112(f). For source categories subject to MACT standards, section 112(f)(2) of the CAA requires the EPA to determine whether promulgation of additional standards is needed to provide an ample margin of safety to protect public health or to prevent an adverse environmental effect. Section 112(d)(5) of the CAA provides that this residual risk review is not required for categories of area sources subject to GACT standards. Section 112(f)(2)(B) of the CAA further expressly preserves the EPA’s use of the two-step approach for developing standards to address any residual risk and the Agency’s interpretation of ‘‘ample margin of safety’’ developed in the National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Benzene Emissions from Maleic Anhydride Plants, Ethylbenzene/Styrene Plants, Benzene Storage Vessels, Benzene Equipment Leaks, and Coke By-Product Recovery Plants (Benzene NESHAP) (54 FR 38044, September 14, 1989). The EPA notified Congress in the Risk Report that the Agency intended to use the Benzene NESHAP approach in making CAA section 112(f) residual risk determinations (EPA–453/R–99–001, p. ES–11). The EPA subsequently adopted this approach in its residual risk determinations and the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (the Court) upheld the EPA’s interpretation that CAA section 112(f)(2) incorporates the approach established in the Benzene NESHAP. See Natural Resources Defense Council (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 1 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 17:51 Sep 18, 2019 Jkt 247001 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. 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. NRDC v. EPA, 529 F.3d 1077, 1084 (D.C. Cir. 2008). Association of Battery Recyclers, Inc. v. EPA, 716 F.3d 667 (D.C. Cir. 2013). The EPA may consider cost in deciding whether to revise the standards pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6). B. What is this source category and how does the current NESHAP regulate its HAP emissions? The POWC source category includes new and existing facilities that coat paper and other web substrates that are major sources of HAP emissions. For purposes of the regulation, a web is defined as a continuous substrate that is capable of being rolled at any point during the coating process. Further, a web coating line is any number of work stations, of which one or more applies a continuous layer of coating material along the entire width of a continuous web substrate or any portion of the width of the web substrate, and any associated curing/drying equipment between an unwind (or feed) station and a rewind (or cutting) station. Web coating operations covered by other PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 49385 MACT standards (i.e., Printing and Publishing, 40 CFR part 63, subpart KK; Magnetic Tape, 40 CFR part 63, subpart EE; Metal Coil Coating, 40 CFR part 63, subpart SSSS; Fabric Coating, 40 CFR part 63, subpart OOOO), and research and development lines are excluded. In addition, specific process exclusions include lithography, screen printing, letterpress, and narrow web flexographic printing. All the coating lines at a subject facility are defined as one affected source. An existing source means any affected source of which the construction or reconstruction commenced on or before September 13, 2000, and has not since undergone reconstruction. Generally, an additional line at an existing facility is considered part of the existing affected source. New affected sources are new lines installed at new facilities or at a facility with no prior POWC operations. Affiliated operations such as coating formulation, mixing, handling, and storage of coatings and solvent, and conveyance and treatment of wastewater are defined as ‘‘affiliated equipment’’ and are part of the POWC source category but have no requirements in the existing rule. This proposal includes both a residual risk assessment and a technology review of the emission sources subject to the POWC NESHAP. Facilities subject to the POWC NESHAP must utilize lowsolvent coatings, add-on controls, or a combination of both to meet the organic HAP emission limits described below: • No more than 5 percent of the organic HAP applied for each month (95-percent reduction) at existing affected sources, and no more than 2 percent of the organic HAP applied for each month (98-percent reduction) at new affected sources; • No more than 4 percent of the mass of coating materials applied for each month at existing affected sources, and no more than 1.6 percent of the mass of coating materials applied for each month at new affected sources; • No more than 20 percent of the mass of coating solids applied for each month at existing affected sources, and no more than 8 percent of the coating solids applied for each month at new affected sources; or • If an oxidizer is used to control organic HAP emissions, the oxidizer must be operated such that an outlet organic HAP concentration of no greater than 20 parts per million by volume (ppmv) by compound on a dry basis is achieved and the efficiency of the capture system is 100 percent. The NESHAP also includes various operating limits, initial and continuous E:\FR\FM\19SEP2.SGM 19SEP2 49386 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 182 / Thursday, September 19, 2019 / Proposed Rules compliance requirements, and recordkeeping and reporting requirements for the POWC source category. We reviewed these requirements and are proposing to update them as part of this action in conjunction with conducting the RTR for this source category. jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 C. What data collection activities were conducted to support this action? The EPA collected data from several environmental databases that included information pertaining to POWC facilities in the United States. The primary databases were the EPA’s Enforcement and Compliance History Online (ECHO) database, Toxics Release Inventory (TRI), and National Emissions Inventory (NEI) for 2011 and 2014 (versions 1 and 2). Title V operating permits were obtained from states that have facilities subject to 40 CFR part 63, subpart JJJJ. See the memorandums titled Determination of Facilities Subject to 40 CFR part 63, subpart JJJJ, Paper and Other Web Coating and Preparation of POWC Risk Inputs File, in the docket for this rulemaking for more information on the review of these databases (Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2018–0416). Additionally, the EPA conducted several site visits to better understand POWC processes and how the NESHAP is implemented. Trip reports drafted from these site visits are available in the docket for this rulemaking (Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2018–0416). EPA did not use its authority under CAA section 114 to request additional information from POWC facilities. D. What other relevant background information and data are available? In addition to the ECHO, TRI, and NEI databases, the EPA reviewed the additional information sources listed below and consulted with stakeholders regulated under the POWC NESHAP to determine if there have been developments in practices, processes, or control technologies. These include: • Permit limits and selected compliance options from permits collected from state agencies; • Information on air pollution control options in the POWC industry from the Reasonably Available Control Technology/Best Available Control Technology/Lowest Achievable Emission Rate Clearinghouse (RBLC); • Information on the most effective ways to control emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOC) and volatile organic HAP from sources in various industries, including the POWC industry; • Communication with trade groups and associations representing industries VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:51 Sep 18, 2019 Jkt 247001 in the affected NAICS categories and their members; and • Review of on-line information on trade group and association sites and sites of relevant publications. 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: 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. [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’. 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 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. PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 See 54 FR 38057, September 14, 1989. Thus, the level of the MIR is only one factor to be weighed in determining acceptability of risk. The Benzene NESHAP explained that ‘‘an MIR of approximately one in 10 thousand should ordinarily be the upper end of the range of acceptability. As risks increase above this benchmark, they become presumptively less acceptable under CAA section 112, and would be weighed with the other health risk measures and information in making an overall judgment on acceptability. Or, the Agency may find, in a particular case, that a risk that includes an MIR less than the presumptively acceptable level is unacceptable in the light of other health risk factors.’’ Id. at 38045. 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 E:\FR\FM\19SEP2.SGM 19SEP2 jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 182 / Thursday, September 19, 2019 / Proposed Rules 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 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, 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/4AB3966 E263D943A8525771F00668381/$File/EPA-SAB-10007-unsigned.pdf. VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:51 Sep 18, 2019 Jkt 247001 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 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 49387 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 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 Paper and Other Web Coating 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 E:\FR\FM\19SEP2.SGM 19SEP2 49388 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 182 / Thursday, September 19, 2019 / Proposed Rules jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 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? The facilities subject to the POWC NESHAP were identified primarily by using the ECHO and TRI databases. Review of title V permits and discussions with state agencies and stakeholders helped to refine the preliminary list to the final list of 168 facilities subject to the regulation. The effort to identify facilities subject to the POWC NESHAP is described in detail in the memorandum titled Determination of Facilities Subject to 40 CFR part 63, subpart JJJJ, Paper and Other Web Coating, in the docket for this rulemaking (Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– OAR–2018–0416). As described in the memorandum, Preparation of POWC Risk Inputs File, eight of the identified facilities had source category HAP emissions of zero. These facilities are subject to the POWC NESHAP because they are major sources of HAP for another source category, even though their web coating operations do not utilize any HAP-containing coatings. For example, a paper towel core production line might use a glue the does not contain any HAP, but the operation is co-located at a pulp mill, which is a major source of HAP, therefore, the coating operations are subject to the POWC NESHAP. As a result of the eight facilities without HAP emissions, a total of 160 facilities were included in the source-category risk assessment modeling input file. The communications with state agencies and stakeholders regarding development of the facility list and the risk input file are documented in the memorandum titled Communications Regarding the Development of the Subpart JJJJ Facility List and Risk Modeling File, in the docket for this rulemaking (Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2018–0416). Emissions data for facilities subject to the POWC NESHAP were gathered primarily from the 2011 and 2014 NEI (versions 1 and 2), supplemented by the TRI. The NEI is a database that contains information about sources that emit criteria air pollutants, their precursors, and HAP. The NEI database includes 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 17:51 Sep 18, 2019 Jkt 247001 estimates of actual annual air pollutant emissions from point and volume sources; emission rate characteristic data such as emission release height, temperature, stack diameter, exit gas velocity, and exit gas flow rate; and locational latitude/longitude coordinates. We compared the NEI data for each facility to title V permits to determine which emission points listed in the NEI were subject to the POWC NESHAP. We then performed quality assurance (QA) checks and made corrections when data were missing from the NEI or appeared to be incorrect. For example, if the exit gas flow rate for an emission point was missing, we calculated this release characteristic using the stack velocity and cross-sectional area of the stack. Each correction we made is discussed in the memorandum, Preparation of POWC Risk Inputs File, in the docket for this rulemaking (Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– OAR–2018–0416). The QA procedures and tools used are described in the memorandum titled QA Procedures and Criteria Used in Residual Risk Modeling Input File Development, in the docket for this rulemaking (Docket ID No. EPA– HQ–OAR–2018–0416). 2. How did we estimate MACTallowable emissions? The available emissions data in the RTR emissions dataset include estimates of the mass of HAP emitted during a specified annual time period. These ‘‘actual’’ emission levels are often lower than the emission levels allowed under the requirements of the current MACT standards. The emissions allowed under the MACT standards are referred to as the ‘‘MACT-allowable’’ emissions. We discussed the consideration of both MACT-allowable and actual emissions in the final Coke Oven Batteries RTR (70 FR 19998–19999, April 15, 2005) and in the proposed and final Hazardous Organic NESHAP 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.) Initially, we reviewed permits for available allowable HAP emissions information, and two facilities were found to have allowable HAP emissions limits specified for POWC NESHAP PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 emission sources. For these two facilities, MACT-allowable emissions were assumed to be equal to the allowable HAP emissions limits contained in the permits. Allowable emissions were not available for the remainder of the emission units in the POWC dataset. Although some permits listed overall plant HAP emission limits, most did not break down allowable HAP emissions by process. Therefore, we developed a POWC category allowable emissions multiplier to estimate allowable emissions based on actual emissions. Allowable emissions are emissions that can be emitted from an emission unit and still comply with the POWC NESHAP. Because the format of the POWC NESHAP emission standards are in a HAP-percent of mass of coating applied, it is difficult to determine the allowable HAP emissions without production and coating HAP content information for each facility. Coatings sales information and industry capacity utilization were the only information readily available to estimate allowable emissions for this source category. A description of the methodology used to estimate allowable emissions follows. According to chapter 18 of the American Coatings Association 9th Edition Market Analysis (2014–2019), the volume of paper, paperboard, film, and foil coating shipments are forecast to increase at an annual rate of 2 percent per year. This implies that the demand for paper and other web coated products, as well as the capacity utilization at the facilities producing the materials, continues to increase. For the primary NAICS codes associated with the facilities in the risk input file, the capacity utilization rate was obtained from the U.S. Census Bureau’s Quarterly Survey of Plant Capacity Utilization for 5 years (2013–2017). All POWC NAICS codes and years were utilized to determine a 5-year average plant capacity utilization rate (71.3 percent). Because the sector continues to grow, and additional production information is not available, we estimate that the maximum allowable emissions will occur at 100-percent production capacity utilization. A ratio of the maximum possible capacity utilization (100 percent) to the 5-year average capacity utilization (71.3 percent) results in an allowable multiplier of 1.4. Thus, allowable emissions for the majority of emission points in the risk input file were estimated by multiplying the actual emissions by 1.4. A more detailed description of the estimation of allowable emissions for the POWC source category is described in the memorandum, Preparation of POWC E:\FR\FM\19SEP2.SGM 19SEP2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 182 / Thursday, September 19, 2019 / Proposed Rules Risk Inputs File, in the docket for this rulemaking (Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– OAR–2018–0416). 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, 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. jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 b. Risk From Chronic Exposure to HAP In developing the risk assessment for chronic exposures, we use the estimated annual average ambient air 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). 7 A census block is the smallest geographic area for which census statistics are tabulated. VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:51 Sep 18, 2019 Jkt 247001 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 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, often using California EPA (CalEPA) UREs, where available. In cases where new, scientifically credible doseresponse values have been developed in a manner consistent with EPA guidelines and have undergone a peer review process similar to that used by the EPA, we may use such doseresponse values in place of, or in addition to, other values, if appropriate. The pollutant-specific dose-response values used to estimate health risk are available at https://www.epa.gov/fera/ dose-response-assessment-assessinghealth-risks-associated-exposurehazardous-air-pollutants. To estimate individual lifetime cancer risks associated with exposure to HAP emissions from each facility in the source category, we sum the risks for each of the carcinogenic HAP 8 emitted 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 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 49389 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 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 (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. E:\FR\FM\19SEP2.SGM 19SEP2 49390 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 182 / Thursday, September 19, 2019 / Proposed Rules 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. jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 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 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 Paper and Other Web Coating 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 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 emissions rates by a factor (either a categoryspecific factor or a default factor of 10) to account for variability. This is documented in Residual Risk Assessment for Paper and Other Web Coating VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:51 Sep 18, 2019 Jkt 247001 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 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 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.’’ 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 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). PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 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 1. The ERPG–1 is defined as ‘‘the maximum airborne concentration below which it is believed that nearly all individuals could be exposed for up to 1 hour without experiencing other than mild transient adverse health effects or without perceiving a clearly defined, objectionable odor.’’ Id. at 2. Similarly, the ERPG–2 is defined as ‘‘the maximum airborne concentration below which it is believed that nearly all individuals could be exposed for up to one hour without experiencing or developing irreversible or other serious health effects or symptoms which could impair an individual’s ability to take protective action.’’ Id. at 1. An acute REL for 1-hour exposure durations is typically lower than its corresponding AEGL–1 and ERPG–1. Even though their definitions are slightly different, AEGL–1s are often the same as the corresponding ERPG–1s, and AEGL–2s are often equal to ERPG– 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 13 ERPGs Procedures and Responsibilities. March 2014. American Industrial Hygiene Association. Available at: https://www.aiha.org/get-involved/ AIHAGuidelineFoundation/Emergency ResponsePlanningGuidelines/Documents/ERPG %20Committee%20Standard%20Operating %20Procedures%20%20-%20March%202014 %20Revision%20%28Updated%2010-22014%29.pdf. E:\FR\FM\19SEP2.SGM 19SEP2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 182 / Thursday, September 19, 2019 / Proposed Rules 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, no shortterm emissions data were readily available for the majority of the sources subject to the POWC NESHAP. The EPA assumed that a facility’s peak 1-hour emission rate could exceed its annual average hourly emission rate by as much as a factor of 10, under worst-case meteorological conditions and the presence of a person at the facility boundary. This peak-to-mean emissions ratio was used as an acute multiplier for all facilities except one. The permit for one facility contained allowable shortterm VOC emission rates for POWC NESHAP sources. The acute emissions for this facility were determined using the allowable short-term VOC emission rate using the assumption that the VOC emission rate is equal to the HAP emission rate. For more details, see the memorandum, Preparation of the POWC Risk Inputs File, in the docket for this rulemaking (Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– OAR–2018–0416). 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 ensuring that the locations where the maximum HQ occurred were off facility property and where the public could potentially be exposed. These refinements are discussed more fully in the Residual Risk Assessment for the Paper and Other Web Coating Source Category in Support of the 2019 Risk and Technology Review Proposed Rule, which is available in the docket for this source category (Docket ID No. EPA– HQ–OAR–2018–0416). 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-and- VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:51 Sep 18, 2019 Jkt 247001 modeling-air-toxics-risk-assessmentreference-library). For the POWC source category, we identified PB–HAP emissions of arsenic, cadmium compounds, mercury compounds, polycyclic organic matter (POM), and lead, 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. The POWC source category only required the completion of Tier 1 for the multipathway screening assessment. For Tier 1, we determine whether the magnitude of the facilityspecific emissions of 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 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 49391 screening assessment, which we call the Tier 2 screening assessment. The Tier 2 screening assessment separates the Tier 1 combined 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 (adult female angler at 99th percentile fish consumption of fish 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 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. E:\FR\FM\19SEP2.SGM 19SEP2 49392 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 182 / Thursday, September 19, 2019 / Proposed Rules 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 Paper and Other Web Coating Source Category in Support of the 2019 Risk and Technology Review Proposed Rule, which is available in the docket for this action (Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR– 2018–0416). 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 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. VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:51 Sep 18, 2019 Jkt 247001 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-adverseeffect 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 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 were selected, see appendix 9 of the Residual Risk Assessment for the Paper and Other Web Coating Source Category in Support of the 2019 Risk and Technology Review Proposed Rule, which is available in the docket for this action (Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR– 2018–0416). b. Environmental Risk Screening Methodology For the environmental risk screening assessment, the EPA first determined whether any facilities in the POWC source category emitted any of the environmental HAP. For the POWC source category, we identified emissions of arsenic, cadmium compounds, mercury compounds, POM, and lead. 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. The POWC source category only required the completion of Tier 1 for the multipathway ecological 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 E:\FR\FM\19SEP2.SGM 19SEP2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 182 / Thursday, September 19, 2019 / Proposed Rules jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 account for local meteorology and the actual location of lakes in the vicinity of facilities that did not pass the Tier 1 screening assessment. For soils, we evaluate the average soil concentration for all soil parcels within a 7.5-km radius for each facility and PB–HAP. For the water, sediment, and fish tissue concentrations, the highest value for each facility for each pollutant is used. If emission concentrations from a facility do not exceed the Tier 2 screening threshold emission rate, the facility ‘‘passes’’ the screening assessment and typically is not evaluated further. If emissions from a facility exceed the Tier 2 screening threshold emission rate, we evaluate the facility further in Tier 3. As in the multipathway human health risk assessment, in Tier 3 of the environmental screening assessment, we examine the suitability of the lakes around the facilities to support life and remove those that are not suitable (e.g., lakes that have been filled in or are industrial ponds), adjust emissions for plume-rise, and conduct hour-by-hour time-series assessments. If these Tier 3 adjustments to the screening threshold emission rates still indicate the potential for an adverse environmental effect (i.e., facility emission rate exceeds the screening threshold emission rate), we may elect to conduct a more refined assessment using more site-specific information. If, after additional refinement, the facility emission rate still exceeds the screening threshold emission rate, the facility may have the potential to cause an adverse environmental effect. To evaluate the potential for an adverse environmental effect from lead, we compared the average modeled air concentrations (from HEM–3) of lead around each facility in the source category to the level of the secondary NAAQS for lead. The secondary lead NAAQS is a reasonable means of evaluating environmental risk because it is set to provide substantial protection against adverse welfare effects which can include ‘‘effects on soils, water, crops, vegetation, man-made materials, animals, wildlife, weather, visibility and climate, damage to and deterioration of property, and hazards to transportation, as well as effects on economic values and on personal comfort and wellbeing.’’ d. Acid Gas Environmental Risk Methodology The environmental screening assessment for acid gases evaluates the potential phytotoxicity and reduced productivity of plants due to chronic exposure to HF and HCl. The VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:51 Sep 18, 2019 Jkt 247001 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 Paper and Other Web Coating Source Category in Support of the Risk and Technology Review 2019 Proposed Rule, which is available in the docket for this action (Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR– 2018–0416). 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 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 49393 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 Paper and Other Web Coating Source Category in Support of the 2019 Risk and Technology Review Proposed Rule, available through the docket for this action (Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR– 2018–0416), 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 Paper and Other Web Coating Source Category in Support of the 2019 Risk and Technology Review Proposed Rule, which is available in the docket for this action (Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR– 2018–0416). If a multipathway sitespecific 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 QA/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 E:\FR\FM\19SEP2.SGM 19SEP2 49394 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 182 / Thursday, September 19, 2019 / Proposed Rules 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. jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 b. Uncertainties in Dispersion Modeling We recognize there is uncertainty in ambient concentration estimates associated with any model, including the EPA’s recommended regulatory dispersion model, AERMOD. In using a model to estimate ambient pollutant concentrations, the user chooses certain options to apply. For RTR assessments, we select some model options that have the potential to overestimate ambient air concentrations (e.g., not including plume depletion or pollutant transformation). We select other model options that have the potential to underestimate ambient impacts (e.g., not including building downwash). Other options that we select have the potential to either under- or overestimate ambient levels (e.g., meteorology and receptor locations). On balance, considering the directional nature of the uncertainties commonly present in ambient concentrations estimated by dispersion models, the approach we apply in the RTR assessments should yield unbiased estimates of ambient HAP concentrations. We also note that the selection of meteorology dataset location could have an impact on the risk estimates. As we continue to update and expand our library of meteorological station data used in our risk assessments, we expect to reduce this variability. c. Uncertainties in Inhalation Exposure Assessment Although every effort is made to identify all of the relevant facilities and emission points, as well as to develop accurate estimates of the annual emission rates for all relevant HAP, the uncertainties in our emission inventory likely dominate the uncertainties in the exposure assessment. Some uncertainties in our exposure assessment include human mobility, using the centroid of each census block, assuming lifetime exposure, and assuming only outdoor exposures. For most of these factors, there is neither an under nor overestimate when looking at the maximum individual risk or the incidence, but the shape of the distribution of risks may be affected. With respect to outdoor exposures, VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:51 Sep 18, 2019 Jkt 247001 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 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, PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 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 doseresponse assessments. Accordingly, these pollutants cannot be included in the quantitative risk assessment, which could result in quantitative estimates understating HAP risk. To help to alleviate this potential underestimate, where we conclude similarity with a HAP for which a dose-response value is December 2002, and Methods for Derivation of Inhalation Reference Concentrations and Application of Inhalation Dosimetry, U.S. EPA, 1994. E:\FR\FM\19SEP2.SGM 19SEP2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 182 / Thursday, September 19, 2019 / Proposed Rules jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 available, we use that value as a surrogate for the assessment of the HAP for which no value is available. To the extent use of surrogates indicates appreciable risk, we may identify a need to increase priority for an IRIS assessment for that substance. We additionally note that, generally speaking, HAP of greatest concern due to environmental exposures and hazard are those for which dose-response assessments have been performed, reducing the likelihood of understating risk. Further, HAP not included in the quantitative assessment are assessed qualitatively and considered in the risk characterization that informs the risk management decisions, including consideration of HAP reductions achieved by various control options. For a group of compounds that are unspeciated (e.g., glycol ethers), we conservatively use the most protective dose-response value of an individual compound in that group to estimate risk. Similarly, for an individual compound in a group (e.g., ethylene glycol diethyl ether) that does not have a specified dose-response value, we also apply the most protective dose-response value from the other compounds in the group to estimate risk. e. Uncertainties in Acute Inhalation Screening Assessments In addition to the uncertainties highlighted above, there are several factors specific to the acute exposure assessment that the EPA conducts as part of the risk review under section 112 of the CAA. The accuracy of an acute inhalation exposure assessment depends on the simultaneous occurrence of independent factors that may vary greatly, such as hourly emissions rates, meteorology, and the presence of 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 actual 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 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 VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:51 Sep 18, 2019 Jkt 247001 PB–HAP or environmental HAP emissions to determine whether a refined assessment of the impacts from multipathway exposures is necessary or whether it is necessary to perform an environmental screening assessment. This determination is based on the results of a three-tiered screening assessment that relies on the outputs from models—TRIM.FaTE and AERMOD—that estimate environmental pollutant concentrations and human exposures for five PB–HAP (dioxins, POM, mercury, cadmium, and arsenic) and two acid gases (HF and HCl). For lead, we use AERMOD to determine ambient air concentrations, which are then compared to the secondary NAAQS standard for lead. Two important types of uncertainty associated with the use of these models in RTR risk assessments and inherent to any assessment that relies on environmental modeling are model uncertainty and input uncertainty.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 water, soil characteristics, and structure of the aquatic food web. We also assume an ingestion exposure scenario and values for human exposure factors that 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. PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 49395 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 E:\FR\FM\19SEP2.SGM 19SEP2 49396 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 182 / Thursday, September 19, 2019 / Proposed Rules 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? 1. Chronic Inhalation Risk Assessment Results Table 2 of this preamble provides an overall summary of the inhalation risk results. The results of the chronic baseline inhalation cancer risk assessment indicate the maximum individual lifetime cancer risk (MIR) posed by the POWC source category was estimated to be 6-in-1 million based on actual emissions and 7-in-1 million based on allowable emissions. The risk driver is formaldehyde emissions from web coating processes. The total estimated cancer incidence from POWC emission sources based on actual emission levels is 0.005 excess cancer cases per year, or one case in every 200 years, with emissions from web coating operations representing 80 percent of the modeled cancer incidence. Emissions of formaldehyde contributed 90 percent to this cancer incidence. Based upon actual emissions, 4,300 people were exposed to cancer risks greater than or equal to 1-in-1 million compared to 9,900 people from allowable emissions. The maximum chronic noncancer HI (TOSHI) values for the source category, based on actual and allowable emissions, were estimated to be less than 1 (0.8 based on allowable emissions). Based on actual and allowable emissions, respiratory risks were driven by acrylic acid emissions from web coating processes. TABLE 2—POWC INHALATION RISK ASSESSMENT RESULTS 1 Maximum individual cancer risk (in 1 million) 3 Number of facilities 2 Risk assessment Estimated population at increased risk of cancer ≥ 1-in-1 million Estimated annual cancer incidence (cases per year) Maximum chronic noncancer TOSHI 4 Maximum screening acute noncancer HQ 5 Baseline Actual Emissions Source Category ...................................... Facility-Wide 6 .......................................... 160 168 6 300 4,300 161,000 0.005 0.03 0.6 30 0.007 0.8 3 (REL). Baseline Allowable Emissions Source Category ...................................... 160 7 9,900 1 Based jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 on actual and allowable emissions. 2 As discussed in section III.C.1 of this preamble, 168 facilities were identified as subject to the POWC NESHAP. Additionally, eight facilities did not emit any HAP from their POWC processes, resulting in 160 facilities being modeled for the source-category risk assessment and 168 modeled for the facility-wide risk assessment. 3 Maximum individual excess lifetime cancer risk due to HAP emissions from the source category except for risks from facility-wide emissions. 4 Maximum TOSHI. The target organ with the highest TOSHI for the POWC source category is the respiratory system. 5 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. The risk driver for acute risks were emissions of formaldehyde from web coating processes and affiliated operations. 6 The facility-wide risk value estimate of 300-in-1 million and the HI equal to 30 was from trichloroethylene (TCE) emissions from a production process outside the source category. 2. Screening Level Acute Risk Assessment Results Reasonable worst-case acute HQs were calculated for every HAP for which there is an acute health benchmark using actual emissions. The maximum refined off-site acute noncancer HQ values for the source category were equal to 3 from formaldehyde emissions and 3 from diethylene glycol monoethyl ether (DGME) emissions based on the acute (1-hour) REL for these pollutants. The formaldehyde and DGME maximum HQ values were at separate facilities and no facilities have an HQ based on AEGL or ERPG greater than 1. No other acute health benchmarks were exceeded for VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:51 Sep 18, 2019 Jkt 247001 this source category. For DGME, no other acute dose benchmark was available besides the 1-hour REL. The acute risks for these pollutants were from web coating processes with an acute hourly multiplier of 10 times the annual average hourly emissions rate. 3. Multipathway Risk Screening Results Results of the worst-case Tier 1 screening analysis indicate that PB– HAP emissions (based on estimates of actual emissions) from the source category did not exceed the screening value of 1 for any carcinogenic PB–HAP (arsenic and POM compounds). Emissions of dioxins were not reported PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 by any facilities within the source category. The Tier 1 screening analysis for the noncarcinogenic PB–HAP (cadmium and mercury) was below a screening value of 1. Further screening or multipathway analysis was not required for any of the reported PB–HAP based upon our Analytical Procedures discussed in section III.C.4 of this preamble. Based on this upperbound Tier 1 screening assessment for carcinogens (arsenic and POM) and noncarcinogens (cadmium and mercury), the emission rates for all facilities and scenarios were below levels of concern. In evaluating the potential for multipathway effects from emissions of E:\FR\FM\19SEP2.SGM 19SEP2 49397 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 182 / Thursday, September 19, 2019 / Proposed Rules lead, we compared modeled annual lead concentrations to the secondary NAAQS for lead (0.15 mg/m3). The highest annual average lead concentration, of 0.001 mg/m3, is below the NAAQS for lead, indicating a low potential for multipathway impacts of concern due to lead. 4. Environmental Risk Screening Results We conducted an environmental risk screening assessment for the POWC source category for the following pollutants: Arsenic, cadmium, lead, mercury (methyl mercury and mercuric chloride) and POM. In the Tier 1 screening analysis for PB–HAP (other than lead, which was evaluated differently), arsenic, cadmium, mercury (methyl mercury and mercuric chloride), and POM emissions had no Tier 1 exceedances for any ecological benchmark. For lead, we did not estimate any exceedances of the secondary lead NAAQS. Based on the results of the environmental risk screening analysis, we do not expect an adverse environmental effect as a result of HAP emissions from this source category. emissions of TCE from non-category emission sources. 5. Facility-Wide Risk Results 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 POWC source category across different demographic groups within the populations living near facilities.21 The results of the demographic analysis are summarized in Table 3 below. These results, for various demographic groups, are based on the estimated risk from actual emissions levels for the population living within 50 km of the facilities. Results of the assessment of facilitywide emissions indicate that of the 168 facilities, 42 facilities have a facilitywide MIR cancer risk greater than 1-in1 million. The maximum facility-wide cancer risk is 300-in-1 million, driven by TCE emissions from emissions outside the source category. The total estimated cancer incidence from the whole facility is 0.03 excess cancer cases per year, or one case in every 33 years. Approximately 161,000 people are estimated to have cancer risks greater than or equal to 1-in-1 million with approximately 30 people with excess cancer risks greater than or equal to 100-in-1 million. The maximum facility-wide chronic noncancer TOSHI is estimated to be equal to 30, driven by 6. What demographic groups might benefit from this regulation? TABLE 3—POWC DEMOGRAPHIC RISK ANALYSIS RESULTS [POWC: Demographic assessment results—50 km study area radius] Population with cancer risk greater than or equal to 1-in-1 million Nationwide Total Population ........................................................................................................................... Population with HI greater than 1 Source category 317,746,049 4,331 0 White and Minority by Percent White ............................................................................................................................................ Minority ........................................................................................................................................ 62 38 86 14 0 0 Minority by Percent African American ......................................................................................................................... Native American .......................................................................................................................... Hispanic or Latino (includes white and nonwhite) ....................................................................... Other and Multiracial ................................................................................................................... 12 0.8 18 7 8 0.2 3 3 0 0 0 0 Income by Percent Below Poverty Level .................................................................................................................... Above Poverty Level .................................................................................................................... 14 86 17 83 0 0 Education by Percent Over 25 and without a High School Diploma .............................................................................. Over 25 and with a High School Diploma ................................................................................... 14 86 14 86 0 0 jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 Linguistically Isolated by Percent Linguistically Isolated ................................................................................................................... 21 Demographic groups included in the analysis are: White, African American, Native American, other races and multiracial, Hispanic or Latino, children 17 years of age and under, adults 18 to 64 years of age, adults 65 years of age and over, adults VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:51 Sep 18, 2019 Jkt 247001 6 without a high school diploma, people living below the poverty level, people living two times the poverty level, and linguistically isolated people. PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\19SEP2.SGM 19SEP2 1 0 49398 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 182 / Thursday, September 19, 2019 / Proposed Rules The results of the POWC source category demographic analysis indicate that emissions from the source category expose approximately 4,300 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 the demographic groups, White and people below poverty level, are greater than their respective nationwide percentages. The methodology and the results of the demographic analysis are presented in a technical report, Risk and Technology Review—Analysis of Demographic Factors for Populations Living Near Paper and Other Web Coating Facilities, available in the docket for this action (Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2018–0416). jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 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.’ ’’ See 54 FR 38045, September 14, 1989. In this proposal, the EPA estimated risks based on actual and allowable emissions for 160 facilities in the POWC source category (i.e., as discussed in section III.C.1 of this preamble, 168 facilities were determined to be subject to the POWC NESHAP, however eight facilities did not have POWC source category emissions, therefore, 160 facilities were modeled for sourcecategory risks) In determining whether risks are acceptable, the EPA considered all available health information and risk estimation uncertainty, as described above. Table 2 summarizes the risk assessment results from the POWC source category. The risk results for the POWC source category indicate that both the actual and allowable inhalation cancer risks to the individual most exposed are at least 14 times below the presumptive limit of acceptability of 100-in-1 million (i.e., 1-in-10 thousand). The residual risk assessment for the POWC source category 22 estimated cancer incidence rate at 0.005 cases per year based on actual emissions. 22 Residual Risk Assessment for the Paper and Other Web Coating Source Category in Support of the 2019 Risk and Technology Review Proposed Rule, EPA–HQ–OAR–2018–0416. VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:51 Sep 18, 2019 Jkt 247001 Approximately 4,300 people are exposed to a cancer risk equal to or above 1-in-1 million from the source category based upon actual emissions from 11 facilities. The maximum chronic noncancer TOSHI due to inhalation exposures is less than 1 for actual and allowable emissions. The results of the acute screening analysis showed that acute risks were below a level of concern for the source category considering the conservative assumptions used that err on the side of overestimating acute risk (as discussed in section III.C.7.e of this preamble). Multipathway screen values were below a level of concern for both carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic PB– HAP as well as emissions of lead compounds. Maximum cancer and noncancer risks due to ingestion exposures using healthprotective risk screening assumptions are below the presumptive limit of acceptability. The maximum estimated excess cancer risk is below 1-in-1 million and the maximum noncancer HQ for mercury is less than 1 based upon the Tier 1 farmer/fisher exposure scenario. Taking into account all of this information, the EPA proposes that the risks remaining after implementation of the existing MACT standard for the POWC source category are acceptable. 2. Ample Margin of Safety Analysis Although the EPA is proposing that the risks from this source category are acceptable for both inhalation and multipathway, risk estimates for approximately 4,300 people in the exposed population are above 1-in-1 million, caused primarily by formaldehyde and acetaldehyde emissions from 11 POWC facilities. The maximum acute risk is an HQ of 3 from two facilities, one based on DGME emissions and the second, formaldehyde emissions. As a result, we further considered whether the MACT standards applicable to these specific emission points, as well as the current MACT standards applicable to this source category, provide an ample margin of safety to protect public health. As directed by CAA section 112(f)(2), we conducted an analysis to determine if the current emissions standards provide an ample margin of safety to protect public health. Under the ample margin of safety analysis, the EPA considers all health factors evaluated in the risk assessment and evaluates 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 this PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 source category to further reduce the risks (or potential risks) due to emissions of HAP identified in our risk assessment. In this analysis, we considered the results of the technology review, risk assessment, and other aspects of our MACT rule review to determine whether there are any costeffective controls or other measures that would reduce emissions further and are needed to provide an ample margin of safety to protect public health. As discussed in section IV.C of this preamble and in the memorandum titled Technology Review Analysis for the Paper and Other Web Coating Source Category, in the docket for this rulemaking (Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– OAR–2018–0416), we did not identify any development in practices, processes, or control technologies that could be applied industry-wide and would be expected to result in significant HAP emissions reductions. Although some facilities are using coatings with HAP formulations more stringent than MACT, we only have limited data and the data do not indicate where/when such coatings are most applicable. In addition, although some existing facilities using capture and control are achieving greater than 95-percent control, the available data are limited and do not clearly indicate that any one industry sector can readily achieve such control levels. Some POWC facilities use permanent total enclosures to capture emissions even though they are not required to do so, but conversion of an application area with a permanent total enclosure is site specific and would be prohibitively complicated and expensive in most cases. Although some facilities are subject to permit conditions more stringent than the MACT requirements, the applicability of these coating reformulations and emission controls for the POWC industry as a whole is expected to be limited, and the associated potential risk reductions would be expected to be small because baseline risks are low. Because no costeffective controls, technologies, processes, or work practices were identified that were widely applicable to the industry that would significantly reduce HAP emissions and the associated risk, and the risk assessment determined that the health risks associated with HAP emissions remaining after implementation of the POWC MACT were well below levels that we consider acceptable, we are proposing that the current standards protect public health with an ample margin of safety, and revision of the standards is not required. E:\FR\FM\19SEP2.SGM 19SEP2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 182 / Thursday, September 19, 2019 / Proposed Rules 3. Adverse Environmental Effect The emissions data for this source category indicate the presence of several environmental HAP: Arsenic, cadmium compounds, mercury compounds, POM, and lead. Based on the results of our environmental risk screening assessment, we conclude that there is not an adverse environmental effect as a result of HAP emissions from the POWC source category. Thus, we are proposing that it is not necessary to set a more stringent standard to prevent an adverse environmental effect. For more details on the environmental risk screening assessment, see the Residual Risk Assessment for the Paper and Other Web Coating Source Category in Support of the 2019 Risk and Technology Review Proposed Rule, which is available in the docket for this action (Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR– 2018–0416). jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 C. What are the results and proposed decisions based on our technology review? 1. SSM As described in section III.B of this preamble, our technology review focused on identifying developments in practices, processes, and control technologies for control of HAP emissions from POWC facilities. In conducting the technology review, we reviewed information on practices, processes, and control technologies that were not considered during the development of the POWC NESHAP, as well as searched for information on improvements in practices, processes, and control technologies that have occurred since the development of the POWC NESHAP. The review included a search of the RBLC database and reviews of title V permits for POWC facilities, site visits to facilities with POWC operations, and a review of relevant literature. We did not identify any developments in practices, processes, or control technologies that were widely applicable to the industry that would significantly reduce HAP emissions, and, therefore, we are not proposing any changes to the NESHAP based on our technology review. For more details on the technology review, see the Technology Review Analysis for the Paper and Other Web Coating Source Category memorandum, in the docket for this rulemaking (Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2018–0416). D. What other actions are we proposing? In addition to the proposed actions described above as part of the RTR, we are proposing certain revisions to the NESHAP. We are proposing revisions to the SSM provisions of the MACT rule in VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:51 Sep 18, 2019 Jkt 247001 order to ensure that they are consistent with the Court decision in Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F. 3d 1019 (D.C. Cir. 2008), which vacated two provisions that exempted sources from the requirement to comply with otherwise applicable CAA section 112(d) emission standards during periods of SSM. We also are proposing various other changes, including a compliance calculation to account for retained volatile organic content in the coated web; periodic emissions testing requirements; electronic submittal of initial notifications, notification of compliance status, semiannual compliance reports, performance test reports, and performance evaluation reports; temperature sensor calibration requirements, incorporation by reference (IBR) of several test methods; and various technical and editorial changes. Our analyses and proposed changes related to these issues are discussed below. 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 is established by cross-reference to the General Provisions exemption in Table 2 (40 CFR 63.6(f)). Consistent with Sierra Club v. EPA, we are proposing that the current standards in the NESHAP apply at all times. We are also proposing several revisions to Table 2 (the General Provisions Applicability Table) as is explained in more detail below. For example, we are proposing to eliminate the incorporation of the General Provisions’ requirement that the source develop an SSM plan. We also are proposing to eliminate and revise certain recordkeeping and reporting requirements related to the SSM exemption as further described below. The EPA has attempted to ensure that the provisions we are proposing to eliminate are inappropriate, unnecessary, or redundant in the absence of the SSM exemption. We are specifically seeking comment on whether we have successfully done so. PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 49399 In proposing the standards in this rule, the EPA has taken into account startup and shutdown periods and, for the reasons explained below, has not proposed alternate emission standards for those periods. As discussed in the memorandum titled Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction Review of the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Paper and Other Web Coating, we collected data regarding these periods to determine if separate standards for startup and shutdown were needed. It was determined that startups and shutdowns occur frequently at many of these facilities. It was also noted that 40 CFR part 60, subpart RR (Standards of Performance for Pressure Sensitive Tape and Label Surface Coating Operations (Tape NSPS)), to which many POWC facilities are also subject, states that startup and shutdown are normal operations and emissions should be included when determining compliance. Because these events are considered to be normal operations, the EPA is not proposing alternative emission limits for these periods. As part of the data collection, it was found that thermal oxidizer temperature decreases were likely to happen during emission unit startup for a short period of time. To account for these swings and promote consistency between the POWC NESHAP and the Tape NSPS, we are proposing to add language to recognize that sources can demonstrate compliance with the standard as long as the 3-hour average firebox temperature does not drop lower than 50-degree Fahrenheit (°F) below the average combustion temperature established during the performance test. 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 less stringent than the average emission limitation ‘‘achieved’’ by the best E:\FR\FM\19SEP2.SGM 19SEP2 jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 49400 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 182 / Thursday, September 19, 2019 / Proposed Rules performing 12 percent of sources in the category. There is nothing in CAA section 112 that directs the Agency to consider malfunctions in determining the level ‘‘achieved’’ by the best performing sources when setting emission standards. As the Court has recognized, the phrase ‘‘average emissions limitation achieved by the best performing 12 percent of’’ sources ‘‘says nothing about how the performance of the best units is to be calculated.’’ Nat’l Ass’n of Clean Water Agencies v. EPA, 734 F.3d 1115, 1141 (D.C. Cir. 2013). While the EPA accounts for variability in setting emissions standards, nothing in CAA section 112 requires the Agency to consider malfunctions as part of that analysis. The EPA is not required to treat a malfunction in the same manner as the type of variation in performance that occurs during routine operations of a source. A malfunction is a failure of the source to perform in a ‘‘normal or usual manner’’ and no statutory language compels the EPA to consider such events in setting CAA section 112 standards. As the Court recognized in U.S. Sugar Corp, accounting for malfunctions in setting standards would be difficult, if not impossible, given the myriad different types of malfunctions that can occur across all sources in the category and given the difficulties associated with predicting or accounting for the frequency, degree, and duration of various malfunctions that might occur. Id. at 608 (‘‘the EPA would have to conceive of a standard that could apply equally to the wide range of possible boiler malfunctions, ranging from an explosion to minor mechanical defects. Any possible standard is likely to be hopelessly generic to govern such a wide array of circumstances.’’) As such, the performance of units that are malfunctioning is not ‘‘reasonably’’ foreseeable. See, e.g., Sierra Club v. EPA, 167 F.3d 658, 662 (D.C. Cir. 1999) (‘‘The EPA typically has wide latitude in determining the extent of datagathering necessary to solve a problem. We generally defer to an agency’s decision to proceed on the basis of imperfect scientific information, rather than to ‘invest the resources to conduct the perfect study.’ ’’). See also, Weyerhaeuser v. Costle, 590 F.2d 1011, 1058 (D.C. Cir. 1978) (‘‘In the nature of things, no general limit, individual permit, or even any upset provision can anticipate all upset situations. After a certain point, the transgression of regulatory limits caused by ‘uncontrollable acts of third parties,’ such as strikes, sabotage, operator VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:51 Sep 18, 2019 Jkt 247001 intoxication or insanity, and a variety of other eventualities, must be a matter for the administrative exercise of case-bycase enforcement discretion, not for specification in advance by regulation.’’). In addition, emissions during a malfunction event can be significantly higher than emissions at any other time of source operation. For example, if an air pollution control device with 99-percent removal goes offline as a result of a malfunction (as might happen if, for example, the bags in a baghouse catch fire) and the emission unit is a steady state type unit that would take days to shut down, the source could go from 99-percent control to zero control until the control device was repaired. The source’s emissions during the malfunction could be 100 times higher than during normal operations. As such, the emissions over a 4-day malfunction period would exceed the annual emissions of the source during normal operations. As this example illustrates, accounting for malfunctions could lead to standards that are not reflective of (and significantly less stringent than) levels that are achieved by a well-performing non-malfunctioning source. It is reasonable to interpret CAA section 112 to avoid such a result. The EPA’s approach to malfunctions is consistent with CAA section 112 and is a reasonable interpretation of the statute. Although no statutory language compels the EPA to set standards for malfunctions, the EPA has the discretion to do so where feasible. For example, in the Petroleum Refinery Sector RTR, the EPA established a work practice standard for unique types of malfunction that result in releases from pressure relief devices or emergency flaring events because the EPA had information to determine that such work practices reflected the level of control that applies to the best performers. 80 FR 75178, 75211–14 (December 1, 2015). The EPA will consider whether circumstances warrant setting standards for a particular type of malfunction and, if so, whether the EPA has sufficient information to identify the relevant best performing sources and establish a standard for such malfunctions. We also encourage commenters to provide any such information. The EPA anticipates that it is unlikely that a malfunction of a POWC emission unit would result in a violation of the standard. For example, some facilities using thermal oxidizers as pollution control equipment indicated during the EPA site visits that interlocks would shut the process down if an oxidizer malfunction occurred, and facilities may also have back-up oxidizers that could PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 be used to treat the emissions. The MACT standards are based on a monthly average for each web coating line or grouping of lines, therefore, a malfunction on a single piece of equipment for a short period of time is unlikely to result in an exceedance of the standard. The American Coatings Association provided a letter to the EPA on April 19, 2018, requesting that the EPA consider provisions covering periods of malfunctions at the same time as we conduct the RTR, and suggested two options. The first option would require a facility to discontinue the coating operation during periods of malfunctions, but the facility could continue the oven curing of any coating materials already applied onto the web without the control device for the period of the malfunction, so long as it continues to meet the emission limits for the compliance period. The second option would require a facility to initiate repairs immediately during the malfunction and complete them as expeditiously as possible, without ceasing operations, until it becomes apparent that the repairs will not be completed before exceeding the emission limit. Neither of these alternatives would allow the facility to exceed the emission limit.23 We are requesting comment regarding the need to promulgate a special provision covering periods of malfunctions of a control device or capture system that is used to meet the emission limits for the POWC NESHAP. Specifically, we are requesting comment on best practices and the best level of emission control during malfunction events, and additionally, potential cost savings associated with potential malfunction work practices. In the unlikely event that a source owner or operator fails to comply with the applicable CAA section 112(d) standards as a result of a malfunction event, the EPA would determine an appropriate response based on, among other things, the good faith efforts of the source to minimize emissions during malfunction periods, including preventative and corrective actions, as well as root cause analyses to ascertain and rectify excess emissions. The EPA would also consider whether the source owner or operator’s failure to comply with the CAA section 112(d) standard was, in fact, sudden, infrequent, not reasonably preventable, and was not instead caused, in part, by poor 23 Letter to the U.S. EPA from David Darling, American Coatings Association regarding Start-up, Shut-down and Malfunction; American Coatings Association (ACA) Concerns, dated April 19, 2018. E:\FR\FM\19SEP2.SGM 19SEP2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 182 / Thursday, September 19, 2019 / Proposed Rules jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 maintenance or careless operation. 40 CFR 63.2 (definition of malfunction). If the EPA determines in a particular case that an enforcement action against a source owner or operator for violation of an emission standard is warranted, the source owner or operator can raise any and all defenses in that enforcement action and the federal district court will determine what, if any, relief is appropriate. The same is true for citizen enforcement actions. Similarly, the presiding officer in an administrative proceeding can consider any defense raised and determine whether administrative penalties are appropriate. In summary, the EPA interpretation of the CAA and, in particular, section 112, is reasonable and encourages practices that will avoid malfunctions. Administrative and judicial procedures for addressing exceedances of the standards fully recognize that violations may occur despite good faith efforts to comply and can accommodate those situations. U.S. Sugar Corp. v. EPA, 830 F.3d 579, 606–610 (2016). a. General Duty We are proposing to add an entry to the General Provisions table (Table 2) for 40 CFR 63.6(e)(1)(i) and include a ‘‘no’’ in the applicability column. 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 63.3340(b) that reflects the general duty to minimize emissions while eliminating the reference to periods covered by an SSM exemption. The current language in 40 CFR 63.6(e)(1)(i) characterizes what the general duty entails during periods of SSM. With the elimination of the SSM exemption, there is no need to differentiate between normal operations, startup and shutdown, and malfunction events in describing the general duty. Therefore, the language the EPA is proposing for 40 CFR 63.3340(b) does not include that language from 40 CFR 63.6(e)(1). We are also proposing to add an entry to the General Provisions table (Table 2) for 40 CFR 63.6(e)(1)(ii) and include a ‘‘no’’ in the applicability column. Section 63.6(e)(1)(ii) imposes requirements that are not necessary with the elimination of the SSM exemption or are redundant with the general duty requirement being added at 40 CFR 63.3340(b). b. SSM Plan We are proposing to add an entry to the General Provisions table (Table 2) VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:51 Sep 18, 2019 Jkt 247001 for 40 CFR 63.6(e)(3) and include a ‘‘no’’ in the applicability column. Generally, these paragraphs require development of an SSM plan and specify SSM recordkeeping and reporting requirements related to the SSM plan. As noted, the EPA is proposing to remove the SSM exemptions. Therefore, affected units will be subject to an emission standard during such events. The applicability of a standard during such events will ensure that sources have ample incentive to plan for and achieve compliance and, thus, the SSM plan requirements are no longer necessary. c. Compliance With Standards We are proposing to add an entry to the General Provisions table (Table 2) for 40 CFR 63.6(f)(1) and include a ‘‘no’’ in the applicability column. The current language of 40 CFR 63.6(f)(1) exempts sources from non-opacity standards during periods of SSM. As discussed above, the Court in Sierra Club vacated the exemptions contained in this provision and held that the CAA requires that some section 112 standard apply continuously. Consistent with Sierra Club, the EPA is proposing to revise standards in this rule to apply at all times. d. Performance Testing We are proposing to add an entry to the General Provisions table (Table 2) for 40 CFR 63.7(e)(1) and include a ‘‘no’’ in the applicability column. Section 63.7(e)(1) describes performance testing requirements. The EPA is instead proposing to add a performance testing requirement at 40 CFR 63.3360(e)(2). The performance testing requirements we are proposing to add differ from the General Provisions performance testing provisions in several respects. The regulatory text does not include the language in 40 CFR 63.7(e)(1) that restated the SSM exemption and language that precluded startup and shutdown periods from being considered ‘‘representative’’ for purposes of performance testing. The proposed performance testing provisions do not allow performance testing during startup or shutdown. As in 40 CFR 63.7(e)(1), performance tests conducted under this subpart should not be conducted during malfunctions because conditions during malfunctions are often not representative of normal operating conditions. The EPA is proposing to add language that requires the owner or operator to record the process information that is necessary to document operating conditions during the test and include in such record an explanation to support that such PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 49401 conditions represent normal operation. Section 63.7(e) requires that the owner or operator make available to the Administrator such records ‘‘as may be necessary to determine the condition of the performance test’’ available to the Administrator upon request but does not specifically require the information to be recorded. The regulatory text the EPA is proposing to add to this provision builds on that requirement and makes explicit the requirement to record the information. e. Monitoring We are proposing to re-designate the entry to the General Provisions table (Table 2) for 40 CFR 63.8(c)(1)–(3) to be 40 CFR 63.8(c)(2)–(3) and remove the text in the explanation column. We are proposing to add an entry to the General Provisions table (Table 2) for 40 CFR 63.8(c)(1) and 63.8(c)(1)(i) and (iii), and include a ‘‘no’’ in the applicability column. The cross-references to the general duty and SSM plan requirements in those subparagraphs are not necessary in light of other requirements of 40 CFR 63.8 that require good air pollution control practices (40 CFR 63.8(c)(1)) and that set out the requirements of a quality control program for monitoring equipment (40 CFR 63.8(d)). We are also proposing to add an entry to the General Provisions table (Table 2) for 40 CFR 63.8(c)(1)(ii) and include a ‘‘yes’’ in the applicability column and to clarify in the explanation column that 40 CFR 63.8(c)(1)(ii) only applies if a capture and control system is in use. We are proposing to add an entry to the General Provisions table (Table 2) for 40 CFR 63.8(d)(3) and include a ‘‘no’’ in the applicability column. The final sentence in 40 CFR 63.8(d)(3) refers to the General Provisions’ SSM plan requirement which is no longer applicable. The EPA is proposing to add to the rule at 40 CFR 63.3350(e)(5) 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. Recordkeeping We are proposing to add an entry to the General Provisions table (Table 2) for 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(i) and include a ‘‘no’’ in the applicability column. Section 63.10(b)(2)(i) describes the recordkeeping requirements during startup and shutdown. These recording provisions are no longer necessary because the EPA is proposing that recordkeeping and reporting applicable to normal operations will apply to E:\FR\FM\19SEP2.SGM 19SEP2 jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 49402 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 182 / Thursday, September 19, 2019 / Proposed Rules startup and shutdown. In the absence of special provisions applicable to startup and shutdown, such as a startup and shutdown plan, there is no reason to retain additional recordkeeping for startup and shutdown periods. We are proposing to add an entry to the General Provisions table (Table 2) for 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(ii) and enter a ‘‘no’’ in the applicability column. Section 63.10(b)(2)(ii) describes the recordkeeping requirements during a malfunction. The EPA is proposing to add such requirements to 40 CFR 63.3410(c)(2) and (3). 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. The EPA is proposing that this requirement apply to any failure to meet an applicable standard and is requiring that the source record the date, time, and duration of the failure rather than the ‘‘occurrence.’’ The EPA is also proposing to add to 40 CFR 63.3410(c)(2) and (3) a requirement that source owners or operators 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 owner or operator failed to meet the standard, and a description of the method used to determine the emissions. Examples of such methods would include product-loss calculations, mass balance calculations, measurements when available, or engineering judgment based on known process parameters. The EPA is proposing to require that sources keep records of this information to ensure that there is adequate information to allow the EPA to determine the severity of any failure to meet a standard, and to provide data that may document how the source met the general duty to minimize emissions when the source has failed to meet an applicable standard. We are proposing to add an entry to the General Provisions table (Table 2) for 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(iv) and enter a ‘‘no’’ in the applicability column. When applicable, the provision requires sources to record actions taken during SSM events when actions were inconsistent with their SSM plan. The requirement is no longer appropriate because SSM plans will no longer be required. The requirement previously applicable under 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(iv)(B) to record actions to minimize emissions and record VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:51 Sep 18, 2019 Jkt 247001 corrective actions is now applicable by reference to 40 CFR 63.3340. We are proposing to add an entry to the General Provisions table (Table 2) for 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(v) and enter a ‘‘no’’ in the applicability column. When applicable, the provision requires sources to record actions taken during SSM events to show that actions taken were consistent with their SSM plan. The requirement is no longer appropriate because SSM plans will no longer be required. We are proposing to add an entry to the General Provisions table (Table 2) for 40 CFR 63.10(c)(15) and enter a ‘‘no’’ in the applicability column. 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 requirements of the SSM plan, specified in 40 CFR 63.6(e), to also satisfy the requirements of 40 CFR 63.10(c)(10) through (12). The EPA is proposing to eliminate this requirement because SSM plans would no longer be required, and, therefore, 40 CFR 63.10(c)(15) no longer serves any useful purpose for affected units. g. Reporting We are proposing to add an entry to the General Provisions table (Table 2) for 40 CFR 63.10(d)(5)(i) and enter a ‘‘no’’ in the applicability column. Section 63.10(d)(5)(i) describes the reporting requirements for startups, shutdowns, and malfunctions. To replace the General Provisions reporting requirement, the EPA is proposing to add reporting requirements to 40 CFR 63.3400. The replacement language differs from the General Provisions requirement in that it eliminates periodic SSM reports as a stand-alone report. We are proposing language that requires sources that fail to meet an applicable standard at any time to report the information concerning such events in the semiannual compliance report already required under this rule. We are proposing that the report must contain the number, date, time, duration, and the cause of such events (including unknown cause, if applicable), a list of the affected source or equipment, an estimate of the quantity of each regulated pollutant emitted over any emission limit, and a description of the method used to determine 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 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 requirement to ensure that there is adequate information to determine compliance, to allow the EPA to determine the severity of the failure to meet an applicable standard, and to provide data that may document how the source owner or operator met the general duty to minimize emissions during a failure to meet an applicable standard. We will no longer require owners or operators to determine whether actions taken to correct a malfunction are consistent with an SSM plan, because plans would no longer be required. The proposed amendments, therefore, eliminate the cross-reference to 40 CFR 63.10(d)(5)(i) that contains the description of the previously required SSM report format and submittal schedule from this section. These specifications are no longer necessary because the events will be reported in otherwise required reports with similar format and submittal requirements. We are proposing to add an entry to the General Provisions table (Table 2) for 40 CFR 63.10(d)(5)(ii) and enter a ‘‘no’’ in the applicability column. Section 63.10(d)(5)(ii) describes an immediate report for startups, shutdowns, and malfunctions when a source failed to meet an applicable standard but did not follow the SSM plan. We will no longer require owners and operators to report when actions taken during a startup, shutdown, or malfunction were not consistent with an SSM plan, because plans would no longer be required. 2. Method for Determining Volatile Matter Retained in the Coated Web The EPA finalized an alternative compliance option as part of the Surface Coating of Wood Building Products RTR on March 4, 2019 (84 FR 7682), which would allow facilities to account for HAP retained in the product as a result of utilizing reactive coatings. Discussions between the EPA and industry trade associations elucidated the need for a similar compliance alternative in the POWC NESHAP. Particularly, the current NESHAP allows for the accounting of retained HAP in 40 CFR 63.3360(g), but the requirement to ‘‘develop a testing protocol to determine the mass of volatile matter retained . . . and submit this protocol to the Administrator for approval’’ was found to be vague and unworkable. To provide clarity and reduce regulatory burden, the EPA is proposing the utilization of an emission factor to account for volatile organic matter retained in the coated web. As discussed below, we are proposing to include new language in this E:\FR\FM\19SEP2.SGM 19SEP2 jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 182 / Thursday, September 19, 2019 / Proposed Rules rulemaking to allow facilities to account for retained volatile organics in their compliance demonstration calculations without requiring the submittal of an alternative monitoring request to the EPA under the provisions of 40 CFR 63.8(f). The proposed amendment adds compliance flexibility and reduces regulatory burden but does not alter the emission standard. This approach quantifies emissions in a way that is representative of the actual emissions from the coating operations. We are proposing language in 40 CFR 63.3360(g) that allows a facility to develop a site- and product-specific emission factor for use to calculate the amount of volatile organics retained in its coated web. This site- and productspecific emission factor is determined by performing an EPA Method 25A test and calculating the ratio of the mass of volatile organics emitted to the mass of volatile organics in the coating materials evaluated over a three-run test average. This site- and product-specific emission factor can be used for the production of similar products to the product tested during the performance test. A separate performance test must be performed for each different group of products for which a source owner or operator intends to account for the retained volatiles in the compliance demonstration calculations. The siteand product-specific emission factor is then used in Equation 4 to determine the amount retained for each group of products. The amount of volatile organics retained in the web can then be subtracted from the emissions calculated in the appropriate equations in 40 CFR 63.3370. Facilities using the proposed equations in 40 CFR 63.3360(g) to account for volatiles retained in the coated web would be required to conduct an initial performance test to develop a site- and product-specific emission factor to demonstrate compliance. It is not clear how many POWC facilities may elect to use this approach and, therefore, be required to perform this initial air emissions performance test; therefore, we have not assessed a cost for this test. Additionally, facilities choosing to use this approach will also have associated recordkeeping and reporting requirements in 40 CFR 63.3410 and 40 CFR 63.3400, respectively. We have not assessed a cost for the additional recordkeeping and reporting requirements because it is unclear how many POWC facilities will elect to use this approach. VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:51 Sep 18, 2019 Jkt 247001 3. Periodic Emissions Testing As part of an ongoing effort to improve compliance with various federal air emission regulations, the EPA reviewed the compliance demonstration requirements in the POWC NESHAP. Currently, if a source owner or operator chooses to comply with the standards using a non-recovery add-on control device, such as a thermal oxidizer, the results of an initial performance test are used to demonstrate compliance; however, the current rule does not require periodic performance testing for these emission capture systems and add-on controls. We are proposing a periodic emissions testing provision for sources using nonrecovery add-on controls in 40 CFR 63.3360(a)(2), in addition to the onetime initial emissions and capture efficiency testing and ongoing parametric monitoring to ensure ongoing compliance with the standards. Although ongoing monitoring of operating parameters is required by the POWC NESHAP, as the control device ages over time, the destruction efficiency of the control device can be compromised due to various factors. These factors are discussed in more detail in the memorandum titled Periodic Testing of Control Devices Used to Comply with the Paper and Other Web Coating NESHAP, in the docket for this rulemaking (Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2018–0416). Based on the need for vigilance in maintaining the control device equipment, we are proposing periodic testing of nonrecovery add-on control devices once every 5 years. Currently, there are an estimated 123 oxidizers at 81 facilities that are used to demonstrate compliance with the POWC NESHAP. Currently, 58 of those oxidizers are tested on at least a 5-year frequency due to state requirements to check destruction efficiency and reestablish operating parameters; therefore, 65 oxidizers are not currently tested on a regular basis. The repeat performance testing provision which the Agency is proposing would impact these 65 oxidizers if the provisions were finalized, with an estimated cost of $28,000 for each repeat performance test. The inclusion of a periodic repeat testing requirement would help demonstrate that emissions control equipment is continuing to operate as designed and that the facility remains in compliance with the standard. We specifically request comment on the proposed repeat testing requirements. PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 49403 4. Electronic Reporting Through this proposal, the EPA is proposing that owners and operators of POWC facilities submit electronic copies of required performance test reports (40 CFR 63.3400(f)), performance evaluation reports (40 CFR 63.3400(g)), initial notifications (40 CFR 63.3400(b)), notification of compliance status (40 CFR 63.3400(e)), and semiannual compliance reports (40 CFR 63.3400(c)) 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–2018–0416. This proposed rule requirement would replace the current rule requirement to submit the notifications and reports to the Administrator at the appropriate address listed in 40 CFR 63.13. This proposed rule requirement does not affect submittals required by state air agencies as required by 40 CFR 63.13. For the performance test reports required in 40 CFR 63.3400(f), the proposed rule requires that performance test results collected using test methods that are supported by the EPA’s Electronic Reporting Tool (ERT) as listed on the ERT website 24 at the time of the test be submitted in the format generated through the use of the ERT and that other performance test results be submitted in portable document format (PDF) using the attachment module of the ERT. Similarly, performance evaluation results of continuous monitoring systems measuring relative accuracy test audit pollutants that are supported by the ERT at the time of the test must be submitted in the format generated through the use of the ERT and other performance evaluation results be submitted in PDF using the attachment module of the ERT. For semiannual compliance reports required in 40 CFR 63.3400(c), the proposed rule requires that owners and operators use the final semiannual report template to submit information to CEDRI. The template will reside in CEDRI and is to be used on and after 180 days past finalization of this proposed action. A draft version of the proposed template for these reports is included in the docket for this 24 https://www.epa.gov/electronic-reporting-airemissions/electronic-reporting-tool-ert. E:\FR\FM\19SEP2.SGM 19SEP2 jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 49404 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 182 / Thursday, September 19, 2019 / Proposed Rules rulemaking.25 The EPA specifically requests comment on the format and usability of the template (e.g., filling out and uploading a provided spreadsheet versus entering the required information into an on-line fillable CEDRI web form), as well as the content, layout, and overall design of the template. Prior to 180 days after the final semiannual compliance report template has been made available in CEDRI, owners and operators of affected sources will be required to submit semiannual compliance reports as currently required by the rule. When the EPA finalizes the semiannual compliance report template, POWC sources will be notified about its availability via the CEDRI website. We plan to finalize the required reporting format with the final rule. The owner or operator would begin submitting reports electronically with the next report that is due, once the electronic template has been available for at least 180 days. For electronic submittal of initial notifications required in 40 CFR 63.3400(b), no specific form is available at this time, therefore, these notifications are required to be submitted in PDF using the attachment module of the ERT. If electronic forms are developed for these notifications, we will notify source owners and operators about their availability via the CEDRI website. For electronic submittal of notifications of compliance status reports required in 40 CFR 63.3400(e), the final semiannual report template discussed above, will also contain the information required for the notification of compliance status report. This will satisfy the requirement to provide the notifications of compliance status information electronically, eliminating the need to provide a separate notification of compliance status report. As stated above, the final semiannual report template will be available after finalizing this proposed action and source owners or operators will be required to use the form after 180 days. Prior to the availability of the final semiannual compliance report template in CEDRI, owners and operators of affected sources will be required to submit semiannual compliance reports as currently required by the rule. As stated above, we will notify sources about the availability of the final semiannual report template via the CEDRI website. Additionally, the EPA has identified two broad circumstances in which electronic reporting extensions may be 25 See POWC_Electronic_Reporting_ Template.xlsx, available at Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– 2018–0416. VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:51 Sep 18, 2019 Jkt 247001 provided. In both circumstances, the decision to accept the claim of needing additional time to report is within the discretion of the Administrator, and reporting should occur as soon as possible. The EPA is providing these potential extensions to protect owners and operators from noncompliance in cases where they cannot successfully submit a report by the reporting deadline for reasons outside of their control. The situation where an extension may be warranted due to outages of the EPA’s CDX or CEDRI which precludes an owner or operator from accessing the system and submitting required reports is addressed in 40 CFR 63.3400(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 63.3400(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 requirements and by facilitating the ability of delegated state, local, tribal, and territorial air agencies and the EPA to assess and determine compliance, and will ultimately reduce burden on regulated facilities, delegated air agencies, and the EPA. Electronic reporting also eliminates paper-based, manual processes, thereby saving time and resources, simplifying data entry, eliminating redundancies, minimizing data reporting errors, and providing data quickly and accurately to the affected facilities, air agencies, the EPA, and the public. Moreover, electronic reporting is consistent with the EPA’s plan 26 to implement Executive Order 13563 and is in keeping with the EPA’s Agencywide policy 27 developed in response to 26 EPA’s Final Plan for Periodic Retrospective Reviews, August 2011. Available at: https:// www.regulations.gov/document?D=EPA-HQ-OA2011-0156-0154. 27 E-Reporting Policy Statement for EPA Regulations, September 2013. Available at: https:// www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-03/ PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 the White House’s Digital Government Strategy.28 For more information on the benefits of electronic reporting, see the memorandum, Electronic Reporting Requirements for New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) and National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) Rules, available in Docket ID No. EPA– HQ–OAR–2018–0416. 5. Temperature Sensor Calibration Facilities with controlled sources subject to the POWC NESHAP that use regenerative thermal or catalytic oxidizers to comply with the standard are currently required to establish a minimum operating temperature during performance testing and subsequently maintain a 3-hour block average firebox temperature above the minimum temperature established during the performance test to demonstrate ongoing compliance. Temperature sensors are used to measure the temperature in the firebox. At 40 CFR 63.3350(e)(9), the POWC NESHAP currently requires conducting an electronic calibration of the temperature monitoring device every 3 months or the temperature sensor must be replaced. Facilities subject to the standard have explained to the EPA that they are not aware of a temperature sensor manufacturer that provides procedures or protocols for conducting electronic calibration of temperature sensors. Facilities have reported that because they cannot calibrate their temperature sensors, the alternative is to replace them and so they have requested that an alternative approach to the current requirement in 40 CFR 63.3350(e)(9) be considered. The EPA is proposing to modify 40 CFR 63.3350(e) to allow multiple alternative approaches to temperature sensor calibration. The first alternative would allow use of a National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) traceable temperature measurement device or simulator to confirm the accuracy of any temperature sensor placed into use for at least one quarterly period, where the accuracy of the temperature measurement must be within 2.5 percent of the temperature measured by the NIST traceable device or 5 °F, whichever is greater. The second alternative would be to have the temperature sensor manufacturer certify documents/epa-ereporting-policy-statement-201309-30.pdf. 28 Digital Government: Building a 21st Century Platform to Better Serve the American People, May 2012. Available at: https:// obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/ omb/egov/digital-government/digitalgovernment.html. E:\FR\FM\19SEP2.SGM 19SEP2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 182 / Thursday, September 19, 2019 / Proposed Rules the electrical properties of the temperature sensor. The third alternative would codify the common practice of replacing temperature sensors quarterly. The fourth alternative would be to permanently install a redundant temperature sensor as close as practicable to the process temperature sensor. The redundant sensors must read within 25 °F of each other for thermal and catalytic oxidizers. The EPA plans to maintain the option of allowing facilities to follow calibration procedures developed by the temperature sensor manufacturer when temperature sensor manufacturers develop calibration procedures for their products. jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 6. Operating Parameter Clarification We are proposing to clarify language in 40 CFR 63.3370 which currently implies deviations in operating parameters result in non-compliance with the standard. Specifically, we are proposing a clarification that each 3hour average operating parameter that is outside of the operating limit range established during a performance test should be assumed to have zero control and all HAP must be assumed to be emitted for that period in the monthly compliance calculation. Operating parameters were established in the POWC NESHAP to aid in determining a source’s compliance, but they were not intended to constitute a violation of the emission standard. For example, one 3hour average regenerative thermal oxidizer firebox temperature below the setpoint established in during the stack test would not necessarily indicate a violation of the emission standard for the month, but it is a deviation of the operating parameter limits. 7. IBR Under 1 CFR Part 51 The EPA is proposing regulatory text that includes IBR. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is proposing to incorporate by reference the following voluntary consensus standards (VCS) into 40 CFR 63.14: • ASTM D2369–10 (Reapproved 2015)e, Standard Test Method for Volatile Content of Coatings, IBR approved for 40 CFR 63.3360(c). • ASTM D2697–03 (Reapproved 2014), Standard Test Method for Volume Nonvolatile Matter in Clear or Pigmented Coatings, IBR approved for 40 CFR 63.3360(c). • ASTM 3960–98, Standard Practice for Determining Volatile Organic Compound (VOC) Content of Paints and Related Coatings, IBR approved for 40 CFR 63.3360(d). • ASTM D6093–97, (Reapproved 2016), Standard Test Method for Percent VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:51 Sep 18, 2019 Jkt 247001 Volume Nonvolatile Matter in Clear or Pigmented Coatings Using a Helium Gas Pycnometer, IBR approved for 40 CFR 63.3360(c). • ASTM D2111–10 (Reapproved 2015), Standard Test Methods for Specific Gravity of Halogenated Organic Solvents and Their Admixtures, IBR approved for 40 CFR 63.3360(c). • ASTM D1963–85 (1996), Standard Test Method for Specific Gravity of Drying Oils, Varnishes, Resins, and Related Materials at 25/25°C, IBR approved for 40 CFR 63.3360(c). While ANSI/ASME PTC 19.10–1981 was incorporated by reference when 40 CFR part 63, subpart JJJJ was originally promulgated (67 FR 72347, December 4, 2002), the method has been updated, requiring a revision to the regulatory text addressing its IBR. All of the other above-referenced VCS, except for ASTM D2369–10 (Reapproved 2015)e are being incorporated by reference for 40 CFR part 63, subpart JJJJ for the first time under this rulemaking. 8. Technical and Editorial Changes a. Removal of Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA)-Defined Carcinogens Reference We propose to amend 40 CFR 63.3360(c)(1)(i) and (3), which describe how to demonstrate initial compliance with the emission limitations using the compliant material option, to remove references to OSHA-defined carcinogens as specified in 29 CFR 1910.1200(d)(4). The reference to OSHA-defined carcinogens as specified in 29 CFR 1910.1200(d)(4) is intended to specify which compounds must be included in calculating total organic HAP content of a coating material if they are present at 0.1 percent or greater by mass. We are proposing to remove this reference because 29 CFR 1910.1200(d)(4) has been amended and no longer readily defines which compounds are carcinogens. We are proposing to replace these references to OSHAdefined carcinogens and 29 CFR 1910.1200(d)(4) with a list (in proposed new Table 3 to 40 CFR part 63, subpart JJJJ) of those organic HAP that must be included in calculating total organic HAP content of a coating material if they are present at 0.1 percent or greater by mass. We propose to include organic HAP in proposed Table 3 to 40 CFR part 63, subpart JJJJ if they were categorized in the EPA’s Prioritized Chronic DoseResponse Values for Screening Risk Assessments (dated May 9, 2014) as a ‘‘human carcinogen,’’ ‘‘probable human carcinogen,’’ or ‘‘possible human carcinogen’’ according to The Risk Assessment Guidelines of 1986 (EPA/ PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 49405 600/8–87/045, August 1987),29 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). b. Clarification of Compliance Demonstration Options An introductory paragraph and a new subsection are proposed in this action to clarify the compliance demonstration requirements in 40 CFR 63.3370. As promulgated, it is not clear that compliance can be demonstrated based on individual web coating lines, groups of web coating lines, or all of the web coating lines located at an affected facility. An introductory paragraph to 40 CFR 63.3370 is proposed to clarify the intent of how compliance can be demonstrated across the web coating lines in a facility. Additionally, a new subsection 40 CFR 63.3370(r) is also being proposed to clarify that compliance with the subpart is demonstrated using a mass-balance. While the compliance calculations included in 40 CFR 63.3370(b)–(p) are thorough, there are instances where variables in the equations are not needed, resulting in confusion by the regulated facilities and the regulating agencies as to what is required for compliance. The mass-balance summary approach proposed in 40 CFR 63.3370(r) clarifies the intent of the rule. c. Clarification of Coating Materials Definition The EPA is proposing to revise the coating material definition in 40 CFR 63.3310 to clarify that coating materials are liquid or semi-liquid materials, consistent with 40 CFR part 63, subpart OOOO. Additionally, we are proposing to revise the web coating line definition to clarify that coating materials are liquid or semi-liquid. These revisions will improve regulatory clarity by confirming that the weight of solid materials should not be accounted for in the compliance demonstration calculations, and that vapor-deposition coating is not covered by this subpart. d. Addition of Web Coating Line Usage Threshold The EPA is proposing to add a usage threshold to 40 CFR 63.3300(h), consistent with 40 CFR part 63, subpart OOOO, that requires a web coating line that coats both paper and another substrate, such as fabric, to comply with 29 See https://www.epa.gov/fera/dose-responseassessment-assessing-health-risks-associatedexposure-hazardous-air-pollutants. E:\FR\FM\19SEP2.SGM 19SEP2 49406 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 182 / Thursday, September 19, 2019 / Proposed Rules the subpart that corresponds to the predominate activity conducted. We are proposing to define predominant activity to be 90 percent of the mass of substrate coated during the compliance period. For example, a web coating line that coats 90 percent or more of a paper substrate, and 10 percent or less of a fabric substrate, would be subject to this subpart and not 40 CFR part 63, subpart OOOO. e. Addition of Printing Activity Exemption The EPA is proposing to add a printing activity exemption to 40 CFR 63.3300(i) which would allow for modified web coating lines already subject to this subpart to continue to demonstrate compliance with this subpart, in lieu of demonstrating compliance with 40 CFR part 63, subpart KK. This proposed exemption will reduce regulatory burden without resulting in increased emissions. f. Clarification of Testing Requirements The EPA is proposing to remove the ‘‘by compound’’ statement in 40 CFR 63.3320(b)(4) to clarify that the standard is 20 ppmv for the total of organic HAP emitted, not 20 ppmv for each individual HAP emitted. This is consistent with the test methods used in this subpart, which test for total HAP concentration. jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 g. Applicability to Sources Using Only Non-HAP Coatings As identified during the development of the risk modeling input file and discussed in section III.C of this preamble, some facilities that utilize only non-HAP coatings are subject to the POWC NESHAP because they perform web coating operations and are a major source because of non-POWC source category emissions. For example, a non-HAP coating line used to produce paper towel cores may be located at a pulp and paper facility that is a major source because of emissions from the pulping operations. This facility would be required to comply with the recordkeeping and reporting requirements of 40 CFR part 63, subpart JJJJ, even though the coatings used contain no HAP, and, therefore, no HAP were emitted from the web coating lines. The EPA is requesting comment on changing the applicability of the subpart to exclude sources that only use non-HAP coatings but are located at a major source from the POWC NESHAP requirements to reduce regulatory burden. VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:51 Sep 18, 2019 Jkt 247001 h. Other The following are additional proposed changes that address technical and editorial corrections: • Revised the references to the other NESHAP in 40 CFR 63.3300 to clarify the appropriate subparts; • Revised 40 CFR 63.3350(e)(4) to clarify 3-hour averages should be block averages, consistent with the requirements in Table 1 to 40 CFR part 63, subpart JJJJ. • Revised the monitoring requirements section in 40 CFR 63.3360 to clarify what constitutes representative conditions; • Revised the recordkeeping requirements section in 40 CFR 63.3410 to include the requirement to show continuous compliance after effective date of regulation; • Revised the terminology in the delegation of authority section in 40 CFR 63.3420 to match the definitions in 40 CFR 63.90; • Revised the General Provisions applicability table (Table 2 to 40 CFR part 63, subpart JJJJ) to provide more detail and to make it align with those sections of the General Provisions that have been amended or reserved over time; and • Renumbered the equations throughout the subpart for regulatory clarity. E. What compliance dates are we proposing? The EPA is proposing that existing affected sources must comply with the amendments in this rulemaking no later than 180 days after the effective date of the final rule. The EPA is also proposing that affected source owners or operators that commence construction or reconstruction after September 19, 2019 must comply with all requirements of the subpart, including the amendments being proposed except for the electronic reporting of semiannual reports, no later than the effective date of the final rule or upon startup, whichever is later. All affected existing facilities would have to continue to meet the current requirements of 40 CFR part 63, subpart JJJJ until the applicable compliance date of the amended rule. The final action is not expected to be a ‘‘major rule’’ as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2), so the effective date of the final rule will be the promulgation date as specified in CAA section 112(d)(10). For existing sources, we are proposing two changes that would impact ongoing compliance requirements for 40 CFR part 63, subpart JJJJ. As discussed elsewhere in this preamble, we are proposing to add a requirement that PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 initial notifications, notifications of compliance status reports, performance test results, performance evaluation results, and semiannual reports be submitted electronically. We are also proposing to change the requirements for SSM by removing the exemption from the requirements to meet the standard during SSM periods, and by removing the requirement to develop and implement an SSM plan. Our experience with similar industries that are required to convert reporting mechanisms, install necessary hardware, install necessary software, become familiar with the process of submitting performance test results electronically through the EPA’s CEDRI, test these new electronic submission capabilities, reliably employ electronic reporting, and convert logistics of reporting processes to different timereporting parameters, shows that a time period of a minimum of 90 days, and more typically, 180 days, is generally necessary to successfully complete these changes. Our experience with similar industries further shows that owners or operators of this sort of regulated facility generally requires a time period of 180 days to read and understand the amended rule requirements; evaluate their operations to ensure that they can meet the standards during periods of startup and shutdown as defined in the rule, and make any necessary adjustments; adjust parameter monitoring and recording systems to accommodate revisions; and update their operations to reflect the revised requirements. The EPA recognizes the confusion that multiple different compliance dates for individual requirements would create and the additional burden such an assortment of dates would impose. From our assessment of the time frame needed for compliance with the entirety of the revised requirements, the EPA considers a period of 180 days to be the most expeditious compliance period practicable, and, thus, is proposing that existing affected sources be in compliance with all of this regulation’s revised requirements within 180 days of the regulation’s effective date. We solicit comment on this proposed compliance period, and we specifically request submission of information from sources in this source category regarding specific actions that would need to be undertaken to comply with the proposed amended requirements and the time needed to make the adjustments for compliance with any of the revised requirements. We note that information provided may result in E:\FR\FM\19SEP2.SGM 19SEP2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 182 / Thursday, September 19, 2019 / Proposed Rules changes to the proposed compliance date. V. Summary of Cost, Environmental, and Economic Impacts A. What are the affected sources? The POWC source category includes any facility that is located at a major source and is engaged in the coating of paper, plastic film, metallic foil, and other web surfaces. All the coating lines at a subject facility are defined as one affected source. An existing source means any affected source of which the construction or reconstruction was commenced on or before September 13, 2000, and has not undergone reconstruction. Generally, an additional line at an existing facility is considered part of the existing affected source. New affected sources are new lines installed at new facilities or at a facility with no prior POWC operations. There are currently 168 facilities in the United States that are subject to the POWC NESHAP. There is currently one known new affected source that is under construction that will be subject to the POWC NESHAP. No other facilities are under construction or are planned to be constructed which would be considered ‘‘new facilities’’ under the POWC NESHAP to the EPA’s knowledge. jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 B. What are the air quality impacts? At the current level of control, estimated emissions of total HAP are approximately 3,870 tpy. Compared to pre-MACT levels, this represents a significant reduction of HAP for the category. Prior to the development of the POWC NESHAP, the EPA estimated HAP emissions to be 42,000 tpy (67 FR 72331). The proposed amendments will require all 168 major sources with equipment subject to the POWC NESHAP to operate without the SSM exemption. Eliminating the SSM exemption will reduce emissions by requiring facilities to meet the applicable standard during SSM periods, however we are unable to quantify the specific emissions reductions associated with eliminating the exemption. The requirement for repeat performance testing once every 5 years for oxidizers will ensure that the control device is operating correctly and may reduce emissions, but no method for accurately estimating such emissions reduction is available. Indirect or secondary air emissions impacts are impacts that would result from the increased electricity usage associated with the operation of control devices (i.e., increased secondary emissions of criteria pollutants from VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:51 Sep 18, 2019 Jkt 247001 power plants). Energy impacts consist of the electricity and steam needed to operate control devices and other equipment that would be required under this proposed rule. The EPA expects no secondary air emissions impacts or energy impacts from this rulemaking. For further information, see the memorandum titled Cost, Environmental, and Energy Impacts of Regulatory Options for the Paper and Other Web Coatings Risk and Technology Review, in the docket for this action (Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– OAR–2018–0416). C. What are the cost impacts? Startup and shutdown are considered normal operations for most facilities subject to the POWC NESHAP. The EPA does not believe removing the SSM exemption will result in additional incurred costs. As discussed in detail in the memorandum titled Cost, Environmental, and Energy Impacts of Regulatory Options for the Paper and Other Web Coatings Risk and Technology Review, it was estimated that an additional 65 oxidizers will have to perform repeat performance testing every 5 years. The estimated cost for an inlet-outlet EPA Method 25A performance test (with electronic reporting of results) is $28,000 per test, for an estimated nationwide cost of $1,820,000 (2018$) every 5 years. The proposed electronic reporting requirement is not expected to require any additional labor hours to prepare, compared to the paper semi-annual compliance reports that are already prepared. Therefore, the costs associated with the electronic reporting requirement are zero. 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. To assess the 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 POWC NESHAP, the 168 affected facilities are owned by 91 different parent companies, and the total costs associated with the proposed requirements range from less than 0.000001 to 3 percent of annual sales revenue per ultimate owner. These costs are not expected to result in a significant market impact, regardless of PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 49407 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. Twenty-nine of the facilities potentially affected by the proposed revisions to the POWC NESHAP are small entities. However, the costs associated with the proposed requirements for the affected small entities range from 0.0003 to 3 percent of annual sales revenues per ultimate owner; there is one facility with costs of 1.4 percent and one facility with costs of 3 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. E. What are the benefits? Because these proposed amendments are not considered economically significant, as defined by Executive Order 12866, and because we did not estimate emission reductions associated with the proposal, we did not estimate any benefits from reducing emissions. VI. Request for Comments We solicit comments on this proposed action. In addition to general comments on this proposed action, we are also interested in additional data that may improve the risk assessments and other analyses. We are specifically interested in receiving any improvements to the data used in the site-specific emissions profiles used for risk assessment 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/paperand-other-web-coating-nationalemission-standards-hazardous-0. 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 E:\FR\FM\19SEP2.SGM 19SEP2 49408 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 182 / Thursday, September 19, 2019 / Proposed Rules 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–2018–0416 (through the method described in the ADDRESSES section of this preamble). 5. If you are providing comments on a single facility or multiple facilities, you need only submit one file for all facilities. The file should contain all suggested changes for all sources at that facility (or facilities). We request that all data revision comments be submitted in the form of updated Microsoft® 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/paper-and-other-web-coatingnational-emission-standards-hazardous0. 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 Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs This action is not expected to be an Executive Order 13771 regulatory action because this action is not significant under Executive Order 12866. C. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) The information collection activities in this proposed rule have been submitted for approval to OMB under the PRA. The Information Collection VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:51 Sep 18, 2019 Jkt 247001 Request (ICR) document that the EPA prepared has been assigned EPA ICR number 1951.08, OMB Control No. 2060–0511. You can find a copy of the ICR in the docket for this rule, and it is briefly summarized here. The POWC NESHAP applies to existing facilities and new POWC facilities. In general, all NESHAP standards require initial notifications, notifications of compliance status, performance tests, performance evaluation reports, and periodic reports by the owners/operators of the affected facilities. They are also required to maintain records of the occurrence and duration of any malfunction in the operation of an affected facility, or any period during which the monitoring system is inoperative. These notifications, reports, and records are essential in determining compliance, and are required of all affected facilities subject to NESHAP. This information is being collected to assure compliance with 40 CFR part 63, subpart JJJJ. Respondents/affected entities: POWC facilities. Respondent’s obligation to respond: Mandatory (40 CFR part 63, subpart JJJJ). Estimated number of respondents: 170. Frequency of response: Initially, occasionally, and semiannually. Total estimated burden: 17,600 hours (per year). Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b). Total estimated cost: $2,789,000 (per year), includes $789,000 annualized capital or operation and maintenance costs. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for the EPA’s regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9. Submit your comments on the Agency’s need for this information, the accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden to the EPA using the docket identified at the beginning of this rule. You may also send your ICR-related comments to OMB’s Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs via email to 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 21, 2019. The EPA will respond to any ICR-related comments in the final rule. PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 D. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. The small entities subject to the requirements of this action and the annualized costs associated with the proposed requirements in this action for the affected small entities are described in section V.D. above. E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) This action does not contain any unfunded mandate of $100 million or more as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531–1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. The action imposes no enforceable duty on any state, local, or tribal governments or the private sector. F. Executive Order 13132: Federalism This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. G. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments This action does not have tribal implications as specified in Executive Order 13175. It will not have substantial direct effects on tribal governments, on the relationship between the federal government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the federal government and Indian tribes. No tribal governments own facilities subject to the NESHAP. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action. H. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is not economically significant as defined in Executive Order 12866, and because the EPA does not believe the environmental health or safety risks addressed by this action present a disproportionate risk to children. This action’s health and risk assessments are contained in sections III and IV of this preamble and further documented in the following risk report, titled Residual Risk Assessment for the Paper and Other Web Source Category in Support of the 2019 Risk and Technology Review Proposed Rule, which can be found in the docket for E:\FR\FM\19SEP2.SGM 19SEP2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 182 / Thursday, September 19, 2019 / Proposed Rules this action (Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– OAR–2018–0416). jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 I. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211 because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866. J. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) and 1 CFR Part 51 This action involves technical standards. The EPA proposes to use ANSI/ASME PTC 19.10–1981 (2010), ‘‘Flue and Exhaust Gas Analyses,’’ for its manual methods of measuring the oxygen or carbon dioxide content of the exhaust gas. This standard is acceptable as an alternative to EPA Method 3B and is available from the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) at https://www.asme.org; by mail at Three Park Avenue, New York, NY 10016– 5990; or by telephone at (800) 843–2763. While this standard was incorporated by reference when 40 CFR part 63, subpart JJJJ was originally promulgated (67 FR 72347), EPA is proposing to use the updated version. The EPA also proposes to use the following six VCS as alternatives to EPA Method 24 and is incorporating them by reference for the first time in the proposed amendments: • ASTM D2369–10 (Reapproved 2015)e, ‘‘Standard Test Method for Volatile Content of Coatings.’’ This test method describes a procedure used for the determination of the weight percent volatile content of solvent-borne and waterborne coatings. • ASTM D2697–03 (Reapproved 2014), ‘‘Standard Test Method for Volume Nonvolatile Matter in Clear or Pigmented Coatings.’’ This test method is applicable to the determination of the volume of nonvolatile matter in coatings. • ASTM D3960–98, ‘‘Standard Practice for Determining Volatile Organic Compound (VOC) Content of Paints and Related Coatings.’’ This test method is used for the measurement of the VOC content of solventborne and waterborne paints and related coatings. This method is an acceptable alternative to EPA Method 24 if the regulation allows for the use of VOC content as a surrogate for HAP. • ASTM D6093–97 (Reapproved 2016), ‘‘Standard Test Method for Percent Volume Nonvolatile Matter in Clear or Pigmented Coatings Using a Helium Gas Pycnometer.’’ This test method is used for the determination of VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:51 Sep 18, 2019 Jkt 247001 the percent volume nonvolatile matter in clear and pigmented coatings. • ASTM D2111–10 (Reapproved 2015), ‘‘Standard Test Methods for Specific Gravity of Halogenated Organic Solvents and Their Admixtures.’’ This test method is used for the determination of the specific gravity of halogenated organic solvents and solvent admixtures. • ASTM D1963–85 (1996), ‘‘Standard Test Method for Specific Gravity of Drying Oils, Varnishes, Resins, and Related Materials at 25°C.’’ This test method is used for the determination of the specific gravity of drying oils, varnishes, alkyd resins, fatty acids, and related materials. This method is an acceptable alternative to EPA Method 24 for density only and may not be valid for all coatings and is valid at the designated temperature (25-degrees Celsius). This standard was withdrawn in 2004 with no replacement; there is no later version. These standards are reasonably available from the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM), 100 Barr Harbor Drive, Post Office Box C700, West Conshohocken, PA 19428–2959. See https://www.astm.org/. While the EPA has identified another 19 VCS as being potentially applicable to this proposed rule, we have decided not to use these VCS in this rulemaking. The use of these VCS would not be practical due to lack of equivalency, documentation, validation date, and other important technical and policy considerations. See the memorandum titled Voluntary Consensus Standard Results for National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Paper and Other Web Coating, in the docket for this proposed rule for the reasons for these determinations (Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2018–0416). Under 40 CFR 63.7(f) and 40 CFR 63.8(f) of subpart A of the General Provisions, a source may apply to the EPA for permission to use alternative test methods or alternative monitoring requirements in place of any required testing methods, performance specifications, or procedures in the final rule or any amendments. The EPA welcomes comments on this aspect of the proposed rulemaking and, specifically, invites the public to identify potentially applicable VCS and to explain why such standards should be used in this regulation. K. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations The EPA believes that this action does not have disproportionately high and PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 49409 adverse human health or environmental effects on minority populations, low income populations, and/or indigenous peoples, as specified in Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). The documentation for this decision is contained in section IV.A.6 of this preamble and the technical report, Risk and Technology Review—Analysis of Demographic Factors for Populations Living Near Paper and Other Web Coating Facilities, which is available in the docket for this action (Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2018–0416). List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63 Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Air pollution control, Hazardous substances, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Dated: August 22, 2018. Andrew R. Wheeler, Administrator. For the reasons set out in the preamble, 40 CFR part 63 is proposed to be amended 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. in paragraph (e)(1), removing the phrase ‘‘63.3360(e),’’ without replacement; ■ b. Adding paragraph (e)(2); ■ c. Redesignating paragraphs (h)(50) through (h)(111) as (h)(52) through (h)(113); ■ d. Redesignating paragraphs (h)(19) through (h)(49) as (h)(20) through (h)(50); ■ e. Adding new paragraph (h)(19) and (51); and ■ f. Revising newly redesignated paragraphs (h)(22), (27), (31), and (81). The additions and revisions read as follows: ■ ■ § 63.14 Incorporations by reference. * * * * * (e) * * * (2) ANSI/ASME PTC 19.10–1981 Part 10 (2010), Flue and Exhaust Gas Analyses, IBR approved for § 63.3360(e). (h) * * * (19) ASTM D1963–85 (1996), ‘‘Standard Test Method for Specific Gravity of Drying Oils, Varnishes, E:\FR\FM\19SEP2.SGM 19SEP2 49410 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 182 / Thursday, September 19, 2019 / Proposed Rules Resins, and Related Materials at 25/ 25°C,’’ IBR approved for § 63.3360(c). * * * * * (22) ASTM D2111–10 (Reapproved 2015), Standard Test Methods for Specific Gravity and Density of Halogenated Organic Solvents and Their Admixtures, approved June 1, 2015, IBR approved for §§ 63.3360(c), 63.4141(b) and (c) and 63.4741(a). * * * * * (27) ASTM D2369–10 (Reapproved 2015)e, Standard Test Method for Volatile Content of Coatings, approved June 1, 2015, IBR approved for §§ 63.3360(c), 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), and 63.4961(j). * * * * * (31) ASTM D2697–03 (Reapproved 2014), Standard Test Method for Volume Nonvolatile Matter in Clear or Pigmented Coatings, approved July 1, 2014, IBR approved for §§ 63.3360(c), 63.4141(b), 63.4741(a) and (b), and 63.4941(b). * * * * * (51) ASTM 3960–98, Standard Practice for Determining Volatile Organic Compound (VOC) Content of Paints and Related Coatings, IBR approved for § 63.3360(c). * * * * * (81) ASTM D6093–97 (Reapproved 2016), Standard Test Method for Percent Volume Nonvolatile Matter in Clear or Pigmented Coatings Using a Helium Gas Pycnometer, Approved December 1, 2016, IBR approved for §§ 63.3360(c), 63.4141(b), 63.4741(a) and (b), and 63.4941(b). * * * * * Subpart JJJJ—[Amended] 3. Section 63.3300 is amended by: a. Revising the introductory text; b. Revising paragraphs (a), (b), (d), (e) and (f); and ■ c. Adding paragraphs (h) and (i). The revisions and additions read as follows: ■ ■ ■ jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 § 63.3300 Which of my emission sources are affected by this subpart? The affected source subject to this subpart is the collection of all web coating lines at your facility. This includes web coating lines engaged in the coating of metal webs that are used in flexible packaging, and web coating lines engaged in the coating of fabric substrates for use in pressure sensitive tape and abrasive materials. Web coating lines specified in paragraphs (a) through (i) of this section are not part of the affected source of this subpart. VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:51 Sep 18, 2019 Jkt 247001 (a) Any web coating line that is standalone equipment under subpart KK of this part (National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for the Printing and Publishing Industry) which the owner or operator includes in the affected source under subpart KK of this part. (b) Any web coating line that is a product and packaging rotogravure or wide-web flexographic press under subpart KK of this part (NESHAP for the Printing and Publishing Industry) which is included in the affected source under subpart KK of this part. * * * * * (d) Any web coating line subject to subpart EE of this part (NESHAP for Magnetic Tape Manufacturing Operations). (e) Any web coating line subject to subpart SSSS of this part (NESHAP for Surface Coating of Metal Coil). (f) Any web coating line subject to subpart OOOO of this part (NESHAP for the Printing, Coating, and Dyeing of Fabrics and Other Textiles). This includes any web coating line that coats both a paper or other web substrate and a fabric or other textile substrate, except for a fabric substrate used for pressure sensitive tape and abrasive materials. * * * * * (h) Any web coating line that coats both paper or a web, and another substrate such as fabric, must comply with the subpart of this part that applies to the predominant activity conducted on the affected source. Predominant activity for this subpart is 90 percent of the mass of substrate coated during the compliance period. For example, a web coating line that coats 90 percent or more of a paper substrate, and 10 percent or less of a fabric or other textile substrate, would be subject to this subpart and not 40 CFR 63, subpart OOOO. (i) Any web coating line subject to this part that is modified to include printing activities, may continue to demonstrate compliance with this part, in lieu of demonstrating compliance with subpart KK of this part. ■ 4. Section 63.3310 is amended by revising the definitions of ‘‘coating material(s)’’ and ‘‘web coating line’’. The revisions and additions read as follows: § 63.3310 subpart? What definitions are used in this * * * * * Coating material(s) means all liquid or semi-liquid materials, including inks, varnishes, adhesives, primers, solvents, reducers, and other materials applied to a substrate via a web coating line. PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 Materials used to form a substrate are not considered coating materials. * * * * * Web coating line means any number of work stations, of which one or more applies a continuous layer of liquid or semi-liquid coating material across the entire width or any portion of the width of a web substrate, and any associated curing/drying equipment between an unwind or feed station and a rewind or cutting station. * * * * * ■ 5. Section 63.3320 is amended by revising the introductory text of paragraph (b) and revising paragraph (b)(4). The revisions read as follows: § 63.3320 meet? What emission standards must I * * * * * (b) You must limit organic HAP emissions to the level specified in paragraph (b)(1), (2), (3), or (4) of this section for all periods of operation, including startup, shutdown, and malfunction. * * * * * (4) If you use an oxidizer to control organic HAP emissions, operate the oxidizer such that an outlet organic HAP concentration of no greater than 20 parts per million by volume (ppmv) on a dry basis is achieved and the efficiency of the capture system is 100 percent. * * * * * ■ 6. Section 63.3330 is revised to read as follows: § 63.3330 When must I comply? (a) For existing affected sources which commenced construction or reconstruction prior to September 13, 2000, and for new affected sources which commenced construction or reconstruction after September 13, 2000, but before September 19, 2019, you must comply as follows: (1) Before [DATE 180 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE Federal Register], the affected coating operation(s) must be in compliance with the applicable emission limit in § 63.3320 at all times, except during periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction (SSM). On and after [DATE 180 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE Federal Register] the affected coating operation(s) must be in compliance with the applicable emission limit in § 63.3320 at all times, including periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction. (2) A periodic performance test must be performed by [DATE 3 YEARS E:\FR\FM\19SEP2.SGM 19SEP2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 182 / Thursday, September 19, 2019 / Proposed Rules AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE Federal Register], and subsequent tests no later than 60 months thereafter, as required in § 63.3360. (3) After [DATE 180 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE Federal Register], you must electronically submit initial notifications, semiannual compliance reports, and performance test reports, as required in § 63.3400. (b) For new affected sources which commenced construction or reconstruction after September 19, 2019, you must comply as indicated in (b)(1) through (4) of this section. Existing affected sources which have undergone reconstruction as defined in § 63.2 are subject to the requirements for new affected sources. The costs associated with the purchase and installation of air pollution control equipment are not considered in determining whether the existing affected source has been reconstructed. Additionally, the costs of retrofitting and replacing of equipment that is installed specifically to comply with this subpart are not considered reconstruction costs. (1) The coating operation(s) must be in compliance with the applicable emission limit in § 63.3320 at all times, including periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction, immediately upon startup. (2) You must complete any initial performance test required in § 63.3360 within the time limits specified in § 63.7(a)(2), and subsequent tests no later than 60 months thereafter. (3) You must electronically submit initial notifications and performance test reports as required in § 63.3400. After [DATE 180 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE Federal Register], you must electronically submit semiannual compliance reports as required in § 63.3400. ■ 7. Section 63.3340 is revised to read as follows: jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 § 63.3340 What general requirements must I meet to comply with the standards? (a) Before [DATE 181 DAYS AFTER PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE Federal Register], for each existing source, and for each new or reconstructed source for which construction or reconstruction commenced after September 13, 2000, but on or before September 19, 2019, you must be in compliance with the emission limits and operating limits in this subpart at all times, except during periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction. After [DATE 180 DAYS AFTER PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE Federal Register], for each such VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:51 Sep 18, 2019 Jkt 247001 source you must be in compliance with the emission limits and operating limits in this subpart at all times. For new and reconstructed sources for which construction or reconstruction commenced after September 19, 2019, you must be in compliance with the emission limits and operating limits in this subpart at all times, immediately upon startup. (b) For affected sources as of September 19, 2019, before [DATE 181 DAYS AFTER PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE Federal Register], you must always operate and maintain your affected source, including all air pollution control and monitoring equipment you use for purposes of complying with this subpart, according to the provisions in § 63.6(e)(1)(i). On and after [DATE 180 DAYS AFTER PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE Federal Register] for such sources and after September 19, 2019 for new or reconstructed affected sources, you must always operate and maintain your affected source, including associated air pollution control equipment and monitoring equipment, in a manner consistent with safety and good air pollution control practices for minimizing emissions. The general duty to minimize emissions does not require the owner or operator to make any further efforts to reduce emissions if levels required by the applicable standard have been achieved. Determination of whether a source is operating in compliance with operation and maintenance requirements will be based on information available to the Administrator which may include, but is not limited to, monitoring results, review of operation and maintenance procedures, review of operation and maintenance records, and inspection of the source. (c) You must conduct each performance test required by § 63.3360 according to the requirements in § 63.3360(e)(2) and under the conditions in this section unless you obtain a waiver of the performance test according to the provisions in § 63.7(h). (1) Representative coating operation operating conditions. You must conduct the performance test under representative operating conditions for the coating operation. Operations during periods of startup, shutdown, and nonoperation do not constitute representative conditions. You may not conduct performance tests during periods of malfunction. You must record the process information that is necessary to document operating conditions during the test and explain why the conditions represent normal operation. Upon request, you shall make PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 49411 available to the Administrator such records as may be necessary to determine the conditions of performance tests. (2) Representative emission capture system and add-on control device operating conditions. You must conduct the performance test when the emission capture system and add-on control device are operating at a representative flow rate, and the add-on control device is operating at a representative inlet concentration. Representative conditions exclude periods of startup and shutdown. You may not conduct performance tests during periods of malfunction. You must record information that is necessary to document emission capture system and add-on control device operating conditions during the test and explain why the conditions represent normal operation. (d) Table 2 to this subpart specifies the provisions of subpart A of this part that apply if you are subject to subpart JJJJ of this part. ■ 8. Section 63.3350 is amended by: ■ a. Revising paragraph (b); ■ b. Revising the introductory text of paragraph (c); ■ c. Revising paragraph (d)(1)(iii); ■ d. Revising the introductory text of paragraph (e) and paragraph (e)(2); ■ e. Revising paragraph (e)(4); ■ f. Redesignating paragraphs (e)(5) through (e)(10) as paragraphs (e)(6) through (e)(11); ■ g. Adding paragraph (e)(5); and ■ h. Revising the newly designated paragraph (e)(10). The revisions and addition read as follows: § 63.3350 If I use a control device to comply with the emission standards, what monitoring must I do? * * * * * (b) Following the date on which the initial or periodic performance test of a control device is completed to demonstrate continuing compliance with the standards, you must monitor and inspect each capture system and each control device used to comply with § 63.3320. You must install and operate the monitoring equipment as specified in paragraphs (c) and (f) of this section. (c) Bypass and coating use monitoring. If you own or operate web coating lines with intermittentlycontrolled work stations, you must monitor bypasses of the control device and the mass of each coating material applied at the work station during any such bypass. If using a control device for complying with the requirements of this subpart, you must demonstrate that any coating material applied on a never- E:\FR\FM\19SEP2.SGM 19SEP2 49412 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 182 / Thursday, September 19, 2019 / Proposed Rules controlled work station or an intermittently-controlled work station operated in bypass mode is allowed in your compliance demonstration according to § 63.3370(o) and (p). The bypass monitoring must be conducted using at least one of the procedures in paragraphs (c)(1) through (4) of this section for each work station and associated dryer. * * * * * (d) * * * (1) * * * (iii) You must have valid data from at least 90 percent of the hours when the process is operated. Invalid or missing data should be reported as a deviation in the semiannual compliance report. * * * * * (e) Continuous parameter monitoring system (CPMS). If you are using a control device to comply with the emission standards in § 63.3320, you must install, operate, and maintain each CPMS specified in paragraphs (e)(10) and (11) and (f) of this section according to the requirements in paragraphs (e)(1) through (9) of this section. You must install, operate, and maintain each CPMS specified in paragraph (c) of this section according to paragraphs (e)(5) through (8) of this section. (1) * * * (2) You must have valid data from at least 90 percent of the hours when the process is operated. Invalid or missing data should be reported as a deviation in the semiannual compliance report. * * * * * (4) You must determine the block 3hour average of all recorded readings for each operating period. To calculate the average for each 3-hour averaging period, you must have at least two of three of the hourly averages for that period using only average values that are based on valid data (i.e., not from out-of-control periods). (5) You must develop a quality control program, as required in § 63.8(d). The owner or operator shall keep these written procedures 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 jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 If you control organic HAP on any individual web coating line or any group of web coating lines by: (1) Limiting organic HAP or volatile matter content of coatings. VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:51 Sep 18, 2019 Jkt 247001 available for inspection, upon request, by the Administrator. If the performance evaluation plan is revised, the owner or operator 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). * * * * * (10) Oxidizer. If you are using an oxidizer to comply with the emission standards, you must comply with paragraphs (e)(10)(i) through (vi) of this section. (i) Install, maintain, and operate temperature monitoring equipment according to the manufacturer’s specifications. Calibrate the chart recorder or data logger at least quarterly. (ii) For an oxidizer other than a catalytic oxidizer, install, operate, and maintain a temperature monitoring device equipped with a continuous recorder. The device must have an accuracy of ±1 percent of the temperature being monitored in degrees Fahrenheit, or ±1.8 degree Fahrenheit, whichever is greater. The temperature sensor must be installed in the combustion chamber at a location in the combustion zone. (iii) For a catalytic oxidizer, install, operate, and maintain a temperature monitoring device equipped with a continuous recorder. The device must be capable of monitoring temperature with an accuracy of ±1 percent of the temperature being monitored in degrees Fahrenheit or ±1.8 degree Fahrenheit, whichever is greater. The temperature sensor must be installed in the vent stream at the nearest feasible point to the inlet and outlet of the catalyst bed. Calculate the temperature rise across the catalyst. (iv) Validate the temperature sensor at least quarterly using method (iv)(A), (B), (C), (D), or (E): (A) Compare measured readings to a National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) traceable temperature measurement device or simulate a typical operating temperature using a NIST traceable temperature simulation device. When the temperature measurement device method is used, the sensor of the calibrated device must be placed as close as practicable to the process sensor, and both devices must be subjected to the same environmental conditions. The accuracy of the temperature measured must be 2.5% of the temperature measured by the NIST traceable device or 5 °F whichever is greater. (B) Follow applicable procedures in the manufacturer owner’s manual. (C) Request the temperature sensor manufacturer to certify or re-certify electromotive force (electrical properties) of the thermocouple. (D) Replace the temperature sensor with a new certified temperature sensor in lieu of validation. (E) Permanently install a redundant temperature sensor as close as practicable to the process temperature sensor. The sensors must yield a reading within 25 °F of each other for thermal oxidizers and catalytic oxidizers. (v) Conduct calibration and validation checks any time the temperature sensor exceeds the manufacturer’s specified maximum operating temperature range or install a new temperature sensor. (vi) At least quarterly, inspect all components for integrity and all electrical connections for continuity, oxidation, and galvanic corrosion. * * * * * ■ 9. Section 63.3360 is amended by: ■ a. Revising paragraph (a); ■ b. Revising paragraph (b); ■ c. Revising paragraphs (c)(1)(i),and (2) through (4); and ■ d. Revising paragraphs (d)(1) through (3), (e)(1) and (2), the introductory text of paragraph (f), and paragraph (g). The revisions read as follows: § 63.3360 What performance tests must I conduct? (a) The performance test methods you must conduct are as follows: You must: Determine the organic HAP or volatile matter and coating solids content of coating materials according to procedures in paragraphs (c) and (d) of this section. If applicable, determine the mass of volatile matter retained in the coated web or otherwise not emitted to the atmosphere according to paragraph (g) of this section. PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\19SEP2.SGM 19SEP2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 182 / Thursday, September 19, 2019 / Proposed Rules If you control organic HAP on any individual web coating line or any group of web coating lines by: jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 (2) Using a capture and control system .. You must: (i) Initially, conduct a performance test for each capture and control system to determine: the destruction or removal efficiency of each control device other than solvent recovery according to paragraph (e) of this section, and the capture efficiency of each capture system according to paragraph (f) of this section. If applicable, determine the mass of volatile matter retained in the coated web or otherwise not emitted to the atmosphere according to paragraph (g) of this section. (ii) Perform a periodic test once every 5 years for each non-recovery control device to determine the destruction or removal efficiency according to paragraph (e) of this section. If applicable, perform a periodic test once every 5 years to determine the mass of volatile matter retained in the coated web or otherwise not emitted to the atmosphere according to paragraph (g) of this section. (b) Control Device. If you are using a control device to comply with the emission standards in § 63.3320, you are not required to conduct a performance test to demonstrate compliance if one or more of the criteria in paragraphs (b)(1) through (3) of this section are met. (1) The control device is equipped with continuous emission monitoring systems (CEMS) for determining inlet and outlet total organic volatile matter concentration and meeting the requirements of Performance Specification 6, 8, or 9 in Appendix B to 40 CFR part 60 and capture efficiency has been determined in accordance with the requirements of this subpart such that an overall organic HAP control efficiency can be calculated, and the CEMS are used to demonstrate continuous compliance in accordance with § 63.3350; or (2) You have met the requirements of § 63.7(h) (for waiver of performance testing); or (3) The control device is a solvent recovery system and you comply by means of a monthly liquid-liquid material balance. (c) * * * (1) * * * (i) Include each organic HAP in Table 3 to this subpart determined to be present at greater than or equal to 0.1 mass percent and greater than or equal to 1.0 mass percent for other organic HAP compounds. * * * * * (2) Method 24. For coatings, determine the volatile organic content as mass fraction of nonaqueous volatile matter and use it as a substitute for organic HAP using Method 24 of appendix A–7 to 40 CFR part 60. The Method 24 determination may be performed by the manufacturer of the coating and the results provided to you. One of the voluntary consensus standards in paragraphs (c)(2)(i) through (v) of this section may be used as an alternative to using Method 24. (i) ASTM D1963–85 (1996), (incorporated by reference, see § 63.14); VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:51 Sep 18, 2019 Jkt 247001 49413 (ii) ASTM D2111–10 (Reapproved 2015), (incorporated by reference, see § 63.14); (iii) ASTM D2369–10 (Reapproved 2015)e, (incorporated by reference, see § 63.14); (iv) ASTM D2697–03 (2014), (incorporated by reference, see § 63.14); and (v) ASTM D6093–97 (Reapproved 2016), (incorporated by reference, see § 63.14). (3) Formulation data. You may use formulation data to determine the organic HAP mass fraction of a coating material. Formulation data may be provided to the owner or operator by the manufacturer of the material. In the event of an inconsistency between Method 311 (appendix A to 40 CFR part 63) test data and a facility’s formulation data, and the Method 311 test value is higher, the Method 311 data will govern. Formulation data may be used provided that the information represents all organic HAP present at a level equal to or greater than 0.1 percent for the organic HAP specified in Table 3 to this subpart and equal to or greater than 1.0 percent for other organic HAP compounds in any raw material used. (4) As-applied organic HAP mass fraction. If the as-purchased coating material is applied to the web without any solvent or other material added, then the as-applied organic HAP mass fraction is equal to the as-purchased organic HAP mass fraction. Otherwise, the as-applied organic HAP mass fraction must be calculated using Equation 4 of § 63.3370. (d) * * * (1) Method 24. You may determine the volatile organic and coating solids mass fraction of each coating applied using Method 24 (appendix A–7 to 40 CFR part 60). The Method 24 determination may be performed by the manufacturer of the material and the results provided to you. When using volatile organic compound content as a surrogate for HAP, you may also use ASTM D3960–98, (incorporated by reference, see § 63.14) as an alternative to Method 24. If these values cannot be PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 determined using either of these methods, you must submit an alternative technique for determining their values for approval by the Administrator. (2) Formulation data. You may determine the volatile organic content and coating solids content of a coating material based on formulation data and may rely on volatile organic content data provided by the manufacturer of the material. In the event of any inconsistency between the formulation data and the results of Method 24 of appendix A–7 to 40 CFR part 60 and the Method 24 results are higher, the results of Method 24 will govern. (3) As-applied volatile organic content and coating solids content. If the aspurchased coating material is applied to the web without any solvent or other material added, then the as-applied volatile organic content is equal to the as-purchased volatile content and the as-applied coating solids content is equal to the as-purchased coating solids content. Otherwise, the as-applied volatile organic content must be calculated using Equation 5 of § 63.3370 and the as-applied coating solids content must be calculated using Equation 6 of § 63.3370. (e) * * * (1) Initial performance test. An initial performance test to establish the destruction or removal efficiency of the control device must be conducted such that control device inlet and outlet testing is conducted simultaneously, and the data are reduced in accordance with the test methods and procedures in paragraphs (e)(1)(i) through (ix) of this section. You must conduct three test runs as specified in § 63.7(e)(3), and each test run must last at least 1 hour. (i) Method 1 or 1A of appendix A–1 to 40 CFR part 60 must be used for sample and velocity traverses to determine sampling locations. (ii) Method 2, 2A, 2C, 2D, or 2F of appendix A–1 to 40 CFR part 60, or Method 2G of appendix A–2 to 40 CFR part 60 must be used to determine gas volumetric flow rate. E:\FR\FM\19SEP2.SGM 19SEP2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 182 / Thursday, September 19, 2019 / Proposed Rules outlet measurements which must be conducted simultaneously. You must submit notice of the intended test method to the Administrator for approval along with notification of the performance test required under § 63.7(b). You must use Method 25A if any of the conditions described in paragraphs (e)(1)(vi)(A) through (D) of this section apply to the control device. (A) The control device is not an oxidizer. (B) The control device is an oxidizer but an exhaust gas volatile organic matter concentration of 50 ppmv or less is required to comply with the emission standards in § 63.3320; or (C) The control device is an oxidizer but the volatile organic matter concentration at the inlet to the control system and the required level of control are such that they result in exhaust gas Where: Mf = Total organic volatile matter mass flow rate, kilograms (kg)/hour (h). Qsd = Volumetric flow rate of gases entering or exiting the control device, as determined according to paragraph (e)(1)(ii) of this section, dry standard cubic meters (dscm)/h. Cc = Concentration of organic compounds as carbon, ppmv. 12.0 = Molecular weight of carbon. 0.0416 = Conversion factor for molar volume, kg-moles per cubic meter (mol/m3) (@293 Where: E = Organic volatile matter control efficiency of the control device, percent. Mfi = Organic volatile matter mass flow rate at the inlet to the control device, kg/h. Mfo = Organic volatile matter mass flow rate at the outlet of the control device, kg/h. Upon request, you shall make available to the Administrator such records as may be necessary to determine the conditions of performance tests. * * * * * (f) Capture efficiency. If you demonstrate compliance by meeting the requirements of § 63.3370(f) through (i), (j)(2), (l), (o)(2) or (3), or (q), you must determine capture efficiency using the procedures in paragraph (f)(1), (2), or (3) of this section, as applicable. * * * * * (g) Volatile matter retained in the coated web or otherwise not emitted to the atmosphere. You may choose to take into account the mass of volatile matter retained in the coated web after curing or drying or otherwise not emitted to the atmosphere when determining compliance with the emission standards in § 63.3320. If you choose this option, you must develop a site- and productspecific emission factor (EF) and determine the amount of volatile matter (x) The control device destruction or removal efficiency is determined as the average of the efficiencies determined in the test runs and calculated in Equation 2. (2) Process information. You must record such process information as may be necessary to determine the conditions in existence at the time of the performance test. Representative conditions exclude periods of startup and shutdown. You may not conduct performance tests during periods of malfunction. You must record the process information that is necessary to document operating conditions during the test and include in such record an explanation to support that such conditions represent normal operation. VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:51 Sep 18, 2019 Jkt 247001 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 volatile organic matter concentrations of 50 ppmv or less; or (D) The control device is an oxidizer but because of the high efficiency of the control device the anticipated volatile organic matter concentration at the control device exhaust is 50 ppmv or less, regardless of inlet concentration. (vii) Except as provided in § 63.7(e)(3), each performance test must consist of three separate runs with each run conducted for at least 1 hour under the conditions that exist when the affected source is operating under normal operating conditions. For the purpose of determining volatile organic compound concentrations and mass flow rates, the average of the results of all the runs will apply. (viii) Volatile organic matter mass flow rates must be determined for each run specified in paragraph (e)(1)(vii) of this section using Equation 1: Kelvin (K) and 760 millimeters of mercury (mmHg)). (ix) For each run, emission control device destruction or removal efficiency must be determined using Equation 2: retained in the web using Equation 3. The EF must be developed by conducting a performance test using Method 25A of Appendix A–7 to 40 CFR part 60 and be determined by obtaining the average of a three-run test. The EF should equal the proportion of the mass of volatile organics emitted to the mass of volatile organics in the coating materials evaluated. You may use the EF in your compliance calculations only for periods that the work station(s) was (were) used to make the product, or a similar product, corresponding to that produced during the performance test. You must develop a separate EF for each group of different products that you choose to utilize an EF for calculating emissions by conducting a separate performance test for that product. (1) Calculate the mass of volatile organics retained in the web for the month from each group of similar products using Equation 3: E:\FR\FM\19SEP2.SGM 19SEP2 EP19SE19.000</GPH> (iii) Method 3, 3A, or 3B of appendix A–2 to 40 CFR part 60 must be used for gas analysis to determine dry molecular weight. You may also use as an alternative to Method 3B the manual method for measuring the oxygen, carbon dioxide, and carbon monoxide content of exhaust gas in ANSI/ASME PTC 19.10–1981 Part 10 (2010), (incorporated by reference, see § 63.14). (iv) Method 4 of appendix A–3 to 40 CFR part 60 must be used to determine stack gas moisture. (v) Methods for determining the gas volumetric flow rate, dry molecular weight, and stack gas moisture must be performed, as applicable, during each test run. (vi) Method 25 or 25A of appendix A– 7 to 40 CFR part 60 must be used to determine total gaseous non-methane organic matter concentration. Use the same test method for both the inlet and EP19SE19.026</GPH> jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 49414 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 182 / Thursday, September 19, 2019 / Proposed Rules * * * * * § 63.3370 How do I demonstrate compliance with the emission standards? You must demonstrate compliance each month with the emission limitations in § 63.3320(b)(1) through (4). For each monthly demonstration, you may apply any combination of the emission limitations to each of your web coating lines individually, to each of one or more groupings of your lines (including a single grouping encompassing all lines of your affected source), or to any combination of individual and grouped lines, so long as each web coating line is included in the compliance demonstration for the month (i.e., you are not required to apply the same emission limitation to each of the individual lines or groups of lines). You may change the emission limitation that you apply each month to your individual or grouped lines, and you may change line groupings for your monthly compliance demonstration. (a) A summary of how you must demonstrate compliance follows: If you choose to demonstrate compliance by: Then you must demonstrate that: To accomplish this: (1) Use of ‘‘as-purchased’’ compliant coating materials. (i) Each coating material used at an existing affected source does not exceed 0.04 kg organic HAP per kg coating material, and each coating material used at a new affected source does not exceed 0.016 kg organic HAP per kg coating material as-purchased; or (ii) Each coating material used at an existing affected source does not exceed 0.2 kg organic HAP per kg coating solids, and each coating material used at a new affected source does not exceed 0.08 kg organic HAP per kg coating solids as-purchased. (i) Each coating material used at an existing affected source does not exceed 0.04 kg organic HAP per kg coating material, and each coating material used at a new affected source does not exceed 0.016 kg organic HAP per kg coating material as-applied; or (ii) Each coating material used at an existing affected source does not exceed 0.2 kg organic HAP per kg coating solids, and each coating material used at a new affected source does not exceed 0.08 kg organic HAP per kg coating solids as-applied; or (iii) Monthly average of all coating materials used at an existing affected source does not exceed 0.04 kg organic HAP per kg coating material, and monthly average of all coating materials used at a new affected source does not exceed 0.016 kg organic HAP per kg coating material as-applied on a monthly average basis; or Follow the procedures set out in § 63.3370(b). (2) Use of ‘‘as-applied’’ compliant coating materials. jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 10. Section 63.3370 is amended by: a. Adding introductory text; b. Revising paragraph (a); c. Revising paragraph (c)(1)(ii); d. Revising paragraphs (c)(2)(i) and (c)(2)(ii); ■ e. Revising paragraphs (c)(3) and (c)(4); ■ f. Revising paragraph (d); ■ g. Redesignating paragraphs (e) through (p) as paragraphs (f) through (q); ■ h. Adding new paragraph (e); ■ i. Revising redesignated paragraphs (f) through (m); ■ j. Revising redesignated paragraphs (o) though (q); and ■ k. Adding paragraph (r). The additions and revisions read as follows: ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:51 Sep 18, 2019 Jkt 247001 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 Follow the procedures set out in § 63.3370(b). Follow the procedures set out in § 63.3370(c)(1). Use either Equation 4 or 5 of § 63.3370 to determine compliance with § 63.3320(b)(2) in accordance with § 63.3370(c)(5)(i). Follow the procedures set out in § 63.3370(c)(2). Use Equations 6 and 7 of § 63.3370 to determine compliance with § 63.3320(b)(3) in accordance with § 63.3370(c)(5)(i). Follow the procedures set out in § 63.3370(c)(3). Use Equation 8 of § 63.3370 to determine compliance with § 63.3320(b)(2) in accordance with § 63.3370(c)(5)(ii). E:\FR\FM\19SEP2.SGM 19SEP2 EP19SE19.001</GPH> Where: Mvret = Mass of volatile matter retained in the coated web after curing or drying, or otherwise not emitted to the atmosphere, kg. Cvi = Volatile organic content of coating material, i, expressed as a mass fraction, kg/kg. Mi = Mass of as-purchased coating material, i, applied in a month, kg. q = Number of different materials added to the coating material. Cvij = Volatile organic content of material, j, added to as-purchased coating material, i, expressed as a mass fraction, kg/kg. Mij = Mass of material, j, added to aspurchased coating material, i, in a month, kg. EFi = Volatile organic matter site- and product-specific emission factor (threerun average determined from performance testing, evaluated as proportion of mass volatile organics emitted to mass of volatile organics in the coatings used during the performance test). 49415 49416 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 182 / Thursday, September 19, 2019 / Proposed Rules If you choose to demonstrate compliance by: (3) Tracking total monthly organic HAP applied (4) Accounting for volatile matter retained in the web. (5) Use of a capture system and control device jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 (6) Use of multiple capture and/or control devices. VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:51 Sep 18, 2019 Jkt 247001 Then you must demonstrate that: To accomplish this: (iv) Monthly average of all coating materials used at an existing affected source does not exceed 0.2 kg organic HAP per kg coating solids, and monthly average of all coating materials used at a new affected source does not exceed 0.08 kg organic HAP per kg coating solids as-applied on a monthly average basis. Total monthly organic HAP applied does not exceed the calculated limit based on emission limitations. Follow the procedures set out in § 63.3370(c)(4). Use Equation 9 of § 63.3370 to determine compliance with § 63.3320(b)(3) in accordance with § 63.3370(c)(5)(ii). A site- and product-specific emission factor was appropriately established for the group of products for which the site- and productspecific emission factor was used in the compliance calculations. (i) Overall organic HAP control efficiency is equal to 95 percent at an existing affected source and 98 percent at a new affected source on a monthly basis; or oxidizer outlet organic HAP concentration is no greater than 20 ppmv by compound and capture efficiency is 100 percent; or operating parameters are continuously monitored; or (ii) Overall organic HAP emission rate does not exceed 0.2 kg organic HAP per kg coating solids for an existing affected source or 0.08 kg organic HAP per kg coating solids for a new affected source on a monthly average as-applied basis; (iii) Overall organic HAP emission rate does not exceed 0.04 kg organic HAP per kg coating material for an existing affected source or 0.016 kg organic HAP per kg coating material for a new affected source on a monthly average as-applied basis; or (iv) Overall organic HAP emission rate does not exceed the calculated limit based on emission limitations. (i) Overall organic HAP control efficiency is equal to 95 percent at an existing affected source and 98 percent at a new affected source on a monthly basis; or (ii) Average equivalent organic HAP emission rate does not exceed 0.2 kg organic HAP per kg coating solids for an existing affected source or 0.08 kg organic HAP per kg coating solids for a new affected source on a monthly average as-applied basis; or (iii) Average equivalent organic HAP emission rate does not exceed 0.04 kg organic HAP per kg coating material for an existing affected source or 0.016 kg organic HAP per kg coating material for a new affected source on a monthly average as-applied basis; or (iv) Average equivalent organic HAP emission rate does not exceed the calculated limit based on emission limitations. PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 Follow the procedures set out in § 63.3370(d). Show that total monthly HAP applied (Equation 10 of § 63.3370) is less than the calculated equivalent allowable organic HAP (Equation 17 or 18 of § 63.3370). Follow the procedures set out in § 63.3360(g) and § 63.3370(e). Follow the procedures set out in § 63.3370(f) to determine compliance with § 63.3320(b)(1) according to § 63.3370(j) if using a solvent recovery device, or § 63.3370(k) if using a control device and CPMS, or § 63.3370(l) if using an oxidizer. Follow the procedures set out in § 63.3370(g) to determine compliance with § 63.3320(b)(3) according to § 63.3370(j) if using a solvent recovery device, or § 63.3370(l) if using an oxidizer. Follow the procedures set out in § 63.3370(h) to determine compliance with § 63.3320(b)(2) according to § 63.3370(j) if using a solvent recovery device, or § 63.3370(l) if using an oxidizer. Follow the procedures set out in § 63.3370(i). Show that the monthly organic HAP emission rate is less than the calculated equivalent allowable organic HAP emission rate (Equation 17 or 18 of § 63.3370). Calculate the monthly organic HAP emission rate according to § 63.3370(j) if using a solvent recovery device, or § 63.3370(l) if using an oxidizer. Follow the procedures set out in § 63.3370(f) to determine compliance with § 63.3320(b)(1) according to § 63.3370(f)(1) or (2). Follow the procedures set out in § 63.3370(g) to determine compliance with § 63.3320(b)(3) according to § 63.3370(o). Follow the procedures set out in § 63.3370(h) to determine compliance with § 63.3320(b)(2) according to § 63.3370(o). Follow the procedures set out in § 63.3370(i). Show that the monthly organic HAP emission rate is less than the calculated equivalent allowable organic HAP emission rate (Equation 17 or 18 of § 63.3370) according to § 63.3370(o). E:\FR\FM\19SEP2.SGM 19SEP2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 182 / Thursday, September 19, 2019 / Proposed Rules If you choose to demonstrate compliance by: Then you must demonstrate that: To accomplish this: (7) Use of a combination of compliant coatings and control devices. (i) Average equivalent organic HAP emission rate does not exceed 0.2 kg organic HAP per kg coating solids for an existing affected source or 0.08 kg organic HAP per kg coating solids for a new affected source on a monthly average as-applied basis; or (ii) Average equivalent organic HAP emission rate does not exceed 0.04 kg organic HAP per kg coating material for an existing affected source or 0.016 kg organic HAP per kg coating material for a new affected source on a monthly average as-applied basis; or (iii) Average equivalent organic HAP emission rate does not exceed the calculated limit based on emission limitations. Follow the procedures set out in § 63.3370(g) to determine compliance with § 63.3320(b)(3) according to § 63.3370(o). * * * (c) * * * (1) * * * * Follow the procedures set out in § 63.3370(h) to determine compliance with § 63.3320(b)(2) according to § 63.3370(o). Follow the procedures set out in § 63.3370(i). Show that the monthly organic HAP emission rate is less than the calculated equivalent allowable organic HAP emission rate (Equation 17 or 18 of § 63.3370) according to § 63.3370(o). (ii) Calculate the as-applied organic HAP content of each coating material using Equation 4: * Where: Cahi = Monthly average, as-applied, organic HAP content of coating material, i, expressed as a mass fraction, kg/kg. Chi = Organic HAP content of coating material, i, as-purchased, expressed as a mass fraction, kg/kg. Mi = Mass of as-purchased coating material, i, applied in a month, kg. q = number of different materials added to the coating material. Chij = Organic HAP content of material, j, added to as-purchased coating material, i, expressed as a mass fraction, kg/kg. Mij = Mass of material, j, added to aspurchased coating material, i, in a month, kg. Where: Cavi = Monthly average, as-applied, volatile organic content of coating material, i, expressed as a mass fraction, kg/kg. Cvi = Volatile organic content of coating material, i, expressed as a mass fraction, kg/kg. Mi = Mass of as-purchased coating material, i, applied in a month, kg. q = Number of different materials added to the coating material. Cvij = Volatile organic content of material, j, added to as-purchased coating material, i, expressed as a mass fraction, kg/kg. Mij = Mass of material, j, added to aspurchased coating material, i, in a month, kg. (i) Determine the as-applied coating solids content of each coating material following the procedure in § 63.3360(d). You must calculate the as-applied coating solids content of coating materials which are reduced, thinned, or diluted prior to application, using Equation 6: EP19SE19.003</GPH> (2) * * * or calculate the as-applied volatile organic content of each coating material using Equation 5: VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:51 Sep 18, 2019 Jkt 247001 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\19SEP2.SGM 19SEP2 EP19SE19.002</GPH> jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 49417 49418 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 182 / Thursday, September 19, 2019 / Proposed Rules Where: Csi = Coating solids content of coating material, i, expressed as a mass fraction, kg/kg. Mi = Mass of as-purchased coating material, i, applied in a month, kg. q = Number of different materials added to the coating material. Csij = Coating solids content of material, j, added to as-purchased coating material, i, expressed as a mass-fraction, kg/kg. Mij = Mass of material, j, added to aspurchased coating material, i, in a month, kg. (ii) Calculate the as-applied organic HAP to coating solids ratio using Equation 7: Where: Hsi = As-applied, organic HAP to coating solids ratio of coating material, i. Cahi = Monthly average, as-applied, organic HAP content of coating material, i, expressed as a mass fraction, kg/kg. Casi = Monthly average, as-applied, coating solids content of coating material, i, expressed as a mass fraction, kg/kg. (3) Monthly average organic HAP content of all coating materials asapplied is less than the mass percent limit (§ 63.3320(b)(2)). Demonstrate that the monthly average as-applied organic HAP content of all coating materials applied at an existing affected source is less than 0.04 kg organic HAP per kg of coating material applied, and all coating materials applied at a new affected source are less than 0.016 kg organic HAP per kg of coating material applied, as determined by Equation 8: Chij = Organic HAP content of material, j, added to as-purchased coating material, i, expressed as a mass fraction, kg/kg. Mij = Mass of material, j, added to aspurchased coating material, i, in a month, kg. Mvret = Mass of volatile matter retained in the coated web after curing or drying, or otherwise not emitted to the atmosphere, kg. The value of this term will be zero in all cases except where you choose to take into account the volatile matter retained in the coated web or otherwise not emitted to the atmosphere for the compliance demonstration procedures in § 63.3370. (4) Monthly average organic HAP content of all coating materials asapplied is less than the mass fraction of coating solids limit (§ 63.3320(b)(3)). Demonstrate that the monthly average as-applied organic HAP content on the basis of coating solids applied of all coating materials applied at an existing affected source is less than 0.20 kg organic HAP per kg coating solids applied, and all coating materials applied at a new affected source are less than 0.08 kg organic HAP per kg coating solids applied, as determined by Equation 9: Where: Hs = Monthly average, as-applied, organic HAP to coating solids ratio, kg organic HAP/kg coating solids applied. p = Number of different coating materials applied in a month. Chi = Organic HAP content of coating material, i, as-purchased, expressed as a mass fraction, kg/kg. Mi = Mass of as-purchased coating material, i, applied in a month, kg. q = Number of different materials added to the coating material. Chij = Organic HAP content of material, j, added to as-purchased coating material, i, expressed as a mass fraction, kg/kg. Mij = Mass of material, j, added to aspurchased coating material, i, in a month, kg. Mvret = Mass of volatile matter retained in the coated web after curing or drying, or VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:51 Sep 18, 2019 Jkt 247001 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\19SEP2.SGM 19SEP2 EP19SE19.006</GPH> EP19SE19.005</GPH> EP19SE19.004</GPH> jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 EP19SE19.007</GPH> Where: HL = Monthly average, as-applied, organic HAP content of all coating materials applied, expressed as kg organic HAP per kg of coating material applied, kg/kg. p = Number of different coating materials applied in a month. Chi = Organic HAP content of coating material, i, as-purchased, expressed as a mass fraction, kg/kg. Mi = Mass of as-purchased coating material, i, applied in a month, kg. q = Number of different materials added to the coating material. Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 182 / Thursday, September 19, 2019 / Proposed Rules jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 Where: Hm = Total monthly organic HAP applied, kg. p = Number of different coating materials applied in a month. Chi = Organic HAP content of coating material, i, as-purchased, expressed as a mass fraction, kg/kg. Mi = Mass of as-purchased coating material, i, applied in a month, kg. q = Number of different materials added to the coating material. Chij = Organic HAP content of material, j, added to as-purchased coating material, i, expressed as a mass fraction, kg/kg. Mij = Mass of material, j, added to aspurchased coating material, i, in a month, kg. Mvret = Mass of volatile matter retained in the coated web after curing or drying, or otherwise not emitted to the atmosphere, kg. The value of this term will be zero in all cases except where you choose to take into account the volatile matter retained in the coated web or otherwise not emitted to the atmosphere for the compliance demonstration procedures in § 63.3370. (e) Accounting for volatile matter retained in the web. If you choose to use the equation in § 63.3360(g) to take into account retained volatile organic matter, you must identify each group of similar products that can utilize each site- and product-specific emission factor. Details regarding the test methods and calculations are provided in § 63.3360(g). (f) Capture and control to reduce emissions to no more than allowable limit (§ 63.3320(b)(1)). Operate a capture system and control device and demonstrate an overall organic HAP control efficiency of at least 95 percent at an existing affected source and at least 98 percent at a new affected source for each month, or operate a capture system and oxidizer so that an outlet organic HAP concentration of no greater than 20 ppmv by compound on a dry basis is achieved as long as the capture efficiency is 100 percent as detailed in § 63.3320(b)(4). Unless one of the cases described in paragraph (f)(1), (2), or (3) of this section applies to the affected source, you must either demonstrate compliance in accordance with the VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:51 Sep 18, 2019 Jkt 247001 Csi = Coating solids content of coating material, i, expressed as a mass fraction, kg/kg. Csij = Coating solids content of material, j, added to as-purchased coating material, i, expressed as a mass-fraction, kg/kg. * * * * * procedure in paragraph (i) of this section when emissions from the affected source are controlled by a solvent recovery device, or the procedure in paragraph (l) of this section when emissions are controlled by an oxidizer or demonstrate compliance for a web coating line by operating each capture system and each control device and continuous parameter monitoring according to the procedures in paragraph (k) of this section. (1) If the affected source has only always-controlled work stations and operates more than one capture system or more than one control device, you must demonstrate compliance in accordance with the provisions of either paragraph (o) or (q) of this section. (2) If the affected source operates one or more never-controlled work stations or one or more intermittently-controlled work stations, you must demonstrate compliance in accordance with the provisions of paragraph (o) of this section. (3) An alternative method of demonstrating compliance with § 63.3320(b)(1) is the installation of a PTE around the web coating line that achieves 100 percent capture efficiency and ventilation of all organic HAP emissions from the total enclosure to an oxidizer with an outlet organic HAP concentration of no greater than 20 ppmv by compound on a dry basis. If this method is selected, you must demonstrate compliance by following the procedures in paragraphs (f)(3)(i) and (ii) of this section. Compliance is determined according to paragraph (f)(3)(iii) of this section. (i) Demonstrate that a total enclosure is installed. An enclosure that meets the requirements in § 63.3360(f)(1) will be considered a total enclosure. (ii) Determine the organic HAP concentration at the outlet of your total enclosure using the procedures in paragraph (f)(3)(ii)(A) or (B) of this section. (A) Determine the control device efficiency using Equation 2 of § 63.3360 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 (d) Monthly allowable organic HAP applied. Demonstrate that the total monthly organic HAP applied as determined by Equation 10 is less than the calculated equivalent allowable organic HAP as determined by Equation 17 or 18 in paragraph (m) of this section: and the applicable test methods and procedures specified in § 63.3360(e). (B) Use a CEMS to determine the organic HAP emission rate according to paragraphs (j)(2)(i) through (x) of this section. (iii) You are in compliance if the installation of a total enclosure is demonstrated and the organic HAP concentration at the outlet of the incinerator is demonstrated to be no greater than 20 ppmv by compound on a dry basis. (g) Capture and control to achieve mass fraction of coating solids applied limit (§ 63.3320(b)(3)). Operate a capture system and control device and limit the organic HAP emission rate from an existing affected source to no more than 0.20 kg organic HAP emitted per kg coating solids applied, and from a new affected source to no more than 0.08 kg organic HAP emitted per kg coating solids applied as determined on a monthly average as-applied basis. If the affected source operates more than one capture system, more than one control device, one or more never-controlled work stations, or one or more intermittently-controlled work stations, then you must demonstrate compliance in accordance with the provisions of paragraph (o) of this section. Otherwise, you must demonstrate compliance following the procedure in paragraph (j) of this section when emissions from the affected source are controlled by a solvent recovery device or the procedure in paragraph (l) of this section when emissions are controlled by an oxidizer. (h) Capture and control to achieve mass fraction limit (§ 63.3320(b)(2)). Operate a capture system and control device and limit the organic HAP emission rate to no more than 0.04 kg organic HAP emitted per kg coating material applied at an existing affected source, and no more than 0.016 kg organic HAP emitted per kg coating material applied at a new affected source as determined on a monthly average as-applied basis. If the affected source operates more than one capture E:\FR\FM\19SEP2.SGM 19SEP2 EP19SE19.008</GPH> otherwise not emitted to the atmosphere, kg. The value of this term will be zero in all cases except where you choose to take into account the volatile matter retained in the coated web or otherwise not emitted to the atmosphere for the compliance demonstration procedures in § 63.3370. 49419 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 182 / Thursday, September 19, 2019 / Proposed Rules system, more than one control device, one or more never-controlled work stations, or one or more intermittentlycontrolled work stations, then you must demonstrate compliance in accordance with the provisions of paragraph (o) of this section. Otherwise, you must demonstrate compliance following the procedure in paragraph (j) of this section when emissions from the affected source are controlled by a solvent recovery device or the procedure in paragraph (l) of this section when emissions are controlled by an oxidizer. (i) Capture and control to achieve allowable emission rate. Operate a capture system and control device and limit the monthly organic HAP emissions to less than the allowable emissions as calculated in accordance with paragraph (m) of this section. If the affected source operates more than one capture system, more than one control device, one or more never-controlled work stations, or one or more intermittently-controlled work stations, then you must demonstrate compliance in accordance with the provisions of paragraph (o) of this section. Otherwise, the owner or operator must demonstrate compliance following the procedure in paragraph (j) of this section when emissions from the affected source are controlled by a solvent recovery device or the procedure in paragraph (l) of this section when emissions are controlled by an oxidizer. (j) Solvent recovery device compliance demonstration. If you use a solvent recovery device to control emissions, you must show compliance by following the procedures in either paragraph (j)(1) or (2) of this section: (1) Liquid-liquid material balance. Perform a monthly liquid-liquid material balance as specified in paragraphs (j)(1)(i) through (v) of this section and use the applicable equations in paragraphs (j)(1)(vi) through (ix) of this section to convert the data to units of the selected compliance option in paragraphs (f) through (i) of this section. Compliance is determined in accordance with paragraph (j)(1)(x) of this section. (i) Determine the mass of each coating material applied on the web coating line or group of web coating lines controlled by a common solvent recovery device during the month. (ii) If demonstrating compliance on the basis of organic HAP emission rate based on coating solids applied, organic HAP emission rate based on coating material applied, or emission of less than the calculated allowable organic HAP, determine the organic HAP content of each coating material asapplied during the month following the procedure in § 63.3360(c). (iii) Determine the volatile organic content of each coating material asapplied during the month following the procedure in § 63.3360(d). (iv) If demonstrating compliance on the basis of organic HAP emission rate based on coating solids applied or emission of less than the calculated allowable organic HAP, determine the coating solids content of each coating material applied during the month following the procedure in § 63.3360(d). (v) Determine and monitor the amount of volatile organic matter recovered for the month according to the procedures in § 63.3350(d). (vi) Recovery efficiency. Calculate the volatile organic matter collection and recovery efficiency using Equation 11: Where: Rv = Organic volatile matter collection and recovery efficiency, percent. Mvr = Mass of volatile matter recovered in a month, kg. Mvret = Mass of volatile matter retained in the coated web after curing or drying, or otherwise not emitted to the atmosphere, kg. The value of this term will be zero in all cases except where you choose to take into account the volatile matter retained in the coated web or otherwise not emitted to the atmosphere for the compliance demonstration procedures in this section. p = Number of different coating materials applied in a month. Cvi = Volatile organic content of coating material, i, expressed as a mass fraction, kg/kg. Mi = Mass of as-purchased coating material, i, applied in a month, kg. q = Number of different materials added to the coating material. Cvij = Volatile organic content of material, j, added to as-purchased coating material, i, expressed as a mass fraction, kg/kg. Mij = Mass of material, j, added to aspurchased coating material, i, in a month, kg. Where: He = Total monthly organic HAP emitted, kg. Rv = Organic volatile matter collection and recovery efficiency, percent. p = Number of different coating materials applied in a month. Chi = Organic HAP content of coating material, i, as-purchased, expressed as a mass fraction, kg/kg. Mi = Mass of as-purchased coating material, i, applied in a month, kg. q = Number of different materials added to the coating material. Chij = Organic HAP content of material, j, added to as-purchased coating material, i, expressed as a mass fraction, kg/kg. Mij = Mass of material, j, added to aspurchased coating material, i, in a month, kg. Mvret = Mass of volatile matter retained in the coated web after curing or drying, or otherwise not emitted to the atmosphere, kg. The value of this term will be zero VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:51 Sep 18, 2019 Jkt 247001 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 (vii) Organic HAP emitted. Calculate the organic HAP emitted during the month using Equation 12: (viii) Organic HAP emission rate based on coating solids applied. Calculate the organic HAP emission rate based on coating solids applied using Equation 13: E:\FR\FM\19SEP2.SGM 19SEP2 EP19SE19.010</GPH> in all cases except where you choose to take into account the volatile matter retained in the coated web or otherwise not emitted to the atmosphere for the compliance demonstration procedures in this section. EP19SE19.009</GPH> jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 49420 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 182 / Thursday, September 19, 2019 / Proposed Rules emission monitors and continuous monitoring of capture system operating parameters following the procedures in paragraphs (j)(2)(i) through (vii) of this section. Use the applicable equations specified in paragraphs (j)(2)(viii) through (x) of this section to convert the monitoring and other data into units of the selected compliance option in paragraphs (f) through (i) of this section. Compliance is determined in accordance with paragraph (j)(2)(xi) of (x) You are in compliance with the this section. emission standards in § 63.3320(b) if: (i) Control device efficiency. (A) The volatile organic matter Continuously monitor the gas stream collection and recovery efficiency is 95 entering and exiting the control device percent or greater at an existing affected to determine the total organic volatile source and 98 percent or greater at a matter mass flow rate (e.g., by new affected source; or determining the concentration of the (B) The organic HAP emission rate vent gas in grams per cubic meter and based on coating solids applied is no the volumetric flow rate in cubic meters more than 0.20 kg organic HAP per kg per second such that the total organic coating solids applied at an existing volatile matter mass flow rate in grams affected source and no more than 0.08 per second can be calculated) such that kg organic HAP per kg coating solids the control device efficiency of the applied at a new affected source; or control device can be calculated for (C) The organic HAP emission rate each month using Equation 2 of based on coating material applied is no § 63.3360. more than 0.04 kg organic HAP per kg coating material applied at an existing (ii) Capture efficiency monitoring. affected source and no more than 0.016 Whenever a web coating line is kg organic HAP per kg coating material operated, continuously monitor the applied at a new affected source; or operating parameters established in (D) The organic HAP emitted during accordance with § 63.3350(f) to ensure the month is less than the calculated capture efficiency. allowable organic HAP as determined (iii) Determine the percent capture using paragraph (m) of this section. (2) Continuous emission monitoring of efficiency in accordance with § 63.3360(f). capture system and control device (iv) Control efficiency. Calculate the performance. Demonstrate initial overall organic HAP control efficiency compliance through a performance test achieved for each month using Equation on capture efficiency and continuing 15: compliance through continuous VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:51 Sep 18, 2019 Jkt 247001 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 (ix) Organic HAP emission rate based on coating materials applied. Calculate the organic HAP emission rate based on coating material applied using Equation 14: Where: R = Overall organic HAP control efficiency, percent. E = Organic volatile matter control efficiency of the control device, percent. CE = Organic volatile matter capture efficiency of the capture system, percent. (v) If demonstrating compliance on the basis of organic HAP emission rate based on coating solids applied, organic HAP emission rate based on coating materials applied, or emission of less than the calculated allowable organic HAP, determine the mass of each coating material applied on the web coating line or group of web coating lines controlled by a common control device during the month. (vi) If demonstrating compliance on the basis of organic HAP emission rate based on coating solids applied, organic HAP emission rate based on coating material applied, or emission of less than the calculated allowable organic HAP, determine the organic HAP content of each coating material asapplied during the month following the procedure in § 63.3360(c). (vii) If demonstrating compliance on the basis of organic HAP emission rate based on coating solids applied or emission of less than the calculated allowable organic HAP, determine the coating solids content of each coating material as-applied during the month following the procedure in § 63.3360(d). (viii) Organic HAP emitted. Calculate the organic HAP emitted during the month for each month using Equation 16: E:\FR\FM\19SEP2.SGM 19SEP2 EP19SE19.013</GPH> jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 Where: S = Mass organic HAP emitted per mass of material applied, kg/kg. He = Total monthly organic HAP emitted, kg. p = Number of different coating materials applied in a month. Mi = Mass of as-purchased coating material, i, applied in a month, kg. q = Number of different materials added to the coating material. Mij = Mass of material, j, added to aspurchased coating material, i, in a month, kg. Mij = Mass of material, j, added to aspurchased coating material, i, in a month, kg. EP19SE19.012</GPH> Mi = Mass of as-purchased coating material, i, applied in a month, kg. q = Number of different materials added to the coating material. Csij = Coating solids content of material, j, added to as-purchased coating material, i, expressed as a mass-fraction, kg/kg. EP19SE19.011</GPH> Where: L = Mass organic HAP emitted per mass of coating solids applied, kg/kg. He = Total monthly organic HAP emitted, kg. p = Number of different coating materials applied in a month. Csi = Coating solids content of coating material, i, expressed as a mass fraction, kg/kg. 49421 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 182 / Thursday, September 19, 2019 / Proposed Rules jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 Where: He = Total monthly organic HAP emitted, kg. R = Overall organic HAP control efficiency, percent. p = Number of different coating materials applied in a month. Cahi = Monthly average, as-applied, organic HAP content of coating material, i, expressed as a mass fraction, kg/kg. Mi = Mass of as-purchased coating material, i, applied in a month, kg. Mvret = Mass of volatile matter retained in the coated web after curing or drying, or otherwise not emitted to the atmosphere, kg. The value of this term will be zero in all cases except where you choose to take into account the volatile matter retained in the coated web or otherwise not emitted to the atmosphere for the compliance demonstration procedures in this section. (k) Capture and control system compliance demonstration procedures using a CPMS. If you use an add-on control device, you must demonstrate initial compliance for each capture system and each control device through performance tests and demonstrate continuing compliance through continuous monitoring of capture system and control device operating parameters as specified in paragraphs (k)(1) through (3) of this section. Compliance is determined in accordance with paragraph (k)(4) or (k)(5) of this section. (1) Determine the control device destruction or removal efficiency using the applicable test methods and procedures in § 63.3360(e). (ix) Organic HAP emission rate based (2) Determine the emission capture on coating solids applied. Calculate the efficiency in accordance with organic HAP emission rate based on § 63.3360(f). coating solids applied using Equation 13 (3) Whenever a web coating line is of this section. operated, continuously monitor the (x) Organic HAP emission rate based operating parameters established on coating materials applied. Calculate according to § 63.3350(e) and (f). the organic HAP emission rate based on (4) No operating limit deviations. You coating material applied using Equation are in compliance with the emission 14 of this section. standards in § 63.3320(b) if the thermal (xi) Compare actual performance to oxidizer is operated such that the the performance required by compliance average combustion temperature does option. The affected source is in not fall more than 50 °F below the compliance with the emission standards temperature established in accordance in § 63.3320(b) for each month if the with § 63.3360(e)(3)(i) for each 3-hour capture system is operated such that the period, or the catalytic oxidizer average capture system operating temperature is greater than the parameter is greater than or less than (as temperature established in accordance appropriate) the operating parameter with § 63.3360(e)(3)(ii) for each 3-hour value established in accordance with period, and the capture system § 63.3350(f); and operating parameter is operated at an (A) The organic volatile matter average value greater than or less than collection and recovery efficiency is 95 (as appropriate) the operating parameter percent or greater at an existing affected value established in accordance with source and 98 percent or greater at a § 63.3350(f); and new affected source; or (i) The overall organic HAP control (B) The organic HAP emission rate efficiency is 95 percent or greater at an based on coating solids applied is no existing affected source and 98 percent more than 0.20 kg organic HAP per kg or greater at a new affected source; or coating solids applied at an existing (ii) The organic HAP emission rate affected source and no more than 0.08 based on coating solids applied is no kg organic HAP per kg coating solids more than 0.20 kg organic HAP per kg applied at a new affected source; or coating solids applied at an existing (C) The organic HAP emission rate affected source and no more than 0.08 based on coating material applied is no kg organic HAP per kg coating solids more than 0.04 kg organic HAP per kg applied at a new affected source; or coating material applied at an existing (iii) The organic HAP emission rate affected source and no more than 0.016 based on coating material applied is no kg organic HAP per kg coating material more than 0.04 kg organic HAP per kg applied at a new affected source; or coating material applied at an existing (D) The organic HAP emitted during affected source and no more than 0.016 the month is less than the calculated kg organic HAP per kg coating material allowable organic HAP as determined applied at a new affected source; or using paragraph (m) of this section. VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:51 Sep 18, 2019 Jkt 247001 PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 (iv) The organic HAP emitted during the month is less than the calculated allowable organic HAP as determined using paragraph (m) of this section. (5) Operating limit deviations. If one or more operating limit deviations occurred during the monthly averaging period, compliance with the emission standards in § 63.3320(b) is determined by assuming no control of emissions during each 3-hour period that was a deviation. You are in compliance with the emission standards in § 63.3320(b) if, including the periods of no control: (i) The overall organic HAP control efficiency is 95 percent or greater at an existing affected source and 98 percent or greater at a new affected source; or (ii) The organic HAP emission rate based on coating solids applied is no more than 0.20 kg organic HAP per kg coating solids applied at an existing affected source and no more than 0.08 kg organic HAP per kg coating solids applied at a new affected source; or (iii) The organic HAP emission rate based on coating material applied is no more than 0.04 kg organic HAP per kg coating material applied at an existing affected source and no more than 0.016 kg organic HAP per kg coating material applied at a new affected source; or (iv) The organic HAP emitted during the month is less than the calculated allowable organic HAP as determined using paragraph (m) of this section. (l) Oxidizer compliance demonstration procedures. If you use an oxidizer to control emissions, you must show compliance by following the procedures in paragraph (l)(1) of this section. Use the applicable equations specified in paragraph (l)(2) of this section to convert the monitoring and other data into units of the selected compliance option in paragraph (f) through (i) of this section. Compliance is determined in accordance with paragraph (l)(3) or (l)(4) of this section. (1) Demonstrate initial compliance through performance tests of capture efficiency and control device efficiency and continuing compliance through continuous monitoring of capture system and control device operating parameters as specified in paragraphs (l)(1)(i) through (vi) of this section: (i) Determine the oxidizer destruction efficiency using the procedure in § 63.3360(e). (ii) Determine the capture system capture efficiency in accordance with § 63.3360(f). E:\FR\FM\19SEP2.SGM 19SEP2 EP19SE19.014</GPH> 49422 jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 (iii) Capture and control efficiency monitoring. Whenever a web coating line is operated, continuously monitor the operating parameters established in accordance with § 63.3350(e) and (f) to ensure capture and control efficiency. (iv) If demonstrating compliance on the basis of organic HAP emission rate based on coating solids applied, organic HAP emission rate based on coating materials applied, or emission of less than the calculated allowable organic HAP, determine the mass of each coating material applied on the web coating line or group of web coating lines controlled by a common oxidizer during the month. (v) If demonstrating compliance on the basis of organic HAP emission rate based on coating solids applied, organic HAP emission rate based on coating material applied, or emission of less than the calculated allowable organic HAP, determine the organic HAP content of each coating material asapplied during the month following the procedure in § 63.3360(c). (vi) If demonstrating compliance on the basis of organic HAP emission rate based on coating solids applied or emission of less than the calculated allowable organic HAP, determine the coating solids content of each coating material applied during the month following the procedure in § 63.3360(d). (2) Convert the information obtained under paragraph (q)(1) of this section into the units of the selected compliance option using the calculation procedures specified in paragraphs (l)(2)(i) through (iv) of this section. (i) Control efficiency. Calculate the overall organic HAP control efficiency achieved using Equation 15. (ii) Organic HAP emitted. Calculate the organic HAP emitted during the month using Equation 16. (iii) Organic HAP emission rate based on coating solids applied. Calculate the organic HAP emission rate based on coating solids applied for each month using Equation 13. (iv) Organic HAP emission rate based on coating materials applied. Calculate the organic HAP emission rate based on coating material applied using Equation 14. (3) No operating limit deviations. You are in compliance with the emission Where: VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:51 Sep 18, 2019 Jkt 247001 49423 standards in § 63.3320(b) if the oxidizer is operated such that the average operating parameter value is greater than the operating parameter value established in accordance with § 63.3360(e) for each 3-hour period, and the capture system operating parameter is operated at an average value greater than or less than (as appropriate) the operating parameter value established in accordance with § 63.3350(f); and (i) The overall organic HAP control efficiency is 95 percent or greater at an existing affected source and 98 percent or greater at a new affected source; or (ii) The organic HAP emission rate based on coating solids applied is no more than 0.20 kg organic HAP per kg coating solids applied at an existing affected source and no more than 0.08 kg organic HAP per kg coating solids applied at a new affected source; or (iii) The organic HAP emission rate based on coating material applied is no more than 0.04 kg organic HAP per kg coating material applied at an existing affected source and no more than 0.016 kg organic HAP per kg coating material applied at a new affected source; or (iv) The organic HAP emitted during the month is less than the calculated allowable organic HAP as determined using paragraph (m) of this section. (4) Operating limit deviations. If one or more operating limit deviations occurred during the monthly averaging period, compliance with the emission standards in § 63.3320(b) is determined by assuming no control of emissions during each 3-hour period that was a deviation. You are in compliance with the emission standards in § 63.3320(b) if, including the periods of no control: (i) The overall organic HAP control efficiency is 95 percent or greater at an existing affected source and 98 percent or greater at a new affected source; or (ii) The organic HAP emission rate based on coating solids applied is no more than 0.20 kg organic HAP per kg coating solids applied at an existing affected source and no more than 0.08 kg organic HAP per kg coating solids applied at a new affected source; or (iii) The organic HAP emission rate based on coating material applied is no more than 0.04 kg organic HAP per kg coating material applied at an existing affected source and no more than 0.016 kg organic HAP per kg coating material applied at a new affected source; or (iv) The organic HAP emitted during the month is less than the calculated allowable organic HAP as determined using paragraph (m) of this section. (m) Monthly allowable organic HAP emissions. This paragraph provides the procedures and calculations for determining monthly allowable organic HAP emissions for use in demonstrating compliance in accordance with paragraph (d), (i), (j)(1)(x)(D), (j)(2)(xi)(D), or (l)(3)(iv) of this section. You will need to determine the amount of coating material applied at greater than or equal to 20 mass percent coating solids and the amount of coating material applied at less than 20 mass percent coating solids. The allowable organic HAP limit is then calculated based on coating material applied at greater than or equal to 20 mass percent coating solids complying with 0.2 kg organic HAP per kg coating solids at an existing affected source or 0.08 kg organic HAP per kg coating solids at a new affected source, and coating material applied at less than 20 mass percent coating solids complying with 4 mass percent organic HAP at an existing affected source and 1.6 mass-percent organic HAP at a new affected source as follows: (1) Determine the as-purchased mass of each coating material applied each month. (2) Determine the as-purchased coating solids content of each coating material applied each month in accordance with § 63.3360(d)(1). (3) Determine the as-purchased mass fraction of each coating material which was applied at 20 mass percent or greater coating solids content on an asapplied basis. (4) Determine the total mass of each solvent, diluent, thinner, or reducer added to coating materials which were applied at less than 20 mass percent coating solids content on an as-applied basis each month. (5) Calculate the monthly allowable organic HAP emissions using Equation 17 for an existing affected source: Ha = Monthly allowable organic HAP emissions, kg. p = Number of different coating materials applied in a month. PO 00000 Frm 00043 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\19SEP2.SGM 19SEP2 EP19SE19.015</GPH> Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 182 / Thursday, September 19, 2019 / Proposed Rules Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 182 / Thursday, September 19, 2019 / Proposed Rules Mi = mass of as-purchased coating material, i, applied in a month, kg. Gi = Mass fraction of each coating material, i, which was applied at 20 mass percent or greater coating solids content, on an asapplied basis, kg/kg. Csi = Coating solids content of coating material, i, expressed as a mass fraction, kg/ kg. q = Number of different materials added to the coating material. MLj = Mass of non-coating-solidscontaining coating material, j, added to coating-solids-containing coating materials which were applied at less than 20 mass percent coating solids content, on an asapplied basis, in a month, kg. Where: Ha = Monthly allowable organic HAP emissions, kg. p = Number of different coating materials applied in a month. Mi = Mass of as-purchased coating material, i, applied in a month, kg. Gi = Mass fraction of each coating material, i, which was applied at 20 mass percent or greater coating solids content, on an asapplied basis, kg/kg. Csi = Coating solids content of coating material, i, expressed as a mass fraction, kg/ kg. q = Number of different materials added to the coating material. MLj = Mass of non-coating-solidscontaining coating material, j, added to coating-solids-containing coating materials which were applied at less than 20 mass percent coating solids content, on an asapplied basis, in a month, kg. (ii) In accordance with paragraphs (j)(1)(ii), (iii), (v), and (vi) and (p) of this section, if the web coating lines controlled by that solvent recovery system have one or more nevercontrolled or intermittently-controlled work stations. (2) Solvent recovery system using performance test compliance demonstration and CEMS. To demonstrate compliance through an initial test of capture efficiency, continuous monitoring of a capture system operating parameter, and a CEMS on each solvent recovery system used to control one or more web coating lines, you must: (i) For each capture system delivering emissions to that solvent recovery system, monitor the operating parameter established in accordance with § 63.3350(f) to ensure capture system efficiency; and (ii) Determine the organic HAP emissions for those web coating lines served by each capture system delivering emissions to that solvent recovery system either: (A) In accordance with paragraphs (j)(2)(i) through (iii), (v), (vi), and (viii) of this section, if the web coating lines served by that capture and control system have only always-controlled work stations; or (B) In accordance with paragraphs (j)(2)(i) through (iii), (vi), and (p) of this section, if the web coating lines served by that capture and control system have one or more never-controlled or intermittently-controlled work stations. (3) Oxidizer. To demonstrate compliance through performance tests of capture efficiency and control device efficiency, continuous monitoring of capture system, and CPMS for control device operating parameters for each oxidizer used to control emissions from one or more web coating lines, you must: (i) Monitor the operating parameter in accordance with § 63.3350(e) to ensure control device efficiency; and (ii) For each capture system delivering emissions to that oxidizer, monitor the operating parameter established in accordance with § 63.3350(f) to ensure capture efficiency; and (iii) Determine the organic HAP emissions for those web coating lines served by each capture system delivering emissions to that oxidizer either: (A) In accordance with paragraphs (l)(1)(i) through (vi) of this section, if the web coating lines served by that capture and control system have only alwayscontrolled work stations; or (B) In accordance with paragraphs (l)(1)(i) through (iii), (v), and (p) of this section, if the web coating lines served by that capture and control system have one or more never-controlled or intermittently-controlled work stations. (4) Uncontrolled coating lines. If you own or operate one or more uncontrolled web coating lines, you must determine the organic HAP applied on those web coating lines using Equation 10. The organic HAP emitted from an uncontrolled web coating line is equal to the organic HAP applied on that web coating line. (5) Convert the information obtained under paragraphs (o)(1) through (4) of this section into the units of the selected compliance option using the calculation procedures specified in paragraphs (o)(5)(i) through (iv) of this section. (i) Organic HAP emitted. Calculate the organic HAP emissions for the affected source for the month by summing all organic HAP emissions calculated according to paragraphs (o)(1), (2)(ii), (3)(iii), and (4) of this section. (ii) Coating solids applied. If demonstrating compliance on the basis of organic HAP emission rate based on coating solids applied or emission of less than the calculated allowable organic HAP, the owner or operator must determine the coating solids content of each coating material applied during the month following the procedure in § 63.3360(d). (iii) Organic HAP emission rate based on coating solids applied. Calculate the organic HAP emission rate based on coating solids applied for each month using Equation 13. jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 * * * * * (o) Combinations of capture and control. If you operate more than one capture system, more than one control device, one or more never-controlled work stations, or one or more intermittently-controlled work stations, you must calculate organic HAP emissions according to the procedures in paragraphs (o)(1) through (4) of this section, and use the calculation procedures specified in paragraph (o)(5) of this section to convert the monitoring and other data into units of the selected control option in paragraphs (f) through (i) of this section. Use the procedures specified in paragraph (o)(6) of this section to demonstrate compliance. (1) Solvent recovery system using liquid-liquid material balance compliance demonstration. If you choose to comply by means of a liquidliquid material balance for each solvent recovery system used to control one or more web coating lines, you must determine the organic HAP emissions for those web coating lines controlled by that solvent recovery system either: (i) In accordance with paragraphs (j)(1)(i) through (iii) and (v) through (vii) of this section, if the web coating lines controlled by that solvent recovery system have only always-controlled work stations; or VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:51 Sep 18, 2019 Jkt 247001 PO 00000 Frm 00044 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 or Equation 18 for a new affected source: E:\FR\FM\19SEP2.SGM 19SEP2 EP19SE19.016</GPH> 49424 (iv) Organic HAP based on materials applied. Calculate the organic HAP emission rate based on material applied using Equation 14. (6) Compliance. The affected source is in compliance with the emission standards in § 63.3320(b) for the month if all operating parameters required to be monitored under paragraphs (o)(1) through (3) of this section were maintained at the values established under §§ 63.3350 and 63.3360 and one of the standards in paragraphs (6)(i) through (iv) of this section were met. If operating parameter deviations occurred, the affected source is in compliance with the emission standards in § 63.3320(b) for the month if, assuming no control of emissions for each 3-hour deviation period, one of the standards in paragraphs (6)(i) through (iv) of this section were met. (i) The total mass of organic HAP emitted by the affected source based on coating solids applied is no more than 0.20 kg organic HAP per kg coating solids applied at an existing affected source and no more than 0.08 kg organic HAP per kg coating solids applied at a new affected source; or (ii) The total mass of organic HAP emitted by the affected source based on material applied is no more than 0.04 kg organic HAP per kg material applied at an existing affected source and no more than 0.016 kg organic HAP per kg material applied at a new affected source; or (iii) The total mass of organic HAP emitted by the affected source during the month is less than the calculated allowable organic HAP as determined using paragraph (m) of this section; or (iv) The total mass of organic HAP emitted by the affected source was not more than 5 percent of the total mass of organic HAP applied for the month at an existing affected source and no more than 2 percent of the total mass of organic HAP applied for the month at a new affected source. The total mass of organic HAP applied by the affected source in the month must be determined using Equation 10. (p) Intermittently-controlled and never-controlled work stations. If you have been expressly referenced to this paragraph by paragraphs (o)(1)(ii), (o)(2)(ii)(B), or (o)(3)(iii)(B) of this section for calculation procedures to determine organic HAP emissions for your intermittently-controlled and never-controlled work stations, you must: (1) Determine the sum of the mass of all coating materials as-applied on intermittently-controlled work stations operating in bypass mode and the mass of all coating materials as-applied on never-controlled work stations during the month. (2) Determine the sum of the mass of all coating materials as-applied on intermittently-controlled work stations operating in a controlled mode and the mass of all coating materials applied on always-controlled work stations during the month. (3) Liquid-liquid material balance compliance demonstration. For each web coating line or group of web coating lines for which you use the provisions of paragraph (o)(1)(ii) of this section, you must calculate the organic HAP emitted during the month using Equation 19 of this section: Where: He = Total monthly organic HAP emitted, kg. p = Number of different coating materials applied in a month. Mci = Sum of the mass of coating material, i, as-applied on intermittently-controlled work stations operating in controlled mode and the mass of coating material, i, as-applied on always-controlled work stations, in a month, kg. Cahi = Monthly average, as-applied, organic HAP content of coating material, i, expressed as a mass fraction, kg/kg. Rv = Organic volatile matter collection and recovery efficiency, percent. MBi = Sum of the mass of coating material, i, as-applied on intermittently-controlled work stations operating in bypass mode and the mass of coating material, i, asapplied on never-controlled work stations, in a month, kg. Cahi = Monthly average, as-applied, organic HAP content of coating material, i, expressed as a mass fraction, kg/kg. Mvret = Mass of volatile matter retained in the coated web after curing or drying, or otherwise not emitted to the atmosphere, kg. The value of this term will be zero in all cases except where you choose to take into account the volatile matter retained in the coated web or otherwise not emitted to the atmosphere for the compliance demonstration procedures in this section. (4) Performance test to determine capture efficiency and control device efficiency. For each web coating line or group of web coating lines for which you use the provisions of paragraph (o)(2)(ii)(B) or (o)(3)(iii)(B) of this section, you must calculate the organic HAP emitted during the month using Equation 20: Where: He = Total monthly organic HAP emitted, kg. p = Number of different coating materials applied in a month. Mci = Sum of the mass of coating material, i, as-applied on intermittently-controlled work stations operating in controlled mode and the mass of coating material, i, as-applied on always-controlled work stations, in a month, kg. Cahi = Monthly average, as-applied, organic HAP content of coating material, i, expressed as a mass fraction, kg/kg. R = Overall organic HAP control efficiency, percent. MBi = Sum of the mass of coating material, i, as-applied on intermittently-controlled work stations operating in bypass mode and the mass of coating material, i, asapplied on never-controlled work stations, in a month, kg. Cahi = Monthly average, as-applied, organic HAP content of coating material, i, expressed as a mass fraction, kg/kg. Mvret = Mass of volatile matter retained in the coated web after curing or drying, or otherwise not emitted to the atmosphere, kg. The value of this term will be zero in all cases except where you choose to take into account the volatile matter retained in the coated web or otherwise not emitted to the atmosphere for the VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:51 Sep 18, 2019 Jkt 247001 PO 00000 Frm 00045 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\19SEP2.SGM 19SEP2 EP19SE19.018</GPH> 49425 EP19SE19.017</GPH> jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 182 / Thursday, September 19, 2019 / Proposed Rules 49426 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 182 / Thursday, September 19, 2019 / Proposed Rules jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 compliance demonstration procedures in this section. (q) Always-controlled work stations with more than one capture and control system. If you operate more than one capture system or more than one control device and only have always-controlled work stations, then you are in compliance with the emission standards in § 63.3320(b)(1) for the month if for each web coating line or group of web coating lines controlled by a common control device: (1) The volatile matter collection and recovery efficiency as determined by paragraphs (j)(1)(i), (iii), (v), and (vi) of this section is at least 95 percent at an existing affected source and at least 98 percent at a new affected source; or (2) The overall organic HAP control efficiency as determined by paragraphs (j)(2)(i) through (iv) of this section for each web coating line or group of web coating lines served by that control device and a common capture system is at least 95 percent at an existing affected source and at least 98 percent at a new affected source; or (3) The overall organic HAP control efficiency as determined by paragraphs (l)(1)(i) through (iii) and (l)(2)(i) of this section for each web coating line or group of web coating lines served by that control device and a common capture system is at least 95 percent at an existing affected source and at least 98 percent at a new affected source. (r) Mass-balance approach. As an alternative to paragraphs (b) through (p) of this section, you may demonstrate monthly compliance using a massbalance approach in accordance with this section, except for any month that you elect to meet the emission limitation in § 63.3320(b)(4). The massbalance approach should be performed as follows: (1) Separately for each individual/ grouping(s) of lines, you must sum the mass of organic HAP emitted during the month and divide by the corresponding total mass of all organic HAP utilized on the lines, including from coating materials or coating solids, for the same period. You may also choose to use volatile organic content as a surrogate for organic HAP for the compliance demonstration in accordance with § 63.3360(d). You are required to include all emissions and inputs that occur during periods that each line or grouping of lines operates in accordance with the applicability criteria in § 63.3300. (2) You must include all of the organic HAP emitted by your individual/grouping(s) of lines, as follows. VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:51 Sep 18, 2019 Jkt 247001 (i) You must record the mass of organic HAP or volatile organic content utilized at each work station of each of your individually/grouping(s) of lines. (ii) You must assume that all of the organic HAP input to every nevercontrolled work station is emitted, unless you have determined an emission factor in accordance with § 63.3360(g). (iii) For every always-controlled work station, you must assume that all of the organic HAP or volatile organic content is emitted, less the reductions provided by the corresponding capture system and control device, in accordance with the most recently measured capture and destruction efficiencies, or in accordance with the measured mass of VOC recovered for the month (e.g., carbon control or condensers). You may account for organic HAP or volatile organic content retained in the web if you have determined an emission factor in accordance with § 63.3360(g). (iv) For every intermittentlycontrolled work station, you must assume that all of the organic HAP or volatile organic content is emitted during periods of no control. During periods of control, you must assume that all of the organic HAP or volatile organic content is emitted, less the reductions provided by the corresponding capture system and control device, in accordance with the most recently measured capture and destruction efficiencies, or in accordance with the measured mass of VOC recovered for the month (e.g., carbon control or condensers). You may account for organic HAP or volatile organic content retained in the web if you have determined an emission factor in accordance with § 63.3360(g). (v) You must record the organic HAP or volatile organic content input to every work station of your individual/ grouping(s) of lines and determine corresponding emissions during all periods of operation, including malfunctions or startups and shutdowns of any web coating line or control device. (3) You are in compliance with the emission standards in § 63.3320(b) if each of your individual/grouping(s) of lines, meets paragraphs (r)(4)(i) through (iii) of this section, as applicable, and each oxidizer control device, if used, additionally meets paragraph (r)(4)(iv) of this section: (i) The total mass of organic HAP emitted by the effected source based on HAP applied is no more than 0.05 kg organic HAP per kg HAP applied at an existing affected source and no more than 0.02 kg organic HAP per kg HAP applied at a new affected source; or PO 00000 Frm 00046 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 (ii) The total mass of organic HAP emitted by the affected source based on coating solids applied is no more than 0.20 kg organic HAP per kg coating solids applied at an existing affected source and no more than 0.08 kg organic HAP per kg coating solids applied at a new affected source; or (iii) The total mass of organic HAP emitted by the affected source based on material applied is no more than 0.04 kg organic HAP per kg material applied at an existing affected source and no more than 0.016 kg organic HAP per kg material applied at a new affected source. (iv) The oxidizer control device(s), if any, is operated such that the average operating parameter value is greater than or less than (as appropriate) the operating parameter value established in accordance with § 63.3360(e) for each 3hour period, and the capture system operating parameter is operated at an average value greater than or less than (as appropriate) the operating parameter value established in accordance with § 63.3360(f). ■ 11. Section 63.3400 is amended by: ■ a. Revising paragraph (a) and introductory text of paragraph (b); ■ b. Revising paragraphs (c)(1)(ii) and (c)(1)(iv); ■ c. Revising paragraph (c)(2) introductory text, and paragraphs (c)(2)(v) and (c)(2)(vi); ■ d. Revising paragraphs (e) and (f); ■ e. Redesignating paragraph (g) as paragraph (k) and revising the introductory text; and ■ f. Adding new paragraphs (g), (h), (i) and (j). The additions and revisions read as follows: § 63.3400 What notifications and reports must I submit? (a) Each owner or operator of an affected source subject to this subpart must submit the reports specified in paragraphs (b) through (k) of this section to the Administrator. (b) You must submit an initial notification as required by § 63.9(b), using the procedure in paragraph (h) of this section. * * * * * (c) * * * (1) * * * (ii) The first compliance report is due no later than July 31 or January 31, whichever date follows the end of the calendar half immediately following the compliance date that is specified for your affected source in § 63.3330. Before [DATE 180 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE Federal Register], the report must be postmarked or delivered by the E:\FR\FM\19SEP2.SGM 19SEP2 jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 182 / Thursday, September 19, 2019 / Proposed Rules aforementioned dates. On and after [DATE 180 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE Federal Register], the report must be submitted electronically as described in paragraph (h) of this section. * * * * * (iv) Each subsequent compliance report must be submitted electronically no later than July 31 or January 31, whichever date is the first date following the end of the semiannual reporting period. * * * * * (2) Compliance Report Contents. The compliance report must contain the information in paragraphs (c)(2)(i) through (viii) of this section: * * * * * (v) For each deviation from an emission limitation (emission limit or operating limit) that applies to you and that occurs at an affected source where you are not using a CEMS to comply with the emission limitations in this subpart, the compliance report must contain the following information: (A) The total operating time of each affected source during the reporting period. (B) 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, the cause and duration of each failure. (C) 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. (D) Record actions taken to minimize emissions in accordance with § 63.3340(a), and any corrective actions taken to return the affected unit to its normal or usual manner of operation. (E) Information on the number, duration, and cause for CPMS downtime incidents, if applicable, other than downtime associated with zero and span and other calibration checks. (vi) For each deviation from an emission limit occurring at an affected source where you are using a CEMS to comply with the emission limit in this subpart, you must include the following information: (A) The total operating time of each affected source during the reporting period. (B) 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, the cause and duration of each failure. (C) For each failure to meet an applicable standard, record and retain a VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:51 Sep 18, 2019 Jkt 247001 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. (D) Record actions taken to minimize emissions in accordance with § 63.3340(a), and any corrective actions taken to return the affected unit to its normal or usual manner of operation. (E) The date and time that each CEMS and CPMS, if applicable, was inoperative except for zero (low-level) and high-level checks. (F) The date and time that each CEMS and CPMS, if applicable, was out-ofcontrol, including the information in § 63.8(c)(8). (G) 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. (H) A summary of the total duration (in hours) of each deviation during the reporting period and the total duration of each deviation as a percent of the total source operating time during that reporting period. (I) 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. (J) A summary of the total duration (in hours) of CEMS and CPMS downtime during the reporting period and the total duration of CEMS and CPMS downtime as a percent of the total source operating time during that reporting period. (K) A breakdown of the total duration of CEMS and CPMS downtime during the reporting period into periods that are due to monitoring equipment malfunctions, non-monitoring equipment malfunctions, quality assurance/quality control calibrations, other known causes, and other unknown causes. (L) The date of the latest CEMS and CPMS certification or audit. (M) A description of any changes in CEMS, CPMS, or controls since the last reporting period. * * * * * (e) You must submit a Notification of Compliance Status as specified in § 63.9(h). For affected sources that commence construction or reconstruction after September 19, 2019, the Notification of Compliance Status must be submitted electronically using the procedure in paragraph (h) of this section. For affected sources that commenced construction or reconstruction on or before September 19, 2019, the Notification of Compliance PO 00000 Frm 00047 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 49427 Status must be submitted electronically using the procedure in paragraph (h) of this section after [DATE 180 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE Federal Register]. (f) Performance test reports. You must submit performance test reports as specified in § 63.10(d)(2) if you are using a control device to comply with the emission standard and you have not obtained a waiver from the performance test requirement or you are not exempted from this requirement by § 63.3360(b). Within 60 days after the date of completing each performance test required by this subpart, you must submit the results of the performance test following the procedures specified in paragraphs (f)(1) through (3) of this section. (1) Data collected using test methods supported by EPA’s Electronic Reporting Tool (ERT) as listed on 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 EPA via the Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface (CEDRI), which can be accessed through EPA’s Central Data Exchange (CDX) (https://cdx.epa.gov/). The data must be submitted in a file format generated through the use of EPA’s ERT. Alternatively, you may submit an electronic file consistent with the extensible markup language (XML) schema listed on EPA’s ERT website. (2) Data collected using test methods that are not supported by EPA’s ERT as listed on 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 EPA’s ERT website. Submit the ERT generated package or alternative file to EPA via CEDRI. (3) Confidential business information (CBI). If you claim some of the information submitted under paragraph (f)(1) of this section is CBI, you must submit a complete file, including information claimed to be CBI, to EPA. The file must be generated through the use of EPA’s ERT or an alternate electronic file consistent with the XML schema listed on EPA’s ERT website. Submit the file on a compact disc, flash drive, or other commonly used electronic storage medium and clearly mark the medium as CBI. Mail the electronic medium to U.S. EPA/OAQPS/ CORE CBI Office, Attention: Group Leader, Measurement Policy Group, MD C404–02, 4930 Old Page Rd., Durham, NC 27703. The same file with the CBI omitted must be submitted to EPA via E:\FR\FM\19SEP2.SGM 19SEP2 jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 49428 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 182 / Thursday, September 19, 2019 / Proposed Rules EPA’s CDX as described in paragraph (f)(1) of this section. (g) Performance evaluation reports. You must submit the results of performance evaluations within 60 days of completing each continuous monitoring system (CMS) performance evaluation (as defined in § 63.2) 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 EPA’s ERT as listed on EPA’s ERT website at the time of the evaluation. Submit the results of the performance evaluation to EPA via CEDRI, which can be accessed through EPA’s CDX. The data must be submitted in a file format generated through the use of EPA’s ERT. Alternatively, you may submit an electronic file consistent with the XML schema listed on EPA’s ERT website. (2) Performance evaluations of CMS measuring RATA pollutants that are not supported by EPA’s ERT as listed on 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 EPA’s ERT website. Submit the ERT generated package or alternative file to EPA via CEDRI. (3) Confidential business information (CBI). If you claim some of the information submitted under paragraph (g)(1) of this section is CBI, you must submit a complete file, including information claimed to be CBI, to EPA. The file must be generated through the use of EPA’s ERT or an alternate electronic file consistent with the XML schema listed on EPA’s ERT website. Submit the file on a compact disc, flash drive, or other commonly used electronic storage medium and clearly mark the medium as CBI. Mail the electronic medium to U.S. EPA/OAQPS/ CORE CBI Office, Attention: Group Leader, Measurement Policy Group, MD C404–02, 4930 Old Page Rd., Durham, NC 27703. The same file with the CBI omitted must be submitted to EPA via EPA’s CDX as described in paragraph (g)(1) of this section. (h) Electronic Reporting. If you are required to submit reports following the procedure specified in this paragraph, you must submit reports to EPA via CEDRI, which can be accessed through EPA’s Central Data Exchange (CDX) (https://cdx.epa.gov/). Initial notifications and notifications of compliance status must be submitted as PDFs to CEDRI using the attachment module of the ERT. You must use the VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:51 Sep 18, 2019 Jkt 247001 semiannual compliance report template on the CEDRI website (https:// www.epa.gov/electronic-reporting-airemissions/compliance-and-emissionsdata-reporting-interface-cedri) for this subpart. The date report templates become available will be listed on the CEDRI website. 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 EPA. The report must be generated using the appropriate form on the CEDRI website. Submit the file on a compact disc, flash drive, or other commonly used electronic storage medium and clearly mark the medium as CBI. Mail the electronic medium to U.S. EPA/OAQPS/ CORE CBI Office, Attention: Group Leader, Measurement Policy Group, MD C404–02, 4930 Old Page Rd., Durham, NC 27703. The same file with the CBI omitted must be submitted to EPA via EPA’s CDX as described earlier in this paragraph. (i) Extension for CDX/CEDRI outage. If you are required to electronically submit a report through CEDRI in 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 (i)(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 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 has caused a delay in reporting. (5) You must provide to the Administrator a written description identifying: (i) The date(s) and time(s) when CDX or CEDRI was accessed and the system was unavailable; (ii) A rationale for attributing the delay in reporting beyond the regulatory deadline to EPA system outage; (iii) Measures taken or to be taken to minimize the delay in reporting; and PO 00000 Frm 00048 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 (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. (j) Extension for force majuere events. If you are required to electronically submit a report through CEDRI in EPA’s CDX, you may assert a claim of force majeure for failure to timely comply with the reporting requirement. To assert a claim of force majuere, you must meet the requirements outlined in paragraphs (j)(1) through (5) of this section. (1) You may submit a claim if a force majeure event is about to occur, occurs, or has occurred or there are lingering effects from such an event within the period of time beginning five business days prior to the date the submission is due. For the purposes of this section, a force majeure event is defined as an event that will be or has been caused by circumstances beyond the control of the affected facility, its contractors, or any entity controlled by the affected facility that prevents you from complying with the requirement to submit a report electronically within the time period prescribed. Examples of such events are acts of nature (e.g., hurricanes, earthquakes, or floods), acts of war or terrorism, or equipment failure or safety hazard beyond the control of the affected facility (e.g., large scale power outage). (2) You must submit notification to the Administrator in writing as soon as possible following the date you first knew, or through due diligence should have known, that the event may cause or has caused a delay in reporting. (3) You must provide to the Administrator: (i) A written description of the force majeure event; (ii) A rationale for attributing the delay in reporting beyond the regulatory deadline to the force majeure event; (iii) Measures taken or to be taken to minimize the delay in reporting; and (iv) The date by which you propose to report, or if you have already met the reporting requirement at the time of the notification, the date you reported. (4) The decision to accept the claim of force majeure and allow an extension to the reporting deadline is solely within the discretion of the Administrator. E:\FR\FM\19SEP2.SGM 19SEP2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 182 / Thursday, September 19, 2019 / Proposed Rules (5) In any circumstance, the reporting must occur as soon as possible after the force majeure event occurs. (k) For existing affected sources that commenced construction or reconstruction before September 19, 2019, before [DATE 180 DAYS AFTER PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE Federal Register] you must submit startup, shutdown, and malfunction reports as specified in § 63.10(d)(5), except that the provisions in subpart A of this part pertaining to startups, shutdowns, and malfunctions do not apply unless a control device is used to comply with this subpart. On and after, [DATE 180 DAYS AFTER PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE Federal Register], and for affected sources that commence construction or reconstruction after September 19, 2019, this section is no longer relevant. * * * * * ■ 12. Section 63.3410 is revised to read as follows: § 63.3410 What records must I keep? (a) Each owner or operator of an affected source subject to this subpart must maintain the records specified in paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) of this section on a monthly basis in accordance with the requirements of § 63.10(b)(1): (1) Records specified in § 63.10(b)(2) of all measurements needed to demonstrate compliance with this standard as indicated in Table 2 to Subpart JJJJ of Part 63, including: (i) Continuous emission monitor data in accordance with the requirements of § 63.3350(d); (ii) Control device and capture system operating parameter data in accordance with the requirements of § 63.3350(c), (e), and (f); (iii) Organic HAP content data for the purpose of demonstrating compliance in accordance with the requirements of § 63.3360(c); (iv) Volatile matter and coating solids content data for the purpose of demonstrating compliance in accordance with the requirements of § 63.3360(d); (v) Overall control efficiency determination using capture efficiency and control device destruction or removal efficiency test results in accordance with the requirements of § 63.3360(e) and (f); (vi) Material usage, organic HAP usage, volatile matter usage, and coating solids usage and compliance demonstrations using these data in accordance with the requirements of § 63.3370(b), (c), and (d); and (vii) Emission factor development calculations and HAP content for coating materials used to develop the emission factor as needed for § 63.3360(g). (2) Records specified in § 63.10(c) for each CMS operated by the owner or operator in accordance with the requirements of § 63.3350(b), as indicated in Table 2 to Subpart JJJJ of Part 63. (b) Each owner or operator of an affected source subject to this subpart must maintain records of all liquidliquid material balances performed in accordance with the requirements of § 63.3370. The records must be maintained in accordance with the applicable requirements of § 63.10(b). (c) For each deviation from an emission limit occurring at an affected source, you must record the following information. (1) The total operating time of each affected source during the reporting period. (2) 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, the cause and duration of each failure. (3) For each failure to meet an applicable standard, record and retain a 49429 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. (4) Record actions taken to minimize emissions in accordance with § 63.3340(a), and any corrective actions taken to return the affected unit to its normal or usual manner of operation. (d) Any records required to be maintained by this part that are submitted electronically via EPA’s CEDRI may be maintained in electronic format. This ability to maintain electronic copies does not affect the requirement for facilities to make records, data, and reports available upon request to a delegated air agency or EPA as part of an on-site compliance evaluation. ■ 13. Section 63.3420 is revised to read as follows: § 63.3420 What authorities may be delegated to the states? (a) In delegating implementation and enforcement authority to a state, local, or tribal agency under 40 CFR part 63, subpart E, the authorities contained in paragraph (b) of this section must be retained by the EPA Administrator and not transferred to a state, local, or tribal agency. (b) Authority which will not be delegated to state, local, or tribal agencies are listed in paragraphs (b)(1) through (3) of this section: (1) Approval of alternate test method for organic HAP content determination under § 63.3360(c). (2) Approval of alternate test method for volatile matter determination under § 63.3360(d). (3) Approval of alternatives to the work practice standards under § 63.3322. ■ 14. Table 1 to Subpart JJJJ is revised to read as follows: TABLE 1 TO SUBPART JJJJ OF PART 63—OPERATING LIMITS IF USING ADD-ON CONTROL DEVICES AND CAPTURE SYSTEM jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 If you are required to comply with operating limits by § 63.3321, you must comply with the applicable operating limits in the following table: For the following device: You must meet the following operating limit: And you must demonstrate continuous compliance with operating limits by: 1. Thermal oxidizer .............. a. The average combustion temperature in any 3-hour period must not fall more than 50° F below the combustion temperature limit established according to § 63.3360(e)(3)(i). 2. Catalytic oxidizer .............. a. The average temperature at the inlet to the catalyst bed in any 3-hour period must not fall below the combustion temperature limit established according to § 63.3360(e)(3)(ii). i. Collecting the combustion temperature data according to § 63.3350(e)(10); ii. Reducing the data to 3-hour block averages; and iii. Maintain the 3-hour average combustion temperature at or above the temperature limit. i. Collecting the catalyst bed inlet temperature data according to § 63.3350(e)(10); ii. Reducing the data to 3-hour block averages; and iii. Maintain the 3-hour average catalyst bed inlet temperature at or above the temperature limit. VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:51 Sep 18, 2019 Jkt 247001 PO 00000 Frm 00049 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\19SEP2.SGM 19SEP2 49430 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 182 / Thursday, September 19, 2019 / Proposed Rules TABLE 1 TO SUBPART JJJJ OF PART 63—OPERATING LIMITS IF USING ADD-ON CONTROL DEVICES AND CAPTURE SYSTEM—Continued If you are required to comply with operating limits by § 63.3321, you must comply with the applicable operating limits in the following table: For the following device: 3. Emission capture system You must meet the following operating limit: And you must demonstrate continuous compliance with operating limits by: b. The temperature rise across the catalyst bed must not fall below the limit established according to § 63.3360(e)(3)(ii). i. Collecting the catalyst bed inlet and outlet temperature data according to § 63.3350(e)(10); ii. Reducing the data to 3-hour block averages; and iii. Maintain the 3-hour average temperature rise across the catalyst bed at or above the limit. Conduct monitoring according to the plan (§ 63.3350(f)(3)). Submit monitoring plan to the Administrator that identifies operating parameters to be monitored according to § 63.3350(f). 15. Table 2 to Subpart JJJJ is revised to read as follows: ■ TABLE 2 TO SUBPART JJJJ OF PART 63—APPLICABILITY OF 40 CFR PART 63 GENERAL PROVISIONS TO SUBPART JJJJ jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 You must comply with the applicable General Provisions requirements according to the following table: General provisions reference Applicable to subpart JJJJ § 63.1(a)(1)–(4) ..................................... § 63.1(a)(5) ............................................ § 63.1(a)(6)–(8) ..................................... § 63.1(a)(9) ............................................ § 63.1(a)(10)–(14) ................................. § 63.1(b)(1) ............................................ § 63.1(b)(2)–(3) ..................................... § 63.1(c)(1) ............................................ § 63.1(c)(2) ............................................ § 63.1(c)(3) ............................................ § 63.1(c)(4) ............................................ § 63.1(c)(5) ............................................ § 63.1(d) ................................................ § 63.1(e) ................................................ § 63.2 ..................................................... § 63.3(a)–(c) .......................................... § 63.4(a)(1)–(3) ..................................... § 63.4(a)(4) ............................................ § 63.4(a)(5) ............................................ § 63.4(b)–(c) .......................................... § 63.5(a)(1)–(2) ..................................... § 63.5(b)(1) ............................................ § 63.5(b)(2) ............................................ § 63.5(b)(3)–(6) ..................................... § 63.5(c) ................................................ § 63.5(d) ................................................ § 63.5(e) ................................................ § 63.5(f) ................................................. § 63.6(a) ................................................ Yes. No ................................ Yes. No ................................ Yes. No ................................ Yes. Yes. No ................................ No ................................ Yes. Yes. No ................................ Yes. Yes .............................. Yes. Yes. No ................................ Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. No ................................ Yes. No ................................ Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes .............................. § 63.6(b)(1)–(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) ......................................... No ................................ No ................................ Yes. Yes. No ................................ Yes. No ................................ Depends, see explanation. § 63.6(e)(1)(ii) ........................................ Depends, see explanation. § 63.6(e)(1)(iii) ....................................... § 63.6(e)(2) ............................................ Yes. No ................................ VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:51 Sep 18, 2019 Jkt 247001 PO 00000 Frm 00050 Explanation Reserved. Reserved. Subpart JJJJ specifies applicability. Area sources are not subject to emission standards of subpart JJJJ. Reserved. Reserved. Additional definitions in subpart JJJJ. Reserved. Reserved. Reserved. Applies only when capture and control system is used to comply with the standard. § 63.3330 specifies compliance dates. Reserved. Reserved. Reserved. No, for new or reconstructed sources which commenced construction or reconstruction after September 19, 2019, see § 63.3340(a) for general duty requirement. Yes, for all other affected sources before [DATE 181 DAYS AFTER PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], and No thereafter, see § 63.3340(a) for general duty requirement. No, for new or reconstructed sources which commenced construction or reconstruction after September 19, 2019. Yes, for all other affected sources before [DATE 181 DAYS AFTER PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], and No thereafter. Reserved. Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\19SEP2.SGM 19SEP2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 182 / Thursday, September 19, 2019 / Proposed Rules 49431 TABLE 2 TO SUBPART JJJJ OF PART 63—APPLICABILITY OF 40 CFR PART 63 GENERAL PROVISIONS TO SUBPART JJJJ— Continued You must comply with the applicable General Provisions requirements according to the following table: Applicable to subpart JJJJ jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 General provisions reference Explanation § 63.6(e)(3) ............................................ Depends, see explanation. § 63.6(f)(1) ............................................. Depends, see explanation. § 63.6(f)(2)–(3) ...................................... § 63.6(g) ................................................ § 63.6(h) ................................................ Yes. Yes. No ................................ § 63.6(i)(1)–(14) ..................................... § 63.6(i)(15) ........................................... § 63.6(i)(16) ........................................... § 63.6(j) ................................................. § 63.7(a)–(d) .......................................... § 63.7(e)(1) ............................................ § 63.7(e)(2)–(3) ..................................... § 63.7(f)–(h) ........................................... § 63.8(a)(1)–(2) ..................................... § 63.8(a)(3) ............................................ § 63.8(a)(4) ............................................ § 63.8(b) ................................................ § 63.8(c)(1) and § 63.8(c)(1)(i) .............. Yes. No ................................ Yes. Yes. Yes. No ................................ Yes. Yes. Yes. No ................................ No ................................ Yes. Depends, see explanation. § 63.8(c)(1)(ii) ........................................ § 63.8(c)(1)(iii) ....................................... Yes .............................. Depends, see explanation. § 63.8(c)(2)–(3) ...................................... § 63.8(c)(4) ............................................ Yes. No ................................ § 63.8(c)(5) ............................................ § 63.8(c)(6)–(8) ...................................... § 63.8(d)(1)–(2) ..................................... § 63.8(d)(3) ............................................ § 63.8(e)–(f) ........................................... § 63.8(g) ................................................ § 63.9(a) ................................................ § 63.9(b)(1) ............................................ § 63.9(b)(2) ............................................ No ................................ Yes .............................. Yes. No ................................ Yes .............................. Yes .............................. Yes. Yes. Yes .............................. § 63.9(b)(3)–(5) ..................................... § 63.9(c)–(e) .......................................... § 63.9(f) ................................................. § 63.9(g) ................................................ § 63.9(h)(1)–(3) ..................................... § 63.9(h)(4) ............................................ § 63.9(h)(5)–(6) ..................................... § 63.9(i) ................................................. § 63.9(j) ................................................. § 63.10(a) .............................................. § 63.10(b)(1) .......................................... § 63.10(b)(2)(i) ....................................... Yes. Yes. No ................................ Yes .............................. Yes. No ................................ Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Depends, see explanation. § 63.10(b)(2)(ii) ...................................... § 63.10(b)(2)(iii) ..................................... § 63.10(b)(2)(iv)–(v) ............................... No ................................ Yes .............................. Depends, see explanation. § 63.10(b)(2)(vi)–(xiv) ............................ Yes. VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:51 Sep 18, 2019 Jkt 247001 PO 00000 Frm 00051 No, for new or reconstructed sources which commenced construction or reconstruction after September 19, 2019. Yes, for all other affected sources before [DATE 181 DAYS AFTER PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], and No thereafter. No, for new or reconstructed sources which commenced construction or reconstruction after September 19, 2019. Yes, for all other affected sources before [DATE 181 DAYS AFTER PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], and No thereafter. Subpart JJJJ does not require continuous opacity monitoring systems (COMS). Reserved. See § 63.3360(e)(2). Reserved. Subpart JJJJ does not have monitoring requirements for flares. No, for new or reconstructed sources which commenced construction or reconstruction after September 19, 2019, see § 63.3340(a) for general duty requirement. Yes, for all other affected sources before [DATE 181 DAYS AFTER PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], and No thereafter, see § 63.3340(a) for general duty requirement. § 63.8(c)(1)(ii) only applies if you use capture and control systems. No, for new or reconstructed sources which commenced construction or reconstruction after September 19, 2019. Yes, for all other affected sources before [DATE 181 DAYS AFTER PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], and No thereafter. § 63.3350 specifies the requirements for the operation of CMS for capture systems and add-on control devices at sources using these to comply. Subpart JJJJ does not require COMS. Provisions for COMS are not applicable. § 63.3350(e)(5) specifies the program of corrective action. § 63.8(f)(6) only applies if you use CEMS. Only applies if you use CEMS. Except § 63.3400(b)(1) requires submittal of initial notification for existing affected sources no later than 1 year before compliance date. Subpart JJJJ does not require opacity and visible emissions observations. Provisions for COMS are not applicable. Reserved. No, for new or reconstructed sources which commenced construction or reconstruction after September 19, 2019. Yes, for all other affected sources before [DATE 181 DAYS AFTER PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], and No thereafter. See § 63.3410 for recordkeeping of relevant information. § 63.10(b)(2)(iii) only applies if you use a capture and control system. No, for new or reconstructed sources which commenced construction or reconstruction after September 19, 2019. Yes, for all other affected sources before [DATE 181 DAYS AFTER PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], and No thereafter. Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\19SEP2.SGM 19SEP2 49432 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 182 / Thursday, September 19, 2019 / Proposed Rules TABLE 2 TO SUBPART JJJJ OF PART 63—APPLICABILITY OF 40 CFR PART 63 GENERAL PROVISIONS TO SUBPART JJJJ— Continued You must comply with the applicable General Provisions requirements according to the following table: General provisions reference Applicable to subpart JJJJ § 63.10(b)(3) .......................................... § 63.10(c)(1) .......................................... § 63.10(c)(2)–(4) .................................... § 63.10(c)(5)–(8) .................................... § 63.10(c)(9) .......................................... § 63.10(c)(10)–(14) ................................ § 63.10(c)(15) ........................................ Yes. Yes. No ................................ Yes. No ................................ Yes. Depends, see explanation. § 63.10(d)(1)–(2) ................................... § 63.10(d)(3) .......................................... § 63.10(d)(4) .......................................... § 63.10(d)(5)(i) ....................................... Yes. No ................................ Yes. Depends, see explanation. § 63.10(d)(5)(ii) ...................................... Depends, see explanation. § 63.10(e)(1)–(2) ................................... § 63.10(e)(3)–(4) ................................... § 63.10(f) ............................................... § 63.11 ................................................... § 63.12 ................................................... § 63.13 ................................................... § 63.14 ................................................... Yes .............................. No ................................ Yes. No ................................ Yes. Yes. Yes .............................. § 63.15 ................................................... § 63.16 ................................................... Yes. Yes. Explanation Reserved. Reserved. No, for new or reconstructed sources which commenced construction or reconstruction after September 19, 2019. Yes, for all other affected sources before [DATE 181 DAYS AFTER PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], and No thereafter. Subpart JJJJ does not require opacity and visible emissions observations. No, for new or reconstructed sources which commenced construction or reconstruction after September 19, 2019. Yes, for all other affected sources before [DATE 181 DAYS AFTER PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], and No thereafter. See § 63.3400(c) for malfunction reporting requirements. No, for new or reconstructed sources which commenced construction or reconstruction after September 19, 2019. Yes, for all other affected sources before [DATE 181 DAYS AFTER PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], and No thereafter. See § 63.3400(c) for malfunction reporting requirements. Provisions for COMS are not applicable. Subpart JJJJ does not require opacity and visible emissions observations. Subpart JJJJ does not specify use of flares for compliance. Subpart JJJJ includes provisions for alternative ASME and ASTM test methods that are incorporated by reference. 16. Add Table 3 to Subpart JJJJ to read as follows: ■ TABLE 3 TO SUBPART JJJJ OF PART 63—LIST OF HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANTS THAT MUST BE COUNTED RELATIVE TO DETERMINING COATING 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 ............................................................................................................................................ 3,3’-Dimethylbenzidine ............................................................................................................................................... 4,4’-Methylene bis(2-chloroaniline) ............................................................................................................................ Acetaldehyde ............................................................................................................................................................. Acrylamide ................................................................................................................................................................. Acrylonitrile ................................................................................................................................................................ Allyl chloride ............................................................................................................................................................... alpha-Hexachlorocyclohexane (a-HCH) .................................................................................................................... Aniline ........................................................................................................................................................................ Benzene ..................................................................................................................................................................... VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:51 Sep 18, 2019 Jkt 247001 PO 00000 Frm 00052 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\19SEP2.SGM 19SEP2 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 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 182 / Thursday, September 19, 2019 / Proposed Rules 49433 TABLE 3 TO SUBPART JJJJ OF PART 63—LIST OF HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANTS THAT MUST BE COUNTED RELATIVE TO DETERMINING COATING HAP CONTENT IF PRESENT AT 0.1 PERCENT OR MORE BY MASS—Continued Chemical name CAS No. Benzidine ................................................................................................................................................................... Benzotrichloride ......................................................................................................................................................... Benzyl chloride .......................................................................................................................................................... beta-Hexachlorocyclohexane (b-HCH) ...................................................................................................................... Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate .......................................................................................................................................... Bis(chloromethyl)ether ............................................................................................................................................... Bromoform ................................................................................................................................................................. Captan ....................................................................................................................................................................... Carbon tetrachloride .................................................................................................................................................. Chlordane .................................................................................................................................................................. Chlorobenzilate .......................................................................................................................................................... Chloroform ................................................................................................................................................................. Chloroprene ............................................................................................................................................................... Cresols (mixed) .......................................................................................................................................................... DDE ........................................................................................................................................................................... Dichloroethyl ether ..................................................................................................................................................... Dichlorvos .................................................................................................................................................................. Epichlorohydrin .......................................................................................................................................................... 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. 2019–19101 Filed 9–18–19; 8:45 am] jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 BILLING CODE 6560–50–P VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:51 Sep 18, 2019 Jkt 247001 PO 00000 Frm 00053 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 9990 E:\FR\FM\19SEP2.SGM 19SEP2 92–87–5 98–07–7 100–44–7 319–85–7 117–81–7 542–88–1 75–25–2 133–06–2 56–23–5 57–74–9 510–15–6 67–66–3 126–99–8 1319–77–3 3547–04–4 111–44–4 62–73–7 106–89–8 140–88–5 106–93–4 107–06–2 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 182 (Thursday, September 19, 2019)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 49382-49433]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-19101]



[[Page 49381]]

Vol. 84

Thursday,

No. 182

September 19, 2019

Part II





Environmental Protection Agency





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





40 CFR Part 63





National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Paper and 
Other Web Coating Residual Risk and Technology Review; Proposed Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 84 , No. 182 / Thursday, September 19, 2019 / 
Proposed Rules

[[Page 49382]]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 63

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2018-0416; FRL-9999-14-OAR]
RIN 2060-AU22


National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Paper 
and Other Web Coating Residual Risk and Technology Review

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is conducting 
the residual risk and technology review (RTR) of the National Emission 
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for the Paper and Other 
Web Coating (POWC) source category that is required under the Clean Air 
Act (CAA). We are proposing to find the risks due to emissions of air 
toxics to be acceptable from this source category and that the current 
NESHAP provides an ample margin of safety to protect public health. 
Further, we identified no new cost-effective controls under the 
technology review that would achieve significant further emissions 
reductions, and, thus, are proposing to find that no revisions are 
necessary based on developments in practices, processes, or control 
technologies. In addition to performing the RTR, we are proposing 
certain amendments to the POWC NESHAP. Specifically, the EPA is 
proposing to add a compliance demonstration equation that accounts for 
retained volatiles in the web coating; to amend provisions addressing 
periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction (SSM); to add repeat 
testing and electronic reporting requirements; and to make technical 
and editorial changes. The EPA is proposing these amendments to improve 
the effectiveness of the NESHAP.

DATES: Comments. Comments must be received on or before November 4, 
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 21, 2019.
    Public hearing. If anyone contacts us requesting a public hearing 
on or before September 24, 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/paper-and-other-web-coating-national-emission-standards-hazardous-0. 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-2018-0416, 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-2018-0416 in the subject line of the message.
     Fax: (202) 566-9744. Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2018-0416.
     Mail: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Docket 
Center, Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2018-0416, Mail Code 28221T, 1200 
Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20460.
     Hand/Courier Delivery: EPA Docket Center, WJC West 
Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20004. 
The Docket Center's hours of operation are 8:30 a.m.-4:30 p.m., Monday-
Friday (except federal holidays).
    Instructions: All submissions received must include the 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 Dr. Kelley Spence, Sector Policies and Programs 
Division (Mail Code E143-03), Office of Air Quality Planning and 
Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle 
Park, North Carolina 27711; telephone number: (919) 541-3158; fax 
number: (919) 541-0516; and email address: [email protected]. For 
specific information regarding the risk modeling methodology, contact 
Mr. James Hirtz, Health and Environmental Impacts Division (C539-02), 
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711; 
telephone number: (919) 541-0881; 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 (Mail Code 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 2221A), 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-2018-0416. 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-
2018-0416. 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 49383]]

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-2018-0416.
    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
ANSI American National Standards Institute
ASME American Society of Mechanical Engineers
ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials
CAA Clean Air Act
CalEPA California EPA
CBI Confidential Business Information
CDX Central Data Exchange
CEDRI Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
DGME diethylene glycol monoethyl ether
ECHO Enforcement and Compliance History Online
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
ERPG emergency response planning guideline
ERT Electronic Reporting Tool
GACT generally available control technology
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
IBR incorporation by reference
ICR Information Collection Request
IRIS Integrated Risk Information System
km kilometer
MACT maximum achievable control technology
MIR maximum individual 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
NRDC Natural Resources Defense Council
NSPS new source performance standards
NTTAA National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
OAQPS Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
OMB Office of Management and Budget
PB-HAP hazardous air pollutants known to be persistent and 
bioaccumulative in the environment
PDF portable document format
POM polycyclic organic matter
POWC paper and other web coating
ppm parts per million
ppmv parts per million by volume
PRA Paperwork Reduction Act
QA quality assurance
RBLC Reasonably Available Control Technology/Best Available Control 
Technology/Lowest Achievable Emission Rate Clearinghouse
REL reference exposure level
RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act
RfC reference concentration
RTR residual risk and technology review
SAB Science Advisory Board
SSM startup, shutdown, and malfunction
TCE trichloroethylene
TOSHI target organ-specific hazard index
tpy tons per year
TRI Toxics Release Inventory
TRIM.FaTE Total Risk Integrated Methodology.Fate, Transport, and 
Ecological Exposure model
UF uncertainty factor
UMRA Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
URE unit risk estimate
U.S.C. United States Code
USGS U.S. Geological Survey
VCS voluntary consensus standards
VOC volatile organic compound(s)

    Organization of this document. The information in this preamble is 
organized as follows:

I. General Information
    A. Does this action apply to me?
    B. Where can I get a copy of this document and other related 
information?
II. Background
    A. What is the statutory authority for this action?
    B. What 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
    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?

[[Page 49384]]

    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 category that is 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. This proposed action will not 
affect federal, state, local, and tribal government entities. 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 POWC 
source category is any facility engaged in the coating of paper, 
plastic film, metallic foil, and other web surfaces. The category may 
include, but is not limited to, decorative coatings on gift wraps or 
packaging. The source category does not include printing operations 
covered under the Printing and Publishing NESHAP (40 CFR part 63, 
subpart KK).

    Table 1--NESHAP and Industrial Source Categories Affected By This
                             Proposed Action
------------------------------------------------------------------------
         Source category                NESHAP          NAICS code \1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paper and Other Web Coating.....  Paper and Other     322220, 322121,
                                   Web Coating.        326113, 326112,
                                                       325992, 327993.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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/paper-and-other-web-coating-national-emission-standards-hazardous-0. 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-2018-0416).

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 hazardous air pollutants (HAP) from stationary 
sources. Generally, the first stage involves establishing technology-
based standards and the second stage involves evaluating those 
standards that are based on maximum achievable control technology 
(MACT) to determine whether additional standards are needed to address 
any remaining risk associated with HAP emissions. This second stage is 
commonly referred to as the ``residual risk review.'' In addition to 
the residual risk review, the CAA also requires the EPA to review 
standards set under CAA section 112 every 8 years to determine if there 
are ``developments in practices, processes, or control technologies'' 
that may be appropriate to incorporate into the standards. This review 
is commonly referred to as the ``technology review.'' When the two 
reviews are combined into a single rulemaking, it is commonly referred 
to as the ``risk and technology review.'' The discussion that follows 
identifies the most relevant statutory sections and briefly explains 
the contours of the methodology used to implement these statutory 
requirements. A more comprehensive discussion appears in the document 
titled CAA Section 112 Risk and Technology Reviews: Statutory Authority 
and Methodology, in the 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 
requirements for major source standards and area source standards. 
``Major sources'' are those that emit or have the potential to emit 10 
tons per year (tpy) or more of a single HAP or 25 tpy or more of any 
combination of HAP. All other sources are ``area sources.'' For major 
sources, CAA section 112(d)(2) provides that the technology-based 
NESHAP must reflect the maximum degree of emission reductions of HAP 
achievable (after considering cost, energy requirements, and non-air 
quality health and environmental impacts). These standards are commonly 
referred to as MACT standards. CAA section 112(d)(3) also establishes a 
minimum control level for MACT standards, known as the MACT ``floor.'' 
The EPA must also consider control options that are more stringent than 
the floor. Standards more stringent than the floor are commonly 
referred to as beyond-the-floor standards. In certain instances, as 
provided in CAA section 112(h), the EPA may set work practice

[[Page 49385]]

standards where it is not feasible to prescribe or enforce a numerical 
emission standard. For area sources, CAA section 112(d)(5) gives the 
EPA discretion to set standards based on generally available control 
technologies or management practices (GACT standards) in lieu of MACT 
standards.
    The second stage in standard-setting focuses on identifying and 
addressing any remaining (i.e., ``residual'') risk according to CAA 
section 112(f). For source categories subject to MACT standards, 
section 112(f)(2) of the CAA requires the EPA to determine whether 
promulgation of additional standards is needed to provide an ample 
margin of safety to protect public health or to prevent an adverse 
environmental effect. Section 112(d)(5) of the CAA provides that this 
residual risk review is not required for categories of area sources 
subject to GACT standards. Section 112(f)(2)(B) of the CAA further 
expressly preserves the EPA's use of the two-step approach for 
developing standards to address any residual risk and the Agency's 
interpretation of ``ample margin of safety'' developed in the National 
Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Benzene Emissions 
from Maleic Anhydride Plants, Ethylbenzene/Styrene Plants, Benzene 
Storage Vessels, Benzene Equipment Leaks, and Coke By-Product Recovery 
Plants (Benzene NESHAP) (54 FR 38044, September 14, 1989). The EPA 
notified Congress in the Risk Report that the Agency intended to use 
the Benzene NESHAP approach in making CAA section 112(f) residual risk 
determinations (EPA-453/R-99-001, p. ES-11). The EPA subsequently 
adopted this approach in its residual risk determinations and the 
United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit 
(the Court) upheld the EPA's interpretation that CAA section 112(f)(2) 
incorporates the approach established in the Benzene NESHAP. See 
Natural Resources Defense Council (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. NRDC v. EPA, 529 
F.3d 1077, 1084 (D.C. Cir. 2008). Association of Battery Recyclers, 
Inc. v. EPA, 716 F.3d 667 (D.C. Cir. 2013). The EPA may consider cost 
in deciding whether to revise the standards pursuant to CAA section 
112(d)(6).

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

    The POWC source category includes new and existing facilities that 
coat paper and other web substrates that are major sources of HAP 
emissions. For purposes of the regulation, a web is defined as a 
continuous substrate that is capable of being rolled at any point 
during the coating process. Further, a web coating line is any number 
of work stations, of which one or more applies a continuous layer of 
coating material along the entire width of a continuous web substrate 
or any portion of the width of the web substrate, and any associated 
curing/drying equipment between an unwind (or feed) station and a 
rewind (or cutting) station. Web coating operations covered by other 
MACT standards (i.e., Printing and Publishing, 40 CFR part 63, subpart 
KK; Magnetic Tape, 40 CFR part 63, subpart EE; Metal Coil Coating, 40 
CFR part 63, subpart SSSS; Fabric Coating, 40 CFR part 63, subpart 
OOOO), and research and development lines are excluded. In addition, 
specific process exclusions include lithography, screen printing, 
letterpress, and narrow web flexographic printing.
    All the coating lines at a subject facility are defined as one 
affected source. An existing source means any affected source of which 
the construction or reconstruction commenced on or before September 13, 
2000, and has not since undergone reconstruction. Generally, an 
additional line at an existing facility is considered part of the 
existing affected source. New affected sources are new lines installed 
at new facilities or at a facility with no prior POWC operations. 
Affiliated operations such as coating formulation, mixing, handling, 
and storage of coatings and solvent, and conveyance and treatment of 
wastewater are defined as ``affiliated equipment'' and are part of the 
POWC source category but have no requirements in the existing rule.
    This proposal includes both a residual risk assessment and a 
technology review of the emission sources subject to the POWC NESHAP. 
Facilities subject to the POWC NESHAP must utilize low-solvent 
coatings, add-on controls, or a combination of both to meet the organic 
HAP emission limits described below:
     No more than 5 percent of the organic HAP applied for each 
month (95-percent reduction) at existing affected sources, and no more 
than 2 percent of the organic HAP applied for each month (98-percent 
reduction) at new affected sources;
     No more than 4 percent of the mass of coating materials 
applied for each month at existing affected sources, and no more than 
1.6 percent of the mass of coating materials applied for each month at 
new affected sources;
     No more than 20 percent of the mass of coating solids 
applied for each month at existing affected sources, and no more than 8 
percent of the coating solids applied for each month at new affected 
sources; or
     If an oxidizer is used to control organic HAP emissions, 
the oxidizer must be operated such that an outlet organic HAP 
concentration of no greater than 20 parts per million by volume (ppmv) 
by compound on a dry basis is achieved and the efficiency of the 
capture system is 100 percent.

The NESHAP also includes various operating limits, initial and 
continuous

[[Page 49386]]

compliance requirements, and recordkeeping and reporting requirements 
for the POWC source category. We reviewed these requirements and are 
proposing to update them as part of this action in conjunction with 
conducting the RTR for this source category.

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

    The EPA collected data from several environmental databases that 
included information pertaining to POWC facilities in the United 
States. The primary databases were the EPA's Enforcement and Compliance 
History Online (ECHO) database, Toxics Release Inventory (TRI), and 
National Emissions Inventory (NEI) for 2011 and 2014 (versions 1 and 
2). Title V operating permits were obtained from states that have 
facilities subject to 40 CFR part 63, subpart JJJJ. See the memorandums 
titled Determination of Facilities Subject to 40 CFR part 63, subpart 
JJJJ, Paper and Other Web Coating and Preparation of POWC Risk Inputs 
File, in the docket for this rulemaking for more information on the 
review of these databases (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2018-0416). 
Additionally, the EPA conducted several site visits to better 
understand POWC processes and how the NESHAP is implemented. Trip 
reports drafted from these site visits are available in the docket for 
this rulemaking (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2018-0416). EPA did not use 
its authority under CAA section 114 to request additional information 
from POWC facilities.

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

    In addition to the ECHO, TRI, and NEI databases, the EPA reviewed 
the additional information sources listed below and consulted with 
stakeholders regulated under the POWC NESHAP to determine if there have 
been developments in practices, processes, or control technologies. 
These include:
     Permit limits and selected compliance options from permits 
collected from state agencies;
     Information on air pollution control options in the POWC 
industry from the Reasonably Available Control Technology/Best 
Available Control Technology/Lowest Achievable Emission Rate 
Clearinghouse (RBLC);
     Information on the most effective ways to control 
emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOC) and volatile organic HAP 
from sources in various industries, including the POWC industry;
     Communication with trade groups and associations 
representing industries in the affected NAICS categories and their 
members; and
     Review of on-line information on trade group and 
association sites and sites of relevant publications.

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 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

[[Page 49387]]

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 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 Paper 
and Other Web Coating 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

[[Page 49388]]

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?
    The facilities subject to the POWC NESHAP were identified primarily 
by using the ECHO and TRI databases. Review of title V permits and 
discussions with state agencies and stakeholders helped to refine the 
preliminary list to the final list of 168 facilities subject to the 
regulation. The effort to identify facilities subject to the POWC 
NESHAP is described in detail in the memorandum titled Determination of 
Facilities Subject to 40 CFR part 63, subpart JJJJ, Paper and Other Web 
Coating, in the docket for this rulemaking (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2018-0416). As described in the memorandum, Preparation of POWC Risk 
Inputs File, eight of the identified facilities had source category HAP 
emissions of zero. These facilities are subject to the POWC NESHAP 
because they are major sources of HAP for another source category, even 
though their web coating operations do not utilize any HAP-containing 
coatings. For example, a paper towel core production line might use a 
glue the does not contain any HAP, but the operation is co-located at a 
pulp mill, which is a major source of HAP, therefore, the coating 
operations are subject to the POWC NESHAP. As a result of the eight 
facilities without HAP emissions, a total of 160 facilities were 
included in the source-category risk assessment modeling input file. 
The communications with state agencies and stakeholders regarding 
development of the facility list and the risk input file are documented 
in the memorandum titled Communications Regarding the Development of 
the Subpart JJJJ Facility List and Risk Modeling File, in the docket 
for this rulemaking (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2018-0416).
    Emissions data for facilities subject to the POWC NESHAP were 
gathered primarily from the 2011 and 2014 NEI (versions 1 and 2), 
supplemented by the TRI. The NEI is a database that contains 
information about sources that emit criteria air pollutants, their 
precursors, and HAP. The NEI database includes estimates of actual 
annual air pollutant emissions from point and volume sources; emission 
rate characteristic data such as emission release height, temperature, 
stack diameter, exit gas velocity, and exit gas flow rate; and 
locational latitude/longitude coordinates. We compared the NEI data for 
each facility to title V permits to determine which emission points 
listed in the NEI were subject to the POWC NESHAP. We then performed 
quality assurance (QA) checks and made corrections when data were 
missing from the NEI or appeared to be incorrect. For example, if the 
exit gas flow rate for an emission point was missing, we calculated 
this release characteristic using the stack velocity and cross-
sectional area of the stack. Each correction we made is discussed in 
the memorandum, Preparation of POWC Risk Inputs File, in the docket for 
this rulemaking (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2018-0416). The QA procedures 
and tools used are described in the memorandum titled QA Procedures and 
Criteria Used in Residual Risk Modeling Input File Development, in the 
docket for this rulemaking (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2018-0416).
2. How did we estimate MACT-allowable emissions?
    The available emissions data in the RTR emissions dataset include 
estimates of the mass of HAP emitted during a specified annual time 
period. These ``actual'' emission levels are often lower than the 
emission levels allowed under the requirements of the current MACT 
standards. The emissions allowed under the MACT standards are referred 
to as the ``MACT-allowable'' emissions. We discussed the consideration 
of both MACT-allowable and actual emissions in the final Coke Oven 
Batteries RTR (70 FR 19998-19999, April 15, 2005) and in the proposed 
and final Hazardous Organic NESHAP 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.)
    Initially, we reviewed permits for available allowable HAP 
emissions information, and two facilities were found to have allowable 
HAP emissions limits specified for POWC NESHAP emission sources. For 
these two facilities, MACT-allowable emissions were assumed to be equal 
to the allowable HAP emissions limits contained in the permits. 
Allowable emissions were not available for the remainder of the 
emission units in the POWC dataset. Although some permits listed 
overall plant HAP emission limits, most did not break down allowable 
HAP emissions by process. Therefore, we developed a POWC category 
allowable emissions multiplier to estimate allowable emissions based on 
actual emissions.
    Allowable emissions are emissions that can be emitted from an 
emission unit and still comply with the POWC NESHAP. Because the format 
of the POWC NESHAP emission standards are in a HAP-percent of mass of 
coating applied, it is difficult to determine the allowable HAP 
emissions without production and coating HAP content information for 
each facility. Coatings sales information and industry capacity 
utilization were the only information readily available to estimate 
allowable emissions for this source category. A description of the 
methodology used to estimate allowable emissions follows.
    According to chapter 18 of the American Coatings Association 9th 
Edition Market Analysis (2014-2019), the volume of paper, paperboard, 
film, and foil coating shipments are forecast to increase at an annual 
rate of 2 percent per year. This implies that the demand for paper and 
other web coated products, as well as the capacity utilization at the 
facilities producing the materials, continues to increase. For the 
primary NAICS codes associated with the facilities in the risk input 
file, the capacity utilization rate was obtained from the U.S. Census 
Bureau's Quarterly Survey of Plant Capacity Utilization for 5 years 
(2013-2017). All POWC NAICS codes and years were utilized to determine 
a 5-year average plant capacity utilization rate (71.3 percent). 
Because the sector continues to grow, and additional production 
information is not available, we estimate that the maximum allowable 
emissions will occur at 100-percent production capacity utilization. A 
ratio of the maximum possible capacity utilization (100 percent) to the 
5-year average capacity utilization (71.3 percent) results in an 
allowable multiplier of 1.4. Thus, allowable emissions for the majority 
of emission points in the risk input file were estimated by multiplying 
the actual emissions by 1.4. A more detailed description of the 
estimation of allowable emissions for the POWC source category is 
described in the memorandum, Preparation of POWC

[[Page 49389]]

Risk Inputs File, in the docket for this rulemaking (Docket ID No. EPA-
HQ-OAR-2018-0416).
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, 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 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, 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

[[Page 49390]]

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 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 Paper and Other Web Coating 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 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 emissions 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 
Paper and Other Web Coating 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 one 
hour without experiencing or developing irreversible or other serious 
health effects or symptoms which could impair an individual's ability 
to take protective action.'' Id. at 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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

[[Page 49391]]

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, no short-term emissions data were readily 
available for the majority of the sources subject to the POWC NESHAP. 
The EPA assumed that a facility's peak 1-hour emission rate could 
exceed its annual average hourly emission rate by as much as a factor 
of 10, under worst-case meteorological conditions and the presence of a 
person at the facility boundary. This peak-to-mean emissions ratio was 
used as an acute multiplier for all facilities except one. The permit 
for one facility contained allowable short-term VOC emission rates for 
POWC NESHAP sources. The acute emissions for this facility were 
determined using the allowable short-term VOC emission rate using the 
assumption that the VOC emission rate is equal to the HAP emission 
rate. For more details, see the memorandum, Preparation of the POWC 
Risk Inputs File, in the docket for this rulemaking (Docket ID No. EPA-
HQ-OAR-2018-0416).
    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 ensuring that the locations where the maximum HQ occurred 
were off facility property and where the public could potentially be 
exposed. These refinements are discussed more fully in the Residual 
Risk Assessment for the Paper and Other Web Coating Source Category in 
Support of the 2019 Risk and Technology Review Proposed Rule, which is 
available in the docket for this source category (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2018-0416).
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 POWC source category, we identified PB-HAP emissions of 
arsenic, cadmium compounds, mercury compounds, polycyclic organic 
matter (POM), and lead, 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. The POWC source 
category only required the completion of Tier 1 for the multipathway 
screening assessment. For Tier 1, we determine whether the magnitude of 
the facility-specific emissions of 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 
combined 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 of fish \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

[[Page 49392]]

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 Paper and Other Web Coating 
Source Category in Support of the 2019 Risk and Technology Review 
Proposed Rule, which is available in the docket for this action (Docket 
ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2018-0416).
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 Paper and Other Web Coating Source Category in 
Support of the 2019 Risk and Technology Review Proposed Rule, which is 
available in the docket for this action (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2018-
0416).
b. Environmental Risk Screening Methodology
    For the environmental risk screening assessment, the EPA first 
determined whether any facilities in the POWC source category emitted 
any of the environmental HAP. For the POWC source category, we 
identified emissions of arsenic, cadmium compounds, mercury compounds, 
POM, and lead. 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. The POWC 
source category only required the completion of Tier 1 for the 
multipathway ecological 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

[[Page 49393]]

account for local meteorology and the actual location of lakes in the 
vicinity of facilities that did not pass the Tier 1 screening 
assessment. For soils, we evaluate the average soil concentration for 
all soil parcels within a 7.5-km radius for each facility and PB-HAP. 
For the water, sediment, and fish tissue concentrations, the highest 
value for each facility for each pollutant is used. If emission 
concentrations from a facility do not exceed the Tier 2 screening 
threshold emission rate, the facility ``passes'' the screening 
assessment and typically is not evaluated further. If emissions from a 
facility exceed the Tier 2 screening threshold emission rate, we 
evaluate the facility further in Tier 3.
    As in the multipathway human health risk assessment, in Tier 3 of 
the environmental screening assessment, we examine the suitability of 
the lakes around the facilities to support life and remove those that 
are not suitable (e.g., lakes that have been filled in or are 
industrial ponds), adjust emissions for plume-rise, and conduct hour-
by-hour time-series assessments. If these Tier 3 adjustments to the 
screening threshold emission rates still indicate the potential for an 
adverse environmental effect (i.e., facility emission rate exceeds the 
screening threshold emission rate), we may elect to conduct a more 
refined assessment using more site-specific information. If, after 
additional refinement, the facility emission rate still exceeds the 
screening threshold emission rate, the facility may have the potential 
to cause an adverse environmental effect.
    To evaluate the potential for an adverse environmental effect from 
lead, we compared the average modeled air concentrations (from HEM-3) 
of lead around each facility in the source category to the level of the 
secondary NAAQS for lead. The secondary lead NAAQS is a reasonable 
means of evaluating environmental risk because it is set to provide 
substantial protection against adverse welfare effects which can 
include ``effects on soils, water, crops, vegetation, man-made 
materials, animals, wildlife, weather, visibility and climate, damage 
to and deterioration of property, and hazards to transportation, as 
well as effects on economic values and on personal comfort and well-
being.''
d. Acid Gas Environmental Risk Methodology
    The environmental screening assessment for acid gases evaluates the 
potential phytotoxicity and reduced productivity of plants due to 
chronic exposure to HF and HCl. The environmental risk screening 
methodology for acid gases is a single-tier screening assessment that 
compares modeled ambient air concentrations (from AERMOD) to the 
ecological benchmarks for each acid gas. To identify a potential 
adverse environmental effect (as defined in section 112(a)(7) of the 
CAA) from emissions of HF and HCl, we evaluate the following metrics: 
The size of the modeled area around each facility that exceeds the 
ecological benchmark for each acid gas, in acres and km\2\; the 
percentage of the modeled area around each facility that exceeds the 
ecological benchmark for each acid gas; and the area-weighted average 
screening value around each facility (calculated by dividing the area-
weighted average concentration over the 50-km modeling domain by the 
ecological benchmark for each acid gas). For further information on the 
environmental screening assessment approach, see Appendix 9 of the 
Residual Risk Assessment for the Paper and Other Web Coating Source 
Category in Support of the Risk and Technology Review 2019 Proposed 
Rule, which is available in the docket for this action (Docket ID No. 
EPA-HQ-OAR-2018-0416).
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 Paper and Other Web Coating Source Category in 
Support of the 2019 Risk and Technology Review Proposed Rule, available 
through the docket for this action (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2018-
0416), 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 
Paper and Other Web Coating Source Category in Support of the 2019 Risk 
and Technology Review Proposed Rule, which is available in the docket 
for this action (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2018-0416). 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 QA/
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

[[Page 49394]]

annual totals for certain years, and they do not reflect short-term 
fluctuations during the course of a year or variations from year to 
year. The estimates of peak hourly emission rates for the acute effects 
screening assessment were based on an emission adjustment factor 
applied to the average annual hourly emission rates, which are intended 
to account for emission fluctuations due to normal facility operations.
b. Uncertainties in Dispersion Modeling
    We recognize there is uncertainty in ambient concentration 
estimates associated with any model, including the EPA's recommended 
regulatory dispersion model, AERMOD. In using a model to estimate 
ambient pollutant concentrations, the user chooses certain options to 
apply. For RTR assessments, we select some model options that have the 
potential to overestimate ambient air concentrations (e.g., not 
including plume depletion or pollutant transformation). We select other 
model options that have the potential to underestimate ambient impacts 
(e.g., not including building downwash). Other options that we select 
have the potential to either under- or overestimate ambient levels 
(e.g., meteorology and receptor locations). On balance, considering the 
directional nature of the uncertainties commonly present in ambient 
concentrations estimated by dispersion models, the approach we apply in 
the RTR assessments should yield unbiased estimates of ambient HAP 
concentrations. We also note that the selection of meteorology dataset 
location could have an impact on the risk estimates. As we continue to 
update and expand our library of meteorological station data used in 
our risk assessments, we expect to reduce this variability.
c. Uncertainties in Inhalation Exposure Assessment
    Although every effort is made to identify all of the relevant 
facilities and emission points, as well as to develop accurate 
estimates of the annual emission rates for all relevant HAP, the 
uncertainties in our emission inventory likely dominate the 
uncertainties in the exposure assessment. Some uncertainties in our 
exposure assessment include human mobility, using the centroid of each 
census block, assuming lifetime exposure, and assuming only outdoor 
exposures. For most of these factors, there is neither an under nor 
overestimate when looking at the maximum individual risk or the 
incidence, but the shape of the distribution of risks may be affected. 
With respect to outdoor exposures, actual exposures may not be as high 
if people spend time indoors, especially for very reactive pollutants 
or larger particles. For all factors, we reduce uncertainty when 
possible. For example, with respect to census-block centroids, we 
analyze large blocks using aerial imagery and adjust locations of the 
block centroids to better represent the population in the blocks. We 
also add additional receptor locations where the population of a block 
is not well represented by a single location.
d. Uncertainties in Dose-Response Relationships
    There are uncertainties inherent in the development of the dose-
response values used in our risk assessments for cancer effects from 
chronic exposures and noncancer effects from both chronic and acute 
exposures. Some uncertainties are generally expressed quantitatively, 
and others are generally expressed in qualitative terms. We note, as a 
preface to this discussion, a point on dose-response uncertainty that 
is stated in the EPA's 2005 Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment; 
namely, that ``the primary goal of EPA actions is protection of human 
health; accordingly, as an Agency policy, risk assessment procedures, 
including default options that are used in the absence of scientific 
data to the contrary, should be health protective'' (the EPA's 2005 
Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment, 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

[[Page 49395]]

available, we use that value as a surrogate for the assessment of the 
HAP for which no value is available. To the extent use of surrogates 
indicates appreciable risk, we may identify a need to increase priority 
for an IRIS assessment for that substance. We additionally note that, 
generally speaking, HAP of greatest concern due to environmental 
exposures and hazard are those for which dose-response assessments have 
been performed, reducing the likelihood of understating risk. Further, 
HAP not included in the quantitative assessment are assessed 
qualitatively and considered in the risk characterization that informs 
the risk management decisions, including consideration of HAP 
reductions achieved by various control options.
    For a group of compounds that are unspeciated (e.g., glycol 
ethers), we conservatively use the most protective dose-response value 
of an individual compound in that group to estimate risk. Similarly, 
for an individual compound in a group (e.g., ethylene glycol diethyl 
ether) that does not have a specified dose-response value, we also 
apply the most protective dose-response value from the other compounds 
in the group to estimate risk.
e. Uncertainties in Acute Inhalation Screening Assessments
    In addition to the uncertainties highlighted above, there are 
several factors specific to the acute exposure assessment that the EPA 
conducts as part of the risk review under section 112 of the CAA. The 
accuracy of an acute inhalation exposure assessment depends on the 
simultaneous occurrence of independent factors that may vary greatly, 
such as hourly emissions rates, meteorology, and the presence of 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 actual 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 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 HCl). For 
lead, we use AERMOD to determine ambient air concentrations, which are 
then compared to the secondary NAAQS standard for lead. Two important 
types of uncertainty associated with the use of these models in RTR 
risk assessments and inherent to any assessment that relies on 
environmental modeling are model uncertainty and input uncertainty.\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

[[Page 49396]]

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?

1. Chronic Inhalation Risk Assessment Results
    Table 2 of this preamble provides an overall summary of the 
inhalation risk results. The results of the chronic baseline inhalation 
cancer risk assessment indicate the maximum individual lifetime cancer 
risk (MIR) posed by the POWC source category was estimated to be 6-in-1 
million based on actual emissions and 7-in-1 million based on allowable 
emissions. The risk driver is formaldehyde emissions from web coating 
processes. The total estimated cancer incidence from POWC emission 
sources based on actual emission levels is 0.005 excess cancer cases 
per year, or one case in every 200 years, with emissions from web 
coating operations representing 80 percent of the modeled cancer 
incidence. Emissions of formaldehyde contributed 90 percent to this 
cancer incidence. Based upon actual emissions, 4,300 people were 
exposed to cancer risks greater than or equal to 1-in-1 million 
compared to 9,900 people from allowable emissions.
    The maximum chronic noncancer HI (TOSHI) values for the source 
category, based on actual and allowable emissions, were estimated to be 
less than 1 (0.8 based on allowable emissions). Based on actual and 
allowable emissions, respiratory risks were driven by acrylic acid 
emissions from web coating processes.

                                                  Table 2--POWC Inhalation Risk Assessment Results \1\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Maximum        Estimated       Estimated
                                                            individual     population at   annual cancer      Maximum
             Risk assessment                 Number of      cancer risk   increased risk     incidence        chronic         Maximum screening acute
                                          facilities \2\  (in 1 million)  of cancer >= 1-   (cases per       noncancer           noncancer HQ \5\
                                                                \3\        in-1 million        year)         TOSHI \4\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Baseline Actual Emissions
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source Category.........................             160               6           4,300           0.005             0.6  3 (REL).
Facility-Wide \6\.......................             168             300         161,000            0.03              30
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Baseline Allowable Emissions
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source Category.........................             160               7           9,900           0.007             0.8
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Based on actual and allowable emissions.
\2\ As discussed in section III.C.1 of this preamble, 168 facilities were identified as subject to the POWC NESHAP. Additionally, eight facilities did
  not emit any HAP from their POWC processes, resulting in 160 facilities being modeled for the source-category risk assessment and 168 modeled for the
  facility-wide risk assessment.
\3\ Maximum individual excess lifetime cancer risk due to HAP emissions from the source category except for risks from facility-wide emissions.
\4\ Maximum TOSHI. The target organ with the highest TOSHI for the POWC source category is the respiratory system.
\5\ 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. The risk driver for acute risks were emissions of formaldehyde
  from web coating processes and affiliated operations.
\6\ The facility-wide risk value estimate of 300-in-1 million and the HI equal to 30 was from trichloroethylene (TCE) emissions from a production
  process outside the source category.

2. Screening Level Acute Risk Assessment Results
    Reasonable worst-case acute HQs were calculated for every HAP for 
which there is an acute health benchmark using actual emissions. The 
maximum refined off-site acute noncancer HQ values for the source 
category were equal to 3 from formaldehyde emissions and 3 from 
diethylene glycol monoethyl ether (DGME) emissions based on the acute 
(1-hour) REL for these pollutants. The formaldehyde and DGME maximum HQ 
values were at separate facilities and no facilities have an HQ based 
on AEGL or ERPG greater than 1. No other acute health benchmarks were 
exceeded for this source category. For DGME, no other acute dose 
benchmark was available besides the 1-hour REL. The acute risks for 
these pollutants were from web coating processes with an acute hourly 
multiplier of 10 times the annual average hourly emissions rate.
3. Multipathway Risk Screening Results
    Results of the worst-case Tier 1 screening analysis indicate that 
PB-HAP emissions (based on estimates of actual emissions) from the 
source category did not exceed the screening value of 1 for any 
carcinogenic PB-HAP (arsenic and POM compounds). Emissions of dioxins 
were not reported by any facilities within the source category.
    The Tier 1 screening analysis for the noncarcinogenic PB-HAP 
(cadmium and mercury) was below a screening value of 1. Further 
screening or multipathway analysis was not required for any of the 
reported PB-HAP based upon our Analytical Procedures discussed in 
section III.C.4 of this preamble. Based on this upperbound Tier 1 
screening assessment for carcinogens (arsenic and POM) and non-
carcinogens (cadmium and mercury), the emission rates for all 
facilities and scenarios were below levels of concern.
    In evaluating the potential for multipathway effects from emissions 
of

[[Page 49397]]

lead, we compared modeled annual lead concentrations to the secondary 
NAAQS for lead (0.15 [mu]g/m\3\). The highest annual average lead 
concentration, of 0.001 [mu]g/m\3\, is below the NAAQS for lead, 
indicating a low potential for multipathway impacts of concern due to 
lead.
4. Environmental Risk Screening Results
    We conducted an environmental risk screening assessment for the 
POWC source category for the following pollutants: Arsenic, cadmium, 
lead, mercury (methyl mercury and mercuric chloride) and POM.
    In the Tier 1 screening analysis for PB-HAP (other than lead, which 
was evaluated differently), arsenic, cadmium, mercury (methyl mercury 
and mercuric chloride), and POM emissions had no Tier 1 exceedances for 
any ecological benchmark.
    For lead, we did not estimate any exceedances of the secondary lead 
NAAQS. Based on the results of the environmental risk screening 
analysis, we do not expect an adverse environmental effect as a result 
of HAP emissions from this source category.
5. Facility-Wide Risk Results
    Results of the assessment of facility-wide emissions indicate that 
of the 168 facilities, 42 facilities have a facility-wide MIR cancer 
risk greater than 1-in-1 million. The maximum facility-wide cancer risk 
is 300-in-1 million, driven by TCE emissions from emissions outside the 
source category. The total estimated cancer incidence from the whole 
facility is 0.03 excess cancer cases per year, or one case in every 33 
years. Approximately 161,000 people are estimated to have cancer risks 
greater than or equal to 1-in-1 million with approximately 30 people 
with excess cancer risks greater than or equal to 100-in-1 million. The 
maximum facility-wide chronic noncancer TOSHI is estimated to be equal 
to 30, driven by emissions of TCE from non-category emission sources.
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 POWC source category 
across different demographic groups within the populations living near 
facilities.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ Demographic groups included in the analysis are: White, 
African American, Native American, other races and multiracial, 
Hispanic or Latino, children 17 years of age and under, adults 18 to 
64 years of age, adults 65 years of age and over, adults without a 
high school diploma, people living below the poverty level, people 
living two times the poverty level, and linguistically isolated 
people.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

                                 Table 3--POWC Demographic Risk Analysis Results
                         [POWC: Demographic assessment results--50 km study area radius]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                    Population
                                                                                    with cancer
                                                                                   risk greater     Population
                                                                                   than or equal      with HI
                                                                                     to 1-in-1    greater than 1
                                                                                      million
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                    Nationwide            Source category
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
Total Population................................................     317,746,049           4,331               0
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
                                                                           White and Minority by Percent
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
White...........................................................              62              86               0
Minority........................................................              38              14               0
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
                                                                                Minority by Percent
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
African American................................................              12               8               0
Native American.................................................             0.8             0.2               0
Hispanic or Latino (includes white and nonwhite)................              18               3               0
Other and Multiracial...........................................               7               3               0
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
                                                                                 Income by Percent
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
Below Poverty Level.............................................              14              17               0
Above Poverty Level.............................................              86              83               0
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
                                                                               Education by Percent
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
Over 25 and without a High School Diploma.......................              14              14               0
Over 25 and with a High School Diploma..........................              86              86               0
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
                                                                        Linguistically Isolated by Percent
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
Linguistically Isolated.........................................               6               1               0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 49398]]

    The results of the POWC source category demographic analysis 
indicate that emissions from the source category expose approximately 
4,300 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 the demographic groups, White and people 
below poverty level, are greater than their respective nationwide 
percentages.
    The methodology and the results of the demographic analysis are 
presented in a technical report, Risk and Technology Review--Analysis 
of Demographic Factors for Populations Living Near Paper and Other Web 
Coating Facilities, available in the docket for this action (Docket ID 
No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2018-0416).

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.' '' See 54 FR 38045, September 14, 1989.
    In this proposal, the EPA estimated risks based on actual and 
allowable emissions for 160 facilities in the POWC source category 
(i.e., as discussed in section III.C.1 of this preamble, 168 facilities 
were determined to be subject to the POWC NESHAP, however eight 
facilities did not have POWC source category emissions, therefore, 160 
facilities were modeled for source-category risks) In determining 
whether risks are acceptable, the EPA considered all available health 
information and risk estimation uncertainty, as described above. Table 
2 summarizes the risk assessment results from the POWC source category. 
The risk results for the POWC source category indicate that both the 
actual and allowable inhalation cancer risks to the individual most 
exposed are at least 14 times below the presumptive limit of 
acceptability of 100-in-1 million (i.e., 1-in-10 thousand). The 
residual risk assessment for the POWC source category \22\ estimated 
cancer incidence rate at 0.005 cases per year based on actual 
emissions. Approximately 4,300 people are exposed to a cancer risk 
equal to or above 1-in-1 million from the source category based upon 
actual emissions from 11 facilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ Residual Risk Assessment for the Paper and Other Web 
Coating Source Category in Support of the 2019 Risk and Technology 
Review Proposed Rule, EPA-HQ-OAR-2018-0416.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The maximum chronic noncancer TOSHI due to inhalation exposures is 
less than 1 for actual and allowable emissions. The results of the 
acute screening analysis showed that acute risks were below a level of 
concern for the source category considering the conservative 
assumptions used that err on the side of overestimating acute risk (as 
discussed in section III.C.7.e of this preamble). Multipathway screen 
values were below a level of concern for both carcinogenic and non-
carcinogenic PB-HAP as well as emissions of lead compounds.
    Maximum cancer and noncancer risks due to ingestion exposures using 
health-protective risk screening assumptions are below the presumptive 
limit of acceptability. The maximum estimated excess cancer risk is 
below 1-in-1 million and the maximum noncancer HQ for mercury is less 
than 1 based upon the Tier 1 farmer/fisher exposure scenario.
    Taking into account all of this information, the EPA proposes that 
the risks remaining after implementation of the existing MACT standard 
for the POWC source category are acceptable.
2. Ample Margin of Safety Analysis
    Although the EPA is proposing that the risks from this source 
category are acceptable for both inhalation and multipathway, risk 
estimates for approximately 4,300 people in the exposed population are 
above 1-in-1 million, caused primarily by formaldehyde and acetaldehyde 
emissions from 11 POWC facilities. The maximum acute risk is an HQ of 3 
from two facilities, one based on DGME emissions and the second, 
formaldehyde emissions. As a result, we further considered whether the 
MACT standards applicable to these specific emission points, as well as 
the current MACT standards applicable to this source category, provide 
an ample margin of safety to protect public health.
    As directed by CAA section 112(f)(2), we conducted an analysis to 
determine if the current emissions standards provide an ample margin of 
safety to protect public health. Under the ample margin of safety 
analysis, the EPA considers all health factors evaluated in the risk 
assessment and evaluates 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 
this source category to further reduce the risks (or potential risks) 
due to emissions of HAP identified in our risk assessment. In this 
analysis, we considered the results of the technology review, risk 
assessment, and other aspects of our MACT rule review to determine 
whether there are any cost-effective controls or other measures that 
would reduce emissions further and are needed to provide an ample 
margin of safety to protect public health.
    As discussed in section IV.C of this preamble and in the memorandum 
titled Technology Review Analysis for the Paper and Other Web Coating 
Source Category, in the docket for this rulemaking (Docket ID No. EPA-
HQ-OAR-2018-0416), we did not identify any development in practices, 
processes, or control technologies that could be applied industry-wide 
and would be expected to result in significant HAP emissions 
reductions. Although some facilities are using coatings with HAP 
formulations more stringent than MACT, we only have limited data and 
the data do not indicate where/when such coatings are most applicable. 
In addition, although some existing facilities using capture and 
control are achieving greater than 95-percent control, the available 
data are limited and do not clearly indicate that any one industry 
sector can readily achieve such control levels. Some POWC facilities 
use permanent total enclosures to capture emissions even though they 
are not required to do so, but conversion of an application area with a 
permanent total enclosure is site specific and would be prohibitively 
complicated and expensive in most cases.
    Although some facilities are subject to permit conditions more 
stringent than the MACT requirements, the applicability of these 
coating reformulations and emission controls for the POWC industry as a 
whole is expected to be limited, and the associated potential risk 
reductions would be expected to be small because baseline risks are 
low. Because no cost-effective controls, technologies, processes, or 
work practices were identified that were widely applicable to the 
industry that would significantly reduce HAP emissions and the 
associated risk, and the risk assessment determined that the health 
risks associated with HAP emissions remaining after implementation of 
the POWC MACT were well below levels that we consider acceptable, we 
are proposing that the current standards protect public health with an 
ample margin of safety, and revision of the standards is not required.

[[Page 49399]]

3. Adverse Environmental Effect
    The emissions data for this source category indicate the presence 
of several environmental HAP: Arsenic, cadmium compounds, mercury 
compounds, POM, and lead. Based on the results of our environmental 
risk screening assessment, we conclude that there is not an adverse 
environmental effect as a result of HAP emissions from the POWC source 
category. Thus, we are proposing that it is not necessary to set a more 
stringent standard to prevent an adverse environmental effect. For more 
details on the environmental risk screening assessment, see the 
Residual Risk Assessment for the Paper and Other Web Coating Source 
Category in Support of the 2019 Risk and Technology Review Proposed 
Rule, which is available in the docket for this action (Docket ID No. 
EPA-HQ-OAR-2018-0416).

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

    As described in section III.B of this preamble, our technology 
review focused on identifying developments in practices, processes, and 
control technologies for control of HAP emissions from POWC facilities. 
In conducting the technology review, we reviewed information on 
practices, processes, and control technologies that were not considered 
during the development of the POWC NESHAP, as well as searched for 
information on improvements in practices, processes, and control 
technologies that have occurred since the development of the POWC 
NESHAP. The review included a search of the RBLC database and reviews 
of title V permits for POWC facilities, site visits to facilities with 
POWC operations, and a review of relevant literature. We did not 
identify any developments in practices, processes, or control 
technologies that were widely applicable to the industry that would 
significantly reduce HAP emissions, and, therefore, we are not 
proposing any changes to the NESHAP based on our technology review. For 
more details on the technology review, see the Technology Review 
Analysis for the Paper and Other Web Coating Source Category 
memorandum, in the docket for this rulemaking (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2018-0416).

D. What other actions are we proposing?

    In addition to the proposed actions described above as part of the 
RTR, we are proposing certain revisions to the NESHAP. We are proposing 
revisions to the SSM provisions of the MACT rule in order to ensure 
that they are consistent with the Court decision in Sierra Club v. EPA, 
551 F. 3d 1019 (D.C. Cir. 2008), which vacated two provisions that 
exempted sources from the requirement to comply with otherwise 
applicable CAA section 112(d) emission standards during periods of SSM. 
We also are proposing various other changes, including a compliance 
calculation to account for retained volatile organic content in the 
coated web; periodic emissions testing requirements; electronic 
submittal of initial notifications, notification of compliance status, 
semiannual compliance reports, performance test reports, and 
performance evaluation reports; temperature sensor calibration 
requirements, incorporation by reference (IBR) of several test methods; 
and various technical and editorial changes. Our analyses and proposed 
changes related to these issues are discussed below.
1. SSM
    In its 2008 decision in Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F.3d 1019 (D.C. 
Cir. 2008), the Court vacated portions of two provisions in the EPA's 
CAA section 112 regulations governing the emissions of HAP during 
periods of SSM. Specifically, the Court vacated the SSM exemption 
contained in 40 CFR 63.6(f)(1) and 40 CFR 63.6(h)(1), holding that 
under section 302(k) of the CAA, emissions standards or limitations 
must be continuous in nature and that the SSM exemption violates the 
CAA's requirement that some section 112 standards apply continuously.
    We are proposing the elimination of the SSM exemption in this rule, 
which is established by cross-reference to the General Provisions 
exemption in Table 2 (40 CFR 63.6(f)). Consistent with Sierra Club v. 
EPA, we are proposing that the current standards in the NESHAP apply at 
all times. We are also proposing several revisions to Table 2 (the 
General Provisions Applicability Table) as is explained in more detail 
below. For example, we are proposing to eliminate the incorporation of 
the General Provisions' requirement that the source develop an SSM 
plan. We also are proposing to eliminate and revise certain 
recordkeeping and reporting requirements related to the SSM exemption 
as further described below.
    The EPA has attempted to ensure that the provisions we are 
proposing to eliminate are inappropriate, unnecessary, or redundant in 
the absence of the SSM exemption. We are specifically seeking comment 
on whether we have successfully done so.
    In proposing the standards in this rule, the EPA has taken into 
account startup and shutdown periods and, for the reasons explained 
below, has not proposed alternate emission standards for those periods.
    As discussed in the memorandum titled Startup, Shutdown, and 
Malfunction Review of the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air 
Pollutants for Paper and Other Web Coating, we collected data regarding 
these periods to determine if separate standards for startup and 
shutdown were needed. It was determined that startups and shutdowns 
occur frequently at many of these facilities. It was also noted that 40 
CFR part 60, subpart RR (Standards of Performance for Pressure 
Sensitive Tape and Label Surface Coating Operations (Tape NSPS)), to 
which many POWC facilities are also subject, states that startup and 
shutdown are normal operations and emissions should be included when 
determining compliance. Because these events are considered to be 
normal operations, the EPA is not proposing alternative emission limits 
for these periods. As part of the data collection, it was found that 
thermal oxidizer temperature decreases were likely to happen during 
emission unit startup for a short period of time. To account for these 
swings and promote consistency between the POWC NESHAP and the Tape 
NSPS, we are proposing to add language to recognize that sources can 
demonstrate compliance with the standard as long as the 3-hour average 
firebox temperature does not drop lower than 50-degree Fahrenheit 
([deg]F) below the average combustion temperature established during 
the performance test.
    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 less stringent than the average 
emission limitation ``achieved'' by the best

[[Page 49400]]

performing 12 percent of sources in the category. There is nothing in 
CAA section 112 that directs the Agency to consider malfunctions in 
determining the level ``achieved'' by the best performing sources when 
setting emission standards. As the Court has recognized, the phrase 
``average emissions limitation achieved by the best performing 12 
percent of'' sources ``says nothing about how the performance of the 
best units is to be calculated.'' Nat'l Ass'n of Clean Water Agencies 
v. EPA, 734 F.3d 1115, 1141 (D.C. Cir. 2013). While the EPA accounts 
for variability in setting emissions standards, nothing in CAA section 
112 requires the Agency to consider malfunctions as part of that 
analysis. The EPA is not required to treat a malfunction in the same 
manner as the type of variation in performance that occurs during 
routine operations of a source. A malfunction is a failure of the 
source to perform in a ``normal or usual manner'' and no statutory 
language compels the EPA to consider such events in setting CAA section 
112 standards.
    As the Court recognized in U.S. Sugar Corp, accounting for 
malfunctions in setting standards would be difficult, if not 
impossible, given the myriad different types of malfunctions that can 
occur across all sources in the category and given the difficulties 
associated with predicting or accounting for the frequency, degree, and 
duration of various malfunctions that might occur. Id. at 608 (``the 
EPA would have to conceive of a standard that could apply equally to 
the wide range of possible boiler malfunctions, ranging from an 
explosion to minor mechanical defects. Any possible standard is likely 
to be hopelessly generic to govern such a wide array of 
circumstances.'') As such, the performance of units that are 
malfunctioning is not ``reasonably'' foreseeable. See, e.g., Sierra 
Club v. EPA, 167 F.3d 658, 662 (D.C. Cir. 1999) (``The EPA typically 
has wide latitude in determining the extent of data-gathering necessary 
to solve a problem. We generally defer to an agency's decision to 
proceed on the basis of imperfect scientific information, rather than 
to `invest the resources to conduct the perfect study.' ''). See also, 
Weyerhaeuser v. Costle, 590 F.2d 1011, 1058 (D.C. Cir. 1978) (``In the 
nature of things, no general limit, individual permit, or even any 
upset provision can anticipate all upset situations. After a certain 
point, the transgression of regulatory limits caused by `uncontrollable 
acts of third parties,' such as strikes, sabotage, operator 
intoxication or insanity, and a variety of other eventualities, must be 
a matter for the administrative exercise of case-by-case enforcement 
discretion, not for specification in advance by regulation.''). In 
addition, emissions during a malfunction event can be significantly 
higher than emissions at any other time of source operation. For 
example, if an air pollution control device with 99-percent removal 
goes off-line as a result of a malfunction (as might happen if, for 
example, the bags in a baghouse catch fire) and the emission unit is a 
steady state type unit that would take days to shut down, the source 
could go from 99-percent control to zero control until the control 
device was repaired. The source's emissions during the malfunction 
could be 100 times higher than during normal operations. As such, the 
emissions over a 4-day malfunction period would exceed the annual 
emissions of the source during normal operations. As this example 
illustrates, accounting for malfunctions could lead to standards that 
are not reflective of (and significantly less stringent than) levels 
that are achieved by a well-performing non-malfunctioning source. It is 
reasonable to interpret CAA section 112 to avoid such a result. The 
EPA's approach to malfunctions is consistent with CAA section 112 and 
is a reasonable interpretation of the statute.
    Although no statutory language compels the EPA to set standards for 
malfunctions, the EPA has the discretion to do so where feasible. For 
example, in the Petroleum Refinery Sector RTR, the EPA established a 
work practice standard for unique types of malfunction that result in 
releases from pressure relief devices or emergency flaring events 
because the EPA had information to determine that such work practices 
reflected the level of control that applies to the best performers. 80 
FR 75178, 75211-14 (December 1, 2015). The EPA will consider whether 
circumstances warrant setting standards for a particular type of 
malfunction and, if so, whether the EPA has sufficient information to 
identify the relevant best performing sources and establish a standard 
for such malfunctions. We also encourage commenters to provide any such 
information.
    The EPA anticipates that it is unlikely that a malfunction of a 
POWC emission unit would result in a violation of the standard. For 
example, some facilities using thermal oxidizers as pollution control 
equipment indicated during the EPA site visits that interlocks would 
shut the process down if an oxidizer malfunction occurred, and 
facilities may also have back-up oxidizers that could be used to treat 
the emissions. The MACT standards are based on a monthly average for 
each web coating line or grouping of lines, therefore, a malfunction on 
a single piece of equipment for a short period of time is unlikely to 
result in an exceedance of the standard.
    The American Coatings Association provided a letter to the EPA on 
April 19, 2018, requesting that the EPA consider provisions covering 
periods of malfunctions at the same time as we conduct the RTR, and 
suggested two options. The first option would require a facility to 
discontinue the coating operation during periods of malfunctions, but 
the facility could continue the oven curing of any coating materials 
already applied onto the web without the control device for the period 
of the malfunction, so long as it continues to meet the emission limits 
for the compliance period. The second option would require a facility 
to initiate repairs immediately during the malfunction and complete 
them as expeditiously as possible, without ceasing operations, until it 
becomes apparent that the repairs will not be completed before 
exceeding the emission limit. Neither of these alternatives would allow 
the facility to exceed the emission limit.\23\ We are requesting 
comment regarding the need to promulgate a special provision covering 
periods of malfunctions of a control device or capture system that is 
used to meet the emission limits for the POWC NESHAP. Specifically, we 
are requesting comment on best practices and the best level of emission 
control during malfunction events, and additionally, potential cost 
savings associated with potential malfunction work practices.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ Letter to the U.S. EPA from David Darling, American 
Coatings Association regarding Start-up, Shut-down and Malfunction; 
American Coatings Association (ACA) Concerns, dated April 19, 2018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the unlikely event that a source owner or operator fails to 
comply with the applicable CAA section 112(d) standards as a result of 
a malfunction event, the EPA would determine an appropriate response 
based on, among other things, the good faith efforts of the source to 
minimize emissions during malfunction periods, including preventative 
and corrective actions, as well as root cause analyses to ascertain and 
rectify excess emissions. The EPA would also consider whether the 
source owner or operator's failure to comply with the CAA section 
112(d) standard was, in fact, sudden, infrequent, not reasonably 
preventable, and was not instead caused, in part, by poor

[[Page 49401]]

maintenance or careless operation. 40 CFR 63.2 (definition of 
malfunction).
    If the EPA determines in a particular case that an enforcement 
action against a source owner or operator for violation of an emission 
standard is warranted, the source owner or operator can raise any and 
all defenses in that enforcement action and the federal district court 
will determine what, if any, relief is appropriate. The same is true 
for citizen enforcement actions. Similarly, the presiding officer in an 
administrative proceeding can consider any defense raised and determine 
whether administrative penalties are appropriate.
    In summary, the EPA interpretation of the CAA and, in particular, 
section 112, is reasonable and encourages practices that will avoid 
malfunctions. Administrative and judicial procedures for addressing 
exceedances of the standards fully recognize that violations may occur 
despite good faith efforts to comply and can accommodate those 
situations. U.S. Sugar Corp. v. EPA, 830 F.3d 579, 606-610 (2016).
a. General Duty
    We are proposing to add an entry to the General Provisions table 
(Table 2) for 40 CFR 63.6(e)(1)(i) and include a ``no'' in the 
applicability column. 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 63.3340(b) that reflects the general duty to minimize 
emissions while eliminating the reference to periods covered by an SSM 
exemption. The current language in 40 CFR 63.6(e)(1)(i) characterizes 
what the general duty entails during periods of SSM. With the 
elimination of the SSM exemption, there is no need to differentiate 
between normal operations, startup and shutdown, and malfunction events 
in describing the general duty. Therefore, the language the EPA is 
proposing for 40 CFR 63.3340(b) does not include that language from 40 
CFR 63.6(e)(1).
    We are also proposing to add an entry to the General Provisions 
table (Table 2) for 40 CFR 63.6(e)(1)(ii) and include a ``no'' in the 
applicability column. Section 63.6(e)(1)(ii) imposes requirements that 
are not necessary with the elimination of the SSM exemption or are 
redundant with the general duty requirement being added at 40 CFR 
63.3340(b).
b. SSM Plan
    We are proposing to add an entry to the General Provisions table 
(Table 2) for 40 CFR 63.6(e)(3) and include a ``no'' in the 
applicability column. Generally, these paragraphs require development 
of an SSM plan and specify SSM recordkeeping and reporting requirements 
related to the SSM plan. As noted, the EPA is proposing to remove the 
SSM exemptions. Therefore, affected units will be subject to an 
emission standard during such events. The applicability of a standard 
during such events will ensure that sources have ample incentive to 
plan for and achieve compliance and, thus, the SSM plan requirements 
are no longer necessary.
c. Compliance With Standards
    We are proposing to add an entry to the General Provisions table 
(Table 2) for 40 CFR 63.6(f)(1) and include a ``no'' in the 
applicability column. The current language of 40 CFR 63.6(f)(1) exempts 
sources from non-opacity standards during periods of SSM. As discussed 
above, the Court in Sierra Club vacated the exemptions contained in 
this provision and held that the CAA requires that some section 112 
standard apply continuously. Consistent with Sierra Club, the EPA is 
proposing to revise standards in this rule to apply at all times.
d. Performance Testing
    We are proposing to add an entry to the General Provisions table 
(Table 2) for 40 CFR 63.7(e)(1) and include a ``no'' in the 
applicability column. Section 63.7(e)(1) describes performance testing 
requirements. The EPA is instead proposing to add a performance testing 
requirement at 40 CFR 63.3360(e)(2). The performance testing 
requirements we are proposing to add differ from the General Provisions 
performance testing provisions in several respects. The regulatory text 
does not include the language in 40 CFR 63.7(e)(1) that restated the 
SSM exemption and language that precluded startup and shutdown periods 
from being considered ``representative'' for purposes of performance 
testing. The proposed performance testing provisions do not allow 
performance testing during startup or shutdown. As in 40 CFR 
63.7(e)(1), performance tests conducted under this subpart should not 
be conducted during malfunctions because conditions during malfunctions 
are often not representative of normal operating conditions. The EPA is 
proposing to add language that requires the owner or operator to record 
the process information that is necessary to document operating 
conditions during the test and include in such record an explanation to 
support that such conditions represent normal operation. Section 
63.7(e) requires that the owner or operator make available to the 
Administrator such records ``as may be necessary to determine the 
condition of the performance test'' available to the Administrator upon 
request but does not specifically require the information to be 
recorded. The regulatory text the EPA is proposing to add to this 
provision builds on that requirement and makes explicit the requirement 
to record the information.
e. Monitoring
    We are proposing to re-designate the entry to the General 
Provisions table (Table 2) for 40 CFR 63.8(c)(1)-(3) to be 40 CFR 
63.8(c)(2)-(3) and remove the text in the explanation column. We are 
proposing to add an entry to the General Provisions table (Table 2) for 
40 CFR 63.8(c)(1) and 63.8(c)(1)(i) and (iii), and include a ``no'' in 
the applicability column. The cross-references to the general duty and 
SSM plan requirements in those subparagraphs are not necessary in light 
of other requirements of 40 CFR 63.8 that require good air pollution 
control practices (40 CFR 63.8(c)(1)) and that set out the requirements 
of a quality control program for monitoring equipment (40 CFR 63.8(d)). 
We are also proposing to add an entry to the General Provisions table 
(Table 2) for 40 CFR 63.8(c)(1)(ii) and include a ``yes'' in the 
applicability column and to clarify in the explanation column that 40 
CFR 63.8(c)(1)(ii) only applies if a capture and control system is in 
use.
    We are proposing to add an entry to the General Provisions table 
(Table 2) for 40 CFR 63.8(d)(3) and include a ``no'' in the 
applicability column. The final sentence in 40 CFR 63.8(d)(3) refers to 
the General Provisions' SSM plan requirement which is no longer 
applicable. The EPA is proposing to add to the rule at 40 CFR 
63.3350(e)(5) 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. Recordkeeping
    We are proposing to add an entry to the General Provisions table 
(Table 2) for 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(i) and include a ``no'' in the 
applicability column. Section 63.10(b)(2)(i) describes the 
recordkeeping requirements during startup and shutdown. These recording 
provisions are no longer necessary because the EPA is proposing that 
recordkeeping and reporting applicable to normal operations will apply 
to

[[Page 49402]]

startup and shutdown. In the absence of special provisions applicable 
to startup and shutdown, such as a startup and shutdown plan, there is 
no reason to retain additional recordkeeping for startup and shutdown 
periods.
    We are proposing to add an entry to the General Provisions table 
(Table 2) for 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(ii) and enter a ``no'' in the 
applicability column. Section 63.10(b)(2)(ii) describes the 
recordkeeping requirements during a malfunction. The EPA is proposing 
to add such requirements to 40 CFR 63.3410(c)(2) and (3). 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. The EPA is proposing that this requirement apply to any 
failure to meet an applicable standard and is requiring that the source 
record the date, time, and duration of the failure rather than the 
``occurrence.'' The EPA is also proposing to add to 40 CFR 
63.3410(c)(2) and (3) a requirement that source owners or operators 
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 
owner or operator failed to meet the standard, and a description of the 
method used to determine the emissions. Examples of such methods would 
include product-loss calculations, mass balance calculations, 
measurements when available, or engineering judgment based on known 
process parameters. The EPA is proposing to require that sources keep 
records of this information to ensure that there is adequate 
information to allow the EPA to determine the severity of any failure 
to meet a standard, and to provide data that may document how the 
source met the general duty to minimize emissions when the source has 
failed to meet an applicable standard.
    We are proposing to add an entry to the General Provisions table 
(Table 2) for 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(iv) and enter a ``no'' in the 
applicability column. When applicable, the provision requires sources 
to record actions taken during SSM events when actions were 
inconsistent with their SSM plan. The requirement is no longer 
appropriate because SSM plans will no longer be required. The 
requirement previously applicable under 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(iv)(B) to 
record actions to minimize emissions and record corrective actions is 
now applicable by reference to 40 CFR 63.3340.
    We are proposing to add an entry to the General Provisions table 
(Table 2) for 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(v) and enter a ``no'' in the 
applicability column. When applicable, the provision requires sources 
to record actions taken during SSM events to show that actions taken 
were consistent with their SSM plan. The requirement is no longer 
appropriate because SSM plans will no longer be required.
    We are proposing to add an entry to the General Provisions table 
(Table 2) for 40 CFR 63.10(c)(15) and enter a ``no'' in the 
applicability column. 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 requirements of the SSM plan, specified in 40 
CFR 63.6(e), to also satisfy the requirements of 40 CFR 63.10(c)(10) 
through (12). The EPA is proposing to eliminate this requirement 
because SSM plans would no longer be required, and, therefore, 40 CFR 
63.10(c)(15) no longer serves any useful purpose for affected units.
g. Reporting
    We are proposing to add an entry to the General Provisions table 
(Table 2) for 40 CFR 63.10(d)(5)(i) and enter a ``no'' in the 
applicability column. Section 63.10(d)(5)(i) describes the reporting 
requirements for startups, shutdowns, and malfunctions. To replace the 
General Provisions reporting requirement, the EPA is proposing to add 
reporting requirements to 40 CFR 63.3400. The replacement language 
differs from the General Provisions requirement in that it eliminates 
periodic SSM reports as a stand-alone report. We are proposing language 
that requires sources that fail to meet an applicable standard at any 
time to report the information concerning such events in the semiannual 
compliance report already required under this rule. We are proposing 
that the report must contain the number, date, time, duration, and the 
cause of such events (including unknown cause, if applicable), a list 
of the affected source or equipment, an estimate of the quantity of 
each regulated pollutant emitted over any emission limit, and a 
description of the method used to determine the emissions.
    Examples of such methods would include product-loss calculations, 
mass balance calculations, measurements when available, or engineering 
judgment based on known process parameters. The EPA is proposing this 
requirement to ensure that there is adequate information to determine 
compliance, to allow the EPA to determine the severity of the failure 
to meet an applicable standard, and to provide data that may document 
how the source owner or operator met the general duty to minimize 
emissions during a failure to meet an applicable standard.
    We will no longer require owners or operators to determine whether 
actions taken to correct a malfunction are consistent with an SSM plan, 
because plans would no longer be required. The proposed amendments, 
therefore, eliminate the cross-reference to 40 CFR 63.10(d)(5)(i) that 
contains the description of the previously required SSM report format 
and submittal schedule from this section. These specifications are no 
longer necessary because the events will be reported in otherwise 
required reports with similar format and submittal requirements.
    We are proposing to add an entry to the General Provisions table 
(Table 2) for 40 CFR 63.10(d)(5)(ii) and enter a ``no'' in the 
applicability column. Section 63.10(d)(5)(ii) describes an immediate 
report for startups, shutdowns, and malfunctions when a source failed 
to meet an applicable standard but did not follow the SSM plan. We will 
no longer require owners and operators to report when actions taken 
during a startup, shutdown, or malfunction were not consistent with an 
SSM plan, because plans would no longer be required.
2. Method for Determining Volatile Matter Retained in the Coated Web
    The EPA finalized an alternative compliance option as part of the 
Surface Coating of Wood Building Products RTR on March 4, 2019 (84 FR 
7682), which would allow facilities to account for HAP retained in the 
product as a result of utilizing reactive coatings. Discussions between 
the EPA and industry trade associations elucidated the need for a 
similar compliance alternative in the POWC NESHAP. Particularly, the 
current NESHAP allows for the accounting of retained HAP in 40 CFR 
63.3360(g), but the requirement to ``develop a testing protocol to 
determine the mass of volatile matter retained . . . and submit this 
protocol to the Administrator for approval'' was found to be vague and 
unworkable. To provide clarity and reduce regulatory burden, the EPA is 
proposing the utilization of an emission factor to account for volatile 
organic matter retained in the coated web. As discussed below, we are 
proposing to include new language in this

[[Page 49403]]

rulemaking to allow facilities to account for retained volatile 
organics in their compliance demonstration calculations without 
requiring the submittal of an alternative monitoring request to the EPA 
under the provisions of 40 CFR 63.8(f). The proposed amendment adds 
compliance flexibility and reduces regulatory burden but does not alter 
the emission standard. This approach quantifies emissions in a way that 
is representative of the actual emissions from the coating operations.
    We are proposing language in 40 CFR 63.3360(g) that allows a 
facility to develop a site- and product-specific emission factor for 
use to calculate the amount of volatile organics retained in its coated 
web. This site- and product-specific emission factor is determined by 
performing an EPA Method 25A test and calculating the ratio of the mass 
of volatile organics emitted to the mass of volatile organics in the 
coating materials evaluated over a three-run test average. This site- 
and product-specific emission factor can be used for the production of 
similar products to the product tested during the performance test. A 
separate performance test must be performed for each different group of 
products for which a source owner or operator intends to account for 
the retained volatiles in the compliance demonstration calculations. 
The site- and product-specific emission factor is then used in Equation 
4 to determine the amount retained for each group of products. The 
amount of volatile organics retained in the web can then be subtracted 
from the emissions calculated in the appropriate equations in 40 CFR 
63.3370.
    Facilities using the proposed equations in 40 CFR 63.3360(g) to 
account for volatiles retained in the coated web would be required to 
conduct an initial performance test to develop a site- and product-
specific emission factor to demonstrate compliance. It is not clear how 
many POWC facilities may elect to use this approach and, therefore, be 
required to perform this initial air emissions performance test; 
therefore, we have not assessed a cost for this test. Additionally, 
facilities choosing to use this approach will also have associated 
recordkeeping and reporting requirements in 40 CFR 63.3410 and 40 CFR 
63.3400, respectively. We have not assessed a cost for the additional 
recordkeeping and reporting requirements because it is unclear how many 
POWC facilities will elect to use this approach.
3. Periodic Emissions Testing
    As part of an ongoing effort to improve compliance with various 
federal air emission regulations, the EPA reviewed the compliance 
demonstration requirements in the POWC NESHAP. Currently, if a source 
owner or operator chooses to comply with the standards using a non-
recovery add-on control device, such as a thermal oxidizer, the results 
of an initial performance test are used to demonstrate compliance; 
however, the current rule does not require periodic performance testing 
for these emission capture systems and add-on controls. We are 
proposing a periodic emissions testing provision for sources using non-
recovery add-on controls in 40 CFR 63.3360(a)(2), in addition to the 
one-time initial emissions and capture efficiency testing and ongoing 
parametric monitoring to ensure ongoing compliance with the standards.
    Although ongoing monitoring of operating parameters is required by 
the POWC NESHAP, as the control device ages over time, the destruction 
efficiency of the control device can be compromised due to various 
factors. These factors are discussed in more detail in the memorandum 
titled Periodic Testing of Control Devices Used to Comply with the 
Paper and Other Web Coating NESHAP, in the docket for this rulemaking 
(Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2018-0416). Based on the need for vigilance 
in maintaining the control device equipment, we are proposing periodic 
testing of non-recovery add-on control devices once every 5 years.
    Currently, there are an estimated 123 oxidizers at 81 facilities 
that are used to demonstrate compliance with the POWC NESHAP. 
Currently, 58 of those oxidizers are tested on at least a 5-year 
frequency due to state requirements to check destruction efficiency and 
re-establish operating parameters; therefore, 65 oxidizers are not 
currently tested on a regular basis. The repeat performance testing 
provision which the Agency is proposing would impact these 65 oxidizers 
if the provisions were finalized, with an estimated cost of $28,000 for 
each repeat performance test. The inclusion of a periodic repeat 
testing requirement would help demonstrate that emissions control 
equipment is continuing to operate as designed and that the facility 
remains in compliance with the standard. We specifically request 
comment on the proposed repeat testing requirements.
4. Electronic Reporting
    Through this proposal, the EPA is proposing that owners and 
operators of POWC facilities submit electronic copies of required 
performance test reports (40 CFR 63.3400(f)), performance evaluation 
reports (40 CFR 63.3400(g)), initial notifications (40 CFR 63.3400(b)), 
notification of compliance status (40 CFR 63.3400(e)), and semiannual 
compliance reports (40 CFR 63.3400(c)) 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-2018-0416. This proposed rule 
requirement would replace the current rule requirement to submit the 
notifications and reports to the Administrator at the appropriate 
address listed in 40 CFR 63.13. This proposed rule requirement does not 
affect submittals required by state air agencies as required by 40 CFR 
63.13.
    For the performance test reports required in 40 CFR 63.3400(f), the 
proposed rule requires that performance test results collected using 
test methods that are supported by the EPA's Electronic Reporting Tool 
(ERT) as listed on the ERT website \24\ at the time of the test be 
submitted in the format generated through the use of the ERT and that 
other performance test results be submitted in portable document format 
(PDF) using the attachment module of the ERT. Similarly, performance 
evaluation results of continuous monitoring systems measuring relative 
accuracy test audit pollutants that are supported by the ERT at the 
time of the test must be submitted in the format generated through the 
use of the ERT and other performance evaluation results be submitted in 
PDF using the attachment module of the ERT.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    For semiannual compliance reports required in 40 CFR 63.3400(c), 
the proposed rule requires that owners and operators use the final 
semiannual report template to submit information to CEDRI. The template 
will reside in CEDRI and is to be used on and after 180 days past 
finalization of this proposed action. A draft version of the proposed 
template for these reports is included in the docket for this

[[Page 49404]]

rulemaking.\25\ The EPA specifically requests comment on the format and 
usability of the template (e.g., filling out and uploading a provided 
spreadsheet versus entering the required information into an on-line 
fillable CEDRI web form), as well as the content, layout, and overall 
design of the template. Prior to 180 days after the final semiannual 
compliance report template has been made available in CEDRI, owners and 
operators of affected sources will be required to submit semiannual 
compliance reports as currently required by the rule. When the EPA 
finalizes the semiannual compliance report template, POWC sources will 
be notified about its availability via the CEDRI website. We plan to 
finalize the required reporting format with the final rule. The owner 
or operator would begin submitting reports electronically with the next 
report that is due, once the electronic template has been available for 
at least 180 days.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ See POWC_Electronic_Reporting_Template.xlsx, available at 
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-2018-0416.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For electronic submittal of initial notifications required in 40 
CFR 63.3400(b), no specific form is available at this time, therefore, 
these notifications are required to be submitted in PDF using the 
attachment module of the ERT. If electronic forms are developed for 
these notifications, we will notify source owners and operators about 
their availability via the CEDRI website. For electronic submittal of 
notifications of compliance status reports required in 40 CFR 
63.3400(e), the final semiannual report template discussed above, will 
also contain the information required for the notification of 
compliance status report. This will satisfy the requirement to provide 
the notifications of compliance status information electronically, 
eliminating the need to provide a separate notification of compliance 
status report. As stated above, the final semiannual report template 
will be available after finalizing this proposed action and source 
owners or operators will be required to use the form after 180 days. 
Prior to the availability of the final semiannual compliance report 
template in CEDRI, owners and operators of affected sources will be 
required to submit semiannual compliance reports as currently required 
by the rule. As stated above, we will notify sources about the 
availability of the final semiannual report template via the CEDRI 
website.
    Additionally, the EPA has identified two broad circumstances in 
which electronic reporting extensions may be provided. In both 
circumstances, the decision to accept the claim of needing additional 
time to report is within the discretion of the Administrator, and 
reporting should occur as soon as possible. The EPA is providing these 
potential extensions to protect owners and operators from noncompliance 
in cases where they cannot successfully submit a report by the 
reporting deadline for reasons outside of their control. The situation 
where an extension may be warranted due to outages of the EPA's CDX or 
CEDRI which precludes an owner or operator from accessing the system 
and submitting required reports is addressed in 40 CFR 63.3400(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 63.3400(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 
requirements and by facilitating the ability of delegated state, local, 
tribal, and territorial air agencies and the EPA to assess and 
determine compliance, and will ultimately reduce burden on regulated 
facilities, delegated air agencies, and the EPA. Electronic reporting 
also eliminates paper-based, manual processes, thereby saving time and 
resources, simplifying data entry, eliminating redundancies, minimizing 
data reporting errors, and providing data quickly and accurately to the 
affected facilities, air agencies, the EPA, and the public. Moreover, 
electronic reporting is consistent with the EPA's plan \26\ to 
implement Executive Order 13563 and is in keeping with the EPA's 
Agency-wide policy \27\ developed in response to the White House's 
Digital Government Strategy.\28\ For more information on the benefits 
of electronic reporting, see the memorandum, Electronic Reporting 
Requirements for New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) and National 
Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) Rules, 
available in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2018-0416.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ EPA's Final Plan for Periodic Retrospective Reviews, August 
2011. Available at: https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=EPA-HQ-OA-2011-0156-0154.
    \27\ E-Reporting Policy Statement for EPA Regulations, September 
2013. Available at: https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-03/documents/epa-ereporting-policy-statement-2013-09-30.pdf.
    \28\ Digital Government: Building a 21st Century Platform to 
Better Serve the American People, May 2012. Available at: https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/omb/egov/digital-government/digital-government.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

5. Temperature Sensor Calibration
    Facilities with controlled sources subject to the POWC NESHAP that 
use regenerative thermal or catalytic oxidizers to comply with the 
standard are currently required to establish a minimum operating 
temperature during performance testing and subsequently maintain a 3-
hour block average firebox temperature above the minimum temperature 
established during the performance test to demonstrate ongoing 
compliance. Temperature sensors are used to measure the temperature in 
the firebox. At 40 CFR 63.3350(e)(9), the POWC NESHAP currently 
requires conducting an electronic calibration of the temperature 
monitoring device every 3 months or the temperature sensor must be 
replaced. Facilities subject to the standard have explained to the EPA 
that they are not aware of a temperature sensor manufacturer that 
provides procedures or protocols for conducting electronic calibration 
of temperature sensors. Facilities have reported that because they 
cannot calibrate their temperature sensors, the alternative is to 
replace them and so they have requested that an alternative approach to 
the current requirement in 40 CFR 63.3350(e)(9) be considered.
    The EPA is proposing to modify 40 CFR 63.3350(e) to allow multiple 
alternative approaches to temperature sensor calibration. The first 
alternative would allow use of a National Institute of Standards and 
Technology (NIST) traceable temperature measurement device or simulator 
to confirm the accuracy of any temperature sensor placed into use for 
at least one quarterly period, where the accuracy of the temperature 
measurement must be within 2.5 percent of the temperature measured by 
the NIST traceable device or 5 [deg]F, whichever is greater. The second 
alternative would be to have the temperature sensor manufacturer 
certify

[[Page 49405]]

the electrical properties of the temperature sensor. The third 
alternative would codify the common practice of replacing temperature 
sensors quarterly. The fourth alternative would be to permanently 
install a redundant temperature sensor as close as practicable to the 
process temperature sensor. The redundant sensors must read within 25 
[deg]F of each other for thermal and catalytic oxidizers. The EPA plans 
to maintain the option of allowing facilities to follow calibration 
procedures developed by the temperature sensor manufacturer when 
temperature sensor manufacturers develop calibration procedures for 
their products.
6. Operating Parameter Clarification
    We are proposing to clarify language in 40 CFR 63.3370 which 
currently implies deviations in operating parameters result in non-
compliance with the standard. Specifically, we are proposing a 
clarification that each 3-hour average operating parameter that is 
outside of the operating limit range established during a performance 
test should be assumed to have zero control and all HAP must be assumed 
to be emitted for that period in the monthly compliance calculation. 
Operating parameters were established in the POWC NESHAP to aid in 
determining a source's compliance, but they were not intended to 
constitute a violation of the emission standard. For example, one 3-
hour average regenerative thermal oxidizer firebox temperature below 
the setpoint established in during the stack test would not necessarily 
indicate a violation of the emission standard for the month, but it is 
a deviation of the operating parameter limits.
7. IBR Under 1 CFR Part 51
    The EPA is proposing regulatory text that includes IBR. In 
accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is proposing to 
incorporate by reference the following voluntary consensus standards 
(VCS) into 40 CFR 63.14:
     ASTM D2369-10 (Reapproved 2015)\e\, Standard Test Method 
for Volatile Content of Coatings, IBR approved for 40 CFR 63.3360(c).
     ASTM D2697-03 (Reapproved 2014), Standard Test Method for 
Volume Nonvolatile Matter in Clear or Pigmented Coatings, IBR approved 
for 40 CFR 63.3360(c).
     ASTM 3960-98, Standard Practice for Determining Volatile 
Organic Compound (VOC) Content of Paints and Related Coatings, IBR 
approved for 40 CFR 63.3360(d).
     ASTM D6093-97, (Reapproved 2016), Standard Test Method for 
Percent Volume Nonvolatile Matter in Clear or Pigmented Coatings Using 
a Helium Gas Pycnometer, IBR approved for 40 CFR 63.3360(c).
     ASTM D2111-10 (Reapproved 2015), Standard Test Methods for 
Specific Gravity of Halogenated Organic Solvents and Their Admixtures, 
IBR approved for 40 CFR 63.3360(c).
     ASTM D1963-85 (1996), Standard Test Method for Specific 
Gravity of Drying Oils, Varnishes, Resins, and Related Materials at 25/
25[deg]C, IBR approved for 40 CFR 63.3360(c).
    While ANSI/ASME PTC 19.10-1981 was incorporated by reference when 
40 CFR part 63, subpart JJJJ was originally promulgated (67 FR 72347, 
December 4, 2002), the method has been updated, requiring a revision to 
the regulatory text addressing its IBR. All of the other above-
referenced VCS, except for ASTM D2369-10 (Reapproved 2015)\e\ are being 
incorporated by reference for 40 CFR part 63, subpart JJJJ for the 
first time under this rulemaking.
8. Technical and Editorial Changes
a. Removal of Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA)-
Defined Carcinogens Reference
    We propose to amend 40 CFR 63.3360(c)(1)(i) and (3), which describe 
how to demonstrate initial compliance with the emission limitations 
using the compliant material option, to remove references to OSHA-
defined carcinogens as specified in 29 CFR 1910.1200(d)(4). The 
reference to OSHA-defined carcinogens as specified in 29 CFR 
1910.1200(d)(4) is intended to specify which compounds must be included 
in calculating total organic HAP content of a coating material if they 
are present at 0.1 percent or greater by mass. We are proposing to 
remove this reference because 29 CFR 1910.1200(d)(4) has been amended 
and no longer readily defines which compounds are carcinogens. We are 
proposing to replace these references to OSHA-defined carcinogens and 
29 CFR 1910.1200(d)(4) with a list (in proposed new Table 3 to 40 CFR 
part 63, subpart JJJJ) of those organic HAP that must be included in 
calculating total organic HAP content of a coating material if they are 
present at 0.1 percent or greater by mass. We propose to include 
organic HAP in proposed Table 3 to 40 CFR part 63, subpart JJJJ 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),\29\ 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ See https://www.epa.gov/fera/dose-response-assessment-assessing-health-risks-associated-exposure-hazardous-air-pollutants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. Clarification of Compliance Demonstration Options
    An introductory paragraph and a new subsection are proposed in this 
action to clarify the compliance demonstration requirements in 40 CFR 
63.3370. As promulgated, it is not clear that compliance can be 
demonstrated based on individual web coating lines, groups of web 
coating lines, or all of the web coating lines located at an affected 
facility. An introductory paragraph to 40 CFR 63.3370 is proposed to 
clarify the intent of how compliance can be demonstrated across the web 
coating lines in a facility. Additionally, a new subsection 40 CFR 
63.3370(r) is also being proposed to clarify that compliance with the 
subpart is demonstrated using a mass-balance. While the compliance 
calculations included in 40 CFR 63.3370(b)-(p) are thorough, there are 
instances where variables in the equations are not needed, resulting in 
confusion by the regulated facilities and the regulating agencies as to 
what is required for compliance. The mass-balance summary approach 
proposed in 40 CFR 63.3370(r) clarifies the intent of the rule.
c. Clarification of Coating Materials Definition
    The EPA is proposing to revise the coating material definition in 
40 CFR 63.3310 to clarify that coating materials are liquid or semi-
liquid materials, consistent with 40 CFR part 63, subpart OOOO. 
Additionally, we are proposing to revise the web coating line 
definition to clarify that coating materials are liquid or semi-liquid. 
These revisions will improve regulatory clarity by confirming that the 
weight of solid materials should not be accounted for in the compliance 
demonstration calculations, and that vapor-deposition coating is not 
covered by this subpart.
d. Addition of Web Coating Line Usage Threshold
    The EPA is proposing to add a usage threshold to 40 CFR 63.3300(h), 
consistent with 40 CFR part 63, subpart OOOO, that requires a web 
coating line that coats both paper and another substrate, such as 
fabric, to comply with

[[Page 49406]]

the subpart that corresponds to the predominate activity conducted. We 
are proposing to define predominant activity to be 90 percent of the 
mass of substrate coated during the compliance period. For example, a 
web coating line that coats 90 percent or more of a paper substrate, 
and 10 percent or less of a fabric substrate, would be subject to this 
subpart and not 40 CFR part 63, subpart OOOO.
e. Addition of Printing Activity Exemption
    The EPA is proposing to add a printing activity exemption to 40 CFR 
63.3300(i) which would allow for modified web coating lines already 
subject to this subpart to continue to demonstrate compliance with this 
subpart, in lieu of demonstrating compliance with 40 CFR part 63, 
subpart KK. This proposed exemption will reduce regulatory burden 
without resulting in increased emissions.
f. Clarification of Testing Requirements
    The EPA is proposing to remove the ``by compound'' statement in 40 
CFR 63.3320(b)(4) to clarify that the standard is 20 ppmv for the total 
of organic HAP emitted, not 20 ppmv for each individual HAP emitted. 
This is consistent with the test methods used in this subpart, which 
test for total HAP concentration.
g. Applicability to Sources Using Only Non-HAP Coatings
    As identified during the development of the risk modeling input 
file and discussed in section III.C of this preamble, some facilities 
that utilize only non-HAP coatings are subject to the POWC NESHAP 
because they perform web coating operations and are a major source 
because of non-POWC source category emissions. For example, a non-HAP 
coating line used to produce paper towel cores may be located at a pulp 
and paper facility that is a major source because of emissions from the 
pulping operations. This facility would be required to comply with the 
recordkeeping and reporting requirements of 40 CFR part 63, subpart 
JJJJ, even though the coatings used contain no HAP, and, therefore, no 
HAP were emitted from the web coating lines. The EPA is requesting 
comment on changing the applicability of the subpart to exclude sources 
that only use non-HAP coatings but are located at a major source from 
the POWC NESHAP requirements to reduce regulatory burden.
h. Other
    The following are additional proposed changes that address 
technical and editorial corrections:
     Revised the references to the other NESHAP in 40 CFR 
63.3300 to clarify the appropriate subparts;
     Revised 40 CFR 63.3350(e)(4) to clarify 3-hour averages 
should be block averages, consistent with the requirements in Table 1 
to 40 CFR part 63, subpart JJJJ.
     Revised the monitoring requirements section in 40 CFR 
63.3360 to clarify what constitutes representative conditions;
     Revised the recordkeeping requirements section in 40 CFR 
63.3410 to include the requirement to show continuous compliance after 
effective date of regulation;
     Revised the terminology in the delegation of authority 
section in 40 CFR 63.3420 to match the definitions in 40 CFR 63.90;
     Revised the General Provisions applicability table (Table 
2 to 40 CFR part 63, subpart JJJJ) to provide more detail and to make 
it align with those sections of the General Provisions that have been 
amended or reserved over time; and
     Renumbered the equations throughout the subpart for 
regulatory clarity.
E. What compliance dates are we proposing?
    The EPA is proposing that existing affected sources must comply 
with the amendments in this rulemaking no later than 180 days after the 
effective date of the final rule. The EPA is also proposing that 
affected source owners or operators that commence construction or 
reconstruction after September 19, 2019 must comply with all 
requirements of the subpart, including the amendments being proposed 
except for the electronic reporting of semiannual reports, no later 
than the effective date of the final rule or upon startup, whichever is 
later. All affected existing facilities would have to continue to meet 
the current requirements of 40 CFR part 63, subpart JJJJ until the 
applicable compliance date of the amended rule. The final action is not 
expected to be a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2), so the 
effective date of the final rule will be the promulgation date as 
specified in CAA section 112(d)(10).
    For existing sources, we are proposing two changes that would 
impact ongoing compliance requirements for 40 CFR part 63, subpart 
JJJJ. As discussed elsewhere in this preamble, we are proposing to add 
a requirement that initial notifications, notifications of compliance 
status reports, performance test results, performance evaluation 
results, and semiannual reports be submitted electronically. We are 
also proposing to change the requirements for SSM by removing the 
exemption from the requirements to meet the standard during SSM 
periods, and by removing the requirement to develop and implement an 
SSM plan. Our experience with similar industries that are required to 
convert reporting mechanisms, install necessary hardware, install 
necessary software, become familiar with the process of submitting 
performance test results electronically through the EPA's CEDRI, test 
these new electronic submission capabilities, reliably employ 
electronic reporting, and convert logistics of reporting processes to 
different time-reporting parameters, shows that a time period of a 
minimum of 90 days, and more typically, 180 days, is generally 
necessary to successfully complete these changes. Our experience with 
similar industries further shows that owners or operators of this sort 
of regulated facility generally requires a time period of 180 days to 
read and understand the amended rule requirements; evaluate their 
operations to ensure that they can meet the standards during periods of 
startup and shutdown as defined in the rule, and make any necessary 
adjustments; adjust parameter monitoring and recording systems to 
accommodate revisions; and update their operations to reflect the 
revised requirements. The EPA recognizes the confusion that multiple 
different compliance dates for individual requirements would create and 
the additional burden such an assortment of dates would impose. From 
our assessment of the time frame needed for compliance with the 
entirety of the revised requirements, the EPA considers a period of 180 
days to be the most expeditious compliance period practicable, and, 
thus, is proposing that existing affected sources be in compliance with 
all of this regulation's revised requirements within 180 days of the 
regulation's effective date. We solicit comment on this proposed 
compliance period, and we specifically request submission of 
information from sources in this source category regarding specific 
actions that would need to be undertaken to comply with the proposed 
amended requirements and the time needed to make the adjustments for 
compliance with any of the revised requirements. We note that 
information provided may result in

[[Page 49407]]

changes to the proposed compliance date.

V. Summary of Cost, Environmental, and Economic Impacts

A. What are the affected sources?

    The POWC source category includes any facility that is located at a 
major source and is engaged in the coating of paper, plastic film, 
metallic foil, and other web surfaces. All the coating lines at a 
subject facility are defined as one affected source. An existing source 
means any affected source of which the construction or reconstruction 
was commenced on or before September 13, 2000, and has not undergone 
reconstruction. Generally, an additional line at an existing facility 
is considered part of the existing affected source. New affected 
sources are new lines installed at new facilities or at a facility with 
no prior POWC operations.
    There are currently 168 facilities in the United States that are 
subject to the POWC NESHAP. There is currently one known new affected 
source that is under construction that will be subject to the POWC 
NESHAP. No other facilities are under construction or are planned to be 
constructed which would be considered ``new facilities'' under the POWC 
NESHAP to the EPA's knowledge.

B. What are the air quality impacts?

    At the current level of control, estimated emissions of total HAP 
are approximately 3,870 tpy. Compared to pre-MACT levels, this 
represents a significant reduction of HAP for the category. Prior to 
the development of the POWC NESHAP, the EPA estimated HAP emissions to 
be 42,000 tpy (67 FR 72331).
    The proposed amendments will require all 168 major sources with 
equipment subject to the POWC NESHAP to operate without the SSM 
exemption. Eliminating the SSM exemption will reduce emissions by 
requiring facilities to meet the applicable standard during SSM 
periods, however we are unable to quantify the specific emissions 
reductions associated with eliminating the exemption. The requirement 
for repeat performance testing once every 5 years for oxidizers will 
ensure that the control device is operating correctly and may reduce 
emissions, but no method for accurately estimating such emissions 
reduction is available.
    Indirect or secondary air emissions impacts are impacts that would 
result from the increased electricity usage associated with the 
operation of control devices (i.e., 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 that would be required under this proposed rule. The EPA 
expects no secondary air emissions impacts or energy impacts from this 
rulemaking.
    For further information, see the memorandum titled Cost, 
Environmental, and Energy Impacts of Regulatory Options for the Paper 
and Other Web Coatings Risk and Technology Review, in the docket for 
this action (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2018-0416).

C. What are the cost impacts?

    Startup and shutdown are considered normal operations for most 
facilities subject to the POWC NESHAP. The EPA does not believe 
removing the SSM exemption will result in additional incurred costs.
    As discussed in detail in the memorandum titled Cost, 
Environmental, and Energy Impacts of Regulatory Options for the Paper 
and Other Web Coatings Risk and Technology Review, it was estimated 
that an additional 65 oxidizers will have to perform repeat performance 
testing every 5 years. The estimated cost for an inlet-outlet EPA 
Method 25A performance test (with electronic reporting of results) is 
$28,000 per test, for an estimated nationwide cost of $1,820,000 
(2018$) every 5 years. The proposed electronic reporting requirement is 
not expected to require any additional labor hours to prepare, compared 
to the paper semi-annual compliance reports that are already prepared. 
Therefore, the costs associated with the electronic reporting 
requirement are zero.

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. To 
assess the 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 POWC NESHAP, the 168 affected 
facilities are owned by 91 different parent companies, and the total 
costs associated with the proposed requirements range from less than 
0.000001 to 3 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. Twenty-
nine of the facilities potentially affected by the proposed revisions 
to the POWC NESHAP are small entities. However, the costs associated 
with the proposed requirements for the affected small entities range 
from 0.0003 to 3 percent of annual sales revenues per ultimate owner; 
there is one facility with costs of 1.4 percent and one facility with 
costs of 3 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.

E. What are the benefits?

    Because these proposed amendments are not considered economically 
significant, as defined by Executive Order 12866, and because we did 
not estimate emission reductions associated with the proposal, we did 
not estimate any benefits from reducing emissions.

VI. Request for Comments

    We solicit comments on this proposed action. In addition to general 
comments on this proposed action, we are also interested in additional 
data that may improve the risk assessments and other analyses. We are 
specifically interested in receiving any improvements to the data used 
in the site-specific emissions profiles used for risk assessment 
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/paper-and-other-web-coating-national-emission-standards-hazardous-0. 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

[[Page 49408]]

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-2018-0416 (through the method described in the 
ADDRESSES section of this preamble).
    5. If you are providing comments on a single facility or multiple 
facilities, you need only submit one file for all facilities. The file 
should contain all suggested changes for all sources at that facility 
(or facilities). We request that all data revision comments be 
submitted in the form of updated Microsoft[supreg] Excel files that are 
generated by the Microsoft[supreg] Access file. These files are 
provided on the RTR website at https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/paper-and-other-web-coating-national-emission-standards-hazardous-0.

VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

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

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

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

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

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

C. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

    The information collection activities in this proposed rule have 
been submitted for approval to OMB under the PRA. The Information 
Collection Request (ICR) document that the EPA prepared has been 
assigned EPA ICR number 1951.08, OMB Control No. 2060-0511. You can 
find a copy of the ICR in the docket for this rule, and it is briefly 
summarized here.
    The POWC NESHAP applies to existing facilities and new POWC 
facilities. In general, all NESHAP standards require initial 
notifications, notifications of compliance status, performance tests, 
performance evaluation reports, and periodic reports by the owners/
operators of the affected facilities. They are also required to 
maintain records of the occurrence and duration of any malfunction in 
the operation of an affected facility, or any period during which the 
monitoring system is inoperative. These notifications, reports, and 
records are essential in determining compliance, and are required of 
all affected facilities subject to NESHAP. This information is being 
collected to assure compliance with 40 CFR part 63, subpart JJJJ.
    Respondents/affected entities: POWC facilities.
    Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (40 CFR part 63, 
subpart JJJJ).
    Estimated number of respondents: 170.
    Frequency of response: Initially, occasionally, and semiannually.
    Total estimated burden: 17,600 hours (per year). Burden is defined 
at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).
    Total estimated cost: $2,789,000 (per year), includes $789,000 
annualized capital or operation and maintenance costs.
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required 
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a 
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for the 
EPA's regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9.
    Submit your comments on the Agency's need for this information, the 
accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods 
for minimizing respondent burden to the EPA using the docket identified 
at the beginning of this rule. You may also send your ICR-related 
comments to OMB's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs via 
email to [email 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 21, 2019. The EPA will respond to any ICR-related 
comments in the final rule.

D. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

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

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

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

F. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

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

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

    This action does not have tribal implications as specified in 
Executive Order 13175. It will not have substantial direct effects on 
tribal governments, on the relationship between the federal government 
and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities 
between the federal government and Indian tribes. No tribal governments 
own facilities subject to the NESHAP. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does 
not apply to this action.

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

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

[[Page 49409]]

this action (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2018-0416).

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

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

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

    This action involves technical standards. The EPA proposes to use 
ANSI/ASME PTC 19.10-1981 (2010), ``Flue and Exhaust Gas Analyses,'' for 
its manual methods of measuring the oxygen or carbon dioxide content of 
the exhaust gas. This standard is acceptable as an alternative to EPA 
Method 3B and is available from the American Society of Mechanical 
Engineers (ASME) at https://www.asme.org; by mail at Three Park Avenue, 
New York, NY 10016-5990; or by telephone at (800) 843-2763. While this 
standard was incorporated by reference when 40 CFR part 63, subpart 
JJJJ was originally promulgated (67 FR 72347), EPA is proposing to use 
the updated version.
    The EPA also proposes to use the following six VCS as alternatives 
to EPA Method 24 and is incorporating them by reference for the first 
time in the proposed amendments:
     ASTM D2369-10 (Reapproved 2015)\e\, ``Standard Test Method 
for Volatile Content of Coatings.'' This test method describes a 
procedure used for the determination of the weight percent volatile 
content of solvent-borne and waterborne coatings.
     ASTM D2697-03 (Reapproved 2014), ``Standard Test Method 
for Volume Nonvolatile Matter in Clear or Pigmented Coatings.'' This 
test method is applicable to the determination of the volume of 
nonvolatile matter in coatings.
     ASTM D3960-98, ``Standard Practice for Determining 
Volatile Organic Compound (VOC) Content of Paints and Related 
Coatings.'' This test method is used for the measurement of the VOC 
content of solventborne and waterborne paints and related coatings. 
This method is an acceptable alternative to EPA Method 24 if the 
regulation allows for the use of VOC content as a surrogate for HAP.
     ASTM D6093-97 (Reapproved 2016), ``Standard Test Method 
for Percent Volume Nonvolatile Matter in Clear or Pigmented Coatings 
Using a Helium Gas Pycnometer.'' This test method is used for the 
determination of the percent volume nonvolatile matter in clear and 
pigmented coatings.
     ASTM D2111-10 (Reapproved 2015), ``Standard Test Methods 
for Specific Gravity of Halogenated Organic Solvents and Their 
Admixtures.'' This test method is used for the determination of the 
specific gravity of halogenated organic solvents and solvent 
admixtures.
     ASTM D1963-85 (1996), ``Standard Test Method for Specific 
Gravity of Drying Oils, Varnishes, Resins, and Related Materials at 
25[deg]C.'' This test method is used for the determination of the 
specific gravity of drying oils, varnishes, alkyd resins, fatty acids, 
and related materials. This method is an acceptable alternative to EPA 
Method 24 for density only and may not be valid for all coatings and is 
valid at the designated temperature (25-degrees Celsius). This standard 
was withdrawn in 2004 with no replacement; there is no later version.
    These standards are reasonably available from the American Society 
for Testing and Materials (ASTM), 100 Barr Harbor Drive, Post Office 
Box C700, West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959. See https://www.astm.org/.
    While the EPA has identified another 19 VCS as being potentially 
applicable to this proposed rule, we have decided not to use these VCS 
in this rulemaking. The use of these VCS would not be practical due to 
lack of equivalency, documentation, validation date, and other 
important technical and policy considerations. See the memorandum 
titled Voluntary Consensus Standard Results for National Emission 
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Paper and Other Web Coating, in 
the docket for this proposed rule for the reasons for these 
determinations (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2018-0416).
    Under 40 CFR 63.7(f) and 40 CFR 63.8(f) of subpart A of the General 
Provisions, a source may apply to the EPA for permission to use 
alternative test methods or alternative monitoring requirements in 
place of any required testing methods, performance specifications, or 
procedures in the final rule or any amendments.
    The EPA welcomes comments on this aspect of the proposed rulemaking 
and, specifically, invites the public to identify potentially 
applicable VCS and to explain why such standards should be used in this 
regulation.

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

    The EPA believes that this action does not have disproportionately 
high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority 
populations, low income populations, and/or indigenous peoples, as 
specified in Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). The 
documentation for this decision is contained in section IV.A.6 of this 
preamble and the technical report, Risk and Technology Review--Analysis 
of Demographic Factors for Populations Living Near Paper and Other Web 
Coating Facilities, which is available in the docket for this action 
(Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2018-0416).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, 
Air pollution control, Hazardous substances, Incorporation by 
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements.

    Dated: August 22, 2018.
Andrew R. Wheeler,
Administrator.
    For the reasons set out in the preamble, 40 CFR part 63 is proposed 
to be amended as follows:

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

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

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

Subpart A--[Amended]

0
2. Section 63.14 is amended by:
0
a. in paragraph (e)(1), removing the phrase ``63.3360(e),'' without 
replacement;
0
b. Adding paragraph (e)(2);
0
c. Redesignating paragraphs (h)(50) through (h)(111) as (h)(52) through 
(h)(113);
0
d. Redesignating paragraphs (h)(19) through (h)(49) as (h)(20) through 
(h)(50);
0
e. Adding new paragraph (h)(19) and (51); and
0
f. Revising newly redesignated paragraphs (h)(22), (27), (31), and 
(81).
    The additions and revisions read as follows:


Sec.  63.14  Incorporations by reference.

* * * * *
    (e) * * *
    (2) ANSI/ASME PTC 19.10-1981 Part 10 (2010), Flue and Exhaust Gas 
Analyses, IBR approved for Sec.  63.3360(e).
    (h) * * *
    (19) ASTM D1963-85 (1996), ``Standard Test Method for Specific 
Gravity of Drying Oils, Varnishes,

[[Page 49410]]

Resins, and Related Materials at 25/25[deg]C,'' IBR approved for Sec.  
63.3360(c).
* * * * *
    (22) ASTM D2111-10 (Reapproved 2015), Standard Test Methods for 
Specific Gravity and Density of Halogenated Organic Solvents and Their 
Admixtures, approved June 1, 2015, IBR approved for Sec. Sec.  
63.3360(c), 63.4141(b) and (c) and 63.4741(a).
* * * * *
    (27) ASTM D2369-10 (Reapproved 2015)\e\, Standard Test Method for 
Volatile Content of Coatings, approved June 1, 2015, IBR approved for 
Sec. Sec.  63.3360(c), 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), and 63.4961(j).
* * * * *
    (31) ASTM D2697-03 (Reapproved 2014), Standard Test Method for 
Volume Nonvolatile Matter in Clear or Pigmented Coatings, approved July 
1, 2014, IBR approved for Sec. Sec.  63.3360(c), 63.4141(b), 63.4741(a) 
and (b), and 63.4941(b).
* * * * *
    (51) ASTM 3960-98, Standard Practice for Determining Volatile 
Organic Compound (VOC) Content of Paints and Related Coatings, IBR 
approved for Sec.  63.3360(c).
* * * * *
    (81) ASTM D6093-97 (Reapproved 2016), Standard Test Method for 
Percent Volume Nonvolatile Matter in Clear or Pigmented Coatings Using 
a Helium Gas Pycnometer, Approved December 1, 2016, IBR approved for 
Sec. Sec.  63.3360(c), 63.4141(b), 63.4741(a) and (b), and 63.4941(b).
* * * * *

Subpart JJJJ--[Amended]

0
3. Section 63.3300 is amended by:
0
a. Revising the introductory text;
0
b. Revising paragraphs (a), (b), (d), (e) and (f); and
0
c. Adding paragraphs (h) and (i).
    The revisions and additions read as follows:


Sec.  63.3300   Which of my emission sources are affected by this 
subpart?

    The affected source subject to this subpart is the collection of 
all web coating lines at your facility. This includes web coating lines 
engaged in the coating of metal webs that are used in flexible 
packaging, and web coating lines engaged in the coating of fabric 
substrates for use in pressure sensitive tape and abrasive materials. 
Web coating lines specified in paragraphs (a) through (i) of this 
section are not part of the affected source of this subpart.
    (a) Any web coating line that is stand-alone equipment under 
subpart KK of this part (National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air 
Pollutants (NESHAP) for the Printing and Publishing Industry) which the 
owner or operator includes in the affected source under subpart KK of 
this part.
    (b) Any web coating line that is a product and packaging 
rotogravure or wide-web flexographic press under subpart KK of this 
part (NESHAP for the Printing and Publishing Industry) which is 
included in the affected source under subpart KK of this part.
* * * * *
    (d) Any web coating line subject to subpart EE of this part (NESHAP 
for Magnetic Tape Manufacturing Operations).
    (e) Any web coating line subject to subpart SSSS of this part 
(NESHAP for Surface Coating of Metal Coil).
    (f) Any web coating line subject to subpart OOOO of this part 
(NESHAP for the Printing, Coating, and Dyeing of Fabrics and Other 
Textiles). This includes any web coating line that coats both a paper 
or other web substrate and a fabric or other textile substrate, except 
for a fabric substrate used for pressure sensitive tape and abrasive 
materials.
* * * * *
    (h) Any web coating line that coats both paper or a web, and 
another substrate such as fabric, must comply with the subpart of this 
part that applies to the predominant activity conducted on the affected 
source. Predominant activity for this subpart is 90 percent of the mass 
of substrate coated during the compliance period. For example, a web 
coating line that coats 90 percent or more of a paper substrate, and 10 
percent or less of a fabric or other textile substrate, would be 
subject to this subpart and not 40 CFR 63, subpart OOOO.
    (i) Any web coating line subject to this part that is modified to 
include printing activities, may continue to demonstrate compliance 
with this part, in lieu of demonstrating compliance with subpart KK of 
this part.
0
4. Section 63.3310 is amended by revising the definitions of ``coating 
material(s)'' and ``web coating line''.
    The revisions and additions read as follows:


Sec.  63.3310   What definitions are used in this subpart?

* * * * *
    Coating material(s) means all liquid or semi-liquid materials, 
including inks, varnishes, adhesives, primers, solvents, reducers, and 
other materials applied to a substrate via a web coating line. 
Materials used to form a substrate are not considered coating 
materials.
* * * * *
    Web coating line means any number of work stations, of which one or 
more applies a continuous layer of liquid or semi-liquid coating 
material across the entire width or any portion of the width of a web 
substrate, and any associated curing/drying equipment between an unwind 
or feed station and a rewind or cutting station.
* * * * *
0
5. Section 63.3320 is amended by revising the introductory text of 
paragraph (b) and revising paragraph (b)(4).
    The revisions read as follows:


Sec.  63.3320   What emission standards must I meet?

* * * * *
    (b) You must limit organic HAP emissions to the level specified in 
paragraph (b)(1), (2), (3), or (4) of this section for all periods of 
operation, including startup, shutdown, and malfunction.
* * * * *
    (4) If you use an oxidizer to control organic HAP emissions, 
operate the oxidizer such that an outlet organic HAP concentration of 
no greater than 20 parts per million by volume (ppmv) on a dry basis is 
achieved and the efficiency of the capture system is 100 percent.
* * * * *
0
6. Section 63.3330 is revised to read as follows:


Sec.  63.3330   When must I comply?

    (a) For existing affected sources which commenced construction or 
reconstruction prior to September 13, 2000, and for new affected 
sources which commenced construction or reconstruction after September 
13, 2000, but before September 19, 2019, you must comply as follows:
    (1) Before [DATE 180 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE 
IN THE Federal Register], the affected coating operation(s) must be in 
compliance with the applicable emission limit in Sec.  63.3320 at all 
times, except during periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction 
(SSM). On and after [DATE 180 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL 
RULE IN THE Federal Register] the affected coating operation(s) must be 
in compliance with the applicable emission limit in Sec.  63.3320 at 
all times, including periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction.
    (2) A periodic performance test must be performed by [DATE 3 YEARS

[[Page 49411]]

AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE Federal Register], and subsequent 
tests no later than 60 months thereafter, as required in Sec.  63.3360.
    (3) After [DATE 180 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN 
THE Federal Register], you must electronically submit initial 
notifications, semiannual compliance reports, and performance test 
reports, as required in Sec.  63.3400.
    (b) For new affected sources which commenced construction or 
reconstruction after September 19, 2019, you must comply as indicated 
in (b)(1) through (4) of this section. Existing affected sources which 
have undergone reconstruction as defined in Sec.  63.2 are subject to 
the requirements for new affected sources. The costs associated with 
the purchase and installation of air pollution control equipment are 
not considered in determining whether the existing affected source has 
been reconstructed. Additionally, the costs of retrofitting and 
replacing of equipment that is installed specifically to comply with 
this subpart are not considered reconstruction costs.
    (1) The coating operation(s) must be in compliance with the 
applicable emission limit in Sec.  63.3320 at all times, including 
periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction, immediately upon 
startup.
    (2) You must complete any initial performance test required in 
Sec.  63.3360 within the time limits specified in Sec.  63.7(a)(2), and 
subsequent tests no later than 60 months thereafter.
    (3) You must electronically submit initial notifications and 
performance test reports as required in Sec.  63.3400. After [DATE 180 
DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE Federal Register], 
you must electronically submit semiannual compliance reports as 
required in Sec.  63.3400.
0
7. Section 63.3340 is revised to read as follows:


Sec.  63.3340   What general requirements must I meet to comply with 
the standards?

    (a) Before [DATE 181 DAYS AFTER PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE 
Federal Register], for each existing source, and for each new or 
reconstructed source for which construction or reconstruction commenced 
after September 13, 2000, but on or before September 19, 2019, you must 
be in compliance with the emission limits and operating limits in this 
subpart at all times, except during periods of startup, shutdown, and 
malfunction. After [DATE 180 DAYS AFTER PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN 
THE Federal Register], for each such source you must be in compliance 
with the emission limits and operating limits in this subpart at all 
times. For new and reconstructed sources for which construction or 
reconstruction commenced after September 19, 2019, you must be in 
compliance with the emission limits and operating limits in this 
subpart at all times, immediately upon startup.
    (b) For affected sources as of September 19, 2019, before [DATE 181 
DAYS AFTER PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE Federal Register], you must 
always operate and maintain your affected source, including all air 
pollution control and monitoring equipment you use for purposes of 
complying with this subpart, according to the provisions in Sec.  
63.6(e)(1)(i). On and after [DATE 180 DAYS AFTER PUBLICATION OF FINAL 
RULE IN THE Federal Register] for such sources and after September 19, 
2019 for new or reconstructed affected sources, you must always operate 
and maintain your affected source, including associated air pollution 
control equipment and monitoring equipment, in a manner consistent with 
safety and good air pollution control practices for minimizing 
emissions. The general duty to minimize emissions does not require the 
owner or operator to make any further efforts to reduce emissions if 
levels required by the applicable standard have been achieved. 
Determination of whether a source is operating in compliance with 
operation and maintenance requirements will be based on information 
available to the Administrator which may include, but is not limited 
to, monitoring results, review of operation and maintenance procedures, 
review of operation and maintenance records, and inspection of the 
source.
    (c) You must conduct each performance test required by Sec.  
63.3360 according to the requirements in Sec.  63.3360(e)(2) and under 
the conditions in this section unless you obtain a waiver of the 
performance test according to the provisions in Sec.  63.7(h).
    (1) Representative coating operation operating conditions. You must 
conduct the performance test under representative operating conditions 
for the coating operation. Operations during periods of startup, 
shutdown, and nonoperation do not constitute representative conditions. 
You may not conduct performance tests during periods of malfunction. 
You must record the process information that is necessary to document 
operating conditions during the test and explain why the conditions 
represent normal operation. Upon request, you shall make available to 
the Administrator such records as may be necessary to determine the 
conditions of performance tests.
    (2) Representative emission capture system and add-on control 
device operating conditions. You must conduct the performance test when 
the emission capture system and add-on control device are operating at 
a representative flow rate, and the add-on control device is operating 
at a representative inlet concentration. Representative conditions 
exclude periods of startup and shutdown. You may not conduct 
performance tests during periods of malfunction. You must record 
information that is necessary to document emission capture system and 
add-on control device operating conditions during the test and explain 
why the conditions represent normal operation.
    (d) Table 2 to this subpart specifies the provisions of subpart A 
of this part that apply if you are subject to subpart JJJJ of this 
part.
0
8. Section 63.3350 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraph (b);
0
b. Revising the introductory text of paragraph (c);
0
c. Revising paragraph (d)(1)(iii);
0
d. Revising the introductory text of paragraph (e) and paragraph 
(e)(2);
0
e. Revising paragraph (e)(4);
0
f. Redesignating paragraphs (e)(5) through (e)(10) as paragraphs (e)(6) 
through (e)(11);
0
g. Adding paragraph (e)(5); and
0
h. Revising the newly designated paragraph (e)(10).
    The revisions and addition read as follows:


Sec.  63.3350   If I use a control device to comply with the emission 
standards, what monitoring must I do?

* * * * *
    (b) Following the date on which the initial or periodic performance 
test of a control device is completed to demonstrate continuing 
compliance with the standards, you must monitor and inspect each 
capture system and each control device used to comply with Sec.  
63.3320. You must install and operate the monitoring equipment as 
specified in paragraphs (c) and (f) of this section.
    (c) Bypass and coating use monitoring. If you own or operate web 
coating lines with intermittently-controlled work stations, you must 
monitor bypasses of the control device and the mass of each coating 
material applied at the work station during any such bypass. If using a 
control device for complying with the requirements of this subpart, you 
must demonstrate that any coating material applied on a never-

[[Page 49412]]

controlled work station or an intermittently-controlled work station 
operated in bypass mode is allowed in your compliance demonstration 
according to Sec.  63.3370(o) and (p). The bypass monitoring must be 
conducted using at least one of the procedures in paragraphs (c)(1) 
through (4) of this section for each work station and associated dryer.
* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (iii) You must have valid data from at least 90 percent of the 
hours when the process is operated. Invalid or missing data should be 
reported as a deviation in the semiannual compliance report.
* * * * *
    (e) Continuous parameter monitoring system (CPMS). If you are using 
a control device to comply with the emission standards in Sec.  
63.3320, you must install, operate, and maintain each CPMS specified in 
paragraphs (e)(10) and (11) and (f) of this section according to the 
requirements in paragraphs (e)(1) through (9) of this section. You must 
install, operate, and maintain each CPMS specified in paragraph (c) of 
this section according to paragraphs (e)(5) through (8) of this 
section.
    (1) * * *
    (2) You must have valid data from at least 90 percent of the hours 
when the process is operated. Invalid or missing data should be 
reported as a deviation in the semiannual compliance report.
* * * * *
    (4) You must determine the block 3-hour average of all recorded 
readings for each operating period. To calculate the average for each 
3-hour averaging period, you must have at least two of three of the 
hourly averages for that period using only average values that are 
based on valid data (i.e., not from out-of-control periods).
    (5) You must develop a quality control program, as required in 
Sec.  63.8(d). The owner or operator shall keep these written 
procedures 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, the owner or operator 
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).
* * * * *
    (10) Oxidizer. If you are using an oxidizer to comply with the 
emission standards, you must comply with paragraphs (e)(10)(i) through 
(vi) of this section.
    (i) Install, maintain, and operate temperature monitoring equipment 
according to the manufacturer's specifications. Calibrate the chart 
recorder or data logger at least quarterly.
    (ii) For an oxidizer other than a catalytic oxidizer, install, 
operate, and maintain a temperature monitoring device equipped with a 
continuous recorder. The device must have an accuracy of 1 
percent of the temperature being monitored in degrees Fahrenheit, or 
1.8 degree Fahrenheit, whichever is greater. The 
temperature sensor must be installed in the combustion chamber at a 
location in the combustion zone.
    (iii) For a catalytic oxidizer, install, operate, and maintain a 
temperature monitoring device equipped with a continuous recorder. The 
device must be capable of monitoring temperature with an accuracy of 
1 percent of the temperature being monitored in degrees 
Fahrenheit or 1.8 degree Fahrenheit, whichever is greater. 
The temperature sensor must be installed in the vent stream at the 
nearest feasible point to the inlet and outlet of the catalyst bed. 
Calculate the temperature rise across the catalyst.
    (iv) Validate the temperature sensor at least quarterly using 
method (iv)(A), (B), (C), (D), or (E):
    (A) Compare measured readings to a National Institute of Standards 
and Technology (NIST) traceable temperature measurement device or 
simulate a typical operating temperature using a NIST traceable 
temperature simulation device. When the temperature measurement device 
method is used, the sensor of the calibrated device must be placed as 
close as practicable to the process sensor, and both devices must be 
subjected to the same environmental conditions. The accuracy of the 
temperature measured must be 2.5% of the temperature measured by the 
NIST traceable device or 5 [deg]F whichever is greater.
    (B) Follow applicable procedures in the manufacturer owner's 
manual.
    (C) Request the temperature sensor manufacturer to certify or re-
certify electromotive force (electrical properties) of the 
thermocouple.
    (D) Replace the temperature sensor with a new certified temperature 
sensor in lieu of validation.
    (E) Permanently install a redundant temperature sensor as close as 
practicable to the process temperature sensor. The sensors must yield a 
reading within 25 [deg]F of each other for thermal oxidizers and 
catalytic oxidizers.
    (v) Conduct calibration and validation checks any time the 
temperature sensor exceeds the manufacturer's specified maximum 
operating temperature range or install a new temperature sensor.
    (vi) At least quarterly, inspect all components for integrity and 
all electrical connections for continuity, oxidation, and galvanic 
corrosion.
* * * * *
0
9. Section 63.3360 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraph (a);
0
b. Revising paragraph (b);
0
c. Revising paragraphs (c)(1)(i),and (2) through (4); and
0
d. Revising paragraphs (d)(1) through (3), (e)(1) and (2), the 
introductory text of paragraph (f), and paragraph (g).
    The revisions read as follows:


Sec.  63.3360  What performance tests must I conduct?

    (a) The performance test methods you must conduct are as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
  If you control organic HAP on any
  individual web coating line or any               You must:
    group of web coating lines by:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) Limiting organic HAP or volatile   Determine the organic HAP or
 matter content of coatings.            volatile matter and coating
                                        solids content of coating
                                        materials according to
                                        procedures in paragraphs (c) and
                                        (d) of this section. If
                                        applicable, determine the mass
                                        of volatile matter retained in
                                        the coated web or otherwise not
                                        emitted to the atmosphere
                                        according to paragraph (g) of
                                        this section.

[[Page 49413]]

 
(2) Using a capture and control        (i) Initially, conduct a
 system.                                performance test for each
                                        capture and control system to
                                        determine: the destruction or
                                        removal efficiency of each
                                        control device other than
                                        solvent recovery according to
                                        paragraph (e) of this section,
                                        and the capture efficiency of
                                        each capture system according to
                                        paragraph (f) of this section.
                                        If applicable, determine the
                                        mass of volatile matter retained
                                        in the coated web or otherwise
                                        not emitted to the atmosphere
                                        according to paragraph (g) of
                                        this section.
                                       (ii) Perform a periodic test once
                                        every 5 years for each non-
                                        recovery control device to
                                        determine the destruction or
                                        removal efficiency according to
                                        paragraph (e) of this section.
                                        If applicable, perform a
                                        periodic test once every 5 years
                                        to determine the mass of
                                        volatile matter retained in the
                                        coated web or otherwise not
                                        emitted to the atmosphere
                                        according to paragraph (g) of
                                        this section.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (b) Control Device. If you are using a control device to comply 
with the emission standards in Sec.  63.3320, you are not required to 
conduct a performance test to demonstrate compliance if one or more of 
the criteria in paragraphs (b)(1) through (3) of this section are met.
    (1) The control device is equipped with continuous emission 
monitoring systems (CEMS) for determining inlet and outlet total 
organic volatile matter concentration and meeting the requirements of 
Performance Specification 6, 8, or 9 in Appendix B to 40 CFR part 60 
and capture efficiency has been determined in accordance with the 
requirements of this subpart such that an overall organic HAP control 
efficiency can be calculated, and the CEMS are used to demonstrate 
continuous compliance in accordance with Sec.  63.3350; or
    (2) You have met the requirements of Sec.  63.7(h) (for waiver of 
performance testing); or
    (3) The control device is a solvent recovery system and you comply 
by means of a monthly liquid-liquid material balance.
    (c) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (i) Include each organic HAP in Table 3 to this subpart determined 
to be present at greater than or equal to 0.1 mass percent and greater 
than or equal to 1.0 mass percent for other organic HAP compounds.
* * * * *
    (2) Method 24. For coatings, determine the volatile organic content 
as mass fraction of nonaqueous volatile matter and use it as a 
substitute for organic HAP using Method 24 of appendix A-7 to 40 CFR 
part 60. The Method 24 determination may be performed by the 
manufacturer of the coating and the results provided to you. One of the 
voluntary consensus standards in paragraphs (c)(2)(i) through (v) of 
this section may be used as an alternative to using Method 24.
    (i) ASTM D1963-85 (1996), (incorporated by reference, see Sec.  
63.14);
    (ii) ASTM D2111-10 (Reapproved 2015), (incorporated by reference, 
see Sec.  63.14);
    (iii) ASTM D2369-10 (Reapproved 2015)\e\, (incorporated by 
reference, see Sec.  63.14);
    (iv) ASTM D2697-03 (2014), (incorporated by reference, see Sec.  
63.14); and
    (v) ASTM D6093-97 (Reapproved 2016), (incorporated by reference, 
see Sec.  63.14).
    (3) Formulation data. You may use formulation data to determine the 
organic HAP mass fraction of a coating material. Formulation data may 
be provided to the owner or operator by the manufacturer of the 
material. In the event of an inconsistency between Method 311 (appendix 
A to 40 CFR part 63) test data and a facility's formulation data, and 
the Method 311 test value is higher, the Method 311 data will govern. 
Formulation data may be used provided that the information represents 
all organic HAP present at a level equal to or greater than 0.1 percent 
for the organic HAP specified in Table 3 to this subpart and equal to 
or greater than 1.0 percent for other organic HAP compounds in any raw 
material used.
    (4) As-applied organic HAP mass fraction. If the as-purchased 
coating material is applied to the web without any solvent or other 
material added, then the as-applied organic HAP mass fraction is equal 
to the as-purchased organic HAP mass fraction. Otherwise, the as-
applied organic HAP mass fraction must be calculated using Equation 4 
of Sec.  63.3370.
    (d) * * *
    (1) Method 24. You may determine the volatile organic and coating 
solids mass fraction of each coating applied using Method 24 (appendix 
A-7 to 40 CFR part 60). The Method 24 determination may be performed by 
the manufacturer of the material and the results provided to you. When 
using volatile organic compound content as a surrogate for HAP, you may 
also use ASTM D3960-98, (incorporated by reference, see Sec.  63.14) as 
an alternative to Method 24. If these values cannot be determined using 
either of these methods, you must submit an alternative technique for 
determining their values for approval by the Administrator.
    (2) Formulation data. You may determine the volatile organic 
content and coating solids content of a coating material based on 
formulation data and may rely on volatile organic content data provided 
by the manufacturer of the material. In the event of any inconsistency 
between the formulation data and the results of Method 24 of appendix 
A-7 to 40 CFR part 60 and the Method 24 results are higher, the results 
of Method 24 will govern.
    (3) As-applied volatile organic content and coating solids content. 
If the as-purchased coating material is applied to the web without any 
solvent or other material added, then the as-applied volatile organic 
content is equal to the as-purchased volatile content and the as-
applied coating solids content is equal to the as-purchased coating 
solids content. Otherwise, the as-applied volatile organic content must 
be calculated using Equation 5 of Sec.  63.3370 and the as-applied 
coating solids content must be calculated using Equation 6 of Sec.  
63.3370.
    (e) * * *
    (1) Initial performance test. An initial performance test to 
establish the destruction or removal efficiency of the control device 
must be conducted such that control device inlet and outlet testing is 
conducted simultaneously, and the data are reduced in accordance with 
the test methods and procedures in paragraphs (e)(1)(i) through (ix) of 
this section. You must conduct three test runs as specified in Sec.  
63.7(e)(3), and each test run must last at least 1 hour.
    (i) Method 1 or 1A of appendix A-1 to 40 CFR part 60 must be used 
for sample and velocity traverses to determine sampling locations.
    (ii) Method 2, 2A, 2C, 2D, or 2F of appendix A-1 to 40 CFR part 60, 
or Method 2G of appendix A-2 to 40 CFR part 60 must be used to 
determine gas volumetric flow rate.

[[Page 49414]]

    (iii) Method 3, 3A, or 3B of appendix A-2 to 40 CFR part 60 must be 
used for gas analysis to determine dry molecular weight. You may also 
use as an alternative to Method 3B the manual method for measuring the 
oxygen, carbon dioxide, and carbon monoxide content of exhaust gas in 
ANSI/ASME PTC 19.10-1981 Part 10 (2010), (incorporated by reference, 
see Sec.  63.14).
    (iv) Method 4 of appendix A-3 to 40 CFR part 60 must be used to 
determine stack gas moisture.
    (v) Methods for determining the gas volumetric flow rate, dry 
molecular weight, and stack gas moisture must be performed, as 
applicable, during each test run.
    (vi) Method 25 or 25A of appendix A-7 to 40 CFR part 60 must be 
used to determine total gaseous non-methane organic matter 
concentration. Use the same test method for both the inlet and outlet 
measurements which must be conducted simultaneously. You must submit 
notice of the intended test method to the Administrator for approval 
along with notification of the performance test required under Sec.  
63.7(b). You must use Method 25A if any of the conditions described in 
paragraphs (e)(1)(vi)(A) through (D) of this section apply to the 
control device.
    (A) The control device is not an oxidizer.
    (B) The control device is an oxidizer but an exhaust gas volatile 
organic matter concentration of 50 ppmv or less is required to comply 
with the emission standards in Sec.  63.3320; or
    (C) The control device is an oxidizer but the volatile organic 
matter concentration at the inlet to the control system and the 
required level of control are such that they result in exhaust gas 
volatile organic matter concentrations of 50 ppmv or less; or
    (D) The control device is an oxidizer but because of the high 
efficiency of the control device the anticipated volatile organic 
matter concentration at the control device exhaust is 50 ppmv or less, 
regardless of inlet concentration.
    (vii) Except as provided in Sec.  63.7(e)(3), each performance test 
must consist of three separate runs with each run conducted for at 
least 1 hour under the conditions that exist when the affected source 
is operating under normal operating conditions. For the purpose of 
determining volatile organic compound concentrations and mass flow 
rates, the average of the results of all the runs will apply.
    (viii) Volatile organic matter mass flow rates must be determined 
for each run specified in paragraph (e)(1)(vii) of this section using 
Equation 1:

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP19SE19.026

Where:

Mf = Total organic volatile matter mass flow rate, 
kilograms (kg)/hour (h).
Qsd = Volumetric flow rate of gases entering or exiting 
the control device, as determined according to paragraph (e)(1)(ii) 
of this section, dry standard cubic meters (dscm)/h.
Cc = Concentration of organic compounds as carbon, ppmv.
12.0 = Molecular weight of carbon.
0.0416 = Conversion factor for molar volume, kg-moles per cubic 
meter (mol/m\3\) (@293 Kelvin (K) and 760 millimeters of mercury 
(mmHg)).

    (ix) For each run, emission control device destruction or removal 
efficiency must be determined using Equation 2:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP19SE19.000

Where:

E = Organic volatile matter control efficiency of the control 
device, percent.
Mfi = Organic volatile matter mass flow rate at the inlet 
to the control device, kg/h.
Mfo = Organic volatile matter mass flow rate at the 
outlet of the control device, kg/h.

    (x) The control device destruction or removal efficiency is 
determined as the average of the efficiencies determined in the test 
runs and calculated in Equation 2.
    (2) Process information. You must record such process information 
as may be necessary to determine the conditions in existence at the 
time of the performance test. Representative conditions exclude periods 
of startup and shutdown. You may not conduct performance tests during 
periods of malfunction. You must record the process information that is 
necessary to document operating conditions during the test and include 
in such record an explanation to support that such conditions represent 
normal operation. Upon request, you shall make available to the 
Administrator such records as may be necessary to determine the 
conditions of performance tests.
* * * * *
    (f) Capture efficiency. If you demonstrate compliance by meeting 
the requirements of Sec.  63.3370(f) through (i), (j)(2), (l), (o)(2) 
or (3), or (q), you must determine capture efficiency using the 
procedures in paragraph (f)(1), (2), or (3) of this section, as 
applicable.
* * * * *
    (g) Volatile matter retained in the coated web or otherwise not 
emitted to the atmosphere. You may choose to take into account the mass 
of volatile matter retained in the coated web after curing or drying or 
otherwise not emitted to the atmosphere when determining compliance 
with the emission standards in Sec.  63.3320. If you choose this 
option, you must develop a site- and product-specific emission factor 
(EF) and determine the amount of volatile matter retained in the web 
using Equation 3. The EF must be developed by conducting a performance 
test using Method 25A of Appendix A-7 to 40 CFR part 60 and be 
determined by obtaining the average of a three-run test. The EF should 
equal the proportion of the mass of volatile organics emitted to the 
mass of volatile organics in the coating materials evaluated. You may 
use the EF in your compliance calculations only for periods that the 
work station(s) was (were) used to make the product, or a similar 
product, corresponding to that produced during the performance test. 
You must develop a separate EF for each group of different products 
that you choose to utilize an EF for calculating emissions by 
conducting a separate performance test for that product.
    (1) Calculate the mass of volatile organics retained in the web for 
the month from each group of similar products using Equation 3:

[[Page 49415]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP19SE19.001

Where:

Mvret = Mass of volatile matter retained in the coated 
web after curing or drying, or otherwise not emitted to the 
atmosphere, kg.
Cvi = Volatile organic content of coating material, i, 
expressed as a mass fraction, kg/kg.
Mi = Mass of as-purchased coating material, i, applied in 
a month, kg.
q = Number of different materials added to the coating material.
Cvij = Volatile organic content of material, j, added to 
as-purchased coating material, i, expressed as a mass fraction, kg/
kg.
Mij = Mass of material, j, added to as-purchased coating 
material, i, in a month, kg.
EFi = Volatile organic matter site- and product-specific 
emission factor (three-run average determined from performance 
testing, evaluated as proportion of mass volatile organics emitted 
to mass of volatile organics in the coatings used during the 
performance test).
* * * * *
0
10. Section 63.3370 is amended by:
0
a. Adding introductory text;
0
b. Revising paragraph (a);
0
c. Revising paragraph (c)(1)(ii);
0
d. Revising paragraphs (c)(2)(i) and (c)(2)(ii);
0
e. Revising paragraphs (c)(3) and (c)(4);
0
f. Revising paragraph (d);
0
g. Redesignating paragraphs (e) through (p) as paragraphs (f) through 
(q);
0
h. Adding new paragraph (e);
0
i. Revising redesignated paragraphs (f) through (m);
0
j. Revising redesignated paragraphs (o) though (q); and
0
k. Adding paragraph (r).
    The additions and revisions read as follows:


Sec.  63.3370   How do I demonstrate compliance with the emission 
standards?

    You must demonstrate compliance each month with the emission 
limitations in Sec.  63.3320(b)(1) through (4). For each monthly 
demonstration, you may apply any combination of the emission 
limitations to each of your web coating lines individually, to each of 
one or more groupings of your lines (including a single grouping 
encompassing all lines of your affected source), or to any combination 
of individual and grouped lines, so long as each web coating line is 
included in the compliance demonstration for the month (i.e., you are 
not required to apply the same emission limitation to each of the 
individual lines or groups of lines). You may change the emission 
limitation that you apply each month to your individual or grouped 
lines, and you may change line groupings for your monthly compliance 
demonstration.
    (a) A summary of how you must demonstrate compliance follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you choose to demonstrate      Then you must
       compliance by:           demonstrate that:    To accomplish this:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) Use of ``as-purchased''   (i) Each coating      Follow the
 compliant coating materials.  material used at an   procedures set out
                               existing affected     in Sec.
                               source does not       63.3370(b).
                               exceed 0.04 kg
                               organic HAP per kg
                               coating material,
                               and each coating
                               material used at a
                               new affected source
                               does not exceed
                               0.016 kg organic
                               HAP per kg coating
                               material as-
                               purchased; or
                              (ii) Each coating     Follow the
                               material used at an   procedures set out
                               existing affected     in Sec.
                               source does not       63.3370(b).
                               exceed 0.2 kg
                               organic HAP per kg
                               coating solids, and
                               each coating
                               material used at a
                               new affected source
                               does not exceed
                               0.08 kg organic HAP
                               per kg coating
                               solids as-purchased.
(2) Use of ``as-applied''     (i) Each coating      Follow the
 compliant coating materials.  material used at an   procedures set out
                               existing affected     in Sec.
                               source does not       63.3370(c)(1). Use
                               exceed 0.04 kg        either Equation 4
                               organic HAP per kg    or 5 of Sec.
                               coating material,     63.3370 to
                               and each coating      determine
                               material used at a    compliance with
                               new affected source   Sec.
                               does not exceed       63.3320(b)(2) in
                               0.016 kg organic      accordance with
                               HAP per kg coating    Sec.
                               material as-          63.3370(c)(5)(i).
                               applied; or
                              (ii) Each coating     Follow the
                               material used at an   procedures set out
                               existing affected     in Sec.
                               source does not       63.3370(c)(2). Use
                               exceed 0.2 kg         Equations 6 and 7
                               organic HAP per kg    of Sec.   63.3370
                               coating solids, and   to determine
                               each coating          compliance with
                               material used at a    Sec.
                               new affected source   63.3320(b)(3) in
                               does not exceed       accordance with
                               0.08 kg organic HAP   Sec.
                               per kg coating        63.3370(c)(5)(i).
                               solids as-applied;
                               or
                              (iii) Monthly         Follow the
                               average of all        procedures set out
                               coating materials     in Sec.
                               used at an existing   63.3370(c)(3). Use
                               affected source       Equation 8 of Sec.
                               does not exceed        63.3370 to
                               0.04 kg organic HAP   determine
                               per kg coating        compliance with
                               material, and         Sec.
                               monthly average of    63.3320(b)(2) in
                               all coating           accordance with
                               materials used at a   Sec.
                               new affected source   63.3370(c)(5)(ii).
                               does not exceed
                               0.016 kg organic
                               HAP per kg coating
                               material as-applied
                               on a monthly
                               average basis; or

[[Page 49416]]

 
                              (iv) Monthly average  Follow the
                               of all coating        procedures set out
                               materials used at     in Sec.
                               an existing           63.3370(c)(4). Use
                               affected source       Equation 9 of Sec.
                               does not exceed 0.2    63.3370 to
                               kg organic HAP per    determine
                               kg coating solids,    compliance with
                               and monthly average   Sec.
                               of all coating        63.3320(b)(3) in
                               materials used at a   accordance with
                               new affected source   Sec.
                               does not exceed       63.3370(c)(5)(ii).
                               0.08 kg organic HAP
                               per kg coating
                               solids as-applied
                               on a monthly
                               average basis.
(3) Tracking total monthly    Total monthly         Follow the
 organic HAP applied.          organic HAP applied   procedures set out
                               does not exceed the   in Sec.
                               calculated limit      63.3370(d). Show
                               based on emission     that total monthly
                               limitations.          HAP applied
                                                     (Equation 10 of
                                                     Sec.   63.3370) is
                                                     less than the
                                                     calculated
                                                     equivalent
                                                     allowable organic
                                                     HAP (Equation 17 or
                                                     18 of Sec.
                                                     63.3370).
(4) Accounting for volatile   A site- and product-  Follow the
 matter retained in the web.   specific emission     procedures set out
                               factor was            in Sec.
                               appropriately         63.3360(g) and Sec.
                               established for the     63.3370(e).
                               group of products
                               for which the site-
                               and product-
                               specific emission
                               factor was used in
                               the compliance
                               calculations.
(5) Use of a capture system   (i) Overall organic   Follow the
 and control device.           HAP control           procedures set out
                               efficiency is equal   in Sec.
                               to 95 percent at an   63.3370(f) to
                               existing affected     determine
                               source and 98         compliance with
                               percent at a new      Sec.
                               affected source on    63.3320(b)(1)
                               a monthly basis; or   according to Sec.
                               oxidizer outlet       63.3370(j) if using
                               organic HAP           a solvent recovery
                               concentration is no   device, or Sec.
                               greater than 20       63.3370(k) if using
                               ppmv by compound      a control device
                               and capture           and CPMS, or Sec.
                               efficiency is 100     63.3370(l) if using
                               percent; or           an oxidizer.
                               operating
                               parameters are
                               continuously
                               monitored; or
                              (ii) Overall organic  Follow the
                               HAP emission rate     procedures set out
                               does not exceed 0.2   in Sec.
                               kg organic HAP per    63.3370(g) to
                               kg coating solids     determine
                               for an existing       compliance with
                               affected source or    Sec.
                               0.08 kg organic HAP   63.3320(b)(3)
                               per kg coating        according to Sec.
                               solids for a new      63.3370(j) if using
                               affected source on    a solvent recovery
                               a monthly average     device, or Sec.
                               as-applied basis;     63.3370(l) if using
                                                     an oxidizer.
                              (iii) Overall         Follow the
                               organic HAP           procedures set out
                               emission rate does    in Sec.
                               not exceed 0.04 kg    63.3370(h) to
                               organic HAP per kg    determine
                               coating material      compliance with
                               for an existing       Sec.
                               affected source or    63.3320(b)(2)
                               0.016 kg organic      according to Sec.
                               HAP per kg coating    63.3370(j) if using
                               material for a new    a solvent recovery
                               affected source on    device, or Sec.
                               a monthly average     63.3370(l) if using
                               as-applied basis;     an oxidizer.
                               or
                              (iv) Overall organic  Follow the
                               HAP emission rate     procedures set out
                               does not exceed the   in Sec.
                               calculated limit      63.3370(i). Show
                               based on emission     that the monthly
                               limitations.          organic HAP
                                                     emission rate is
                                                     less than the
                                                     calculated
                                                     equivalent
                                                     allowable organic
                                                     HAP emission rate
                                                     (Equation 17 or 18
                                                     of Sec.   63.3370).
                                                     Calculate the
                                                     monthly organic HAP
                                                     emission rate
                                                     according to Sec.
                                                     63.3370(j) if using
                                                     a solvent recovery
                                                     device, or Sec.
                                                     63.3370(l) if using
                                                     an oxidizer.
(6) Use of multiple capture   (i) Overall organic   Follow the
 and/or control devices.       HAP control           procedures set out
                               efficiency is equal   in Sec.
                               to 95 percent at an   63.3370(f) to
                               existing affected     determine
                               source and 98         compliance with
                               percent at a new      Sec.
                               affected source on    63.3320(b)(1)
                               a monthly basis; or   according to Sec.
                                                     63.3370(f)(1) or
                                                     (2).
                              (ii) Average          Follow the
                               equivalent organic    procedures set out
                               HAP emission rate     in Sec.
                               does not exceed 0.2   63.3370(g) to
                               kg organic HAP per    determine
                               kg coating solids     compliance with
                               for an existing       Sec.
                               affected source or    63.3320(b)(3)
                               0.08 kg organic HAP   according to Sec.
                               per kg coating        63.3370(o).
                               solids for a new
                               affected source on
                               a monthly average
                               as-applied basis;
                               or
                              (iii) Average         Follow the
                               equivalent organic    procedures set out
                               HAP emission rate     in Sec.
                               does not exceed       63.3370(h) to
                               0.04 kg organic HAP   determine
                               per kg coating        compliance with
                               material for an       Sec.
                               existing affected     63.3320(b)(2)
                               source or 0.016 kg    according to Sec.
                               organic HAP per kg    63.3370(o).
                               coating material
                               for a new affected
                               source on a monthly
                               average as-applied
                               basis; or
                              (iv) Average          Follow the
                               equivalent organic    procedures set out
                               HAP emission rate     in Sec.
                               does not exceed the   63.3370(i). Show
                               calculated limit      that the monthly
                               based on emission     organic HAP
                               limitations.          emission rate is
                                                     less than the
                                                     calculated
                                                     equivalent
                                                     allowable organic
                                                     HAP emission rate
                                                     (Equation 17 or 18
                                                     of Sec.   63.3370)
                                                     according to Sec.
                                                     63.3370(o).

[[Page 49417]]

 
(7) Use of a combination of   (i) Average           Follow the
 compliant coatings and        equivalent organic    procedures set out
 control devices.              HAP emission rate     in Sec.
                               does not exceed 0.2   63.3370(g) to
                               kg organic HAP per    determine
                               kg coating solids     compliance with
                               for an existing       Sec.
                               affected source or    63.3320(b)(3)
                               0.08 kg organic HAP   according to Sec.
                               per kg coating        63.3370(o).
                               solids for a new
                               affected source on
                               a monthly average
                               as-applied basis;
                               or
                              (ii) Average          Follow the
                               equivalent organic    procedures set out
                               HAP emission rate     in Sec.
                               does not exceed       63.3370(h) to
                               0.04 kg organic HAP   determine
                               per kg coating        compliance with
                               material for an       Sec.
                               existing affected     63.3320(b)(2)
                               source or 0.016 kg    according to Sec.
                               organic HAP per kg    63.3370(o).
                               coating material
                               for a new affected
                               source on a monthly
                               average as-applied
                               basis; or
                              (iii) Average         Follow the
                               equivalent organic    procedures set out
                               HAP emission rate     in Sec.
                               does not exceed the   63.3370(i). Show
                               calculated limit      that the monthly
                               based on emission     organic HAP
                               limitations.          emission rate is
                                                     less than the
                                                     calculated
                                                     equivalent
                                                     allowable organic
                                                     HAP emission rate
                                                     (Equation 17 or 18
                                                     of Sec.   63.3370)
                                                     according to Sec.
                                                     63.3370(o).
------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (ii) Calculate the as-applied organic HAP content of each coating 
material using Equation 4:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP19SE19.002

Where:

Cahi = Monthly average, as-applied, organic HAP content 
of coating material, i, expressed as a mass fraction, kg/kg.
Chi = Organic HAP content of coating material, i, as-
purchased, expressed as a mass fraction, kg/kg.
Mi = Mass of as-purchased coating material, i, applied in 
a month, kg.
q = number of different materials added to the coating material.
Chij = Organic HAP content of material, j, added to as-
purchased coating material, i, expressed as a mass fraction, kg/kg.
Mij = Mass of material, j, added to as-purchased coating 
material, i, in a month, kg.


or calculate the as-applied volatile organic content of each coating 
material using Equation 5:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP19SE19.003

Where:

Cavi = Monthly average, as-applied, volatile organic 
content of coating material, i, expressed as a mass fraction, kg/kg.
Cvi = Volatile organic content of coating material, i, 
expressed as a mass fraction, kg/kg.
Mi = Mass of as-purchased coating material, i, applied in 
a month, kg.
q = Number of different materials added to the coating material.
Cvij = Volatile organic content of material, j, added to 
as-purchased coating material, i, expressed as a mass fraction, kg/
kg.
Mij = Mass of material, j, added to as-purchased coating 
material, i, in a month, kg.

    (2) * * *
    (i) Determine the as-applied coating solids content of each coating 
material following the procedure in Sec.  63.3360(d). You must 
calculate the as-applied coating solids content of coating materials 
which are reduced, thinned, or diluted prior to application, using 
Equation 6:

[[Page 49418]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP19SE19.004

Where:

Csi = Coating solids content of coating material, i, 
expressed as a mass fraction, kg/kg.
Mi = Mass of as-purchased coating material, i, applied in 
a month, kg.
q = Number of different materials added to the coating material.
Csij = Coating solids content of material, j, added to 
as-purchased coating material, i, expressed as a mass-fraction, kg/
kg.
Mij = Mass of material, j, added to as-purchased coating 
material, i, in a month, kg.

    (ii) Calculate the as-applied organic HAP to coating solids ratio 
using Equation 7:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP19SE19.005

Where:

Hsi = As-applied, organic HAP to coating solids ratio of 
coating material, i.
Cahi = Monthly average, as-applied, organic HAP content 
of coating material, i, expressed as a mass fraction, kg/kg.
Casi = Monthly average, as-applied, coating solids 
content of coating material, i, expressed as a mass fraction, kg/kg.

    (3) Monthly average organic HAP content of all coating materials 
as-applied is less than the mass percent limit (Sec.  63.3320(b)(2)). 
Demonstrate that the monthly average as-applied organic HAP content of 
all coating materials applied at an existing affected source is less 
than 0.04 kg organic HAP per kg of coating material applied, and all 
coating materials applied at a new affected source are less than 0.016 
kg organic HAP per kg of coating material applied, as determined by 
Equation 8:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP19SE19.006

Where:

HL = Monthly average, as-applied, organic HAP content of 
all coating materials applied, expressed as kg organic HAP per kg of 
coating material applied, kg/kg.
p = Number of different coating materials applied in a month.
Chi = Organic HAP content of coating material, i, as-
purchased, expressed as a mass fraction, kg/kg.
Mi = Mass of as-purchased coating material, i, applied in 
a month, kg.
q = Number of different materials added to the coating material.
Chij = Organic HAP content of material, j, added to as-
purchased coating material, i, expressed as a mass fraction, kg/kg.
Mij = Mass of material, j, added to as-purchased coating 
material, i, in a month, kg.
Mvret = Mass of volatile matter retained in the coated 
web after curing or drying, or otherwise not emitted to the 
atmosphere, kg. The value of this term will be zero in all cases 
except where you choose to take into account the volatile matter 
retained in the coated web or otherwise not emitted to the 
atmosphere for the compliance demonstration procedures in Sec.  
63.3370.

    (4) Monthly average organic HAP content of all coating materials 
as-applied is less than the mass fraction of coating solids limit 
(Sec.  63.3320(b)(3)). Demonstrate that the monthly average as-applied 
organic HAP content on the basis of coating solids applied of all 
coating materials applied at an existing affected source is less than 
0.20 kg organic HAP per kg coating solids applied, and all coating 
materials applied at a new affected source are less than 0.08 kg 
organic HAP per kg coating solids applied, as determined by Equation 9:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP19SE19.007

Where:

Hs = Monthly average, as-applied, organic HAP to coating 
solids ratio, kg organic HAP/kg coating solids applied.
p = Number of different coating materials applied in a month.
Chi = Organic HAP content of coating material, i, as-
purchased, expressed as a mass fraction, kg/kg.
Mi = Mass of as-purchased coating material, i, applied in 
a month, kg.
q = Number of different materials added to the coating material.
Chij = Organic HAP content of material, j, added to as-
purchased coating material, i, expressed as a mass fraction, kg/kg.
Mij = Mass of material, j, added to as-purchased coating 
material, i, in a month, kg.
Mvret = Mass of volatile matter retained in the coated 
web after curing or drying, or

[[Page 49419]]

otherwise not emitted to the atmosphere, kg. The value of this term 
will be zero in all cases except where you choose to take into 
account the volatile matter retained in the coated web or otherwise 
not emitted to the atmosphere for the compliance demonstration 
procedures in Sec.  63.3370.
Csi = Coating solids content of coating material, i, 
expressed as a mass fraction, kg/kg.
Csij = Coating solids content of material, j, added to 
as-purchased coating material, i, expressed as a mass-fraction, kg/
kg.
* * * * *

    (d) Monthly allowable organic HAP applied. Demonstrate that the 
total monthly organic HAP applied as determined by Equation 10 is less 
than the calculated equivalent allowable organic HAP as determined by 
Equation 17 or 18 in paragraph (m) of this section:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP19SE19.008

Where:

Hm = Total monthly organic HAP applied, kg.
p = Number of different coating materials applied in a month.
Chi = Organic HAP content of coating material, i, as-
purchased, expressed as a mass fraction, kg/kg.
Mi = Mass of as-purchased coating material, i, applied in 
a month, kg.
q = Number of different materials added to the coating material.
Chij = Organic HAP content of material, j, added to as-
purchased coating material, i, expressed as a mass fraction, kg/kg.
Mij = Mass of material, j, added to as-purchased coating 
material, i, in a month, kg.
Mvret = Mass of volatile matter retained in the coated 
web after curing or drying, or otherwise not emitted to the 
atmosphere, kg. The value of this term will be zero in all cases 
except where you choose to take into account the volatile matter 
retained in the coated web or otherwise not emitted to the 
atmosphere for the compliance demonstration procedures in Sec.  
63.3370.

    (e) Accounting for volatile matter retained in the web. If you 
choose to use the equation in Sec.  63.3360(g) to take into account 
retained volatile organic matter, you must identify each group of 
similar products that can utilize each site- and product-specific 
emission factor. Details regarding the test methods and calculations 
are provided in Sec.  63.3360(g).
    (f) Capture and control to reduce emissions to no more than 
allowable limit (Sec.  63.3320(b)(1)). Operate a capture system and 
control device and demonstrate an overall organic HAP control 
efficiency of at least 95 percent at an existing affected source and at 
least 98 percent at a new affected source for each month, or operate a 
capture system and oxidizer so that an outlet organic HAP concentration 
of no greater than 20 ppmv by compound on a dry basis is achieved as 
long as the capture efficiency is 100 percent as detailed in Sec.  
63.3320(b)(4). Unless one of the cases described in paragraph (f)(1), 
(2), or (3) of this section applies to the affected source, you must 
either demonstrate compliance in accordance with the procedure in 
paragraph (i) of this section when emissions from the affected source 
are controlled by a solvent recovery device, or the procedure in 
paragraph (l) of this section when emissions are controlled by an 
oxidizer or demonstrate compliance for a web coating line by operating 
each capture system and each control device and continuous parameter 
monitoring according to the procedures in paragraph (k) of this 
section.
    (1) If the affected source has only always-controlled work stations 
and operates more than one capture system or more than one control 
device, you must demonstrate compliance in accordance with the 
provisions of either paragraph (o) or (q) of this section.
    (2) If the affected source operates one or more never-controlled 
work stations or one or more intermittently-controlled work stations, 
you must demonstrate compliance in accordance with the provisions of 
paragraph (o) of this section.
    (3) An alternative method of demonstrating compliance with Sec.  
63.3320(b)(1) is the installation of a PTE around the web coating line 
that achieves 100 percent capture efficiency and ventilation of all 
organic HAP emissions from the total enclosure to an oxidizer with an 
outlet organic HAP concentration of no greater than 20 ppmv by compound 
on a dry basis. If this method is selected, you must demonstrate 
compliance by following the procedures in paragraphs (f)(3)(i) and (ii) 
of this section. Compliance is determined according to paragraph 
(f)(3)(iii) of this section.
    (i) Demonstrate that a total enclosure is installed. An enclosure 
that meets the requirements in Sec.  63.3360(f)(1) will be considered a 
total enclosure.
    (ii) Determine the organic HAP concentration at the outlet of your 
total enclosure using the procedures in paragraph (f)(3)(ii)(A) or (B) 
of this section.
    (A) Determine the control device efficiency using Equation 2 of 
Sec.  63.3360 and the applicable test methods and procedures specified 
in Sec.  63.3360(e).
    (B) Use a CEMS to determine the organic HAP emission rate according 
to paragraphs (j)(2)(i) through (x) of this section.
    (iii) You are in compliance if the installation of a total 
enclosure is demonstrated and the organic HAP concentration at the 
outlet of the incinerator is demonstrated to be no greater than 20 ppmv 
by compound on a dry basis.
    (g) Capture and control to achieve mass fraction of coating solids 
applied limit (Sec.  63.3320(b)(3)). Operate a capture system and 
control device and limit the organic HAP emission rate from an existing 
affected source to no more than 0.20 kg organic HAP emitted per kg 
coating solids applied, and from a new affected source to no more than 
0.08 kg organic HAP emitted per kg coating solids applied as determined 
on a monthly average as-applied basis. If the affected source operates 
more than one capture system, more than one control device, one or more 
never-controlled work stations, or one or more intermittently-
controlled work stations, then you must demonstrate compliance in 
accordance with the provisions of paragraph (o) of this section. 
Otherwise, you must demonstrate compliance following the procedure in 
paragraph (j) of this section when emissions from the affected source 
are controlled by a solvent recovery device or the procedure in 
paragraph (l) of this section when emissions are controlled by an 
oxidizer.
    (h) Capture and control to achieve mass fraction limit (Sec.  
63.3320(b)(2)). Operate a capture system and control device and limit 
the organic HAP emission rate to no more than 0.04 kg organic HAP 
emitted per kg coating material applied at an existing affected source, 
and no more than 0.016 kg organic HAP emitted per kg coating material 
applied at a new affected source as determined on a monthly average as-
applied basis. If the affected source operates more than one capture

[[Page 49420]]

system, more than one control device, one or more never-controlled work 
stations, or one or more intermittently-controlled work stations, then 
you must demonstrate compliance in accordance with the provisions of 
paragraph (o) of this section. Otherwise, you must demonstrate 
compliance following the procedure in paragraph (j) of this section 
when emissions from the affected source are controlled by a solvent 
recovery device or the procedure in paragraph (l) of this section when 
emissions are controlled by an oxidizer.
    (i) Capture and control to achieve allowable emission rate. Operate 
a capture system and control device and limit the monthly organic HAP 
emissions to less than the allowable emissions as calculated in 
accordance with paragraph (m) of this section. If the affected source 
operates more than one capture system, more than one control device, 
one or more never-controlled work stations, or one or more 
intermittently-controlled work stations, then you must demonstrate 
compliance in accordance with the provisions of paragraph (o) of this 
section. Otherwise, the owner or operator must demonstrate compliance 
following the procedure in paragraph (j) of this section when emissions 
from the affected source are controlled by a solvent recovery device or 
the procedure in paragraph (l) of this section when emissions are 
controlled by an oxidizer.
    (j) Solvent recovery device compliance demonstration. If you use a 
solvent recovery device to control emissions, you must show compliance 
by following the procedures in either paragraph (j)(1) or (2) of this 
section:
    (1) Liquid-liquid material balance. Perform a monthly liquid-liquid 
material balance as specified in paragraphs (j)(1)(i) through (v) of 
this section and use the applicable equations in paragraphs (j)(1)(vi) 
through (ix) of this section to convert the data to units of the 
selected compliance option in paragraphs (f) through (i) of this 
section. Compliance is determined in accordance with paragraph 
(j)(1)(x) of this section.
    (i) Determine the mass of each coating material applied on the web 
coating line or group of web coating lines controlled by a common 
solvent recovery device during the month.
    (ii) If demonstrating compliance on the basis of organic HAP 
emission rate based on coating solids applied, organic HAP emission 
rate based on coating material applied, or emission of less than the 
calculated allowable organic HAP, determine the organic HAP content of 
each coating material as-applied during the month following the 
procedure in Sec.  63.3360(c).
    (iii) Determine the volatile organic content of each coating 
material as-applied during the month following the procedure in Sec.  
63.3360(d).
    (iv) If demonstrating compliance on the basis of organic HAP 
emission rate based on coating solids applied or emission of less than 
the calculated allowable organic HAP, determine the coating solids 
content of each coating material applied during the month following the 
procedure in Sec.  63.3360(d).
    (v) Determine and monitor the amount of volatile organic matter 
recovered for the month according to the procedures in Sec.  
63.3350(d).
    (vi) Recovery efficiency. Calculate the volatile organic matter 
collection and recovery efficiency using Equation 11:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP19SE19.009

Where:

Rv = Organic volatile matter collection and recovery 
efficiency, percent.
Mvr = Mass of volatile matter recovered in a month, kg.
Mvret = Mass of volatile matter retained in the coated 
web after curing or drying, or otherwise not emitted to the 
atmosphere, kg. The value of this term will be zero in all cases 
except where you choose to take into account the volatile matter 
retained in the coated web or otherwise not emitted to the 
atmosphere for the compliance demonstration procedures in this 
section.
p = Number of different coating materials applied in a month.
Cvi = Volatile organic content of coating material, i, 
expressed as a mass fraction, kg/kg.
Mi = Mass of as-purchased coating material, i, applied in 
a month, kg.
q = Number of different materials added to the coating material.
Cvij = Volatile organic content of material, j, added to 
as-purchased coating material, i, expressed as a mass fraction, kg/
kg.
Mij = Mass of material, j, added to as-purchased coating 
material, i, in a month, kg.

    (vii) Organic HAP emitted. Calculate the organic HAP emitted during 
the month using Equation 12:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP19SE19.010

Where:

He = Total monthly organic HAP emitted, kg.
Rv = Organic volatile matter collection and recovery 
efficiency, percent.
p = Number of different coating materials applied in a month.
Chi = Organic HAP content of coating material, i, as-
purchased, expressed as a mass fraction, kg/kg.
Mi = Mass of as-purchased coating material, i, applied in 
a month, kg.
q = Number of different materials added to the coating material.
Chij = Organic HAP content of material, j, added to as-
purchased coating material, i, expressed as a mass fraction, kg/kg.
Mij = Mass of material, j, added to as-purchased coating 
material, i, in a month, kg.
Mvret = Mass of volatile matter retained in the coated 
web after curing or drying, or otherwise not emitted to the 
atmosphere, kg. The value of this term will be zero in all cases 
except where you choose to take into account the volatile matter 
retained in the coated web or otherwise not emitted to the 
atmosphere for the compliance demonstration procedures in this 
section.

    (viii) Organic HAP emission rate based on coating solids applied. 
Calculate the organic HAP emission rate based on coating solids applied 
using Equation 13:

[[Page 49421]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP19SE19.011

Where:

L = Mass organic HAP emitted per mass of coating solids applied, kg/
kg.
He = Total monthly organic HAP emitted, kg.
p = Number of different coating materials applied in a month.
Csi = Coating solids content of coating material, i, 
expressed as a mass fraction, kg/kg.
Mi = Mass of as-purchased coating material, i, applied in 
a month, kg.
q = Number of different materials added to the coating material.
Csij = Coating solids content of material, j, added to 
as-purchased coating material, i, expressed as a mass-fraction, kg/
kg.
Mij = Mass of material, j, added to as-purchased coating 
material, i, in a month, kg.

    (ix) Organic HAP emission rate based on coating materials applied. 
Calculate the organic HAP emission rate based on coating material 
applied using Equation 14:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP19SE19.012

Where:

S = Mass organic HAP emitted per mass of material applied, kg/kg.
He = Total monthly organic HAP emitted, kg.
p = Number of different coating materials applied in a month.
Mi = Mass of as-purchased coating material, i, applied in 
a month, kg.
q = Number of different materials added to the coating material.
Mij = Mass of material, j, added to as-purchased coating 
material, i, in a month, kg.

    (x) You are in compliance with the emission standards in Sec.  
63.3320(b) if:
    (A) The volatile organic matter collection and recovery efficiency 
is 95 percent or greater at an existing affected source and 98 percent 
or greater at a new affected source; or
    (B) The organic HAP emission rate based on coating solids applied 
is no more than 0.20 kg organic HAP per kg coating solids applied at an 
existing affected source and no more than 0.08 kg organic HAP per kg 
coating solids applied at a new affected source; or
    (C) The organic HAP emission rate based on coating material applied 
is no more than 0.04 kg organic HAP per kg coating material applied at 
an existing affected source and no more than 0.016 kg organic HAP per 
kg coating material applied at a new affected source; or
    (D) The organic HAP emitted during the month is less than the 
calculated allowable organic HAP as determined using paragraph (m) of 
this section.
    (2) Continuous emission monitoring of capture system and control 
device performance. Demonstrate initial compliance through a 
performance test on capture efficiency and continuing compliance 
through continuous emission monitors and continuous monitoring of 
capture system operating parameters following the procedures in 
paragraphs (j)(2)(i) through (vii) of this section. Use the applicable 
equations specified in paragraphs (j)(2)(viii) through (x) of this 
section to convert the monitoring and other data into units of the 
selected compliance option in paragraphs (f) through (i) of this 
section. Compliance is determined in accordance with paragraph 
(j)(2)(xi) of this section.
    (i) Control device efficiency. Continuously monitor the gas stream 
entering and exiting the control device to determine the total organic 
volatile matter mass flow rate (e.g., by determining the concentration 
of the vent gas in grams per cubic meter and the volumetric flow rate 
in cubic meters per second such that the total organic volatile matter 
mass flow rate in grams per second can be calculated) such that the 
control device efficiency of the control device can be calculated for 
each month using Equation 2 of Sec.  63.3360.
    (ii) Capture efficiency monitoring. Whenever a web coating line is 
operated, continuously monitor the operating parameters established in 
accordance with Sec.  63.3350(f) to ensure capture efficiency.
    (iii) Determine the percent capture efficiency in accordance with 
Sec.  63.3360(f).
    (iv) Control efficiency. Calculate the overall organic HAP control 
efficiency achieved for each month using Equation 15:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP19SE19.013

Where:

R = Overall organic HAP control efficiency, percent.
E = Organic volatile matter control efficiency of the control 
device, percent.
CE = Organic volatile matter capture efficiency of the capture 
system, percent.

    (v) If demonstrating compliance on the basis of organic HAP 
emission rate based on coating solids applied, organic HAP emission 
rate based on coating materials applied, or emission of less than the 
calculated allowable organic HAP, determine the mass of each coating 
material applied on the web coating line or group of web coating lines 
controlled by a common control device during the month.
    (vi) If demonstrating compliance on the basis of organic HAP 
emission rate based on coating solids applied, organic HAP emission 
rate based on coating material applied, or emission of less than the 
calculated allowable organic HAP, determine the organic HAP content of 
each coating material as-applied during the month following the 
procedure in Sec.  63.3360(c).
    (vii) If demonstrating compliance on the basis of organic HAP 
emission rate based on coating solids applied or emission of less than 
the calculated allowable organic HAP, determine the coating solids 
content of each coating material as-applied during the month following 
the procedure in Sec.  63.3360(d).
    (viii) Organic HAP emitted. Calculate the organic HAP emitted 
during the month for each month using Equation 16:

[[Page 49422]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP19SE19.014

Where:

He = Total monthly organic HAP emitted, kg.
R = Overall organic HAP control efficiency, percent.
p = Number of different coating materials applied in a month.
Cahi = Monthly average, as-applied, organic HAP content 
of coating material, i, expressed as a mass fraction, kg/kg.
Mi = Mass of as-purchased coating material, i, applied in 
a month, kg.
Mvret = Mass of volatile matter retained in the coated 
web after curing or drying, or otherwise not emitted to the 
atmosphere, kg. The value of this term will be zero in all cases 
except where you choose to take into account the volatile matter 
retained in the coated web or otherwise not emitted to the 
atmosphere for the compliance demonstration procedures in this 
section.

    (ix) Organic HAP emission rate based on coating solids applied. 
Calculate the organic HAP emission rate based on coating solids applied 
using Equation 13 of this section.
    (x) Organic HAP emission rate based on coating materials applied. 
Calculate the organic HAP emission rate based on coating material 
applied using Equation 14 of this section.
    (xi) Compare actual performance to the performance required by 
compliance option. The affected source is in compliance with the 
emission standards in Sec.  63.3320(b) for each month if the capture 
system is operated such that the average capture system operating 
parameter is greater than or less than (as appropriate) the operating 
parameter value established in accordance with Sec.  63.3350(f); and
    (A) The organic volatile matter collection and recovery efficiency 
is 95 percent or greater at an existing affected source and 98 percent 
or greater at a new affected source; or
    (B) The organic HAP emission rate based on coating solids applied 
is no more than 0.20 kg organic HAP per kg coating solids applied at an 
existing affected source and no more than 0.08 kg organic HAP per kg 
coating solids applied at a new affected source; or
    (C) The organic HAP emission rate based on coating material applied 
is no more than 0.04 kg organic HAP per kg coating material applied at 
an existing affected source and no more than 0.016 kg organic HAP per 
kg coating material applied at a new affected source; or
    (D) The organic HAP emitted during the month is less than the 
calculated allowable organic HAP as determined using paragraph (m) of 
this section.
    (k) Capture and control system compliance demonstration procedures 
using a CPMS. If you use an add-on control device, you must demonstrate 
initial compliance for each capture system and each control device 
through performance tests and demonstrate continuing compliance through 
continuous monitoring of capture system and control device operating 
parameters as specified in paragraphs (k)(1) through (3) of this 
section. Compliance is determined in accordance with paragraph (k)(4) 
or (k)(5) of this section.
    (1) Determine the control device destruction or removal efficiency 
using the applicable test methods and procedures in Sec.  63.3360(e).
    (2) Determine the emission capture efficiency in accordance with 
Sec.  63.3360(f).
    (3) Whenever a web coating line is operated, continuously monitor 
the operating parameters established according to Sec.  63.3350(e) and 
(f).
    (4) No operating limit deviations. You are in compliance with the 
emission standards in Sec.  63.3320(b) if the thermal oxidizer is 
operated such that the average combustion temperature does not fall 
more than 50 [deg]F below the temperature established in accordance 
with Sec.  63.3360(e)(3)(i) for each 3-hour period, or the catalytic 
oxidizer temperature is greater than the temperature established in 
accordance with Sec.  63.3360(e)(3)(ii) for each 3-hour period, and the 
capture system operating parameter is operated at an average value 
greater than or less than (as appropriate) the operating parameter 
value established in accordance with Sec.  63.3350(f); and
    (i) The overall organic HAP control efficiency is 95 percent or 
greater at an existing affected source and 98 percent or greater at a 
new affected source; or
    (ii) The organic HAP emission rate based on coating solids applied 
is no more than 0.20 kg organic HAP per kg coating solids applied at an 
existing affected source and no more than 0.08 kg organic HAP per kg 
coating solids applied at a new affected source; or
    (iii) The organic HAP emission rate based on coating material 
applied is no more than 0.04 kg organic HAP per kg coating material 
applied at an existing affected source and no more than 0.016 kg 
organic HAP per kg coating material applied at a new affected source; 
or
    (iv) The organic HAP emitted during the month is less than the 
calculated allowable organic HAP as determined using paragraph (m) of 
this section.
    (5) Operating limit deviations. If one or more operating limit 
deviations occurred during the monthly averaging period, compliance 
with the emission standards in Sec.  63.3320(b) is determined by 
assuming no control of emissions during each 3-hour period that was a 
deviation. You are in compliance with the emission standards in Sec.  
63.3320(b) if, including the periods of no control:
    (i) The overall organic HAP control efficiency is 95 percent or 
greater at an existing affected source and 98 percent or greater at a 
new affected source; or
    (ii) The organic HAP emission rate based on coating solids applied 
is no more than 0.20 kg organic HAP per kg coating solids applied at an 
existing affected source and no more than 0.08 kg organic HAP per kg 
coating solids applied at a new affected source; or
    (iii) The organic HAP emission rate based on coating material 
applied is no more than 0.04 kg organic HAP per kg coating material 
applied at an existing affected source and no more than 0.016 kg 
organic HAP per kg coating material applied at a new affected source; 
or
    (iv) The organic HAP emitted during the month is less than the 
calculated allowable organic HAP as determined using paragraph (m) of 
this section.
    (l) Oxidizer compliance demonstration procedures. If you use an 
oxidizer to control emissions, you must show compliance by following 
the procedures in paragraph (l)(1) of this section. Use the applicable 
equations specified in paragraph (l)(2) of this section to convert the 
monitoring and other data into units of the selected compliance option 
in paragraph (f) through (i) of this section. Compliance is determined 
in accordance with paragraph (l)(3) or (l)(4) of this section.
    (1) Demonstrate initial compliance through performance tests of 
capture efficiency and control device efficiency and continuing 
compliance through continuous monitoring of capture system and control 
device operating parameters as specified in paragraphs (l)(1)(i) 
through (vi) of this section:
    (i) Determine the oxidizer destruction efficiency using the 
procedure in Sec.  63.3360(e).
    (ii) Determine the capture system capture efficiency in accordance 
with Sec.  63.3360(f).

[[Page 49423]]

    (iii) Capture and control efficiency monitoring. Whenever a web 
coating line is operated, continuously monitor the operating parameters 
established in accordance with Sec.  63.3350(e) and (f) to ensure 
capture and control efficiency.
    (iv) If demonstrating compliance on the basis of organic HAP 
emission rate based on coating solids applied, organic HAP emission 
rate based on coating materials applied, or emission of less than the 
calculated allowable organic HAP, determine the mass of each coating 
material applied on the web coating line or group of web coating lines 
controlled by a common oxidizer during the month.
    (v) If demonstrating compliance on the basis of organic HAP 
emission rate based on coating solids applied, organic HAP emission 
rate based on coating material applied, or emission of less than the 
calculated allowable organic HAP, determine the organic HAP content of 
each coating material as-applied during the month following the 
procedure in Sec.  63.3360(c).
    (vi) If demonstrating compliance on the basis of organic HAP 
emission rate based on coating solids applied or emission of less than 
the calculated allowable organic HAP, determine the coating solids 
content of each coating material applied during the month following the 
procedure in Sec.  63.3360(d).
    (2) Convert the information obtained under paragraph (q)(1) of this 
section into the units of the selected compliance option using the 
calculation procedures specified in paragraphs (l)(2)(i) through (iv) 
of this section.
    (i) Control efficiency. Calculate the overall organic HAP control 
efficiency achieved using Equation 15.
    (ii) Organic HAP emitted. Calculate the organic HAP emitted during 
the month using Equation 16.
    (iii) Organic HAP emission rate based on coating solids applied. 
Calculate the organic HAP emission rate based on coating solids applied 
for each month using Equation 13.
    (iv) Organic HAP emission rate based on coating materials applied. 
Calculate the organic HAP emission rate based on coating material 
applied using Equation 14.
    (3) No operating limit deviations. You are in compliance with the 
emission standards in Sec.  63.3320(b) if the oxidizer is operated such 
that the average operating parameter value is greater than the 
operating parameter value established in accordance with Sec.  
63.3360(e) for each 3-hour period, and the capture system operating 
parameter is operated at an average value greater than or less than (as 
appropriate) the operating parameter value established in accordance 
with Sec.  63.3350(f); and
    (i) The overall organic HAP control efficiency is 95 percent or 
greater at an existing affected source and 98 percent or greater at a 
new affected source; or
    (ii) The organic HAP emission rate based on coating solids applied 
is no more than 0.20 kg organic HAP per kg coating solids applied at an 
existing affected source and no more than 0.08 kg organic HAP per kg 
coating solids applied at a new affected source; or
    (iii) The organic HAP emission rate based on coating material 
applied is no more than 0.04 kg organic HAP per kg coating material 
applied at an existing affected source and no more than 0.016 kg 
organic HAP per kg coating material applied at a new affected source; 
or
    (iv) The organic HAP emitted during the month is less than the 
calculated allowable organic HAP as determined using paragraph (m) of 
this section.
    (4) Operating limit deviations. If one or more operating limit 
deviations occurred during the monthly averaging period, compliance 
with the emission standards in Sec.  63.3320(b) is determined by 
assuming no control of emissions during each 3-hour period that was a 
deviation. You are in compliance with the emission standards in Sec.  
63.3320(b) if, including the periods of no control:
    (i) The overall organic HAP control efficiency is 95 percent or 
greater at an existing affected source and 98 percent or greater at a 
new affected source; or
    (ii) The organic HAP emission rate based on coating solids applied 
is no more than 0.20 kg organic HAP per kg coating solids applied at an 
existing affected source and no more than 0.08 kg organic HAP per kg 
coating solids applied at a new affected source; or
    (iii) The organic HAP emission rate based on coating material 
applied is no more than 0.04 kg organic HAP per kg coating material 
applied at an existing affected source and no more than 0.016 kg 
organic HAP per kg coating material applied at a new affected source; 
or
    (iv) The organic HAP emitted during the month is less than the 
calculated allowable organic HAP as determined using paragraph (m) of 
this section.
    (m) Monthly allowable organic HAP emissions. This paragraph 
provides the procedures and calculations for determining monthly 
allowable organic HAP emissions for use in demonstrating compliance in 
accordance with paragraph (d), (i), (j)(1)(x)(D), (j)(2)(xi)(D), or 
(l)(3)(iv) of this section. You will need to determine the amount of 
coating material applied at greater than or equal to 20 mass percent 
coating solids and the amount of coating material applied at less than 
20 mass percent coating solids. The allowable organic HAP limit is then 
calculated based on coating material applied at greater than or equal 
to 20 mass percent coating solids complying with 0.2 kg organic HAP per 
kg coating solids at an existing affected source or 0.08 kg organic HAP 
per kg coating solids at a new affected source, and coating material 
applied at less than 20 mass percent coating solids complying with 4 
mass percent organic HAP at an existing affected source and 1.6 mass-
percent organic HAP at a new affected source as follows:
    (1) Determine the as-purchased mass of each coating material 
applied each month.
    (2) Determine the as-purchased coating solids content of each 
coating material applied each month in accordance with Sec.  
63.3360(d)(1).
    (3) Determine the as-purchased mass fraction of each coating 
material which was applied at 20 mass percent or greater coating solids 
content on an as-applied basis.
    (4) Determine the total mass of each solvent, diluent, thinner, or 
reducer added to coating materials which were applied at less than 20 
mass percent coating solids content on an as-applied basis each month.
    (5) Calculate the monthly allowable organic HAP emissions using 
Equation 17 for an existing affected source:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP19SE19.015

    Where:

    Ha = Monthly allowable organic HAP emissions, kg.
    p = Number of different coating materials applied in a month.

[[Page 49424]]

    Mi = mass of as-purchased coating material, i, 
applied in a month, kg.
    Gi = Mass fraction of each coating material, i, which 
was applied at 20 mass percent or greater coating solids content, on 
an as-applied basis, kg/kg.
    Csi = Coating solids content of coating material, i, 
expressed as a mass fraction, kg/kg.
    q = Number of different materials added to the coating material.
    MLj = Mass of non-coating-solids-containing coating 
material, j, added to coating-solids-containing coating materials 
which were applied at less than 20 mass percent coating solids 
content, on an as-applied basis, in a month, kg.

    or Equation 18 for a new affected source:
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP19SE19.016
    
    Where:

    Ha = Monthly allowable organic HAP emissions, kg.
    p = Number of different coating materials applied in a month.
    Mi = Mass of as-purchased coating material, i, 
applied in a month, kg.
    Gi = Mass fraction of each coating material, i, which 
was applied at 20 mass percent or greater coating solids content, on 
an as-applied basis, kg/kg.
    Csi = Coating solids content of coating material, i, 
expressed as a mass fraction, kg/kg.
    q = Number of different materials added to the coating material.
    MLj = Mass of non-coating-solids-containing coating 
material, j, added to coating-solids-containing coating materials 
which were applied at less than 20 mass percent coating solids 
content, on an as-applied basis, in a month, kg.

* * * * *
    (o) Combinations of capture and control. If you operate more than 
one capture system, more than one control device, one or more never-
controlled work stations, or one or more intermittently-controlled work 
stations, you must calculate organic HAP emissions according to the 
procedures in paragraphs (o)(1) through (4) of this section, and use 
the calculation procedures specified in paragraph (o)(5) of this 
section to convert the monitoring and other data into units of the 
selected control option in paragraphs (f) through (i) of this section. 
Use the procedures specified in paragraph (o)(6) of this section to 
demonstrate compliance.
    (1) Solvent recovery system using liquid-liquid material balance 
compliance demonstration. If you choose to comply by means of a liquid-
liquid material balance for each solvent recovery system used to 
control one or more web coating lines, you must determine the organic 
HAP emissions for those web coating lines controlled by that solvent 
recovery system either:
    (i) In accordance with paragraphs (j)(1)(i) through (iii) and (v) 
through (vii) of this section, if the web coating lines controlled by 
that solvent recovery system have only always-controlled work stations; 
or
    (ii) In accordance with paragraphs (j)(1)(ii), (iii), (v), and (vi) 
and (p) of this section, if the web coating lines controlled by that 
solvent recovery system have one or more never-controlled or 
intermittently-controlled work stations.
    (2) Solvent recovery system using performance test compliance 
demonstration and CEMS. To demonstrate compliance through an initial 
test of capture efficiency, continuous monitoring of a capture system 
operating parameter, and a CEMS on each solvent recovery system used to 
control one or more web coating lines, you must:
    (i) For each capture system delivering emissions to that solvent 
recovery system, monitor the operating parameter established in 
accordance with Sec.  63.3350(f) to ensure capture system efficiency; 
and
    (ii) Determine the organic HAP emissions for those web coating 
lines served by each capture system delivering emissions to that 
solvent recovery system either:
    (A) In accordance with paragraphs (j)(2)(i) through (iii), (v), 
(vi), and (viii) of this section, if the web coating lines served by 
that capture and control system have only always-controlled work 
stations; or
    (B) In accordance with paragraphs (j)(2)(i) through (iii), (vi), 
and (p) of this section, if the web coating lines served by that 
capture and control system have one or more never-controlled or 
intermittently-controlled work stations.
    (3) Oxidizer. To demonstrate compliance through performance tests 
of capture efficiency and control device efficiency, continuous 
monitoring of capture system, and CPMS for control device operating 
parameters for each oxidizer used to control emissions from one or more 
web coating lines, you must:
    (i) Monitor the operating parameter in accordance with Sec.  
63.3350(e) to ensure control device efficiency; and
    (ii) For each capture system delivering emissions to that oxidizer, 
monitor the operating parameter established in accordance with Sec.  
63.3350(f) to ensure capture efficiency; and
    (iii) Determine the organic HAP emissions for those web coating 
lines served by each capture system delivering emissions to that 
oxidizer either:
    (A) In accordance with paragraphs (l)(1)(i) through (vi) of this 
section, if the web coating lines served by that capture and control 
system have only always-controlled work stations; or
    (B) In accordance with paragraphs (l)(1)(i) through (iii), (v), and 
(p) of this section, if the web coating lines served by that capture 
and control system have one or more never-controlled or intermittently-
controlled work stations.
    (4) Uncontrolled coating lines. If you own or operate one or more 
uncontrolled web coating lines, you must determine the organic HAP 
applied on those web coating lines using Equation 10. The organic HAP 
emitted from an uncontrolled web coating line is equal to the organic 
HAP applied on that web coating line.
    (5) Convert the information obtained under paragraphs (o)(1) 
through (4) of this section into the units of the selected compliance 
option using the calculation procedures specified in paragraphs 
(o)(5)(i) through (iv) of this section.
    (i) Organic HAP emitted. Calculate the organic HAP emissions for 
the affected source for the month by summing all organic HAP emissions 
calculated according to paragraphs (o)(1), (2)(ii), (3)(iii), and (4) 
of this section.
    (ii) Coating solids applied. If demonstrating compliance on the 
basis of organic HAP emission rate based on coating solids applied or 
emission of less than the calculated allowable organic HAP, the owner 
or operator must determine the coating solids content of each coating 
material applied during the month following the procedure in Sec.  
63.3360(d).
    (iii) Organic HAP emission rate based on coating solids applied. 
Calculate the organic HAP emission rate based on coating solids applied 
for each month using Equation 13.

[[Page 49425]]

    (iv) Organic HAP based on materials applied. Calculate the organic 
HAP emission rate based on material applied using Equation 14.
    (6) Compliance. The affected source is in compliance with the 
emission standards in Sec.  63.3320(b) for the month if all operating 
parameters required to be monitored under paragraphs (o)(1) through (3) 
of this section were maintained at the values established under 
Sec. Sec.  63.3350 and 63.3360 and one of the standards in paragraphs 
(6)(i) through (iv) of this section were met. If operating parameter 
deviations occurred, the affected source is in compliance with the 
emission standards in Sec.  63.3320(b) for the month if, assuming no 
control of emissions for each 3-hour deviation period, one of the 
standards in paragraphs (6)(i) through (iv) of this section were met.
    (i) The total mass of organic HAP emitted by the affected source 
based on coating solids applied is no more than 0.20 kg organic HAP per 
kg coating solids applied at an existing affected source and no more 
than 0.08 kg organic HAP per kg coating solids applied at a new 
affected source; or
    (ii) The total mass of organic HAP emitted by the affected source 
based on material applied is no more than 0.04 kg organic HAP per kg 
material applied at an existing affected source and no more than 0.016 
kg organic HAP per kg material applied at a new affected source; or
    (iii) The total mass of organic HAP emitted by the affected source 
during the month is less than the calculated allowable organic HAP as 
determined using paragraph (m) of this section; or
    (iv) The total mass of organic HAP emitted by the affected source 
was not more than 5 percent of the total mass of organic HAP applied 
for the month at an existing affected source and no more than 2 percent 
of the total mass of organic HAP applied for the month at a new 
affected source. The total mass of organic HAP applied by the affected 
source in the month must be determined using Equation 10.
    (p) Intermittently-controlled and never-controlled work stations. 
If you have been expressly referenced to this paragraph by paragraphs 
(o)(1)(ii), (o)(2)(ii)(B), or (o)(3)(iii)(B) of this section for 
calculation procedures to determine organic HAP emissions for your 
intermittently-controlled and never-controlled work stations, you must:
    (1) Determine the sum of the mass of all coating materials as-
applied on intermittently-controlled work stations operating in bypass 
mode and the mass of all coating materials as-applied on never-
controlled work stations during the month.
    (2) Determine the sum of the mass of all coating materials as-
applied on intermittently-controlled work stations operating in a 
controlled mode and the mass of all coating materials applied on 
always-controlled work stations during the month.
    (3) Liquid-liquid material balance compliance demonstration. For 
each web coating line or group of web coating lines for which you use 
the provisions of paragraph (o)(1)(ii) of this section, you must 
calculate the organic HAP emitted during the month using Equation 19 of 
this section:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP19SE19.017

Where:

He = Total monthly organic HAP emitted, kg.
p = Number of different coating materials applied in a month.
Mci = Sum of the mass of coating material, i, as-applied 
on intermittently-controlled work stations operating in controlled 
mode and the mass of coating material, i, as-applied on always-
controlled work stations, in a month, kg.
Cahi = Monthly average, as-applied, organic HAP content 
of coating material, i, expressed as a mass fraction, kg/kg.
Rv = Organic volatile matter collection and recovery 
efficiency, percent.
MBi = Sum of the mass of coating material, i, as-applied 
on intermittently-controlled work stations operating in bypass mode 
and the mass of coating material, i, as-applied on never-controlled 
work stations, in a month, kg.
Cahi = Monthly average, as-applied, organic HAP content 
of coating material, i, expressed as a mass fraction, kg/kg.
Mvret = Mass of volatile matter retained in the coated 
web after curing or drying, or otherwise not emitted to the 
atmosphere, kg. The value of this term will be zero in all cases 
except where you choose to take into account the volatile matter 
retained in the coated web or otherwise not emitted to the 
atmosphere for the compliance demonstration procedures in this 
section.

    (4) Performance test to determine capture efficiency and control 
device efficiency. For each web coating line or group of web coating 
lines for which you use the provisions of paragraph (o)(2)(ii)(B) or 
(o)(3)(iii)(B) of this section, you must calculate the organic HAP 
emitted during the month using Equation 20:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP19SE19.018

Where:

He = Total monthly organic HAP emitted, kg.
p = Number of different coating materials applied in a month.
Mci = Sum of the mass of coating material, i, as-applied 
on intermittently-controlled work stations operating in controlled 
mode and the mass of coating material, i, as-applied on always-
controlled work stations, in a month, kg.
Cahi = Monthly average, as-applied, organic HAP content 
of coating material, i, expressed as a mass fraction, kg/kg.
R = Overall organic HAP control efficiency, percent.
MBi = Sum of the mass of coating material, i, as-applied 
on intermittently-controlled work stations operating in bypass mode 
and the mass of coating material, i, as-applied on never-controlled 
work stations, in a month, kg.
Cahi = Monthly average, as-applied, organic HAP content 
of coating material, i, expressed as a mass fraction, kg/kg.
Mvret = Mass of volatile matter retained in the coated 
web after curing or drying, or otherwise not emitted to the 
atmosphere, kg. The value of this term will be zero in all cases 
except where you choose to take into account the volatile matter 
retained in the coated web or otherwise not emitted to the 
atmosphere for the

[[Page 49426]]

compliance demonstration procedures in this section.

    (q) Always-controlled work stations with more than one capture and 
control system. If you operate more than one capture system or more 
than one control device and only have always-controlled work stations, 
then you are in compliance with the emission standards in Sec.  
63.3320(b)(1) for the month if for each web coating line or group of 
web coating lines controlled by a common control device:
    (1) The volatile matter collection and recovery efficiency as 
determined by paragraphs (j)(1)(i), (iii), (v), and (vi) of this 
section is at least 95 percent at an existing affected source and at 
least 98 percent at a new affected source; or
    (2) The overall organic HAP control efficiency as determined by 
paragraphs (j)(2)(i) through (iv) of this section for each web coating 
line or group of web coating lines served by that control device and a 
common capture system is at least 95 percent at an existing affected 
source and at least 98 percent at a new affected source; or
    (3) The overall organic HAP control efficiency as determined by 
paragraphs (l)(1)(i) through (iii) and (l)(2)(i) of this section for 
each web coating line or group of web coating lines served by that 
control device and a common capture system is at least 95 percent at an 
existing affected source and at least 98 percent at a new affected 
source.
    (r) Mass-balance approach. As an alternative to paragraphs (b) 
through (p) of this section, you may demonstrate monthly compliance 
using a mass-balance approach in accordance with this section, except 
for any month that you elect to meet the emission limitation in Sec.  
63.3320(b)(4). The mass-balance approach should be performed as 
follows:
    (1) Separately for each individual/grouping(s) of lines, you must 
sum the mass of organic HAP emitted during the month and divide by the 
corresponding total mass of all organic HAP utilized on the lines, 
including from coating materials or coating solids, for the same 
period. You may also choose to use volatile organic content as a 
surrogate for organic HAP for the compliance demonstration in 
accordance with Sec.  63.3360(d). You are required to include all 
emissions and inputs that occur during periods that each line or 
grouping of lines operates in accordance with the applicability 
criteria in Sec.  63.3300.
    (2) You must include all of the organic HAP emitted by your 
individual/grouping(s) of lines, as follows.
    (i) You must record the mass of organic HAP or volatile organic 
content utilized at each work station of each of your individually/
grouping(s) of lines.
    (ii) You must assume that all of the organic HAP input to every 
never-controlled work station is emitted, unless you have determined an 
emission factor in accordance with Sec.  63.3360(g).
    (iii) For every always-controlled work station, you must assume 
that all of the organic HAP or volatile organic content is emitted, 
less the reductions provided by the corresponding capture system and 
control device, in accordance with the most recently measured capture 
and destruction efficiencies, or in accordance with the measured mass 
of VOC recovered for the month (e.g., carbon control or condensers). 
You may account for organic HAP or volatile organic content retained in 
the web if you have determined an emission factor in accordance with 
Sec.  63.3360(g).
    (iv) For every intermittently-controlled work station, you must 
assume that all of the organic HAP or volatile organic content is 
emitted during periods of no control. During periods of control, you 
must assume that all of the organic HAP or volatile organic content is 
emitted, less the reductions provided by the corresponding capture 
system and control device, in accordance with the most recently 
measured capture and destruction efficiencies, or in accordance with 
the measured mass of VOC recovered for the month (e.g., carbon control 
or condensers). You may account for organic HAP or volatile organic 
content retained in the web if you have determined an emission factor 
in accordance with Sec.  63.3360(g).
    (v) You must record the organic HAP or volatile organic content 
input to every work station of your individual/grouping(s) of lines and 
determine corresponding emissions during all periods of operation, 
including malfunctions or startups and shutdowns of any web coating 
line or control device.
    (3) You are in compliance with the emission standards in Sec.  
63.3320(b) if each of your individual/grouping(s) of lines, meets 
paragraphs (r)(4)(i) through (iii) of this section, as applicable, and 
each oxidizer control device, if used, additionally meets paragraph 
(r)(4)(iv) of this section:
    (i) The total mass of organic HAP emitted by the effected source 
based on HAP applied is no more than 0.05 kg organic HAP per kg HAP 
applied at an existing affected source and no more than 0.02 kg organic 
HAP per kg HAP applied at a new affected source; or
    (ii) The total mass of organic HAP emitted by the affected source 
based on coating solids applied is no more than 0.20 kg organic HAP per 
kg coating solids applied at an existing affected source and no more 
than 0.08 kg organic HAP per kg coating solids applied at a new 
affected source; or
    (iii) The total mass of organic HAP emitted by the affected source 
based on material applied is no more than 0.04 kg organic HAP per kg 
material applied at an existing affected source and no more than 0.016 
kg organic HAP per kg material applied at a new affected source.
    (iv) The oxidizer control device(s), if any, is operated such that 
the average operating parameter value is greater than or less than (as 
appropriate) the operating parameter value established in accordance 
with Sec.  63.3360(e) for each 3-hour period, and the capture system 
operating parameter is operated at an average value greater than or 
less than (as appropriate) the operating parameter value established in 
accordance with Sec.  63.3360(f).
0
11. Section 63.3400 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraph (a) and introductory text of paragraph (b);
0
b. Revising paragraphs (c)(1)(ii) and (c)(1)(iv);
0
c. Revising paragraph (c)(2) introductory text, and paragraphs 
(c)(2)(v) and (c)(2)(vi);
0
d. Revising paragraphs (e) and (f);
0
e. Redesignating paragraph (g) as paragraph (k) and revising the 
introductory text; and
0
f. Adding new paragraphs (g), (h), (i) and (j).
    The additions and revisions read as follows:


Sec.  63.3400   What notifications and reports must I submit?

    (a) Each owner or operator of an affected source subject to this 
subpart must submit the reports specified in paragraphs (b) through (k) 
of this section to the Administrator.
    (b) You must submit an initial notification as required by Sec.  
63.9(b), using the procedure in paragraph (h) of this section.
* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (ii) The first compliance report is due no later than July 31 or 
January 31, whichever date follows the end of the calendar half 
immediately following the compliance date that is specified for your 
affected source in Sec.  63.3330. Before [DATE 180 DAYS AFTER DATE OF 
PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE Federal Register], the report must 
be postmarked or delivered by the

[[Page 49427]]

aforementioned dates. On and after [DATE 180 DAYS AFTER DATE OF 
PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE Federal Register], the report must 
be submitted electronically as described in paragraph (h) of this 
section.
* * * * *
    (iv) Each subsequent compliance report must be submitted 
electronically no later than July 31 or January 31, whichever date is 
the first date following the end of the semiannual reporting period.
* * * * *
    (2) Compliance Report Contents. The compliance report must contain 
the information in paragraphs (c)(2)(i) through (viii) of this section:
* * * * *
    (v) For each deviation from an emission limitation (emission limit 
or operating limit) that applies to you and that occurs at an affected 
source where you are not using a CEMS to comply with the emission 
limitations in this subpart, the compliance report must contain the 
following information:
    (A) The total operating time of each affected source during the 
reporting period.
    (B) 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, the cause and duration of each failure.
    (C) 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.
    (D) Record actions taken to minimize emissions in accordance with 
Sec.  63.3340(a), and any corrective actions taken to return the 
affected unit to its normal or usual manner of operation.
    (E) Information on the number, duration, and cause for CPMS 
downtime incidents, if applicable, other than downtime associated with 
zero and span and other calibration checks.
    (vi) For each deviation from an emission limit occurring at an 
affected source where you are using a CEMS to comply with the emission 
limit in this subpart, you must include the following information:
    (A) The total operating time of each affected source during the 
reporting period.
    (B) 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, the cause and duration of each failure.
    (C) 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.
    (D) Record actions taken to minimize emissions in accordance with 
Sec.  63.3340(a), and any corrective actions taken to return the 
affected unit to its normal or usual manner of operation.
    (E) The date and time that each CEMS and CPMS, if applicable, was 
inoperative except for zero (low-level) and high-level checks.
    (F) The date and time that each CEMS and CPMS, if applicable, was 
out-of-control, including the information in Sec.  63.8(c)(8).
    (G) 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.
    (H) A summary of the total duration (in hours) of each deviation 
during the reporting period and the total duration of each deviation as 
a percent of the total source operating time during that reporting 
period.
    (I) 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.
    (J) A summary of the total duration (in hours) of CEMS and CPMS 
downtime during the reporting period and the total duration of CEMS and 
CPMS downtime as a percent of the total source operating time during 
that reporting period.
    (K) A breakdown of the total duration of CEMS and CPMS downtime 
during the reporting period into periods that are due to monitoring 
equipment malfunctions, non-monitoring equipment malfunctions, quality 
assurance/quality control calibrations, other known causes, and other 
unknown causes.
    (L) The date of the latest CEMS and CPMS certification or audit.
    (M) A description of any changes in CEMS, CPMS, or controls since 
the last reporting period.
* * * * *
    (e) You must submit a Notification of Compliance Status as 
specified in Sec.  63.9(h). For affected sources that commence 
construction or reconstruction after September 19, 2019, the 
Notification of Compliance Status must be submitted electronically 
using the procedure in paragraph (h) of this section. For affected 
sources that commenced construction or reconstruction on or before 
September 19, 2019, the Notification of Compliance Status must be 
submitted electronically using the procedure in paragraph (h) of this 
section after [DATE 180 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL 
RULE IN THE Federal Register].
    (f) Performance test reports. You must submit performance test 
reports as specified in Sec.  63.10(d)(2) if you are using a control 
device to comply with the emission standard and you have not obtained a 
waiver from the performance test requirement or you are not exempted 
from this requirement by Sec.  63.3360(b). Within 60 days after the 
date of completing each performance test required by this subpart, you 
must submit the results of the performance test following the 
procedures specified in paragraphs (f)(1) through (3) of this section.
    (1) Data collected using test methods supported by EPA's Electronic 
Reporting Tool (ERT) as listed on 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 EPA via the Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting 
Interface (CEDRI), which can be accessed through EPA's Central Data 
Exchange (CDX) (https://cdx.epa.gov/). The data must be submitted in a 
file format generated through the use of EPA's ERT. Alternatively, you 
may submit an electronic file consistent with the extensible markup 
language (XML) schema listed on EPA's ERT website.
    (2) Data collected using test methods that are not supported by 
EPA's ERT as listed on 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 EPA's ERT website. Submit the ERT generated package or 
alternative file to EPA via CEDRI.
    (3) Confidential business information (CBI). If you claim some of 
the information submitted under paragraph (f)(1) of this section is 
CBI, you must submit a complete file, including information claimed to 
be CBI, to EPA. The file must be generated through the use of EPA's ERT 
or an alternate electronic file consistent with the XML schema listed 
on EPA's ERT website. Submit the file on a compact disc, flash drive, 
or other commonly used electronic storage medium and clearly mark the 
medium as CBI. Mail the electronic medium to U.S. EPA/OAQPS/CORE CBI 
Office, Attention: Group Leader, Measurement Policy Group, MD C404-02, 
4930 Old Page Rd., Durham, NC 27703. The same file with the CBI omitted 
must be submitted to EPA via

[[Page 49428]]

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

[[Page 49429]]

    (5) In any circumstance, the reporting must occur as soon as 
possible after the force majeure event occurs.
    (k) For existing affected sources that commenced construction or 
reconstruction before September 19, 2019, before [DATE 180 DAYS AFTER 
PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE Federal Register] you must submit 
startup, shutdown, and malfunction reports as specified in Sec.  
63.10(d)(5), except that the provisions in subpart A of this part 
pertaining to startups, shutdowns, and malfunctions do not apply unless 
a control device is used to comply with this subpart. On and after, 
[DATE 180 DAYS AFTER PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE Federal 
Register], and for affected sources that commence construction or 
reconstruction after September 19, 2019, this section is no longer 
relevant.
* * * * *
0
12. Section 63.3410 is revised to read as follows:


Sec.  63.3410   What records must I keep?

    (a) Each owner or operator of an affected source subject to this 
subpart must maintain the records specified in paragraphs (a)(1) and 
(2) of this section on a monthly basis in accordance with the 
requirements of Sec.  63.10(b)(1):
    (1) Records specified in Sec.  63.10(b)(2) of all measurements 
needed to demonstrate compliance with this standard as indicated in 
Table 2 to Subpart JJJJ of Part 63, including:
    (i) Continuous emission monitor data in accordance with the 
requirements of Sec.  63.3350(d);
    (ii) Control device and capture system operating parameter data in 
accordance with the requirements of Sec.  63.3350(c), (e), and (f);
    (iii) Organic HAP content data for the purpose of demonstrating 
compliance in accordance with the requirements of Sec.  63.3360(c);
    (iv) Volatile matter and coating solids content data for the 
purpose of demonstrating compliance in accordance with the requirements 
of Sec.  63.3360(d);
    (v) Overall control efficiency determination using capture 
efficiency and control device destruction or removal efficiency test 
results in accordance with the requirements of Sec.  63.3360(e) and 
(f);
    (vi) Material usage, organic HAP usage, volatile matter usage, and 
coating solids usage and compliance demonstrations using these data in 
accordance with the requirements of Sec.  63.3370(b), (c), and (d); and
    (vii) Emission factor development calculations and HAP content for 
coating materials used to develop the emission factor as needed for 
Sec.  63.3360(g).
    (2) Records specified in Sec.  63.10(c) for each CMS operated by 
the owner or operator in accordance with the requirements of Sec.  
63.3350(b), as indicated in Table 2 to Subpart JJJJ of Part 63.
    (b) Each owner or operator of an affected source subject to this 
subpart must maintain records of all liquid-liquid material balances 
performed in accordance with the requirements of Sec.  63.3370. The 
records must be maintained in accordance with the applicable 
requirements of Sec.  63.10(b).
    (c) For each deviation from an emission limit occurring at an 
affected source, you must record the following information.
    (1) The total operating time of each affected source during the 
reporting period.
    (2) 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, the cause and duration of each failure.
    (3) 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.
    (4) Record actions taken to minimize emissions in accordance with 
Sec.  63.3340(a), and any corrective actions taken to return the 
affected unit to its normal or usual manner of operation.
    (d) Any records required to be maintained by this part that are 
submitted electronically via EPA's CEDRI may be maintained in 
electronic format. This ability to maintain electronic copies does not 
affect the requirement for facilities to make records, data, and 
reports available upon request to a delegated air agency or EPA as part 
of an on-site compliance evaluation.
0
13. Section 63.3420 is revised to read as follows:


Sec.  63.3420  What authorities may be delegated to the states?

    (a) In delegating implementation and enforcement authority to a 
state, local, or tribal agency under 40 CFR part 63, subpart E, the 
authorities contained in paragraph (b) of this section must be retained 
by the EPA Administrator and not transferred to a state, local, or 
tribal agency.
    (b) Authority which will not be delegated to state, local, or 
tribal agencies are listed in paragraphs (b)(1) through (3) of this 
section:
    (1) Approval of alternate test method for organic HAP content 
determination under Sec.  63.3360(c).
    (2) Approval of alternate test method for volatile matter 
determination under Sec.  63.3360(d).
    (3) Approval of alternatives to the work practice standards under 
Sec.  63.3322.
0
14. Table 1 to Subpart JJJJ is revised to read as follows:

  Table 1 to Subpart JJJJ of Part 63--Operating Limits if Using Add-On
                   Control Devices and Capture System
 If you are required to comply with operating limits by Sec.   63.3321,
  you must comply with the applicable operating limits in the following
                                 table:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        And you must
                                You must meet the        demonstrate
  For the following device:    following operating       continuous
                                     limit:            compliance with
                                                    operating limits by:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Thermal oxidizer.........  a. The average        i. Collecting the
                               combustion            combustion
                               temperature in any    temperature data
                               3-hour period must    according to Sec.
                               not fall more than    63.3350(e)(10);
                               50[deg] F below the  ii. Reducing the
                               combustion            data to 3-hour
                               temperature limit     block averages; and
                               established          iii. Maintain the 3-
                               according to Sec.     hour average
                               63.3360(e)(3)(i).     combustion
                                                     temperature at or
                                                     above the
                                                     temperature limit.
2. Catalytic oxidizer.......  a. The average        i. Collecting the
                               temperature at the    catalyst bed inlet
                               inlet to the          temperature data
                               catalyst bed in any   according to Sec.
                               3-hour period must    63.3350(e)(10);
                               not fall below the   ii. Reducing the
                               combustion            data to 3-hour
                               temperature limit     block averages; and
                               established          iii. Maintain the 3-
                               according to Sec.     hour average
                               63.3360(e)(3)(ii).    catalyst bed inlet
                                                     temperature at or
                                                     above the
                                                     temperature limit.

[[Page 49430]]

 
                              b. The temperature    i. Collecting the
                               rise across the       catalyst bed inlet
                               catalyst bed must     and outlet
                               not fall below the    temperature data
                               limit established     according to Sec.
                               according to Sec.     63.3350(e)(10);
                               63.3360(e)(3)(ii).   ii. Reducing the
                                                     data to 3-hour
                                                     block averages; and
                                                     iii. Maintain the 3-
                                                     hour average
                                                     temperature rise
                                                     across the catalyst
                                                     bed at or above the
                                                     limit.
3. Emission capture system..  Submit monitoring     Conduct monitoring
                               plan to the           according to the
                               Administrator that    plan (Sec.
                               identifies            63.3350(f)(3)).
                               operating
                               parameters to be
                               monitored according
                               to Sec.
                               63.3350(f).
------------------------------------------------------------------------

0
15. Table 2 to Subpart JJJJ is revised to read as follows:

     Table 2 to Subpart JJJJ of Part 63--Applicability of 40 CFR Part 63 General Provisions to Subpart JJJJ
      You must comply with the applicable General Provisions requirements according to the following table:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      General provisions reference              Applicable to subpart JJJJ                  Explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec.   63.1(a)(1)-(4)..................  Yes.                                     ..............................
Sec.   63.1(a)(5)......................  No.....................................  Reserved.
Sec.   63.1(a)(6)-(8)..................  Yes.                                     ..............................
Sec.   63.1(a)(9)......................  No.....................................  Reserved.
Sec.   63.1(a)(10)-(14)................  Yes.                                     ..............................
Sec.   63.1(b)(1)......................  No.....................................  Subpart JJJJ specifies
                                                                                   applicability.
Sec.   63.1(b)(2)-(3)..................  Yes.                                     ..............................
Sec.   63.1(c)(1)......................  Yes.                                     ..............................
Sec.   63.1(c)(2)......................  No.....................................  Area sources are not subject
                                                                                   to emission standards of
                                                                                   subpart JJJJ.
Sec.   63.1(c)(3)......................  No.....................................  Reserved.
Sec.   63.1(c)(4)......................  Yes.                                     ..............................
Sec.   63.1(c)(5)......................  Yes.                                     ..............................
Sec.   63.1(d).........................  No.....................................  Reserved.
Sec.   63.1(e).........................  Yes.                                     ..............................
Sec.   63.2............................  Yes....................................  Additional definitions in
                                                                                   subpart JJJJ.
Sec.   63.3(a)-(c).....................  Yes.                                     ..............................
Sec.   63.4(a)(1)-(3)..................  Yes.                                     ..............................
Sec.   63.4(a)(4)......................  No.....................................  Reserved.
Sec.   63.4(a)(5)......................  Yes.                                     ..............................
Sec.   63.4(b)-(c).....................  Yes.                                     ..............................
Sec.   63.5(a)(1)-(2)..................  Yes.                                     ..............................
Sec.   63.5(b)(1)......................  Yes.                                     ..............................
Sec.   63.5(b)(2)......................  No.....................................  Reserved.
Sec.   63.5(b)(3)-(6)..................  Yes.                                     ..............................
Sec.   63.5(c).........................  No.....................................  Reserved.
Sec.   63.5(d).........................  Yes.                                     ..............................
Sec.   63.5(e).........................  Yes.                                     ..............................
Sec.   63.5(f).........................  Yes.                                     ..............................
Sec.   63.6(a).........................  Yes....................................  Applies only when capture and
                                                                                   control system is used to
                                                                                   comply with the standard.
Sec.   63.6(b)(1)-(5)..................  No.....................................  Sec.   63.3330 specifies
                                                                                   compliance dates.
Sec.   63.6(b)(6)......................  No.....................................  Reserved.
Sec.   63.6(b)(7)......................  Yes.                                     ..............................
Sec.   63.6(c)(1)-(2)..................  Yes.                                     ..............................
Sec.   63.6(c)(3)-(4)..................  No.....................................  Reserved.
Sec.   63.6(c)(5)......................  Yes.                                     ..............................
Sec.   63.6(d).........................  No.....................................  Reserved.
Sec.   63.6(e)(1)(i)...................  Depends, see explanation...............  No, for new or reconstructed
                                                                                   sources which commenced
                                                                                   construction or
                                                                                   reconstruction after
                                                                                   September 19, 2019, see Sec.
                                                                                    63.3340(a) for general duty
                                                                                   requirement. Yes, for all
                                                                                   other affected sources before
                                                                                   [DATE 181 DAYS AFTER
                                                                                   PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN
                                                                                   THE FEDERAL REGISTER], and No
                                                                                   thereafter, see Sec.
                                                                                   63.3340(a) for general duty
                                                                                   requirement.
Sec.   63.6(e)(1)(ii)..................  Depends, see explanation...............  No, for new or reconstructed
                                                                                   sources which commenced
                                                                                   construction or
                                                                                   reconstruction after
                                                                                   September 19, 2019. Yes, for
                                                                                   all other affected sources
                                                                                   before [DATE 181 DAYS AFTER
                                                                                   PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN
                                                                                   THE FEDERAL REGISTER], and No
                                                                                   thereafter.
Sec.   63.6(e)(1)(iii).................  Yes.                                     ..............................
Sec.   63.6(e)(2)......................  No.....................................  Reserved.

[[Page 49431]]

 
Sec.   63.6(e)(3)......................  Depends, see explanation...............  No, for new or reconstructed
                                                                                   sources which commenced
                                                                                   construction or
                                                                                   reconstruction after
                                                                                   September 19, 2019. Yes, for
                                                                                   all other affected sources
                                                                                   before [DATE 181 DAYS AFTER
                                                                                   PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN
                                                                                   THE FEDERAL REGISTER], and No
                                                                                   thereafter.
Sec.   63.6(f)(1)......................  Depends, see explanation...............  No, for new or reconstructed
                                                                                   sources which commenced
                                                                                   construction or
                                                                                   reconstruction after
                                                                                   September 19, 2019. Yes, for
                                                                                   all other affected sources
                                                                                   before [DATE 181 DAYS AFTER
                                                                                   PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN
                                                                                   THE FEDERAL REGISTER], and No
                                                                                   thereafter.
Sec.   63.6(f)(2)-(3)..................  Yes.                                     ..............................
Sec.   63.6(g).........................  Yes.                                     ..............................
Sec.   63.6(h).........................  No.....................................  Subpart JJJJ does not require
                                                                                   continuous opacity monitoring
                                                                                   systems (COMS).
Sec.   63.6(i)(1)-(14).................  Yes.                                     ..............................
Sec.   63.6(i)(15).....................  No.....................................  Reserved.
Sec.   63.6(i)(16).....................  Yes.                                     ..............................
Sec.   63.6(j).........................  Yes.                                     ..............................
Sec.   63.7(a)-(d).....................  Yes.                                     ..............................
Sec.   63.7(e)(1)......................  No.....................................  See Sec.   63.3360(e)(2).
Sec.   63.7(e)(2)-(3)..................  Yes.                                     ..............................
Sec.   63.7(f)-(h).....................  Yes.                                     ..............................
Sec.   63.8(a)(1)-(2)..................  Yes.                                     ..............................
Sec.   63.8(a)(3)......................  No.....................................  Reserved.
Sec.   63.8(a)(4)......................  No.....................................  Subpart JJJJ does not have
                                                                                   monitoring requirements for
                                                                                   flares.
Sec.   63.8(b).........................  Yes.                                     ..............................
Sec.   63.8(c)(1) and Sec.               Depends, see explanation...............  No, for new or reconstructed
 63.8(c)(1)(i).                                                                    sources which commenced
                                                                                   construction or
                                                                                   reconstruction after
                                                                                   September 19, 2019, see Sec.
                                                                                    63.3340(a) for general duty
                                                                                   requirement. Yes, for all
                                                                                   other affected sources before
                                                                                   [DATE 181 DAYS AFTER
                                                                                   PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN
                                                                                   THE FEDERAL REGISTER], and No
                                                                                   thereafter, see Sec.
                                                                                   63.3340(a) for general duty
                                                                                   requirement.
Sec.   63.8(c)(1)(ii)..................  Yes....................................  Sec.   63.8(c)(1)(ii) only
                                                                                   applies if you use capture
                                                                                   and control systems.
Sec.   63.8(c)(1)(iii).................  Depends, see explanation...............  No, for new or reconstructed
                                                                                   sources which commenced
                                                                                   construction or
                                                                                   reconstruction after
                                                                                   September 19, 2019. Yes, for
                                                                                   all other affected sources
                                                                                   before [DATE 181 DAYS AFTER
                                                                                   PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN
                                                                                   THE FEDERAL REGISTER], and No
                                                                                   thereafter.
Sec.   63.8(c)(2)-(3)..................  Yes.                                     ..............................
Sec.   63.8(c)(4)......................  No.....................................  Sec.   63.3350 specifies the
                                                                                   requirements for the
                                                                                   operation of CMS for capture
                                                                                   systems and add-on control
                                                                                   devices at sources using
                                                                                   these to comply.
Sec.   63.8(c)(5)......................  No.....................................  Subpart JJJJ does not require
                                                                                   COMS.
Sec.   63.8(c)(6)-(8)..................  Yes....................................  Provisions for COMS are not
                                                                                   applicable.
Sec.   63.8(d)(1)-(2)..................  Yes.                                     ..............................
Sec.   63.8(d)(3)......................  No.....................................  Sec.   63.3350(e)(5) specifies
                                                                                   the program of corrective
                                                                                   action.
Sec.   63.8(e)-(f).....................  Yes....................................  Sec.   63.8(f)(6) only applies
                                                                                   if you use CEMS.
Sec.   63.8(g).........................  Yes....................................  Only applies if you use CEMS.
Sec.   63.9(a).........................  Yes.                                     ..............................
Sec.   63.9(b)(1)......................  Yes.                                     ..............................
Sec.   63.9(b)(2)......................  Yes....................................  Except Sec.   63.3400(b)(1)
                                                                                   requires submittal of initial
                                                                                   notification for existing
                                                                                   affected sources no later
                                                                                   than 1 year before compliance
                                                                                   date.
Sec.   63.9(b)(3)-(5)..................  Yes.                                     ..............................
Sec.   63.9(c)-(e).....................  Yes.                                     ..............................
Sec.   63.9(f).........................  No.....................................  Subpart JJJJ does not require
                                                                                   opacity and visible emissions
                                                                                   observations.
Sec.   63.9(g).........................  Yes....................................  Provisions for COMS are not
                                                                                   applicable.
Sec.   63.9(h)(1)-(3)..................  Yes.                                     ..............................
Sec.   63.9(h)(4)......................  No.....................................  Reserved.
Sec.   63.9(h)(5)-(6)..................  Yes.                                     ..............................
Sec.   63.9(i).........................  Yes.                                     ..............................
Sec.   63.9(j).........................  Yes.                                     ..............................
Sec.   63.10(a)........................  Yes.                                     ..............................
Sec.   63.10(b)(1).....................  Yes.                                     ..............................
Sec.   63.10(b)(2)(i)..................  Depends, see explanation...............  No, for new or reconstructed
                                                                                   sources which commenced
                                                                                   construction or
                                                                                   reconstruction after
                                                                                   September 19, 2019. Yes, for
                                                                                   all other affected sources
                                                                                   before [DATE 181 DAYS AFTER
                                                                                   PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN
                                                                                   THE FEDERAL REGISTER], and No
                                                                                   thereafter.
Sec.   63.10(b)(2)(ii).................  No.....................................  See Sec.   63.3410 for
                                                                                   recordkeeping of relevant
                                                                                   information.
Sec.   63.10(b)(2)(iii)................  Yes....................................  Sec.   63.10(b)(2)(iii) only
                                                                                   applies if you use a capture
                                                                                   and control system.
Sec.   63.10(b)(2)(iv)-(v).............  Depends, see explanation...............  No, for new or reconstructed
                                                                                   sources which commenced
                                                                                   construction or
                                                                                   reconstruction after
                                                                                   September 19, 2019. Yes, for
                                                                                   all other affected sources
                                                                                   before [DATE 181 DAYS AFTER
                                                                                   PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN
                                                                                   THE FEDERAL REGISTER], and No
                                                                                   thereafter.
Sec.   63.10(b)(2)(vi)-(xiv)...........  Yes.                                     ..............................

[[Page 49432]]

 
Sec.   63.10(b)(3).....................  Yes.                                     ..............................
Sec.   63.10(c)(1).....................  Yes.                                     ..............................
Sec.   63.10(c)(2)-(4).................  No.....................................  Reserved.
Sec.   63.10(c)(5)-(8).................  Yes.                                     ..............................
Sec.   63.10(c)(9).....................  No.....................................  Reserved.
Sec.   63.10(c)(10)-(14)...............  Yes.                                     ..............................
Sec.   63.10(c)(15)....................  Depends, see explanation...............  No, for new or reconstructed
                                                                                   sources which commenced
                                                                                   construction or
                                                                                   reconstruction after
                                                                                   September 19, 2019. Yes, for
                                                                                   all other affected sources
                                                                                   before [DATE 181 DAYS AFTER
                                                                                   PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN
                                                                                   THE FEDERAL REGISTER], and No
                                                                                   thereafter.
Sec.   63.10(d)(1)-(2).................  Yes.                                     ..............................
Sec.   63.10(d)(3).....................  No.....................................  Subpart JJJJ does not require
                                                                                   opacity and visible emissions
                                                                                   observations.
Sec.   63.10(d)(4).....................  Yes.                                     ..............................
Sec.   63.10(d)(5)(i)..................  Depends, see explanation...............  No, for new or reconstructed
                                                                                   sources which commenced
                                                                                   construction or
                                                                                   reconstruction after
                                                                                   September 19, 2019. Yes, for
                                                                                   all other affected sources
                                                                                   before [DATE 181 DAYS AFTER
                                                                                   PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN
                                                                                   THE FEDERAL REGISTER], and No
                                                                                   thereafter. See Sec.
                                                                                   63.3400(c) for malfunction
                                                                                   reporting requirements.
Sec.   63.10(d)(5)(ii).................  Depends, see explanation...............  No, for new or reconstructed
                                                                                   sources which commenced
                                                                                   construction or
                                                                                   reconstruction after
                                                                                   September 19, 2019. Yes, for
                                                                                   all other affected sources
                                                                                   before [DATE 181 DAYS AFTER
                                                                                   PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN
                                                                                   THE FEDERAL REGISTER], and No
                                                                                   thereafter. See Sec.
                                                                                   63.3400(c) for malfunction
                                                                                   reporting requirements.
Sec.   63.10(e)(1)-(2).................  Yes....................................  Provisions for COMS are not
                                                                                   applicable.
Sec.   63.10(e)(3)-(4).................  No.....................................  Subpart JJJJ does not require
                                                                                   opacity and visible emissions
                                                                                   observations.
Sec.   63.10(f)........................  Yes.                                     ..............................
Sec.   63.11...........................  No.....................................  Subpart JJJJ does not specify
                                                                                   use of flares for compliance.
Sec.   63.12...........................  Yes.                                     ..............................
Sec.   63.13...........................  Yes.                                     ..............................
Sec.   63.14...........................  Yes....................................  Subpart JJJJ includes
                                                                                   provisions for alternative
                                                                                   ASME and ASTM test methods
                                                                                   that are incorporated by
                                                                                   reference.
Sec.   63.15...........................  Yes.                                     ..............................
Sec.   63.16...........................  Yes.                                     ..............................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

0
16. Add Table 3 to Subpart JJJJ to read as follows:

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

[[Page 49433]]

 
Benzidine.................................                       92-87-5
Benzotrichloride..........................                       98-07-7
Benzyl chloride...........................                      100-44-7
beta-Hexachlorocyclohexane (b-HCH)........                      319-85-7
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate................                      117-81-7
Bis(chloromethyl)ether....................                      542-88-1
Bromoform.................................                       75-25-2
Captan....................................                      133-06-2
Carbon tetrachloride......................                       56-23-5
Chlordane.................................                       57-74-9
Chlorobenzilate...........................                      510-15-6
Chloroform................................                       67-66-3
Chloroprene...............................                      126-99-8
Cresols (mixed)...........................                     1319-77-3
DDE.......................................                     3547-04-4
Dichloroethyl ether.......................                      111-44-4
Dichlorvos................................                       62-73-7
Epichlorohydrin...........................                      106-89-8
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                              58-89-9
 isomers).................................
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. 2019-19101 Filed 9-18-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P

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