Justia Environmental Protection Agency National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Surface Coating of Automobiles and Light-Duty Trucks; Surface Coating of Miscellaneous Metal Parts and Products; Surface Coating of Plastic Parts and Products; Surface Coating of Large Appliances; Printing, Coating, and Dyeing of Fabrics and Other Textiles; and Surface Coating of Metal Furniture Residual Risk and Technology Reviews, 58936-59030 [2019-18345]

National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Surface Coating of Automobiles and Light-Duty Trucks; Surface Coating of Miscellaneous Metal Parts and Products; Surface Coating of Plastic Parts and Products; Surface Coating of Large Appliances; Printing, Coating, and Dyeing of Fabrics and Other Textiles; and Surface Coating of Metal Furniture Residual Risk and Technology Reviews, 58936-59030 [2019-18345]

Download as PDF 58936 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 212 / Friday, November 1, 2019 / Proposed Rules ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 63 [EPA–HQ–OAR–2019–0314, EPA–HQ–OAR– 2019–0312, EPA–HQ–OAR–2019–0313, EPA–HQ–OAR–2017–0670, EPA–HQ–OAR– 2017–0668, EPA–HQ–OAR–2017–0669; FRL–9998–77–OAR] RIN 2060–AT49 and RIN 2060–AT72 National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Surface Coating of Automobiles and Light-Duty Trucks; Surface Coating of Miscellaneous Metal Parts and Products; Surface Coating of Plastic Parts and Products; Surface Coating of Large Appliances; Printing, Coating, and Dyeing of Fabrics and Other Textiles; and Surface Coating of Metal Furniture Residual Risk and Technology Reviews Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Proposed rule. AGENCY: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing amendments to address the results of the residual risk and technology reviews (RTR) that the EPA is required to conduct in accordance with the Clean Air Act (CAA) with regard to the National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for the Surface Coating of Automobiles and Light-Duty Trucks (ALDT), the NESHAP for the Surface Coating of Miscellaneous Metal Parts and Products (MMPP), and the NESHAP for the Surface Coating of Plastic Parts and Products (PPP). The EPA is proposing to find the risks due to emissions of air toxics from these source categories under the current standards are acceptable and the standards provide an ample margin of safety to protect public health. We are proposing no revisions to the numerical emission limits based on these analyses. The EPA is proposing to amend provisions addressing emissions during periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction (SSM); to amend provisions regarding electronic reporting of performance test results; to amend provisions regarding monitoring requirements; and to make miscellaneous clarifying and technical corrections. This notice also proposes technical corrections to the NESHAP for Surface Coating of Large Appliances; NESHAP for Printing, Coating, and Dyeing of Fabrics and Other Textiles; and NESHAP for Surface Coating of Metal Furniture. DATES: SUMMARY: VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:18 Oct 31, 2019 Jkt 250001 Comments. Comments must be received on or before December 16, 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 December 2, 2019. Public hearing. If anyone contacts us requesting a public hearing on or before November 6, 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-sourcesair-pollution/surface-coatingautomobiles-and-light-duty-trucksnational-emission, https://www.epa.gov/ stationary-sources-air-pollution/surfacecoating-miscellaneous-metal-parts-andproducts-national and https:// www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-airpollution/surface-coating-plastic-partsand-products-national-emission. 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–2019–0314 for 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 63, subpart IIII, Automobiles and Light-Duty Trucks; Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2019– 0312 for 40 CFR part 63, subpart MMMM, Surface Coating of Miscellaneous Metal Parts and Products; Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2019– 0313 for 40 CFR part 63, subpart PPPP, Surface Coating of Plastic Parts and Products; Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– OAR–2017–0668 for 40 CFR part 63, subpart OOOO, Printing Coating, and Dyeing of Fabrics and Other Textiles; EPA–HQ–OAR–2017–0669 for 40 CFR part 63, subpart RRRR, Surface Coating of Metal Furniture; Docket ID No. EPA– HQ–OAR–2017–0670, for 40 CFR part 63 subpart NNNN for Surface Coating of Large Appliances 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– 2019–0312, EPA–HQ–OAR–2019–0313, EPA–HQ–OAR–2019–0314, HQ–OAR– 2017–0668, EPA–HQ–OAR–2017–0669, or EPA–HQ–OAR–2017–0670 (specify the applicable docket number) in the subject line of the message. • Fax: (202) 566–9744. Attention Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2019– 0312, EPA–HQ–OAR–2019–0313, or PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 EPA–HQ–OAR–2019–0314, HQ–OAR– 2017–0668, EPA–HQ–OAR–2017–0669, or EPA–HQ–OAR–2017–0670 (specify the applicable docket number). • Mail: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Docket Center, Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2019– 0312, EPA–HQ–OAR–2019–0313, or EPA–HQ–OAR–2019–0314, HQ–OAR– 2017–0668, EPA–HQ–OAR–2017–0669, or EPA–HQ–OAR–2017–0670 (specify the applicable docket number), Mail Code 28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20460. • Hand/Courier Delivery: EPA Docket Center, WJC West Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20004. The Docket Center’s hours of operation are 8:30 a.m.–4:30 p.m., Monday–Friday (except federal holidays). Instructions: All submissions received must include the applicable Docket ID No. for this rulemaking. Comments received may be posted without change to https://www.regulations.gov/, including any personal information provided. For detailed instructions on sending comments and additional information on the rulemaking process, see the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For questions about this proposed action for the Surface Coating of Miscellaneous Metal Parts and Products (MMPP) NESHAP, the Surface Coating of Plastic Parts and Products (PPP) NESHAP, and the technical corrections to the NESHAP for Surface Coating of Large Appliances contact Ms. Kim Teal, Minerals and Manufacturing Group, Sector Policies and Programs Division (D243–04), Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711; telephone number: (919) 541–5580; fax number: (919) 541–4991; and email address: teal.kim@epa.gov. For questions about the proposed action for the Surface Coating of Automobiles and Light-Duty Trucks (ALDT) NESHAP and the technical corrections to the NESHAP for Surface Coating of Metal Furniture contact Ms. J. Kaye Whitfield, Minerals and Manufacturing Group, Sector Policies and Programs Division (D243– 04), Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711; telephone number: (919) 541–2509; fax number: (919) 541–4991; and email address: whitfield.kaye@epa.gov. For questions about the technical corrections to the Printing, Coating, and Dyeing of Fabrics and Other Textiles contact Ms. Paula E:\FR\FM\01NOP2.SGM 01NOP2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 212 / Friday, November 1, 2019 / Proposed Rules Hirtz, Minerals and Manufacturing Group, Sector Policies and Programs Division (D243–04), Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711; telephone number: (919) 541– 2618; fax number: (919) 541–4991; and email address: hirtz.paula@epa.gov. For specific information regarding the risk modeling methodology, contact Mr. Chris Sarsony, Health and Environmental Impacts Division (C539– 02), Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711; telephone number: (919) 541–4843; fax number: (919) 541–0840; and email address: sarsony.chris@epa.gov. For information about the applicability of any of these NESHAP to a particular entity, contact Mr. John Cox, Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA WJC South Building (Mail Code 2227A), 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: (202) 564–1395; and email address: cox.john@epa.gov. For questions about monitoring and testing requirements, contact Mr. Muntasir Ali, Measurement Policy Group, Sector Policies and Programs Division (D221– 01), Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711; telephone number: (919) 541–0833; fax number: (919) 541–4991; and email address: ali.muntasir@epa.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Public hearing. Please contact Ms. Nancy Perry at (919) 541–5628 or by email at perry.nancy@epa.gov to request a public hearing, to register to speak at the public hearing, or to inquire as to whether a public hearing will be held. Docket. The EPA has established three separate dockets for these rulemakings. Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2019– 0314 has been established for 40 CFR part 63, subpart IIII, Surface Coating of Automobiles and Light-Duty Trucks. Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2019– 0312 has been established for 40 CFR part 63, subpart MMMM, Surface Coating of Miscellaneous Metal Parts and Products. EPA–HQ–OAR–2019– 0313 has been established for 40 CFR part 63, subpart PPPP, Surface Coating of Plastic Parts and Products. In addition, docket numbers for the technical corrections have been established: Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– OAR–2017–0670 for 40 CFR part 63, subpart NNNN, Surface Coating of Large Appliances; Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:18 Oct 31, 2019 Jkt 250001 OAR–2017–0669 for 40 CFR part 63, subpart RRRR, Surface Coating of Metal Furniture; and Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– OAR–2017–0668 for 40 CFR part 63, subpart OOOO, Printing, Coating, and Dyeing of Fabrics and Other Textiles. All documents in the dockets are listed in Regulations.gov. Although listed, some information is not publicly available, e.g., Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically in Regulations.gov or in hard copy at the EPA Docket Center, Room 3334, WJC West Building, 1301 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566–1744, and the telephone number for the EPA Docket Center is (202) 566– 1742. The dockets related to the technical corrections to the NESHAP for Surface Coating of Large Appliances, the NESHAP for Printing, Coating, and Dyeing of Fabrics and Other Textiles, and the NESHAP for Surface Coating of Metal Furniture are discussed in section II.E of this preamble. Instructions. Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2019– 0314 for 40 CFR part 63, subpart IIII, Surface Coating of Automobiles and Light-Duty Trucks, Docket ID No. EPA– HQ–OAR–2019–0312 for 40 CFR part 63, subpart MMMM, Surface Coating of Miscellaneous Metal Parts and Products, or Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2019– 0313 for 40 CFR part 63, subpart PPPP, Surface Coating of Plastic Parts and Products, as applicable to your comments. Direct your comments for the technical corrections to Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2017–0670 for 40 CFR part 63, subpart NNNN, Surface Coating of Large Appliances; Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2017–0669 for 40 CFR part 63, subpart RRRR, Surface Coating of Metal Furniture; and Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2017–0668 for 40 CFR part 63, subpart OOOO, Printing, Coating, and Dyeing of Fabrics and Other Textiles. 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. PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 58937 Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through https:// www.regulations.gov/ or email. This type of information should be submitted by mail as discussed below. The EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary submission (i.e., on the Web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets/ commenting-epa-dockets. The https://www.regulations.gov/ website allows you to submit your comment anonymously, which means the EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email comment directly to the EPA without going through https:// www.regulations.gov/, your email address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the internet. If you submit an electronic comment, the EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any digital storage media you submit. If the EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, the EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should not include special characters or any form of encryption and be free of any defects or viruses. For additional information about the EPA’s public docket, visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at https:// www.epa.gov/dockets. Submitting CBI. Do not submit information containing CBI to the EPA through https://www.regulations.gov/ or email. Clearly mark the part or all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information on any digital storage media that you mail to the EPA, mark the outside of the digital storage media as CBI and then identify electronically within the digital storage media the specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one complete version of the comments that includes information claimed as CBI, you must submit a copy of the E:\FR\FM\01NOP2.SGM 01NOP2 58938 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 212 / Friday, November 1, 2019 / Proposed Rules comments that does not contain the information claimed as CBI directly to the public docket through the procedures outlined in Instructions above. If you submit any digital storage media that does not contain CBI, mark the outside of the digital storage media clearly that it does not contain CBI. Information not marked as CBI will be included in the public docket and the EPA’s electronic public docket without prior notice. Information marked as CBI will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. Send or deliver information identified as CBI only to the following address: OAQPS Document Control Officer (C404–02), OAQPS, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711, Attention Docket ID No. EPA– HQ–OAR–2019–0314 for 40 CFR part 63, subpart IIII, Surface Coating of Automobiles and Light-Duty Trucks (ALDT Docket); Docket ID No. EPA– HQ–OAR–2019–0312 for 40 CFR part 63, subpart MMMM, Surface Coating of Miscellaneous Metal Parts and Products (MMPP Docket); and Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2019–0313 for 40 CFR part 63, subpart PPPP, Surface Coating of Plastic Parts and Products (PPP Docket), as applicable. Preamble acronyms and abbreviations. We use multiple acronyms and terms in this preamble. While this list may not be exhaustive, to ease the reading of this preamble and for reference purposes, the EPA defines the following terms and acronyms here: ACA American Coatings Association AEGL acute exposure guideline level AERMOD air dispersion model used by the HEM–3 model ALDT automobile and light-duty truck BACT best available control technology CAA Clean Air Act CalEPA California EPA CBI Confidential Business Information CDX Central Data Exchange CEDRI Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface CEMS continuous emissions monitoring systems CFR Code of Federal Regulations ECHO Enforcement and Compliance History Online EPA Environmental Protection Agency EPFP extreme performance fluoropolymer ERPG emergency response planning guideline ERT Electronic Reporting Tool GACT generally available control technology gal gallon HAP hazardous air pollutant(s) HCl hydrochloric acid HEM–3 Human Exposure Model HF hydrogen fluoride HI hazard index HQ hazard quotient VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:18 Oct 31, 2019 Jkt 250001 IBR incorporation by reference ICAC Institute of Clean Air Companies IRIS Integrated Risk Information System kg kilogram km kilometer LAER lowest achievable emission rate lb pound MACT maximum achievable control technology MIBK methyl isobutyl ketone MIR maximum individual risk MMPP miscellaneous metal parts and products NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards NAICS North American Industry Classification System NEI National Emission Inventory NESHAP national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants NSR New Source Review NTTAA National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act OAQPS Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards OMB Office of Management and Budget OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration PB–HAP hazardous air pollutants known to be persistent and bio-accumulative in the environment PDF portable document format POM polycyclic organic matter PPP plastic parts and products PRA Paperwork Reduction Act PTE permanent total enclosure RACT reasonably available control technology RBLC RACT/BACT/LAER Clearinghouse REL reference exposure level RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act RfC reference concentration RfD reference dose RTO regenerative thermal oxidizer RTR residual risk and technology review SAB Science Advisory Board SSM startup, shutdown, and malfunction TOSHI target organ-specific hazard index tpy tons per year UF uncertainty factor mg/m3 micrograms per cubic meter UMRA Unfunded Mandates Reform Act URE unit risk estimate VCS voluntary consensus standards VOC volatile organic compounds Organization of this document. The information in this preamble is organized as follows: I. General Information A. Does this action apply to me? B. Where can I get a copy of this document and other related information? II. Background A. What is the statutory authority for this action? B. What are the source categories and how do the current NESHAP regulate their HAP emissions? C. What data collection activities were conducted to support this action? D. What other relevant background information and data are available? III. Analytical Procedures and DecisionMaking A. How do we consider risk in our decision-making? PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 B. How do we perform the technology review? C. How did we estimate post-MACT risks posed by these source categories? IV. Analytical Results and Proposed Decisions A. What are the analytical results and proposed decisions for the surface coating of automobiles and light-duty trucks source category? B. What are the analytical results and proposed decisions for the MMPP source category? C. What are the analytical results and proposed decisions for the Surface Coating of Plastic Parts and Products source category? D. Proposed Corrections to Earlier Subparts. V. Summary of Cost, Environmental, and Economic Impacts A. What are the affected sources? B. What are the air quality impacts? C. What are the cost impacts? D. What are the economic impacts? E. What are the benefits? VI. Request for Comments VII. Submitting Data Corrections VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review B. Executive Order 13771: Reducing Regulations and Controlling Regulatory Costs C. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) D. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) F. Executive Order 13132: Federalism G. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments H. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks I. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use J. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) and 1 CFR Part 51 K. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations I. General Information A. Does this action apply to me? Table 1 of this preamble lists the NESHAP and associated regulated industrial source categories that are the subject of this proposal. Table 1 is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding the entities that this proposed action is likely to affect. The proposed standards, once promulgated, will be directly applicable to the affected sources. Federal, state, local, and tribal government entities would not be affected by this proposed action. As E:\FR\FM\01NOP2.SGM 01NOP2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 212 / Friday, November 1, 2019 / Proposed Rules defined in the Initial List of Categories of Sources Under Section 112(c)(1) of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 (see 57 FR 31576, July 16, 1992) and Documentation for Developing the Initial Source Category List, Final Report (see EPA–450/3–91–030, July 1992), the Surface Coating of Automobiles and Light-Duty Trucks (ALDT) source category includes any facility that is a major source of hazardous air pollutants (HAP) and is engaged in the surface coating of new automobile or new light-duty truck bodies or body parts for new automobiles or new light-duty trucks. We estimate that 43 major source facilities engaged in surface coating of automobiles and light-duty trucks would be subject to this proposal. The MMPP source category includes any facility engaged in the surface coating of miscellaneous metal parts and products that is a major source of HAP emissions. Miscellaneous metal parts and products include, but are not limited to, metal components of the following types of products as well as the products themselves: Motor vehicle parts and accessories; bicycles and sporting goods; recreational vehicles; extruded aluminum structural components; railroad cars; heavy-duty trucks; medical equipment; lawn and garden equipment; electronic equipment; magnet wire; steel drums; industrial machinery; metal pipes; and numerous other industrial, household, and consumer products. We estimate that 368 major source facilities engaged in surface coating of miscellaneous metal parts and products would be subject to 58939 this proposal. The PPP source category includes any facility engaged in the surface coating of plastic parts or products that is a major source of HAP emissions. Plastic parts and products include, but are not limited to, plastic components of the following types of products as well as the products themselves: Motor vehicle parts and accessories for automobiles, trucks, recreational vehicles; sporting and recreational goods; toys; business machines; laboratory and medical equipment; and household and other consumer products. We estimate that 125 major source facilities engaged in plastic parts and products surface coating would be subject to this proposal. TABLE 1—NESHAP, INDUSTRIAL AND GOVERNMENT SOURCES AFFECTED BY THIS PROPOSED ACTION NESHAP source category NAICS code 1 Regulated entities 2 Surface Coating of Automobiles and Light-Duty Trucks. Surface Coating of Miscellaneous Metal Parts and Products. 336111, 336112, 336211 .............. Automobile and light-duty truck assembly plants, producers of automobile and light-duty truck bodies. Automobile parts (engine parts, vehicle parts and accessories, brakes, axles, etc.). 335312, 336111, 336211, 336312, 33632, 33633, 33634, 33637, 336399. 331316, 331524, 332321, 332323 33312, 333611, 333618 ................ 332312, 332722, 332813, 332991, 332999, 334119, 336413, 339999. 33612, 336211 ............................... 331319, 331422, 335929 .............. 332311 ........................................... 33242, 81131, 322214, 326199, 331513, 332439. 331111, 33121, 331221, 331511 .. 33651, 336611, 482111 ................ 3369, 331316, 336991, 336211, 336112, 336213, 336214, 336399. 326291, 326299 ............................. 332311, 332312 ............................. Surface Coating of Plastic Parts and Products. 336212, 336999, 33635, 56121, 8111. 56211. 337214 ........................................... 32614, 32615 ................................. 326199 ........................................... 333313 ........................................... 33422 ............................................. 336211 336399 336212 336213 336214 336999 ........................................... ........................................... ........................................... ........................................... ........................................... ........................................... 339111, 339112 ............................. 33992 ............................................. 33995 ............................................. VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:18 Oct 31, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4701 Extruded aluminum, architectural components, rod, and tubes. Heavy equipment (tractors, earth moving machinery). Job shops (making any of the products from the miscellaneous metal parts and products segments). Large trucks and buses. Magnet wire. Prefabricated metal buildings, carports, docks, dwellings, greenhouses, panels for buildings. Metal drums, kegs, pails, shipping containers. Metal pipe and foundry (plate, tube, rods, nails, spikes, etc.). Rail transportation (brakes, engines, freight cars, locomotives. Recreational vehicles (motorcycles, motor homes, semitrailers, truck trailers). Rubber to metal products (engine mounts, rubberized tank tread, harmonic balancers. Structural steel (joists, railway bridge sections, highway bridge sections). Miscellaneous transportation related equipment and parts. Office furniture, except wood. Plastic foam products (e.g., pool floats, wrestling mats, life jackets). Plastic products not elsewhere classified (e.g., name plates, coin holders, storage boxes, license plate housings, cosmetic caps, cup holders). Office machines. Radio and television broadcasting and communications equipment (e.g., cellular telephones). Motor vehicle body manufacturing. Motor vehicle parts and accessories. Truck trailer manufacturing. Motor home manufacturing. Travel trailer and camper manufacturing. Transportation equipment not elsewhere classified (e.g., snowmobile hoods, running boards, tractor body panels, personal watercraft parts). Medical equipment and supplies. Sporting and athletic goods. Signs and advertising specialties. Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\01NOP2.SGM 01NOP2 58940 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 212 / Friday, November 1, 2019 / Proposed Rules TABLE 1—NESHAP, INDUSTRIAL AND GOVERNMENT SOURCES AFFECTED BY THIS PROPOSED ACTION—Continued NESHAP source category 1 2 NAICS code 1 Regulated entities 2 339999 ........................................... Manufacturing industries not elsewhere classified (e.g., bezels, consoles, panels, lenses). North American Industry Classification System. Regulated entities means major source facilities that apply surface coatings to these parts or products. B. Where can I get a copy of this document and other related information? In addition to being available in the dockets for this action, an electronic copy of this proposed 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-sourcesair-pollution/surface-coatingautomobiles-and-light-duty-trucksnational-emission, https://www.epa.gov/ stationary-sources-air-pollution/surfacecoating-miscellaneous-metal-parts-andproducts-national, and https:// www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-airpollution/surface-coating-plastic-partsand-products-national-emission. Following publication in the Federal Register, the EPA will post the Federal Register version of the proposal and key technical documents at these same websites. Information on the overall RTR program is available at https:// www3.epa.gov/ttn/atw/rrisk/rtrpg.html. A redline version of the regulatory language that incorporates the proposed changes in this action are available in the Automobiles and Light-Duty Trucks, the Metal Parts and Products, and the Plastic Parts and Products Dockets (Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2019– 0314, Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR– 2019–0312, and Docket ID No. EPA– HQ–OAR–2019–0313, respectively). II. Background A. What is the statutory authority for this action? The statutory authority for this action is provided by sections 112 and 301 of the CAA, as amended (42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.).1 Section 112 of the CAA establishes a two-stage regulatory process to develop standards for emissions of HAP from stationary sources. Generally, the first stage involves establishing technology-based standards and the second stage involves evaluating those standards that are based on maximum achievable control technology (MACT) to determine 1 In addition, section 301 of the CAA provides general authority for the Administrator to ‘‘prescribe such regulations as are necessary to carry out his functions’’ under the CAA. VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:18 Oct 31, 2019 Jkt 250001 whether additional standards are needed to further address any remaining risk associated with HAP emissions. This second stage is commonly referred to as the ‘‘residual risk review.’’ In addition to the residual risk review, the CAA also requires the EPA to review standards set under CAA section 112 every 8 years to determine if there are ‘‘developments in practices, processes, or control technologies’’ that may be appropriate to incorporate into the standards. This review is commonly referred to as the ‘‘technology review.’’ When the two reviews are combined into a single rulemaking, it is commonly referred to as the ‘‘risk and technology review.’’ The discussion that follows identifies the most relevant statutory sections and briefly explains the contours of the methodology used to implement these statutory requirements. A more comprehensive discussion appears in the document titled CAA Section 112 Risk and Technology Reviews: Statutory Authority and Methodology, in the dockets for each subpart in this rulemaking (Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2019–0314 for Automobiles and Light-Duty Trucks, Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2019– 0312 for Miscellaneous Metal Parts and Products, and Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– OAR–2019–0313 for Plastic Parts and Products). In the first stage of the CAA section 112 standard setting process, the EPA promulgates technology-based standards under CAA section112(d) for categories of sources identified as emitting one or more of the HAP listed in CAA section 112(b). Sources of HAP emissions are either major sources or area sources, and CAA section 112 establishes different requirements for major source standards and area source standards. ‘‘Major sources’’ are those that emit or have the potential to emit 10 tons per year (tpy) or more of a single HAP or 25 tpy or more of any combination of HAP. All other sources are ‘‘area sources.’’ For major sources, CAA section 112(d) 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 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 impacts). These standards are commonly referred to as MACT standards. CAA section 112(d)(3) also establishes a minimum control level for MACT standards, known as the MACT ‘‘floor.’’ The EPA must also consider control options that are more stringent than the floor. Standards more stringent than the floor are commonly referred to as beyond-the-floor standards. In certain instances, as provided in CAA section 112(h), the EPA may set work practice standards where it is not feasible to prescribe or enforce a numerical emission standard. For area sources, CAA section 112(d)(5) gives the EPA discretion to set standards based on generally available control technologies or management practices (GACT standards) in lieu of MACT standards. The second stage in standard-setting focuses on identifying and addressing any remaining (i.e., ‘‘residual’’) risk according to CAA section 112(f). For source categories subject to MACT standards, section 112(f)(2) of the CAA requires the EPA to determine whether promulgation of additional standards is needed to provide an ample margin of safety to protect public health or to prevent an adverse environmental effect. Section 112(d)(5) of the CAA provides that this residual risk review is not required for categories of area sources subject to GACT standards. Section 112(f)(2)(B) of the CAA further expressly preserves the EPA’s use of the two-step approach for developing standards to address any residual risk and the Agency’s interpretation of ‘‘ample margin of safety’’ developed in the National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Benzene Emissions from Maleic Anhydride Plants, Ethylbenzene/Styrene Plants, Benzene Storage Vessels, Benzene Equipment Leaks, and Coke By-Product Recovery Plants (Benzene NESHAP) (54 FR 38044, September 14, 1989). The EPA notified Congress in the Risk Report that the Agency intended to use the Benzene NESHAP approach in making CAA section 112(f) residual risk determinations (EPA–453/R–99–001, p. ES–11). The EPA subsequently adopted this approach in its residual risk determinations and the United States Court of Appeals for the District of E:\FR\FM\01NOP2.SGM 01NOP2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 212 / Friday, November 1, 2019 / Proposed Rules Columbia Circuit (the Court) upheld the EPA’s interpretation that CAA section 112(f)(2) incorporates the approach established in the Benzene NESHAP. See NRDC v. EPA, 529 F.3d 1077, 1083 (D.C. Cir. 2008). The approach incorporated into the CAA and used by the EPA to evaluate residual risk and to develop standards under CAA section 112(f)(2) is a twostep approach. In the first step, the EPA determines whether risks are acceptable. This determination ‘‘considers all health information, including risk estimation uncertainty, and includes a presumptive limit on maximum individual lifetime [cancer] risk (MIR) 2 of approximately [1-in-10 thousand] [i.e., 100-in-1 million].’’ 54 FR 38045, September 14, 1989. If risks are unacceptable, the EPA must determine the emissions standards necessary to bring risks 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-in1 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 frequently than every 8 years. In conducting this review, which we call the ‘‘technology review,’’ the EPA is not required to recalculate the MACT floor. Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) v. EPA, 529 F.3d 1077, 1084 (D.C. Cir. 2008). Association of Battery Recyclers, Inc. v. EPA, 716 F.3d 667 (D.C. Cir. 2013). The EPA may consider cost in deciding whether to revise the 2 Although defined as ‘‘maximum individual risk,’’ MIR refers only to cancer risk. MIR, one metric for assessing cancer risk, is the estimated risk if an individual were exposed to the maximum level of a pollutant for a lifetime. VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:18 Oct 31, 2019 Jkt 250001 standards pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6). B. What are the source categories and how do the current NESHAP regulate their HAP emissions? 1. What is the surface coating of automobiles and light-duty trucks source category and how does the current NESHAP regulate its HAP emissions? a. Source Category Description The NESHAP for the ALDT source category was promulgated on April 26, 2004 (69 FR 22602), and is codified at 40 CFR part 63, subpart IIII. Technical corrections and clarifying amendments were promulgated on December 22, 2006 (71 FR 76922) and April 24, 2007 (72 FR 20227). The ALDT NESHAP applies to any coating operations which apply topcoats to new automobile or new light-duty truck bodies or body parts for new automobiles or new lightduty trucks and/or coatings to new other motor vehicle bodies or body parts for new other motor vehicles; parts intended for use in new automobiles, new light-duty trucks, or new other motor vehicles; or aftermarket repair or replacement parts for automobiles, lightduty trucks, or other motor vehicles; and the affected source is located at a facility that is a major source, is located at a major source, or is part of a major source of emissions of HAP (40 CFR 63.3081). The ALDT NESHAP (40 CFR 63.3176) defines an ‘‘automobile’’ as ‘‘a motor vehicle designed to carry up to eight passengers, excluding vans, sport utility vehicles, and motor vehicles designed primarily to transport light loads of property,’’ and ‘‘light-duty truck’’ as ‘‘vans, sport utility vehicles, and motor vehicles designed primarily to transport light loads of property with gross vehicle weight rating of 8,500 lbs [pounds] or less.’’ The ALDT NESHAP defines a ‘‘coating’’ as ‘‘a material that is applied to a substrate for decorative, protective or functional purposes. Such materials include, but are not limited to, paints, sealants, caulks, inks, adhesives, primers, deadeners, and maskants. Decorative, protective, or functional materials that consist only of protective oils for metal, acids, bases, or any combination of these substances are not considered coatings for the purposes of this subpart.’’ (40 CFR 63.3176). The ALDT NESHAP does not apply to a surface coating operation that is subject to any other NESHAP as of June 25, 2004, except when a source chooses to comply with the ALDT NESHAP instead of the MMPP NESHAP (40 CFR part 63, subpart MMMM) or the PPP PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 58941 NESHAP (40 CFR part 63, subpart PPPP). (40 CFR 63.3082(c).) Based on our search of the National Emission Inventory (NEI) (www.epa.gov/ air-emissions-inventories/nationalemissions-inventory-nei) and the EPA’s Enforcement and Compliance History Online (ECHO) database (echo.epa.gov) and a review of active air emissions permits, we estimate that 43 facilities are subject to the ALDT NESHAP. A complete list of facilities subject to the ALDT NESHAP is available in Table 1 of Appendix 10 to the memorandum titled Residual Risk Assessment for the Surface Coating of Automobiles and Light-duty Trucks Source Category in Support of the 2019 Risk and Technology Review Proposed Rule (hereafter referred to as the Automobiles and Light-Duty Trucks Risk Assessment Report), in the ALDT Docket (Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2019–0314). b. HAP Emission Sources The primary HAP emitted from ALDT surface coating operations are organic HAP and included toluene, xylene, glycol ethers, methyl isobutyl ketone (MIBK), ethyl benzene, and methanol. The HAP emissions are from coating application and drying and curing ovens in the ALDT surface coating operations. Some emissions occur from the cleaning of spray booths and equipment. In most cases, HAP emissions from surface preparation, storage and handling are relatively small (i.e., not quantifiable) for this source category. Inorganic (metal) HAP emissions were considered in the development of the ALDT NESHAP and the EPA determined that, although very low levels of emissions were reported in coatings, no inorganic HAP are emitted. Based on data obtained during development of the 2004 proposed NESHAP (67 FR 78612, December 24, 2002), some coatings in the ALDT source category reported emissions of inorganic HAP that likely were not emitted due to coating application techniques used. Instead, the 2004 proposed NESHAP found that the inorganic HAP components of the coatings mostly remained as solids in the dry coating film on the parts being coated, were collected by the circulating water under the spray booth floor grates, or were deposited on the walls, floor, and grates of the spray booths and other equipment in which they are applied. More recent data from the 2011 NEI data, used to inform this RTR, show total reported source category inorganic HAP emissions of 0.008 tpy from antimony, chromium, manganese, and nickel, and no reported emissions of inorganic HAP in thinners or cleaning E:\FR\FM\01NOP2.SGM 01NOP2 58942 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 212 / Friday, November 1, 2019 / Proposed Rules materials. (See Appendix 1 to the Automobiles and Light-Duty Trucks Risk Assessment Report, in the ALDT Docket). Based on feedback from industry and information gleaned from EPA site visits, facilities in the ALDT source category employ high-efficiency spray equipment (including robotic spraying) to minimize the overall amount of coating used, thereby reducing inorganic HAP emissions further. Therefore, we conclude that, although inorganic HAP are reported components of coatings, no inorganic HAP are emitted. c. Current NESHAP Requirements for Control of HAP The NESHAP specifies numerical limits for the organic HAP emissions from both existing sources and new or reconstructed sources. These emissions limits are established for each of several process groupings at the source including (1) electrodeposition primer, primer-surfacer, topcoat, final repair, glass bonding primer, and glass bonding adhesive operations plus all coatings and thinners, except for deadener materials and for adhesive and sealer materials that are not components of glass bonding systems, used in coating operations; (2) primer-surfacer, topcoat, final repair, glass bonding primer, and glass bonding adhesive operation plus all coatings and thinners, except for deadener materials and for adhesive and sealer materials that are not components of glass bonding systems, used in coating operations; (3) adhesives and sealers, other than glass bonding adhesive materials; and (4) deadener materials. The specific organic HAP emission limits are summarized in Table 2 of the memorandum titled Technology Review for Surface Coating Operations in the Automobiles and Light-Duty Trucks Source Category in the ALDT Docket. Compliance with the ALDT NESHAP emission limits can be achieved using several different options, including a compliant material option, an emission rate without add-on controls option (averaging option), and an emission rate with add-on controls option. For bake ovens used to cure electrodeposition primers, an alternative is to capture the emissions and duct them to a control device having a destruction or removal efficiency of at least 95 percent. For any coating operation(s) on which the facility uses the compliant material option or the emission rate without addon controls option, the facility is not required to meet any work practice standards. Facilities that have multiple paint lines may choose to group operations from two or more paint lines VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:18 Oct 31, 2019 Jkt 250001 together, or to make a separate grouping of the operations from individual paint lines. Operating limits may apply for facilities that use an emission capture and control system to reduce emissions. If the facility uses the emission rate with add-on controls option, they must develop and implement a work practice plan to minimize organic HAP emissions from all processes associated with the coating operations (i.e., storage; mixing and conveying of coatings; thinners; cleaning materials; and waste materials). The plan must specify practices and procedures to ensure that a set of minimum work practices specified in the NESHAP are implemented. The facility must also comply with site-specific operating limits for the emission capture and control system. 2. What is the surface coating of miscellaneous metal parts and products source category and how does the current NESHAP regulate its HAP emissions? a. Source Category Description The MMPP NESHAP was promulgated on January 2, 2004 (69 FR 130), and is codified at 40 CFR part 63, subpart MMMM. A technical correction to the final rule was published on April 26, 2004 (69 FR 22602) and December 22, 2006 (71 FR 76922). The MMPP NESHAP applies to owners or operators of metal parts and products surface coating operations at facilities that are major sources of HAP. Miscellaneous metal parts and products include, but are not limited to, metal components of the following types of products as well as the products themselves: motor vehicle parts and accessories, bicycles and sporting goods, recreational vehicles, extruded aluminum structural components, railroad cars, heavy-duty trucks, medical equipment, lawn and garden equipment, electronic equipment, magnet wire, steel drums, industrial machinery, metal pipes, and numerous other industrial, household, and consumer products. The MMPP NESHAP (40 CFR 63. 3881(c)) does not apply to the surface coating or coating operations that meet the applicability criteria of eleven other surface coating NESHAP, e.g., surface coating of metal components of wood furniture (subpart JJ of 40 CFR part 63), surface coating of metal components of large appliances (subpart NNNN of 40 CFR part 63), and surface coating of metal components of automobiles and light-duty trucks (subpart IIII of 40 CFR part 63). Based on our search of the NEI and the EPA’s ECHO database and a review PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 of active air emission permits, we estimate that 368 facilities are subject to the MMPP NESHAP. A list of facilities we identified as subject to the MMPP NESHAP is available in Table 1 to Appendix 10 to the memorandum titled Residual Risk Assessment for the Surface Coating of Miscellaneous Metal Parts and Products Source Category in Support of the 2019 Risk and Technology Review Proposed Rule (hereafter referred to as the Miscellaneous Metal Parts and Products Risk Assessment Report), in the MMPP Docket (Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR– 2019–0312). b. HAP Emission Sources The primary HAP emitted from MMPP surface coating operations are organic HAP and include xylenes, toluene, glycol ethers, ethyl benzene, MIBK, methanol, ethylene glycol, and dimethyl phthalate. The majority of organic HAP emissions can be attributed to the application, drying, and curing of coatings. Inorganic HAP emissions were considered in the development of the MMPP NESHAP and the EPA determined that inorganic HAP emissions would be very low based on the coating application techniques in place at the time of the rule development. Based on information reported in survey responses during the development of the proposal for the 2004 NESHAP, inorganic HAP, including chromium, cobalt, lead, and manganese compounds, are components of some coatings used by this source category. Inorganic HAP in the coatings would only have the potential to be emitted if they were spray-applied, but the inorganic HAP would be either deposited on the part being coated as part of the surface coating, on the walls and floors of the spray booth, or captured by the spray booth filters (typically either a dry fabric filter or a water-wash filter system). No inorganic HAP were documented in thinners or cleaning materials. Emissions would be further reduced by the use of high efficiency spray equipment, often combined with robotic spraying, that minimize the amount of coating that is sprayed. For more detailed information please see the emissions memorandum in Appendix 1 to the Miscellaneous Metal Parts and Products Risk Assessment Report, in the MMPP Docket. In response to comments on the 2004 proposed NESHAP,3 the EPA argued 3 Surface Coating of Miscellaneous Metal Parts and Products, Summary of Public Comments and E:\FR\FM\01NOP2.SGM 01NOP2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 212 / Friday, November 1, 2019 / Proposed Rules that given the combination of very low usage of coatings containing inorganic HAP in this source category, and the current and expected continued use of controls (dry filters and waterwash systems on spray booths and high efficiency equipment) to reduce overspray emissions, the EPA believed that levels of inorganic HAP emissions did not warrant federal regulation because those regulations would not be expected to result in additional emissions reduction. c. Current NESHAP Requirements for Control of HAP The MMPP NESHAP establishes the organic HAP emissions limits for new and existing sources. The final rule contains five subcategories: (1) General use coating, (2) high performance coating, (3) magnet wire coating, (4) rubber-to-metal coating, and (5) extreme performance fluoropolymer coating (EPFP). Compliance can be demonstrated with using a variety of compliance options including, (1) a compliant coatings option, where all coatings used have organic HAP contents that individually meet the organic HAP emissions limit, and all thinners and cleaning materials contain no organic HAP; (2) an emission rate without add-on controls option, where the organic HAP emission rate, calculated as a rolling 12-month emission rate and determined on a monthly basis, is equal to or less than the organic HAP emissions limit; or (3) an emission rate with add-on controls option, where the organic HAP emission rate, calculated as a rolling 12-month emissions rate and determined on a monthly basis, taking into account the emissions reduction achieved through the use of one or more emissions capture and control devices, is equal to or less than the organic HAP emissions limit. A facility using the add-on control option must also comply with work practice standards to minimize organic HAP emissions from the storage, mixing, and conveying of coatings, thinners, cleaning materials, and waste materials associated with the coating operation(s) and must also comply with operating limits for the emissions capture systems and add-on control devices. If a facility’s surface coating operations meet the applicability criteria of more than one of the coating subcategories in the MMPP NESHAP, the facility may comply separately with each emissions limit or comply using one of the following options: Responses on Proposed Rule. August 2003. EPA– 453/R–03–008; p. 83. VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:18 Oct 31, 2019 Jkt 250001 • If general use coating or magnet wire coating constitute 90 percent or more of the surface coating activity at the facility (i.e., it is the predominant activity), then the facility can comply with that one emissions limit for all surface coating at the facility. • The facility can comply with a facility-specific emissions limit calculated on the basis of the applicable emissions limits and the amount of coating activity performed in each coating subcategory, where activity is measured as the volume of coating solids used. The specific organic HAP emission limits for each coating subcategory and the operating limits are summarized in Tables 4 and 5 of the memorandum titled Technology Review for Surface Coating Operations in the Miscellaneous Metal Parts and Products Category. 3. What is the surface coating of plastic parts and products source category and how does the current NESHAP regulate its HAP emissions? a. Source Category Description The NESHAP for the PPP source category was promulgated on April 19, 2004 (69 FR 20968), and is codified at 40 CFR part 63, subpart PPPP. Technical corrections to the final rule were published on December 22, 2006 (71 FR 76922) and April 24, 2007 (72 FR 20227). The PPP NESHAP applies to owners or operators of PPP surface coating operations at facilities that are major sources of HAP. Plastic parts and products include, but are not limited to, plastic components of the following types of products as well as the products themselves: Motor vehicle parts and accessories for automobiles, trucks, recreational vehicles; sporting and recreational goods; toys; business machines; laboratory and medical equipment; and household and other consumer products. The PPP NESHAP (40 CFR 63. 4481(c)) does not apply to the surface coating or coating operations of items that meet the applicability criteria of eleven other surface coating NESHAP, e.g., surface coating of plastic components of wood furniture (subpart JJ of 40 CFR part 63), surface coating of plastic components of large appliances (subpart NNNN of 40 CFR part 63), and surface coating of plastic components of automobiles and light-duty trucks (subpart IIII of 40 CFR part 63). Based on our search of the NEI and the EPA’s ECHO database and a review of active air emission permits, we estimate that 125 facilities are subject to the PPP NESHAP. A list of facilities we identified as subject to the PPP NESHAP is available in Table 1 to Appendix 10 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 58943 to the memorandum titled Residual Risk Assessment for the Surface Coating of Plastic Parts and Products Source Category in Support of the 2019 Risk and Technology Review Proposed Rule (hereafter referred to as the Plastic Parts and Products Risk Assessment Report), in the PPP Docket (Docket ID No. EPA– HQ–OAR–2019–0313). b. HAP Emission Sources The primary HAP emitted from PPP surface coating operations are organic HAP and, based on the 2011 NEI, include xylene, toluene, MIBK, ethylbenzene, styrene, glycol ethers, and methanol, in order of decreasing emissions. These compounds account for about 96 percent of the nationwide HAP emissions from this source category, based on an analysis of the NEI. No inorganic HAP are currently associated with the coatings used in this source category, based on the data in the NEI. c. Current NESHAP Requirements for Control of HAP The PPP NESHAP specifies numerical emission limits for existing sources and for new and reconstructed sources for organic HAP emissions. The final rule contains four subcategories: (1) General use coating, (2) thermoplastic olefin coating, (3) automotive lamp coating, and (4) assembled on-road vehicle coating. Compliance can be demonstrated with a variety of compliance options including, (1) a compliant material option, where the HAP content of each coating used is less than or equal to the applicable organic HAP emissions limit and each thinner, additive, and cleaning material uses no organic HAP; (2) an emission rate without add-on controls option, where the organic HAP emission rate, calculated as a rolling 12-month emission rate and determined on a monthly basis, is equal to or less than the organic HAP emissions limit; or (3) an emission rate with add-on controls option, where the organic HAP emission rate, calculated as a rolling 12-month emissions rate and determined on a monthly basis, taking into account the emissions reduction achieved through the use of one or more emissions capture and control devices, is equal to or less than the organic HAP emissions limit. A facility using the add-on control option must also comply with work practice standards to minimize organic HAP emissions from the storage, mixing, and conveying of coatings, thinners, cleaning materials, and waste materials associated with the coating operation(s) and must also comply with E:\FR\FM\01NOP2.SGM 01NOP2 58944 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 212 / Friday, November 1, 2019 / Proposed Rules operating limits for the emissions capture systems and add-on control devices. The specific organic HAP emission limits for each coating subcategory are summarized in Table 2 of the memorandum titled Technology Review for Surface Coating Operations in the Plastic Parts and Products Category. C. What data collection activities were conducted to support this action? For the risk modeling portion of these RTRs, the EPA used data from the 2011 and 2014 NEI. The NEI is a database that contains information about sources that emit criteria air pollutants, their precursors, and HAP. The database includes estimates of annual air pollutant emissions from point, nonpoint, and mobile sources in the 50 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands. The EPA collects this information and releases an updated version of the NEI database every 3 years. The NEI includes data necessary for conducting risk modeling, including annual HAP emissions estimates from individual emission points at facilities and the related emissions release parameters. We used NEI emissions and supporting data as the primary data to develop the model input files for the risk assessments for each of these three source categories. Detailed information on the development of the modeling file for the ALDT source category can be found in Appendix 1 to the Automobiles and Light-Duty Trucks Risk Assessment Report, in the ALDT Docket (Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2017–0314). Detailed information on the development of the modeling file for the MMPP source category can be found in Appendix 1 to the Miscellaneous Metal Parts and Products Risk Assessment Report, in the MMPP Docket (Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2019–0312). Detailed information on the development of the modeling file for the PPP source category can be found in Appendix 1 to the Plastic Parts and Products Risk Assessment Report, in the PPP Docket (Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– OAR–2019–0313). For each risk modeling and technology review portion of these three RTRs, we also gathered data from facility construction and operating permits regarding emission points, air pollution control devices, and process operations. We collected permits and supporting documentation from state permitting authorities through statemaintained online databases for many, but not all, of the facilities in each source category. The facility permits were also used to confirm that the VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:18 Oct 31, 2019 Jkt 250001 facilities were major sources of HAP and were subject to the NESHAP that are the subject of these risk assessments. In certain cases, we contacted industry associations and facility owners or operators to confirm and clarify the sources of emissions that were reported in the NEI. For the technology review portion of these RTRs, we also used information from the EPA’s ECHO database as a tool to identify which facilities were potentially subject to the NESHAP. The ECHO database provides integrated compliance and enforcement information for approximately 800,000 regulated facilities nationwide. Using the search feature in ECHO, the EPA identified facilities that could potentially be subject to each of these three NESHAP. We then reviewed operating permits for these facilities, when available, to confirm that they were major sources of HAP with emission sources subject to these NESHAP. For many sources in the MMPP source category in the rubber-tometal bonding and the highperformance coating subcategories, we also reviewed recent semi-annual compliance reports to confirm the compliance option they were using and the emission rates they were achieving. Also, for the technology reviews, we collected information from the reasonably available control technology (RACT), best available control technology (BACT), and lowest achievable emission rate (LAER) determinations in the EPA’s RACT/ BACT/LAER Clearinghouse (RBLC).4 This database contains case-specific information on air pollution technologies that have been required to reduce the emissions of air pollutants from stationary sources. Under the EPA’s New Source Review (NSR) program, an NSR permit must be obtained if a facility is planning new construction that increases the air emissions of any regulated NSR pollutant at or above 100 or 250 tpy (could be a lower threshold depending upon nonattainment severity) or a modification that results in a significant emissions increase and a significant net emissions increase of any regulated NSR pollutant (‘‘significant’’ emissions increase is defined in the NSR regulations and is pollutant-specific, ranging from less than 1 pound (lb) to 100 tpy of the applicable regulated NSR pollutant). This central database promotes the sharing of information among permitting agencies and aids in case-by-case determinations for NSR permits. We examined information contained in the RBLC to determine what technologies are currently used for these surface coating operations to reduce air emissions. Additional information about these data collection activities for the technology reviews is contained in the technology review memoranda titled Technology Review for Surface Coating Operations in the Automobiles and Light-Duty Trucks Category, July 2019 (hereafter referred to as the Automobiles and Light-Duty Trucks Technology Review Memo), Technology Review for the Surface Coating Miscellaneous Metal Parts and Products Source Category, July 2019 (hereafter referred to as the Miscellaneous Metal Parts and Products Technology Review Memo), and Technology Review for Surface Coating Operations in the Plastic Parts and Products Category, July 2019 (hereafter referred to as the Plastic Parts and Products Technology Review Memo), available in the respective ALDT, MMPP, and PPP Dockets. 4 https://www.epa.gov/catc/ractbactlaerclearinghouse-rblc-basic-information. 5 Prepared for the ACA, Washington, DC, by The ChemQuest Group, Inc., Cincinnati, Ohio. 2015. PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 D. What other relevant background information and data are available? As part of the technology review for the ALDT, the MMPP, and the PPP NESHAP source categories, we reviewed information available in the American Coatings Association’s (ACA) Industry Market Analysis, 9th Edition (2014— 2019).5 The ACA Industry Market Analysis provided information on trends in coatings technology that can affect emissions from the ALDT, the MMPP, and the PPP source categories. Additional details regarding our review of these information sources are contained in the Automobiles and LightDuty Trucks Technology Review Memo, Miscellaneous Metal Parts and Products Technology Review Memo, and the Plastic Parts and Products Technology Review Memo, available in the respective ALDT, MMPP, and PPP Dockets. III. Analytical Procedures and Decision-Making In this section, we describe the analyses performed to support the proposed decisions for the RTRs and other issues addressed in this proposal. A. How do we consider risk in our decision-making? As discussed in section II.A of this preamble and in the Benzene NESHAP, in evaluating and developing standards under CAA section 112(f)(2), we apply a two-step approach to determine E:\FR\FM\01NOP2.SGM 01NOP2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 212 / Friday, November 1, 2019 / Proposed Rules whether or not risks are acceptable and to determine if the standards provide an ample margin of safety to protect public health. As explained in the Benzene NESHAP, ‘‘the first step judgment on acceptability cannot be reduced to any single factor’’ and, thus, ‘‘[t]he Administrator believes that the acceptability of risk under section 112 is best judged on the basis of a broad set of health risk measures and information.’’ 54 FR 38046, September 14, 1989. Similarly, with regard to the ample margin of safety determination, ‘‘the Agency again considers all of the health risk and other health information considered in the first step. Beyond that information, additional factors relating to the appropriate level of control will also be considered, including cost and economic impacts of controls, technological feasibility, uncertainties, and any other relevant factors.’’ Id. The Benzene NESHAP approach provides flexibility regarding factors the EPA may consider in making determinations and how the EPA may weigh those factors for each source category. The EPA conducts a risk assessment that provides estimates of the MIR posed by the HAP emissions from each source in the source category, the hazard index (HI) for chronic exposures to HAP with the potential to cause noncancer health effects, and the hazard quotient (HQ) for acute exposures to HAP with the potential to cause noncancer health effects.6 The assessment also provides estimates of the distribution of cancer risks within the exposed populations, cancer incidence, and an evaluation of the potential for adverse environmental effects. The scope of EPA’s risk analysis is consistent with EPA’s response to comments on our policy under the Benzene NESHAP where the EPA explained that: ‘‘[t]he policy chosen by the Administrator permits consideration of multiple measures of health risk. Not only can the MIR figure be considered, but also incidence, the presence of non-cancer health effects, and the uncertainties of the risk estimates. In this way, the effect on the most exposed individuals can be reviewed as well as the impact on the general public. These factors can then be weighed in each individual case. This approach complies with the Vinyl Chloride mandate that the Administrator ascertain an acceptable level of risk to the public by employing his expertise to assess available data. It also complies with the 6 The MIR is defined as the cancer risk associated with a lifetime of exposure at the highest concentration of HAP where people are likely to live. The HQ is the ratio of the potential 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. VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:18 Oct 31, 2019 Jkt 250001 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 risks. 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 MIR less than the presumptively acceptable level is unacceptable in the light of other health risk factors.’’ Id. at 38045. In other words, risks that include an MIR above 100-in-1 million may be determined to be acceptable, and risks with an MIR below that level may be determined to be unacceptable, depending on all of the available health information. Similarly, with regard to the ample margin of safety analysis, the EPA stated in the Benzene NESHAP that: ‘‘EPA believes the relative weight of the many factors that can be considered in selecting an ample margin of safety can only be determined for each specific source category. This occurs mainly because technological and economic factors (along with the health-related factors) vary from source category to source category.’’ Id. at 38061. We also consider the uncertainties associated with the various risk analyses, as discussed earlier in this preamble, in our determinations of acceptability and ample margin of safety. The EPA notes that it has not considered certain health information to date in making residual risk determinations. At this time, we do not attempt to quantify those HAP risks that may be associated with emissions from other facilities that do not include the source categories under review, mobile source emissions, natural source emissions, persistent environmental pollution, or atmospheric transformation in the vicinity of the sources in the categories. The EPA understands the potential importance of considering an individual’s total exposure to HAP in PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 58945 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 risks, 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 increased risk of adverse noncancer health effects. In May 2010, the Science Advisory Board (SAB) advised the EPA ‘‘that RTR assessments will be most useful to decision makers and communities if results are presented in the broader context of aggregate and cumulative risks, including background concentrations and contributions from other sources in the area.’’ 7 In response to the SAB recommendations, the EPA is incorporating cumulative risk analyses into its RTR risk assessments, including those reflected in this proposal. The Agency is (1) conducting facility-wide assessments, which include source category emission points, as well as other emission points within the facilities; (2) combining exposures from multiple sources in the same category that could affect the same individuals; and (3) for some persistent and bioaccumulative pollutants, analyzing the ingestion route of exposure. In addition, the RTR risk assessments have always considered aggregate cancer risk from all carcinogens and aggregate noncancer HQs from all noncarcinogens affecting the same target organ system. Although we are interested in placing source category and facility-wide HAP risks in the context of total HAP risks 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 7 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/4AB3966E263 D943A8525771F00668381/$File/EPA-SAB-10-007unsigned.pdf. E:\FR\FM\01NOP2.SGM 01NOP2 58946 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 212 / Friday, November 1, 2019 / Proposed Rules 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 reviews focus 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 NESHAPs (i.e., the 2004 ALDT NESHAP; the 2004 MMPP NESHAP; and the 2004 PPP NESHAP), we review a variety of data sources in our investigation of potential practices, processes, or controls that may have not been considered for each of the three source categories during development of the NESHAP. Among the sources we reviewed were the NESHAP for various industries that were promulgated after the MACT VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:18 Oct 31, 2019 Jkt 250001 standards being reviewed in this action (e.g., NESHAP for Paint Stripping and Miscellaneous Surface Coating Operations at Area Sources (40 CFR part 63, subpart HHHHHH)). We also reviewed the results of other technology reviews for other surface coating source categories since the promulgation of the NESHAPs (e.g., the technology reviews conducted for the Shipbuilding and Ship Repair (Surface Coating) NESHAP (40 CFR part 63, subpart II) and the Wood Furniture Manufacturing Operations NESHAP (40 CFR part 63, subpart JJ)). We reviewed the regulatory requirements and/or technical analyses associated with these regulatory actions to identify any practices, processes, and control technologies considered in these efforts that could be applied to emission sources in the ALDT, the MMPP, and the PPP source categories, as well as the costs, non-air impacts, and energy implications associated with the use of these technologies. Finally, we reviewed information from other sources, such as state and/or local permitting agency databases and industry-specific market analyses and trade journals, to research advancements in add-on controls and lower HAP technology for coatings and solvents. For a more detailed discussion of our methods for performing these technology reviews, refer to the Automobiles and Light-Duty Trucks Technology Review Memo, the Miscellaneous Metal Parts and Products Technology Review Memo and the Plastic Parts and Products Technology Review Memo, available in the respective ALDT, MMPP, and PPP Dockets. C. How do we estimate post-MACT risks posed by these source categories? In this section, we provide a complete description of the types of analyses that we generally perform during the risk assessment process. In some cases, we do not perform a specific analysis because it is not relevant. For example, in the absence of emissions of HAP known to be persistent and bioaccumulative in the environment (PB–HAP), we would not perform a multipathway exposure assessment. Where we do not perform an analysis, we state that we do not and provide the reason. While we present all of our risk assessment methods, we only present risk assessment results for the analyses actually conducted (see the presentation of results in sections IV.A.1, IV.B.1, and IV.C.1 of this preamble). The EPA conducted risk assessments that provide estimates of the MIR for cancer posed by the HAP emissions from each source in each source category, the HI for chronic exposures to PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 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 assessments also provide estimates of the distribution of cancer risks within the exposed populations, cancer incidence, and an evaluation of the potential for adverse environmental effects. The seven sections that follow this paragraph describe how we estimated emissions and conducted the risk assessments. The ALDT, MMPP, and PPP Dockets contain the respective Automobiles and Light-Duty Trucks Risk Assessment Report, Miscellaneous Metal Parts and Products Risk Assessment Report and the Plastic Parts and Products Risk Assessment Report, which provide more information on the risk assessment inputs and models. The methods used to assess risks (as described in the seven primary steps below) are consistent with those peerreviewed by a panel of the EPA’s SAB in 2009 8 and described in the SAB review report issued in 2010. They are also consistent with the key recommendations contained in that report. 1. How did we estimate actual emissions and identify the emissions release characteristics? The actual emissions and the emission release characteristics for each facility were obtained primarily from either the 2011 NEI or the 2014 NEI. Most data were obtained from the 2011 NEI, unless the 2014 NEI included HAP data for emission units or processes for which the 2011 NEI included only volatile organic compounds (VOC) or particulate matter. In some cases, the industry association or the specific facilities were contacted to confirm emissions that appeared to be outliers, that were otherwise inconsistent with our understanding of the industry, or that were associated with high risk values in our initial risk screening analyses. When appropriate, emission values and release characteristics were revised based on these facility contacts, and these changes were documented. Additional information on the development of the modeling file for each source category, including the development of the actual emissions estimates and emissions release characteristics, can be found in Appendix 1 to the Automobiles and 8 U.S. EPA SAB. 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–09–0006. https://www3.epa.gov/airtoxics/ rrisk/rtrpg.html. E:\FR\FM\01NOP2.SGM 01NOP2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 212 / Friday, November 1, 2019 / Proposed Rules Light-Duty Trucks Risk Assessment Report, in the ALDT Docket; in Appendix 1 to the Miscellaneous Metal Parts and Products Risk Assessment Report, in the MMPP Docket; and Appendix 1 to the Plastic Parts and Products Risk Assessment Report, in the PPP Docket. 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 level allowed to be emitted under the MACT standards is referred to as the ‘‘MACTallowable’’ emissions level. We discussed the use of both MACTallowable and actual emissions in the final Coke Oven Batteries RTR (70 FR 19998–19999, April 15, 2005) and in the proposed and final Hazardous Organic NESHAP RTRs (71 FR 34428, June 14, 2006, and 71 FR 76609, December 21, 2006, respectively). In those actions, we noted that assessing the risks at the MACT-allowable level is inherently reasonable since these risks reflect the maximum level facilities could emit and still comply with national emission standards. We also explained that it is reasonable to consider actual emissions, where such data are available, in both steps of the risk analysis, in accordance with the Benzene NESHAP approach. (54 FR 38044, September 14, 1989.) For the ALDT, MMPP, and PPP source categories, the EPA calculated allowable emissions by developing source category-specific multipliers of 1.1 for Automobiles and Light-duty Trucks and 1.2 for both Miscellaneous Metal Parts and Plastic Parts and Products. These multipliers were applied to the current emissions for each category to estimate the allowable emissions. The multipliers were based on information obtained from the facility operating permits and industry information. For details on how the EPA estimated the MACT allowable emissions for the ALDT source category, please see Appendix 1 to the Automobiles and Light-Duty Trucks Risk Assessment Report, in the ALDT Docket (Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2019–0314). For details on how the EPA calculated the MACT allowable emissions for the MMPP source category, please see Appendix 1 to the Miscellaneous Metal Parts and Products Risk Assessment Report, in the MMPP Docket (Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2019–0312). For details on how the EPA calculated the VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:18 Oct 31, 2019 Jkt 250001 MACT allowable emissions for the PPP source category, please see Appendix 1 to the Plastic Parts and Products Risk Assessment Report, in the PPP Docket (Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2019– 0313). 3. How do we conduct dispersion modeling, determine inhalation exposures, and estimate individual and population inhalation risks? Both long-term and short-term inhalation exposure concentrations and health risks from the source categories addressed in this proposal were estimated using the Human Exposure Model (HEM–3).9 The HEM–3 performs three primary risk assessment activities: (1) Conducting dispersion modeling to estimate the concentrations of HAP in ambient air, (2) estimating long-term and short-term inhalation exposures to individuals residing within 50 kilometers (km) of the modeled sources, and (3) estimating individual and population-level inhalation risks 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.10 To perform the dispersion modeling and to develop the preliminary risk estimates, HEM–3 draws on three data libraries. The first is a library of meteorological data, which is used for dispersion calculations. This library includes 1 year (2016) of hourly surface and upper air observations from 824 meteorological stations, selected to provide coverage of the U.S. and Puerto Rico. A second library of U.S. Census Bureau census block 11 internal point locations and populations provides the basis of human exposure calculations (U.S. Census, 2010). In addition, for each census block, the census library includes the elevation and controlling hill height, which are also used in dispersion calculations. A third library of pollutant-specific dose-response values is used to estimate health risks. These are discussed below: 9 For more information about HEM–3, go to https://www.epa.gov/fera/risk-assessment-andmodeling-human-exposure-model-hem. 10 U.S. EPA. Revision to the Guideline on Air Quality Models: Adoption of a Preferred General Purpose (Flat and Complex Terrain) Dispersion Model and Other Revisions (70 FR 68218, November 9, 2005). 11 A census block is the smallest geographic area for which census statistics are tabulated. PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 58947 b. Risk From Chronic Exposure to HAP In developing the risk assessment for chronic exposures, we use the estimated annual average ambient air concentrations of each HAP emitted by each source in the source categories. The HAP air concentrations at each nearby census block centroid located within 50 km of the facility are a surrogate for the chronic inhalation exposure concentration for all the people who reside in that census block. A distance of 50 km is consistent with both the analysis supporting the 1989 Benzene NESHAP (54 FR 38044, September 14, 1989) and the limitation of Gaussian dispersion modules, 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, for a 70-year period) 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 probability 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 12 emitted 12 The EPA’s 2005 Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment classifies carcinogens as: ‘‘carcinogenic to humans,’’ ‘‘likely to be carcinogenic to humans,’’ and ‘‘suggestive evidence of carcinogenic E:\FR\FM\01NOP2.SGM Continued 01NOP2 58948 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 212 / Friday, November 1, 2019 / Proposed Rules 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 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 Nationalscale Air Toxics Assessment 1996 Data—an SAB Advisory, available at https://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/ sabproduct.nsf/214C6E915BB04E14852570 CA007A682C/$File/ecadv02001.pdf. VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:18 Oct 31, 2019 Jkt 250001 where the EPA determines that using a value other than the RfC is appropriate, the chronic noncancer dose-response value can be a value from the following prioritized sources, which define their dose-response values similarly to the EPA: (1) The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) Minimum Risk Level (https:// www.atsdr.cdc.gov/mrls/index.asp); (2) the CalEPA Chronic Reference Exposure Level (REL) (https://oehha.ca.gov/air/ crnr/notice-adoption-air-toxics-hotspots-program-guidance-manualpreparation-health-risk-0); or (3) as noted above, a scientifically credible dose-response value that has been developed in a manner consistent with the EPA guidelines and has undergone a peer review process similar to that used by the EPA. The pollutant-specific dose-response values used to estimate health risks are available at https:// www.epa.gov/fera/dose-responseassessment-assessing-health-risksassociated-exposure-hazardous-airpollutants. c. Risk From Acute Exposure to HAP That May Cause Health Effects Other Than Cancer For each HAP for which appropriate acute inhalation dose-response values are available, the EPA also assesses the potential health risks due to acute exposure. For these assessments, the EPA makes conservative assumptions about emission rates, meteorology, and exposure location. In this proposed rulemaking, as part of our efforts to continually improve our methodologies to evaluate the risks that HAP emitted from categories of industrial sources pose to human health and the environment,13 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 Automobiles and LightDuty Trucks Risk Assessment Report, the Miscellaneous Metal Parts and Products Risk Assessment Report, and the Plastic Parts and Products Risk Assessment Report, 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. 13 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). PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 To assess the potential acute risk to the maximally exposed individual, we use the peak hourly emission rate for each emission point,14 reasonable worst-case air dispersion conditions (i.e., 99th percentile), and the point of highest off-site exposure. Specifically, we assume that peak emissions from the source category and reasonable worstcase air dispersion 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.’’ 15 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.16 They are guideline levels for 14 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 to account for variability. This is documented in the Automobiles and LightDuty Trucks Risk Assessment Report, the Miscellaneous Metal Parts and Products Risk Assessment Report, and the Plastic Parts and Products Risk Assessment Report and in Appendix 5 of the report: Technical Support Document for Acute Risk Screening Assessment. These documents are available in the ALDT Docket, the MMPP Docket, and the PPP Docket. 15 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. 16 National Academy of Sciences, 2001. Standing Operating Procedures for Developing Acute E:\FR\FM\01NOP2.SGM 01NOP2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 212 / Friday, November 1, 2019 / Proposed Rules ‘‘once-in-a-lifetime, short-term exposures to airborne concentrations of acutely toxic, high-priority chemicals.’’ Id. at 21. The AEGL–1 is specifically defined as ‘‘the airborne concentration (expressed as ppm (parts per million) or mg/m3 (milligrams per cubic meter)) of a substance above which it is predicted that the general population, including susceptible individuals, could experience notable discomfort, irritation, or certain asymptomatic nonsensory effects. However, the effects are not disabling and are transient and reversible upon cessation of exposure.’’ The document also notes that ‘‘Airborne concentrations below AEGL–1 represent exposure levels that can produce mild and progressively increasing but transient and nondisabling odor, taste, and sensory irritation or certain asymptomatic, nonsensory effects.’’ Id. AEGL–2 are defined as ‘‘the airborne concentration (expressed as parts per million or milligrams per cubic meter) of a substance above which it is predicted that the general population, including susceptible individuals, could experience irreversible or other serious, long-lasting adverse health effects or an impaired ability to escape.’’ Id. ERPGs are ‘‘developed for emergency planning and are intended as healthbased guideline concentrations for single exposures to chemicals.’’ 17 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 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). 17 ERPGS Procedures and Responsibilities. March 2014. American Industrial Hygiene Association. Available at: https://www.aiha.org/get-involved/ AIHAGuidelineFoundation/ EmergencyResponsePlanningGuidelines/ Documents/ERPG%20 Committee%20Standard%20Operating %20Procedures%20%20-%20 March%202014%20Revision %20%28Updated%2010–2–2014%29.pdf. VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:18 Oct 31, 2019 Jkt 250001 impair an individual’s ability to take protective action.’’ Id. at 1. An acute REL for 1-hour exposure durations is typically lower than its corresponding AEGL–1 and ERPG–1. Even though their definitions are slightly different, AEGL–1s are often the same as the corresponding ERPG–1s, and AEGL–2s are often equal to ERPG– 2s. The maximum HQs from our acute inhalation screening risk assessment typically result when we use the acute REL for a HAP. In cases where the maximum acute HQ exceeds 1, we also report the HQ based on the next highest acute dose-response value (usually the AEGL–1 and/or the ERPG–1). For these source categories, we did not have short-term emissions data; therefore, we developed source category-specific factors based on information about each industry. We request comment on our assumptions regarding hour-to-hour variation in emissions and our methods of calculating the multiplier for estimating the peak 1-hour emissions for each source category and any additional information that could help refine our approach. The ALDT process is a continuous (non-batch) coating application and curing process which results in consistent emission rates. The sources in this category dip and spray-apply coatings onto the surface of the vehicle. The sources employ the use of various compliance options, which include the use of compliant coatings, averaging among coatings to meet the emission limits, and the use of add-on controls by facilities that cannot use the first two options. We expect that the hourly variations in emissions from these processes during routine operations to be minimal. Thus, applying the default multiplier of 10 to estimate the worstcase hourly emission rate is not reasonable for this category. We expect that minimal variations in emissions occur due to variations in the organic HAP content of the coatings. We calculated acute emissions by developing a source category-specific multiplier of 1.2 that was applied to the actual annual emissions, which were then divided by the total number of hours in a year (8,760 hours). A further discussion of why this factor was chosen can be found in Appendix 1 to the Automobiles and Light-Duty Trucks Risk Assessment Report in the ALDT Docket. Similarly, for the MMPP source category, we expect to see minimal hour-to-hour variation in emissions during routine operations because coating operations dip or spray-apply coating onto the surface of metal parts PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 58949 and products in a continuous coating process. Thus, the default multiplier of 10 to estimate the worst-case hourly emission rate is not reasonable for this category. We expect that minimal variation in emissions occur due to variations in the organic HAP content of the coatings from batch to batch. We calculated acute emissions by developing a source category-specific multiplier of 1.2 that was applied to the actual annual emissions, which were then divided by the total number of hours in a year (8,760 hours). A further discussion of why this factor was chosen can be found in Appendix 1 to the Miscellaneous Metal Parts and Products Risk Assessment Report in the MMPP Docket. For the PPP source category, we expect to see minimal hour-to-hour variation in emissions during routine operations because coating operations spray-apply coating onto the surface of plastic parts and products in a continuous coating process. Thus, the default multiplier of 10 to estimate the worst-case hourly emission rate is not reasonable for this category. We expect that minimal variation in emissions occur due to variations in the organic HAP content of the coatings from batch to batch. We calculated acute emissions by developing a source category-specific multiplier of 1.2 that was applied to the actual annual emissions, which were then divided by the total number of hours in a year (8,760 hours). A further discussion of why this factor was chosen can be found in Appendix 1 to the Plastic Parts and Products Risk Assessment Report in the PPP Docket. In our acute inhalation screening risk assessment, acute impacts are deemed negligible for HAP where 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 the three source categories in this action, the acute data refinements consisted of plotting the HEM–3 polar grid results for each HAP with an acute HQ value greater than 1 on aerial photographs of the facilities. We then assessed whether the highest acute HQs were off-site and at locations that may be accessible to the public (e.g., roadways and public buildings). These refinements are discussed more fully in the Automobiles and Light-Duty Trucks, Miscellaneous Metal Parts and Products, and Plastic Parts and Products Risk Assessment Reports, available in the respective ALDT, MMPP, and PPP Dockets. E:\FR\FM\01NOP2.SGM 01NOP2 58950 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 212 / Friday, November 1, 2019 / Proposed Rules 4. How do we conduct the multipathway exposure and risk screening assessment? The EPA conducts a tiered screening assessment examining the potential for significant human health risks due to exposures via routes other than inhalation (i.e., ingestion). We first determine whether any sources in the source categories emitted any HAP known to be persistent and bioaccumulative in the invironment, as identified in the EPA’s Air Toxics Risk Assessment Library (see Volume 1, Appendix D, at https://www.epa.gov/ sites/production/files/2013–08/ documents/volume_1_reflibrary.pdf). For the ALDT source category, we identified emissions of lead. 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 (0.15 mg/m3).18 Values below the level of the primary (health-based) lead NAAQS are considered to have a low potential for multipathway risk. For additional discussion of the multipathway screening results for this source category see section IV.A of this preamble and the Automobiles and Light-Duty Trucks Risk Assessment Report in the ALDT Docket. For the MMPP source category, we identified emissions of arsenic, cadmium, 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. In a Tier 1 screening assessment, 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 use previously developed screening threshold emission rates for several PB–HAP that are based on a 18 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 20:18 Oct 31, 2019 Jkt 250001 hypothetical upper-end screening exposure scenario developed for use in conjunction with the EPA’s Total Risk Integrated Methodology.Fate, Transport, and Ecological Exposure (TRIM.FaTE) model. The PB–HAP with screening threshold emission rates are arsenic compounds, cadmium compounds, chlorinated dibenzodioxins and furans, mercury compounds, and polycyclic organic matter (POM). Based on the EPA estimates of toxicity and bioaccumulation potential, the pollutants above represent a conservative list for inclusion in multipathway risk assessments for RTR rules. (See Volume 1, Appendix D at https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/ files/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 (ingestion rates are decoupled into separate upperbound ingestion rates for the fisher, farmer, and gardener scenarios). Since, the PB–HAP emissions did not exceed the Tier 1 multipathway screening value of 1, the Tier 2 multipathway screen was not conducted. 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.19 Values below the level of the 19 In doing so, the EPA notes that the legal standard for a primary NAAQS—that a standard is PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 primary (health-based) lead NAAQS are considered to have a low potential for multipathway risk. For additional discussion of the multipathway screening results for this source category see section IV.B of this preamble and the Miscellaneous Metal Parts and Products Risk Assessment Report in the MMPP Docket. For the PPP source category, we did not identify emissions of any PB–HAP. Therefore, further evaluation of multipathway risk was not conducted for the PPP source category. 5. How do we conduct the environmental risk screening assessment? a. Adverse Environmental Effects, Environmental HAP, and Ecological Benchmarks The EPA conducts a screening assessment to examine the potential for adverse environmental effects 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, polycyclic organic matter (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, were included due to their requisite to protect public health and provide an adequate margin of safety (CAA section 109(b))— differs from the CAA section 112(f) standard (requiring, among other things, that the standard provide an ‘‘ample margin of safety to protect public health’’). However, the primary lead NAAQS is a reasonable measure of determining risk acceptability (i.e., the first step of the Benzene NESHAP analysis) since it is designed to protect the most susceptible group in the human population— children, including children living near major lead emitting sources. 73 FR 67002/3; 73 FR 67000/3; 73 FR 67005/1. In addition, applying the level of the primary lead NAAQS at the risk acceptability step is conservative, since that primary lead NAAQS reflects an adequate margin of safety. E:\FR\FM\01NOP2.SGM 01NOP2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 212 / Friday, November 1, 2019 / Proposed Rules 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 were selected, see Appendix 9 of the Automobiles and Light-Duty Trucks Risk Assessment Report, the Miscellaneous Metal Parts and Products Risk Assessment Report, and the Plastic Parts and Products Risk Assessment Report, in the respective ALDT, MMPP and PPP Dockets. b. Environmental Risk Screening Methodology For the environmental risk screening assessment, the EPA first determined whether any facilities in the ALDT, MMPP, and PPP source categories emitted any of the environmental HAP. For the ALDT source category, we identified emissions of lead, HCl and HF. For the MMPP source category, we identified emissions of arsenic, cadmium, lead and HCl. For the PPP source category, we did not identify emissions of any environmental HAP. Because the environmental HAP evaluated are emitted by at least one facility in the ALDT source category and the MMPP source category, we VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:18 Oct 31, 2019 Jkt 250001 proceeded to the second step of the evaluation for each of these source categories. c. PB–HAP Methodology The environmental screening assessment includes six PB–HAP, arsenic compounds, cadmium compounds, dioxins/furans, POM, mercury (both inorganic mercury and methyl mercury), and lead compounds. With the exception of lead, the environmental risk screening assessment for PB–HAP consists of three tiers. The first tier of the environmental risk screening assessment uses the same health-protective conceptual model that is used for the Tier 1 human health screening assessment. TRIM.FaTE model simulations were used to backcalculate Tier 1 screening threshold emission rates. The screening threshold emission rates represent the emission rate in tons of pollutant per year that results in media concentrations at the facility that equal the relevant ecological benchmark. To assess emissions from each facility in the category, the reported emission rate for each PB–HAP was compared to the Tier 1 screening threshold emission rate for that PB–HAP for each assessment endpoint and effect level. If emissions from a facility do not exceed the Tier 1 screening threshold emission rate, the facility ‘‘passes’’ the screening assessment, and, therefore, is not evaluated further under the screening approach. If emissions from a facility exceed the Tier 1 screening threshold emission rate, we evaluate the facility further in Tier 2. In Tier 2 of the environmental screening assessment, the screening threshold emission rates are adjusted to account for local meteorology and the actual location of lakes in the vicinity of facilities that did not pass the Tier 1 screening assessment. For soils, we evaluate the average soil concentration for all soil parcels within a 7.5-km radius for each facility and PB–HAP. For the water, sediment, and fish tissue concentrations, the highest value for each facility for each pollutant is used. If emission concentrations from a facility do not exceed the Tier 2 screening threshold emission rate, the facility ‘‘passes’’ the screening assessment and typically is not evaluated further. If emissions from a facility exceed the Tier 2 screening threshold emission rate, we evaluate the facility further in Tier 3. 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 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 58951 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 HCl and HF. The environmental risk screening methodology for acid gases is a singletier screening assessment that compares modeled ambient air concentrations (from AERMOD) to the ecological benchmarks for each acid gas. To identify potential adverse environmental effects (as defined in section 112(a)(7) of the CAA) from emissions of HCl and HF, we evaluate the following metrics: The size of the modeled area around each facility that exceeds the ecological benchmark for each acid gas, in units of acres and squared kilometers; 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 areaweighted 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 E:\FR\FM\01NOP2.SGM 01NOP2 58952 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 212 / Friday, November 1, 2019 / Proposed Rules Automobiles and Light-Duty Trucks Risk Assessment Report, the Miscellaneous Metal Parts and Products Risk Assessment Report, and the Plastic Parts and Products Risk Assessment Report, in the ALDT Docket, the MMPP Docket, and the PPP Docket, respectively. 6. How did 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 each of these three source categories, we conducted the facility-wide assessment using a dataset compiled from the 2014 NEI. The source category records of that NEI dataset were removed, evaluated, and updated as described in section II.C of this preamble: ‘‘What data collection activities were conducted to support this action?’’ Once a quality assured source category dataset was available, it was placed back with the remaining records from the NEI for that facility. The facility-wide file was then used to analyze risks due to the inhalation of HAP that are emitted ‘‘facility-wide’’ for the populations residing within 50 km of each facility, consistent with the methods used for the source category analysis described above. For these facility-wide risk analyses, the modeled source category risks were compared to the facility-wide risks to determine the portion of the facility-wide risks that could be attributed to the source categories addressed in this proposal. We also specifically examined the facility that was associated with the highest estimate of risk and determined the percentage of that risk attributable to the source category of interest. The Automobiles and Light-Duty Trucks Risk Assessment Report, Miscellaneous Metal Parts and Products Risk Assessment Report, and Plastic Parts and Products Risk Assessment Report, available in the respective dockets for this action, provide the methodology and results of the facility-wide analyses, including all facility-wide risks and the percentage of source category contribution to facility-wide risks. 7. How did we consider uncertainties in risk assessment? Uncertainty and the potential for bias are inherent in all risk assessments, including those performed for this VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:18 Oct 31, 2019 Jkt 250001 proposal. Although uncertainty exists, we believe that our approach, which used conservative tools and assumptions, ensures that our decisions are health and environmentally protective. A brief discussion of the uncertainties in the RTR emissions datasets, dispersion modeling, inhalation exposure estimates, and dose-response relationships follows below. Also included are those uncertainties specific to our acute screening assessments, multipathway screening assessments, and our environmental risk screening assessments. A more thorough discussion of these uncertainties is included in the Automobiles and LightDuty Trucks Risk Assessment Report, Miscellaneous Metal Parts and Products Risk Assessment Report, and Plastic Parts and Products Risk Assessment Report, available in the respective dockets for this action. If a multipathway site-specific assessment was performed for any of these source categories, a full discussion of the uncertainties associated with that assessment can be found in Appendix 11 of that document, Site-Specific Human Health Multipathway Residual Risk Assessment Report. a. Uncertainties in the RTR Emissions Datasets Although the development of the RTR emissions datasets involved quality assurance/quality control processes, the accuracy of emissions values will vary depending on the source of the data, the degree to which data are incomplete or missing, the degree to which assumptions made to complete the datasets are accurate, errors in emission estimates, and other factors. The emission estimates considered in this analysis generally are annual totals for certain years, and they do not reflect short-term fluctuations during the course of a year or variations from year to year. The estimates of peak hourly emission rates for the acute effects screening assessment were based on an emission adjustment factor applied to the average annual hourly emission rates, which are intended to account for emission fluctuations due to normal facility operations. b. Uncertainties in Dispersion Modeling We recognize there is uncertainty in ambient concentration estimates associated with any model, including the EPA’s recommended regulatory dispersion model, AERMOD. In using a model to estimate ambient pollutant concentrations, the user chooses certain options to apply. For RTR assessments, we select some model options that have PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 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 E:\FR\FM\01NOP2.SGM 01NOP2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 212 / Friday, November 1, 2019 / Proposed Rules 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.20 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.21 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,22 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 20 IRIS glossary (https://ofmpub.epa.gov/sor_ internet/registry/termreg/searchandretrieve/ glossariesandkeywordlists/search.do?details =&glossaryName=IRIS%20Glossary). 21 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. 22 See A Review of the Reference Dose and Reference Concentration Processes, U.S. EPA, December 2002, and Methods for Derivation of Inhalation Reference Concentrations and Application of Inhalation Dosimetry, U.S. EPA, 1994. VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:18 Oct 31, 2019 Jkt 250001 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 these source categories are lacking doseresponse assessments. Accordingly, these pollutants cannot be included in the quantitative risk assessment, which could result in quantitative estimates understating HAP risk. To help to alleviate this potential underestimate, where we conclude similarity with a HAP for which a dose-response value is available, we use that value as a surrogate for the assessment of the HAP for which no value is available. To the extent use of surrogates indicates appreciable risk, we may identify a need to increase priority for an IRIS assessment for that substance. We additionally note that, generally speaking, HAP of greatest concern due to environmental exposures and hazard are those for which dose-response assessments have been performed, reducing the likelihood of understating risk. Further, HAP not included in the quantitative assessment are assessed qualitatively and considered in the risk characterization that informs the risk management decisions, including consideration of HAP reductions achieved by various control options. For a group of compounds that are unspeciated (e.g., glycol ethers), we conservatively use the most protective PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 58953 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 The ALDT source category emits PB– HAP (lead) and environmental HAP (lead, HF and HCl); therefore, further evaluation of multipathway risk and an environmental risk screening was conducted. The MMPP source category emits PB–HAP (arsenic, cadmium, and lead) and environmental HAP (arsenic, cadmium, lead, HF, and HCl); therefore, an environmental risk screening was conducted for this source category. The PPP source category in this action does not emit any PB–HAP or environmental HAP; therefore, further evaluation of multipathway risk and an environmental risk screening was not conducted for this source category. 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. E:\FR\FM\01NOP2.SGM 01NOP2 58954 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 212 / Friday, November 1, 2019 / Proposed Rules 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.23 Model uncertainty concerns whether the model adequately represents the actual processes (e.g., movement and accumulation) that might occur in the environment. For example, does the model adequately describe the movement of a pollutant through the soil? This type of uncertainty is difficult to quantify. However, based on feedback received from previous the EPA SAB reviews and other reviews, we are confident that the models used in the screening assessments are appropriate and state-of-the-art for the multipathway and environmental screening risk assessments conducted in support of RTR. Input uncertainty is concerned with how accurately the models have been configured and parameterized for the assessment at hand. For Tier 1 of the multipathway and environmental 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. For the environmental screening assessment for acid gases, we employ a single-tiered approach. We use the modeled air concentrations and compare those with ecological benchmarks. For all tiers of the multipathway and environmental screening assessments, our approach to addressing model input uncertainty is generally cautious. We choose model inputs from the upper end of the range of possible values for the influential parameters used in the models, and we assume that the exposed individual exhibits ingestion behavior that would lead to a high total exposure. This approach reduces the likelihood of not identifying high risks for adverse impacts. Despite the uncertainties, when individual pollutants or facilities do not exceed screening threshold emission rates (i.e., screen out), we are confident that the potential for adverse multipathway impacts on human health is very low. On the other hand, when individual pollutants or facilities do exceed screening threshold emission rates, it does not mean that impacts are significant, only that we cannot rule out that possibility and that a refined assessment for the site might be necessary to obtain a more accurate risk characterization for the source category. The EPA evaluates the following HAP in the multipathway and/or environmental risk screening assessments, where applicable: Arsenic, cadmium, dioxins/furans, lead, mercury (both inorganic and methyl mercury), POM, HCl, and HF. These HAP represent pollutants that can cause adverse impacts either through direct exposure to HAP in the air or through exposure to HAP that are deposited from the air onto soils and surface waters and then through the environment into the food web. These HAP represent those HAP for which we can conduct a meaningful multipathway or environmental screening risk assessment. For other HAP not included in our screening assessments, the model has not been parameterized such that it can be used for that purpose. In some cases, depending on the HAP, we may not have appropriate multipathway models that allow us to predict the concentration of that pollutant. The EPA acknowledges that other HAP beyond these that we are evaluating may have the potential to cause adverse effects and, therefore, the EPA may evaluate other relevant HAP in the future, as modeling science and resources allow. IV. Analytical Results and Proposed Decisions A. What are the analytical results and proposed decisions for the surface coating of automobiles and light-duty trucks source category? 1. What are the results of the risk assessment and analyses? As described in section III of this preamble, for the ALDT source category, we conducted a risk assessment for all HAP emitted. We present results of the risk assessment briefly below and in more detail in the Automobiles and Light-Duty Trucks Risk Assessment Report in the ALDT Docket (Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2019–0314). a. Chronic Inhalation Risk Assessment Results Table 2 of this preamble provides a summary of the results of the inhalation risk assessment for the source category. TABLE 2—SURFACE COATING OF AUTOMOBILES AND LIGHT-DUTY TRUCKS SOURCE CATEGORY INHALATION RISK ASSESSMENT RESULTS Maximum individual cancer risk (in 1 million) Risk assessment Based on actual emissions Source Category ............................... Whole Facility .................................... 1 The 2 The 10 10 Based on allowable emissions Estimated population at increased risk of cancer ≥1-in-1 million Estimated annual cancer incidence (cases per year) Based on actual emissions Based on actual emissions 10 .................. 15,000 48,000 Based on allowable emissions 19,000 .................. 0.01 0.02 Based on allowable emissions Maximum chronic noncancer TOSHI 1 Based on actual emissions 0.01 .................. 0.3 0.3 Maximum screening acute noncancer HQ 2 Based on allowable emissions 0.3 Based on actual emissions HQREL = 1. target organ specific hazard index (TOSHI) is the sum of the chronic noncancer HQs for substances that affect the same target organ or organ system. maximum estimated acute exposure concentration was divided by available short-term threshold values to develop HQ values. 23 In the context of this discussion, the term ‘‘uncertainty’’ as it pertains to exposure and risk encompasses both variability in the range of VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:18 Oct 31, 2019 Jkt 250001 expected inputs and screening results due to existing spatial, temporal, and other factors, as well PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 as uncertainty in being able to accurately estimate the true result. E:\FR\FM\01NOP2.SGM 01NOP2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 212 / Friday, November 1, 2019 / Proposed Rules The results of the inhalation risk modeling using actual emissions data, as shown in Table 2 of this preamble, indicate that the maximum individual cancer risk based on actual emissions (lifetime) could be up to 10-in-1 million (driven by naphthalene and ethyl benzene from miscellaneous industrial processes—other/not classified), the maximum chronic noncancer TOSHI value based on actual emissions could be up to 0.3 (driven by hexamethylene1,6-diisocyanate from a painting topcoat process), and the maximum screening acute noncancer HQ value (off-facility site) could be up to 1 (driven by formaldehyde). The total estimated annual cancer incidence (national) from these facilities based on actual emission levels is 0.01 excess cancer cases per year or 1 case in every 100 years. b. Screening Level Acute Risk Assessment Results Table 2 of this preamble shows the acute risk results for the ALDT source category. The screening analysis for acute impacts was based on an industry specific multiplier of 1.2, to estimate the peak emission rates from the average rates. For more detailed acute risk results, refer to the Automobiles and Light-Duty Trucks Risk Assessment Report, in the ALDT Docket. c. Multipathway Risk Screening Results The emissions data for the ALDT source category indicate that one PB– HAP is emitted by sources within this source category: Lead. In evaluating the potential for multipathway effects from emissions of lead, we compared modeled annual lead concentrations to the NAAQS for lead (0.15 mg/m3, arithmetic mean concentration over a 3-month period). The highest annual average lead concentration of 1.5 × 10¥5 mg/m3 is below the NAAQS for lead, indicating a low potential for multipathway impacts of concern due to lead even assuming a shorter averaging period is. Therefore, we do not expect any human health multipathway risks as a result of emissions from this source category. 58955 wide cancer MIR is 10-in-1 million, driven by naphthalene and ethyl benzene from miscellaneous industrial processes—other/not classified. The total estimated cancer incidence from the whole facility is 0.02 excess cancer cases per year, or one excess case in every 50 years. Approximately 48,000 people were estimated to have cancer risks above 1-in-1 million from exposure to HAP emitted from both MACT and non-MACT sources at 15 of the 43 facilities in this source category. The maximum facility-wide TOSHI for the source category is estimated to be 0.3, mainly driven by emissions of hexamethylene-1,6-diisocyanate from a painting topcoat process. d. Environmental Risk Screening Results The emissions data for the ALDT source category indicate that three environmental HAP are emitted by sources within this source category: Lead, HCl and HF. Therefore, we conducted a screening-level evaluation of the potential adverse environmental effects associated with emissions of lead, HCl, and HF for the ALDT source category. In evaluating the potential for adverse environmental effects from emissions of lead, we compared modeled annual lead concentrations to the secondary NAAQS for lead (0.15 mg/ m3, arithmetic mean concentration over a 3-month period). The highest annual average lead concentration of 1.5 × 10¥5 mg/m3 is below the secondary NAAQS for lead, indicating a low potential for adverse environmental impacts due to lead even assuming a shorter averaging period is analyzed. For both HCl and HF, each individual concentration (i.e., each off-site data point in the modeling domain) was below the ecological benchmarks for all facilities. Therefore, we do not expect an adverse environmental effect as a result of HAP emissions from this source category. f. What demographic groups might benefit from this regulation? To examine the potential for any environmental justice issues that might be associated with the source category, we performed a demographic analysis, which is an assessment of risks to individual demographic groups of the populations living within 5 km and within 50 km of the facilities. In the analysis, we evaluated the distribution of HAP-related cancer and noncancer risks from the ALDT source category across different demographic groups within the populations living near facilities.24 The results of the demographic analysis are summarized in Table 3 of this preamble. These results, for various demographic groups, are based on the estimated risks from actual emissions levels for the population living within 50 km of the facilities. e. Facility-Wide Risk Results Fifteen facilities have a facility-wide cancer MIR greater than or equal to 1in-1 million. The maximum facility- TABLE 3—SURFACE COATING OF AUTOMOBILES AND LIGHT-DUTY TRUCKS SOURCE CATEGORY DEMOGRAPHIC RISK ANALYSIS RESULTS Nationwide Total Population ....................................................................................................... Population with cancer risk at or above 1-in-1 million due to surface coating of automobiles and light-duty trucks 317,746,049 Population with chronic noncancer HI above 1 due to surface coating of automobiles and light-duty trucks 15,000 0 62 38 60 40 0 0 12 0.8 18 10 0.2 27 0 0 0 White and Minority by Percent White ........................................................................................................................ Minority .................................................................................................................... Minority Detail by Percent African American ..................................................................................................... Native American ...................................................................................................... Hispanic or Latino .................................................................................................... VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:18 Oct 31, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\01NOP2.SGM 01NOP2 58956 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 212 / Friday, November 1, 2019 / Proposed Rules TABLE 3—SURFACE COATING OF AUTOMOBILES AND LIGHT-DUTY TRUCKS SOURCE CATEGORY DEMOGRAPHIC RISK ANALYSIS RESULTS—Continued Population with cancer risk at or above 1-in-1 million due to surface coating of automobiles and light-duty trucks Nationwide Other and Multiracial ............................................................................................... Population with chronic noncancer HI above 1 due to surface coating of automobiles and light-duty trucks 7 3 0 14 86 19 81 0 0 14 86 14 86 0 0 6 3 0 Income by Percent Below the Poverty Level .......................................................................................... Above the Poverty Level ......................................................................................... Education by Percent Over 25 Without High a School Diploma ................................................................ Over 25 With a High School Diploma ..................................................................... Linguistically Isolated by Percent Linguistically Isolated ............................................................................................... The results of the ALDT source category demographic analysis indicate that emissions from the source category expose approximately 15,000 people to a cancer risk at or above 1-in-1 million and no one to a chronic noncancer HI greater than 1. The percent of minorities is similar nationally (38 percent) and for the category population with cancer risk greater than or equal to 1-in-1 million (40 percent). However, the category population with cancer risk greater than or equal to 1-in-1 million has a greater percentage of Hispanic (27 percent) as compared to nationally (18 percent). The methodology and the results of the demographic analysis are presented in a technical report titled Risk and Technology Review—Analysis of Demographic Factors for Populations Living Near Automobile and Light-Duty Truck Surface Coating Source Category Operations, March 2019 (hereafter referred to as the Automobiles and Light-Duty Trucks Demographic Analysis Report) in the ALDT Docket. 2. What are our proposed decisions regarding risk acceptability, ample margin of safety, and adverse environmental effects? a. Risk Acceptability As noted in section III.A of this preamble, we weigh all health risk factors in our risk acceptability determination, including the cancer MIR, the number of persons in various cancer and noncancer risk ranges, cancer incidence, the maximum noncancer TOSHI, the maximum acute noncancer HQ, the extent of noncancer risks, the distribution of cancer and VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:18 Oct 31, 2019 Jkt 250001 noncancer risks in the exposed population, and risk estimation uncertainties (54 FR 38044, September 14, 1989). For the ALDT source category, the risk analysis indicates that the cancer risks to the individual most exposed could be up to 10-in-1 million due to actual emissions or based on allowable emissions. These risks are considerably less than 100-in-1 million, which is the presumptive upper limit of acceptable risk. The risk analysis also shows very low cancer incidence (0.01 cases per year for actual and allowable emissions), and we did not identify a potential for adverse chronic noncancer health effects. The acute noncancer risks are low at an HQ of 1 (based on the REL) for formaldehyde. Therefore, we find there is little potential concern of acute noncancer health impacts from actual emissions. In addition, the risk assessment indicates no significant potential for multipathway health effects. Considering all of the health risk information and factors discussed above, including the uncertainties discussed in section III.C.7 of this preamble, we propose to find that the risks from the ALDT source category are acceptable. b. Ample Margin of Safety Analysis Although we are proposing that the risks from the ALDT source category are acceptable, risk estimates for approximately 15,000 individuals in the exposed population are above 1-in-1 million at the actual emissions level and 19,000 individuals at the allowable PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 emissions level. Consequently, we further considered whether the MACT standards for the ALDT source category provide an ample margin of safety to protect public health. In this ample margin of safety analysis, we investigated available emissions control options that might reduce the risk from the source category. We considered this information along with all of the health risks and other health information considered in our determination of risk acceptability. As described in section III.B of this preamble, our technology review focused on identifying developments in practices, processes, and control technologies for the ALDT source category, and the EPA reviewed various information sources regarding emission sources that are currently regulated by the ALDT NESHAP. Based on our review, we did not identify any costeffective measures to further reduce HAP. Therefore, considering all of the available health information along with the absence of additional measures for reducing HAP, we are proposing that additional emissions controls for this source category are not necessary and that the current standards provide an ample margin of safety. c. Environmental Effects The emissions data for the ALDT source category indicate that three environmental HAP are emitted by sources within this source category: Lead, HCl, and HF. The screening-level evaluation of the potential for adverse environmental effects from emissions of lead indicated that the secondary E:\FR\FM\01NOP2.SGM 01NOP2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 212 / Friday, November 1, 2019 / Proposed Rules NAAQS for lead would not be exceeded by any facility. The screening-level evaluation of the potential for adverse environmental effects associated with emissions of HCl and HF from the ALDT source category indicated that each individual concentration (i.e., each offsite data point in the modeling domain) was below the ecological benchmarks for all facilities. In addition, we are unaware of any adverse environmental effects caused by HAP emitted by this source category. Therefore, we do not expect there to be an adverse environmental effect as a result of HAP emissions from this source category and we are proposing that it is not necessary to set a more stringent standard to prevent, taking into consideration costs, energy, safety, and other relevant factors, an adverse environmental effect. 3. What are the results and proposed decisions based on our technology review? As described in section III.B of this preamble, our technology review focused on identifying developments in practices, processes, and control technologies for the ALDT source category. The EPA reviewed various information sources regarding emission sources that are currently regulated by the ALDT NESHAP to support the technology review. The information sources included the following: The RBLC; state regulations; facility operating permits; regulatory actions, including technology reviews, promulgated for other surface coating NESHAP subsequent to the ALDT NESHAP; site visits; discussions with individual ALDT surface coating facilities; and industry information. The primary emission sources for the technology review included the following: The coating operations; all storage containers and mixing vessels in which coatings, thinners, and cleaning materials are stored or mixed; all manual and automated equipment and containers used for conveying coatings, thinners, and cleaning materials; and all storage containers and all manual and automated equipment and containers used for conveying waste materials generated by a coating operation. Based on our review, we did not identify any add-on control technologies, process equipment, work practices or procedures that were not previously considered during development of the 2004 ALDT NESHAP, and we did not identify any new or improved add-on control technologies that would result in additional emission reductions. A brief summary of the EPA’s findings in conducting the technology review of VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:18 Oct 31, 2019 Jkt 250001 ALDT surface coating operations follows. For a detailed discussion of the EPA’s findings, refer to the memorandum, Technology Review for Surface Coating Operations in the Automobiles and Light-Duty Trucks Source Category, in the ALDT Docket. During 2004 MACT development for the ALDT NESHAP, numerical emission limits were determined for new and existing major sources within the four combinations of coating operations, for a total of eight HAP emissions limits. The emission limits were based on industry survey responses and the industry’s use of low- or no-HAP coatings and thinners, high efficiency coatings spray equipment (including robotic spraying), and add-on capture and control technologies. Alternately, the NESHAP provides sources with the option of limiting HAP emissions with capture and add-on control to achieve an overall control efficiency of 95percent. During development of that rulemaking, we identified the beyondthe-floor option to require the use of capture systems and add-on control devices for all ALDT surface coating operations. This option was rejected because we determined the additional emission reductions achieved using the beyond-the-floor option did not warrant the costs each affected source would incur or the incremental cost per ton of HAP reduced (67 FR 78622, December 24, 2002). For this technology review, we used the EPA’s NEI and the ECHO databases to identify facilities that are currently subject to the ALDT NESHAP. We also consulted Regional and state regulations and operating permits. California has existing surface coating rules for VOC from vehicle assembly plants within two air quality management districts (AQMD): Bay Area AQMD and South Coast AQMD. No state VOC rules for ALDT surface coating operations were identified that had VOC limits that would translate into lower HAP content limits. The VOC content limits in state rules (e.g., BAAQMD Rule 8–13 and SCAQMD Rule 1115) are an order of magnitude higher than the HAP content limits in the ALDT NESHAP. Because the HAP are only a small fraction of the VOC in these coatings, complying with these state VOC standards would not limit HAP emissions to levels that are more stringent than the levels required. Our search of the RBLC database for improvements in ALDT coating technologies provided results for 22 facilities with permit dates of 2000 or later. Facilities reported the use of VOC and HAP content limits, electrodeposition primers, regenerative thermal oxidizers (RTOs), catalytic PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 58957 oxidation, and thermal oxidation. All of these control technologies were in use by the ALDT surface coating industry during development of the ALDT NESHAP and already were considered in the development of the ALDT NESHAP. Therefore, we concluded that the results of the search did not result in any improvements in add-on control technology or other equipment. We reviewed other surface coating NESHAP promulgated after the ALDT NESHAP to determine whether any requirements exceed the ALDT MACT level of control or included technologies that were not considered during the development of the original ALDT NESHAP. These NESHAP include Paint Stripping and Miscellaneous Surface Coating Operations at Area Sources (40 CFR part 63, subpart HHHHHH), and Nine Metal Fabrication and Finishing Area Source Categories (40 CFR part 63, subpart XXXXXX). We also reviewed the results of the technology reviews for the following NESHAP: Printing and Publishing (40 CFR part 63, subpart KK), Shipbuilding and Ship Repair (40 CFR part 63, subpart II), Wood Furniture Manufacturing (40 CFR part 63, subpart JJ), and Aerospace Manufacturing and Rework Facilities (40 CFR part 63, subpart GG). Technology reviews for these NESHAP identified permanent total enclosures (PTE) and/or RTOs as improvements in add-on control technology. The original ALDT NESHAP includes a compliance option involving the use of a PTE and an addon control device. Because these measures were considered in the development of the original ALDT NESHAP and reflected in the MACT level of control, we concluded that these measures do not represent an improvement in control technology under CAA section 112(d)(6). The control technology assessment conducted for the Paint Stripping and Miscellaneous Surface Coating NESHAP and Nine Metal Fabrication and Finishing NESHAP confined all coating operations to a spray booth fitted with high-efficiency filters, use of hightransfer efficiency spray guns, and training and certification of spray equipment operator to optimize transfer efficiency for facilities that spray apply coatings containing certain inorganic HAP. The technology controls for inorganic HAP adopted in subparts HHHHHH and XXXXXX, spray booths fitted with overspray filters and the use of high efficiency spray equipment, were already considered in the development of the original ALDT NESHAP, and, therefore, do not E:\FR\FM\01NOP2.SGM 01NOP2 58958 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 212 / Friday, November 1, 2019 / Proposed Rules constitute a development for the purpose of the technology review. The technology review conducted for the Wood Furniture NESHAP identified the use of more efficient spray guns as a technology review development and revised the requirements to prohibit the use of conventional spray guns. Airassisted airless spraying was added as a more efficient coating application technology. The original ALDT NESHAP is based on the use of highefficiency application technology, such as airless and electrostatic spray equipment. This equipment increases coating transfer efficiency, minimizes emissions by reducing the amount of coating sprayed and still achieves a given film thickness with exceptional finish. The format of the ALDT emission limits, in mass of HAP per mass of coating solids applied to the part, accounts for the transfer efficiency of the application equipment and is based on high-efficiency methods. The technology review conducted for the Printing and Publishing NESHAP identified the use of a PTE in the form of coating spray booths and curing tunnels. These PTEs are commonly used in ALDT surface coating operations to maintain a clean environment for applying the coatings, and for capturing and removing coating overspray and solvent vapors from the coating area. Therefore, the use of a PTE, as identified in the Printing and Publishing NESHAP technology review, does not represent a development in control technology with respect to ALDT surface coating operations. In conclusion, we found no improvements in add-on control technology or other equipment during review of the RBLC, the state rules, and subsequent NESHAP that were not already identified and considered during the ALDT NESHAP development. Alternatives to conventional solventborne coatings were identified and considered during MACT development but were not considered to be suitable for all ALDT coating applications. These alternative coatings include higher solids coatings, waterborne coatings, low-energy electron beam ultraviolet (UV) cured coatings, and powder coating. Waterborne and higher solids coatings with lower HAP and VOC content were considered in the development of the proposed and final standards and are already reflected in the HAP emission limitations in the final rule. Industry trends and advances in coating formulation, as documented in the ACA Industry Market Analysis, showed that powder coated finishes would be difficult to repair and would VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:18 Oct 31, 2019 Jkt 250001 likely require refinishing the entire car in case of damage. Further, the ACA analysis stated that no progress had been made in overcoming technical hurdles that would make UV-cured coatings applicable to main vehicle body parts (e.g., shadowing of certain areas from UV rays, high energy demands, residual UV photo-initiators in the coating film). Therefore, the EPA did not identify any developments in coating technology, other process changes, or pollution prevention alternatives that would represent a development relative to the coating technologies on which the final rule is based. Finally, no improvements in work practices or operational procedures were identified for the ALDT source category that were not previously identified and considered during MACT development. The current MACT standards require that, if a facility uses add-on controls to comply with the emission limitations, the facility must develop and implement a work practice plan to minimize organic HAP emissions from the storage, mixing, and conveying of coatings, thinners, and cleaning materials used in, and waste materials generated by, those coating operations. If a facility is not using addon controls and is using either the compliant material option or the emission rate without add-on controls option, the facility does not need to comply with work practice standards. Under the emission rate option, HAP emitted from spills or from containers would be counted against the facility in the compliance calculations, so facilities must already minimize these losses to maintain compliance. Based on these findings, we conclude that there have not been any developments in add-on control technology or other equipment not identified and considered during MACT development, nor any improvements in add-on controls, nor any significant changes in the cost (including cost effectiveness) of the add-on controls. Therefore, we are proposing no revisions to the ALDT NESHAP pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6). For further discussion of the technology review results, refer to the Automobiles and Light-Duty Trucks Technology Review Memo, in the ALDT Docket. 4. What other actions are we proposing for the ALDT source category? We are proposing to require electronic submittal of notifications, semiannual reports, and compliance reports (which include performance test reports) for ALDT surface coating facilities. In addition, we are proposing revisions to PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 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 source owners and operators from the requirement to comply with otherwise applicable CAA section 112(d) emission standards during periods of SSM. We are proposing to require periodic emissions testing of add-on control devices. We also propose other changes, including updating references to equivalent test methods, making technical and editorial revisions, and incorporation by reference (IBR) of alternative test methods. Our analyses and proposed changes related to these issues are discussed in the sections below. a. Electronic Reporting Requirements The EPA is proposing that owners and operators of ALDT surface coating facilities submit electronic copies of initial notifications required in 40 CFR 63.9(b) and 63.3110(b), notifications of compliance status required in 40 CFR 63.9(h) and 63.3110(c), performance test reports required in 40 CFR 63.3120(b), and semiannual reports required in 40 CFR 63.3120(a), through the EPA’s Central Data Exchange (CDX) using the Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface (CEDRI). For further information regarding the electronic data submission process, please refer to the memorandum titled Electronic Reporting for New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) and National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) Rules, in the ALDT Docket. 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 25 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. No specific form is proposed at this time for the initial notifications required in 40 CFR 63.9(b) and notification of compliance status in 40 CFR 63.9(h). Until the EPA has completed electronic forms for these notifications, the notifications will be required to be submitted via CEDRI in PDF. After development of the final forms, we will notify sources about their availability via the CEDRI website and the CHIEF Listserv. For semiannual reports required in 40 CFR 63.3120(a) 25 https://www.epa.gov/electronic-reporting-airemissions/electronic-reporting-tool-ert. E:\FR\FM\01NOP2.SGM 01NOP2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 212 / Friday, November 1, 2019 / Proposed Rules the proposed rule requires that owners and operators use the appropriate spreadsheet template to submit information to CEDRI. A draft version of the proposed templates for these reports is included in the docket for this rulemaking.26 The EPA specifically requests comment on the content, layout, and overall design of the templates. Additionally, the EPA has identified two broad circumstances in which electronic reporting extensions may be provided. In both circumstances, the decision to accept the claim of needing additional time to report is within the discretion of the Administrator, and reporting should occur as soon as possible. The EPA is providing these potential extensions to protect owners and operators from noncompliance in 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 63.9(b), notifications of compliance status required in 40 CFR 63.9(h), and semiannual reports required in 40 CFR 63.3120(a). 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 63.3120(g). 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 26 See Electronic Reporting Template for Surface Coating of Automobiles and Light-Duty Trucks Subpart IIII Semiannual Reports, in docket ID NO. EPA–HQ–OAR–0314. VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:18 Oct 31, 2019 Jkt 250001 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 27 to implement Executive Order 13563 and is in keeping with the EPA’s agencywide policy 28 developed in response to the White House’s Digital Government Strategy.29 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– OAR–2019–0314. b. SSM Requirements (1.) Proposed Elimination of the SSM Exemption In its 2008 decision in Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F.3d 1019 (D.C. Cir. 2008), the Court vacated portions of two provisions in the EPA’s CAA section 112 regulations governing the emissions of HAP during periods of SSM. Specifically, the Court vacated the SSM exemption contained in 40 CFR 63.6(f)(1) and 40 CFR 63.6(h)(1), holding that under section 302(k) of the CAA, emissions standards or limitations must be continuous in nature and that the SSM exemption violates the CAA’s requirement that some CAA section 112 standards apply continuously. We are proposing the elimination of the SSM exemption in this rule. Consistent with Sierra Club v. EPA, we are proposing standards in this rule that apply at all times. We are also proposing several revisions to Table 2 to subpart IIII of 40 CFR part 63 (Applicability of General Provisions to Subpart IIII, hereafter referred to as the ‘‘General Provisions table to subpart IIII’’), as explained in more detail below in 27 EPA’s Final Plan for Periodic Retrospective Reviews, August 2011. Available at: https:// www.regulations.gov/document?D=EPA-HQ-OA2011-0156-0154. 28 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-201309-30.pdf. 29 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. PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 58959 section IV.A.4.b.2 of this preamble. For example, we are proposing to eliminate the incorporation of the General Provisions’ requirement that the source develop an SSM plan. Further, we are proposing to eliminate and revise certain recordkeeping and reporting requirements related to the SSM exemption as further described below. The EPA has attempted to ensure that the provisions we are proposing to eliminate are inappropriate, unnecessary, or redundant in the absence of the SSM exemption. We are specifically seeking comment on whether we have successfully done so. In proposing these rule amendments, the EPA has taken into account startup and shutdown periods and, for the reasons explained below, has not proposed alternate standards for those periods. Startups and shutdowns are part of normal operations for the ALDT source category. As currently specified in 40 CFR 63.3100(b), all coating operation(s) must be in compliance with the operating limits for emission capture systems and add-on control devices required by 40 CFR 63.3093 ‘‘at all times except during periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction.’’ Therefore, we will be removing the exemption for periods of startup, and shutdown, as well as for malfunctions. Also, as currently specified in 40 CFR 63.3100(a), you must be in compliance ‘‘at all times’’ with the emission limitations in 40 CFR 63.3090 and 63.3091, and as specified in 40 CFR 63.3100(c), you must be in compliance with the work practice standards in 40 CFR 63.3094 ‘‘at all times.’’ During startup and shutdown periods, in order for a facility (using add-on controls to meet the standards) to meet the emission and operating standards, the control device for a coating operation needs to be turned on and operating at specified levels before the facility begins coating operations, and the control equipment needs to continue to be operated until after the facility ceases coating operations. In some cases, the facility needs to run thermal oxidizers on supplemental fuel before VOC levels are sufficient for the combustion to be (nearly) self-sustaining. Note that we are also proposing new related language in 40 CFR 63.3100(d) to require that the owner or operator operate and maintain the coating operation, including pollution control equipment, at all times to minimize emissions. See section IV.A.4.b.2 of this preamble for further discussion of these proposed revisions. Periods of startup, normal operations, and shutdown are all predictable and routine aspects of a source’s operations. Malfunctions, in contrast, are neither E:\FR\FM\01NOP2.SGM 01NOP2 58960 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 212 / Friday, November 1, 2019 / Proposed Rules predictable nor routine. Instead they are, by definition, sudden, infrequent and not reasonably preventable failures of emissions control, process, or monitoring equipment. (40 CFR 63.2) (definition of malfunction). The EPA interprets CAA section 112 as not requiring emissions that occur during periods of malfunction to be factored into development of CAA section 112 standards and this reading has been upheld as reasonable by the Court in U.S. Sugar Corp. v. EPA, 830 F.3d 579, 606–610 (2016). Under CAA section 112, emissions standards for new sources must be no less stringent than the level ‘‘achieved’’ by the best controlled similar source and for existing sources generally must be no less stringent than the average emission limitation ‘‘achieved’’ by the best performing 12 percent of sources in the category. There is nothing in CAA section 112 that directs the Agency to consider malfunctions in determining the level ‘‘achieved’’ by the best performing sources when setting emission standards. As the Court has recognized, the phrase ‘‘average emissions limitation achieved by the best performing 12 percent of’’ sources ‘‘says nothing about how the performance of the best units is to be calculated.’’ Nat’l Ass’n of Clean Water Agencies v. EPA, 734 F.3d 1115, 1141 (D.C. Cir. 2013). While the EPA accounts for variability in setting emissions standards, nothing in CAA section 112 requires the Agency to consider malfunctions as part of that analysis. The EPA is not required to treat a malfunction in the same manner as the type of variation in performance that occurs during routine operations of a source. A malfunction is a failure of the source to perform in a ‘‘normal or usual manner’’ and no statutory language compels the EPA to consider such events in setting CAA section 112 standards. As the Court recognized in U.S. Sugar Corp, accounting for malfunctions in setting standards would be difficult, if not impossible, given the myriad different types of malfunctions that can occur across all sources in the category and given the difficulties associated with predicting or accounting for the frequency, degree, and duration of various malfunctions that might occur. Id. at 608 (‘‘the EPA would have to conceive of a standard that could apply equally to the wide range of possible boiler malfunctions, ranging from an explosion to minor mechanical defects. Any possible standard is likely to be hopelessly generic to govern such a wide array of circumstances.’’) As such, VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:18 Oct 31, 2019 Jkt 250001 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 offline as a result of a malfunction (as might happen if, for example, the bags in a baghouse catch fire) and the emission unit is a steady state type unit that would take days to shut down, the source would go from 99-percent control to zero control until the control device was repaired. The source’s emissions during the malfunction would be 100 times higher than during normal operations. As such, the emissions over a 4-day malfunction period would exceed the annual emissions of the source during normal operations. As this example illustrates, accounting for malfunctions could lead to standards that are not reflective of (and significantly less stringent than) levels that are achieved by a wellperforming non-malfunctioning source. It is reasonable to interpret CAA section 112 to avoid such a result. The EPA’s approach to malfunctions is consistent with CAA section 112 and is a reasonable interpretation of the statute. Although no statutory language compels the EPA to set standards for malfunctions, the EPA has the discretion to do so where feasible. For example, in the Petroleum Refinery Sector Risk and Technology Review, the EPA established a work practice standard for unique types of malfunctions that result in releases from pressure relief devices or emergency flaring events because we had information to determine that such work PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 practices reflected the level of control that applies to the best performing sources (80 FR 75178, 75211–14, December 1, 2015). The EPA will consider whether circumstances warrant setting standards for a particular type of malfunction and, if so, whether the EPA has sufficient information to identify the relevant best performing sources and establish a standard for such malfunctions. We also encourage commenters to provide any such information. It is unlikely that a malfunction would result in a violation of the standards during ALDT surface coatings operations for facilities complying without the use of add-on controls (i.e., using low-HAP coatings and thinning materials). Facilities using low-HAP coatings and thinning materials have demonstrated that the coatings and thinners used in the coating operations are less than or equal to the applicable emission limit calculated on a monthly basis. A malfunction event is more likely for ALDT surface coating facilities that use add-on controls as a compliance option. For this option, in addition to demonstrating compliance with the numerical emission rate limits for coatings and thinners used (calculated on a monthly basis), facilities must also demonstrate that their emission capture systems and add-on control devices meet the operating limits established by the ALDT NESHAP. Control device operating limits are listed in Table 4 of the ALDT NESHAP and are specific to the device, and most are based on maintaining an average temperature over a 3-hour block period, which must not fall below the temperature limit established during the facility’s initial performance test. All facilities must also comply with work practice standards to minimize organic HAP emissions from the storage, mixing, and conveying of coatings, thinners, and cleaning materials used in, and waste materials generated by, the coating operation(s), but it is unlikely that a malfunction would result in a violation of the work practice standards. We currently have no information to suggest that it is feasible or necessary to establish any type of standard for malfunctions associated with the ALDT source category. We encourage commenters to provide any such information, if available. In the event that a source fails to comply with the applicable CAA section 112(d) standards as a result of a malfunction event, the EPA will determine an appropriate response based on, among other things, the good E:\FR\FM\01NOP2.SGM 01NOP2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 212 / Friday, November 1, 2019 / Proposed Rules 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 will also consider whether the source’s failure to comply with the CAA section 112(d) standard was, in fact, sudden, infrequent, not reasonably preventable, and was not instead caused, in part, by poor maintenance or careless operation. 40 CFR 63.2 (definition of malfunction). If the EPA determines in a particular case that an enforcement action against a source for violation of an emission standard is warranted, the source can raise any and all defenses in that enforcement action and the federal district court will determine what, if any, relief is appropriate. The same is true for citizen enforcement actions. Similarly, the presiding officer in an administrative proceeding can consider any defense raised and determine whether administrative penalties are appropriate. In summary, the EPA interpretation of the CAA and, in particular, CAA section 112 is reasonable and encourages practices that will avoid malfunctions. Administrative and judicial procedures for addressing exceedances of the standards fully recognize that violations may occur despite good faith efforts to comply and can accommodate those situations. U.S. Sugar Corp. v. EPA, 830 F.3d 579, 606–610 (2016). (2.) Proposed Revisions to the General Provisions Applicability Table 40 CFR 63.3100(d) General duty. We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table to subpart IIII (Table 2) entry for 40 CFR 63.6(e)(1)(i) by changing the ‘‘yes’’ in column 3 to a ‘‘no.’’ Section 63.6(e)(1)(i) describes the general duty to minimize emissions. Some of the language in that section is no longer necessary or appropriate in light of the elimination of the SSM exemption. We are proposing instead to add general duty regulatory text at 40 CFR 63.3100(d) 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 63.3100(d) does not include that language from 40 CFR 63.6(e)(1)(i). VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:18 Oct 31, 2019 Jkt 250001 We are also proposing to revise the General Provisions table to subpart IIII (Table 2) entry for 40 CFR 63.6(e)(1)(ii) by changing the ‘‘yes’’ in column 3 to a ‘‘no.’’ Section 63.6(e)(1)(ii) imposes requirements that are not necessary with the elimination of the SSM exemption or are redundant with the general duty requirement being added at 40 CFR 63.3100(d). SSM plan. We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table to subpart IIII (Table 2) entry for 40 CFR 63.6(e)(3) by changing the ‘‘yes’’ in column 3 to a ‘‘no.’’ Generally, these paragraphs require development of an SSM plan and specify SSM recordkeeping and reporting requirements related to the SSM plan. We are also proposing to remove from 40 CFR part 63, subpart IIII, the current provisions requiring the SSM plan at 40 CFR 63.3100(f). 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. Compliance with standards. We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table to subpart IIII (Table 2) entry for 40 CFR 63.6(f)(1) by changing the ‘‘yes’’ in column 3 to a ‘‘no.’’ The current language of 40 CFR 63.6(f)(1) exempts sources from non-opacity standards during periods of SSM. As discussed above, the Court in Sierra Club vacated the exemptions contained in this provision and held that the CAA requires that some CAA section 112 standards apply continuously. Consistent with Sierra Club, the EPA is proposing to revise the standards in this rule to apply at all times. We are also proposing to remove rule text in 40 CFR 63.3161(j) clarifying that, in calculating emissions to demonstrate compliance, deviation periods must include deviations during an SSM period. Since the EPA is removing the SSM exemption, this clarifying text is no longer needed. 40 CFR 63.3163 Performance testing. We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table to subpart IIII (Table 2) entry for 40 CFR 63.7(e)(1) by changing the ‘‘yes’’ in column 3 to a ‘‘no.’’ Section 63.7(e)(1) describes performance testing requirements. The EPA is instead proposing to add a performance testing requirement at 40 CFR 63.3163 and 40 CFR 63.3164. The performance testing requirements we are proposing to add differ from the General Provisions performance testing provisions in several respects. The regulatory text PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 58961 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 in 40 CFR 63.3164 will also not allow performance testing during startup or shutdown. As in 40 CFR 63.7(e)(1), performance tests conducted under this subpart should not be conducted during malfunctions because conditions during malfunctions are often not representative of normal operating conditions. Section 63.7(e) requires that the owner or operator maintain records of the process information necessary to document operating conditions during the test and include in such records an explanation to support that such conditions represent normal operation. The EPA is proposing to add language to 40 CFR 63.3164 clarifying that the owner or operator must make such records available to the Administrator upon request. Monitoring. We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table to subpart IIII (Table 2) entry for 40 CFR 63.8(c)(1) by changing the ‘‘yes’’ in column 3 to a ‘‘no.’’ The crossreferences to the general duty and SSM plan requirements in 40 CFR 63.8(c)(1) are not necessary in light of other requirements of 40 CFR 63.8 that require good air pollution control practices (40 CFR 63.8(c)(1)) and that set out the requirements of a quality control program for monitoring equipment (40 CFR 63.8(d)). Further, we have determined that 40 CFR 63.8(c)(1)(ii) is redundant to the current monitoring requirement in 40 CFR 63.3168(a)(4) (i.e., ‘‘have available necessary parts for routine repairs of the monitoring equipment,’’ except 40 CFR 63.8(c)(1)(ii) specifies ‘‘have readily available.’’). We are proposing to revise 40 CFR 63.3168(a)(4) to specify ‘‘readily available.’’ 40 CFR 63.3512 Recordkeeping. We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table to subpart IIII (Table 2) entry for 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(i) by changing the ‘‘yes’’ in column 3 to a ‘‘no.’’ Section 63.10(b)(2)(i) describes the recordkeeping requirements during startup and shutdown. These recording provisions are no longer necessary because the EPA is proposing that recordkeeping and reporting applicable to normal operations will apply to startup and shutdown. In the absence of special provisions applicable to startup and shutdown, such as a startup and shutdown plan, there is no reason to E:\FR\FM\01NOP2.SGM 01NOP2 58962 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 212 / Friday, November 1, 2019 / Proposed Rules retain additional recordkeeping for startup and shutdown periods. We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table to subpart IIII (Table 2) entry for 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(ii) by changing the ‘‘yes’’ in column 3 to a ‘‘no.’’ Section 63.10(b)(2)(ii) describes the recordkeeping requirements during a malfunction, requiring a record of ‘‘the occurrence and duration of each malfunction.’’ A similar record is already required in 40 CFR 63.3130(g), which requires a record of ‘‘the date, time, and duration of each deviation,’’ which the EPA is retaining. The regulatory text in 40 CFR 63.3130(g) differs from the General Provisions in that the General Provisions requires the creation and retention of a record of the occurrence and duration of each malfunction of process, air pollution control, and monitoring equipment; whereas 40 CFR 63.3130(g) applies to any failure to meet an applicable standard and is requiring that the source record the date, time, and duration of the failure rather than the ‘‘occurrence.’’ For this reason, the EPA is proposing to add to 40 CFR 63.3130(g) a requirement that sources also keep records that include a list of the affected source or equipment and actions taken to minimize emissions, an estimate of the quantity of each regulated pollutant emitted over the emission limit for which the source failed to meet the standard, and a description of the method used to estimate the emissions. Examples of such methods would include product-loss calculations, mass balance calculations, measurements when available, or engineering judgment based on known process parameters (e.g., coating HAP content and application rates and control device efficiencies). The EPA is proposing to require that sources keep records of this information to ensure that there is adequate information to allow the EPA to determine the severity of any failure to meet a standard, and to provide data that may document how the source met the general duty to minimize emissions when the source has failed to meet an applicable standard. We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table to subpart IIII (Table 2) entry for 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(iv)–(v) by changing the ‘‘yes’’ in column 3 to a ‘‘no.’’ When applicable, the provision requires sources to record actions taken during SSM events when actions were inconsistent with their SSM plan. The requirement in 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(iv) is no longer appropriate because SSM plans will no longer be required. The requirement previously applicable under 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(iv)(B) to VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:18 Oct 31, 2019 Jkt 250001 record actions to minimize emissions and record corrective actions is now applicable by reference to 40 CFR 63.3130(g)(4). When applicable, the provision in 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(v) requires sources to record actions taken during SSM events to show that actions taken were consistent with their SSM plan. The requirement is no longer appropriate because SSM plans will no longer be required. We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table to subpart IIII (Table 2) entry for 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(vi) by changing the ‘‘yes’’ in column 3 to a ‘‘no.’’ The provision requires sources to maintain records during continuous monitoring system (CMS) malfunctions. Section 63.3130(g) covers records of periods of deviation from the standard, including instances where a CMS is inoperative or out-of-control. Additional recordkeeping requirements for continuous parameter monitoring systems (CPMS) are also specified in 40 CFR 63.3168. We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table to subpart IIII (Table 2) entry for 40 CFR 63.10(c)(15) by changing the ‘‘yes’’ in column 3 to a ‘‘no.’’ When applicable, the provision allows an owner or operator to use the affected source’s SSM plan or records kept to satisfy the recordkeeping requirements of the SSM plan, specified in 40 CFR 63.6(e), to also satisfy the requirements of 40 CFR 63.10(c)(10) through (12). The EPA is proposing to eliminate this requirement because SSM plans would no longer be required, and, therefore, 40 CFR 63.10(c)(15) no longer serves any useful purpose for affected units. We are proposing to remove the requirement in 40 CFR 63.3130(g) that deviation records specify whether deviations from a standard occurred during a period of SSM. This revision is being proposed due to the proposed removal of the SSM exemption and because, as discussed above in this section, we are proposing that deviation records must specify the cause of each deviation, which could include a malfunction period as a cause. We are also proposing to remove the requirement to report the SSM records in 40 CFR 63.6(e)(3)(iii) through (v) by deleting 40 CFR 63.3130(h). 40 CFR 63.3120 Reporting. We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table to subpart IIII (Table 2) entry for 40 CFR 63.10(d)(5) by changing the ‘‘yes’’ in column 3 to a ‘‘no.’’ Section 63.10(d)(5) describes the reporting requirements for startups, shutdowns, and malfunctions. To replace the General Provisions reporting requirement, the EPA is proposing to PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 add reporting requirements to 40 CFR 63.3120(a)(5) through (a)(9). The replacement language differs from the General Provisions requirement in that it eliminates periodic SSM reports as a stand-alone report. We are proposing language that requires sources that fail to meet an applicable standard at any time to report the information concerning such events in the semiannual compliance report already required under this rule. Subpart IIII of 40 CFR part 63 currently requires reporting of the date, time period, and cause of each deviation. We are clarifying in the rule that, if the cause of a deviation from the standard is unknown, this should be specified in the report. We are also proposing to change ‘‘date and time period’’ to ‘‘date, time, and duration’’ (see proposed revisions to 40 CFR 63.3130(a)(6)(vii), (viii), and (xiii); 40 CFR 63.3130(a)(7)(i); 40 CFR 63.3130(a)(8)(v), (vi), and (vii); and 40 CFR 63.3130(a)(i)) to use terminology consistent with the recordkeeping section. Further, we are proposing that the report must also contain the number of deviations from the standard, and a list of the affected source or equipment. For deviation reports addressing deviations from an applicable emission limit in 40 CFR 63.3090, 63.3091, or 63.3092, or an operating limit in Table 1 to 40 CFR part 63, subpart IIII, we are proposing that the report also include an estimate of the quantity of each regulated pollutant emitted over any emission limit for which the source failed to meet the standard, and a description of the method used to estimate the emissions. For deviation reports addressing deviations from work practice standards (40 CFR 63.3120(a)(6)(xiii)), we are retaining the current requirement (including reporting actions taken to correct the deviation), except that we are revising the rule language to reference the new general duty requirement in 40 CFR 63.3100(d), we are clarifying that the description of the deviation must include a list of the affected sources or equipment and the cause of the deviation, we are clarifying that ‘‘time period’’ includes the ‘‘time and duration,’’ and we are requiring that the report include the number of deviations from the work practice standards in the reporting period. Regarding the proposed new requirement discussed above to estimate the quantity of each regulated pollutant emitted over any emission limit for which the source failed to meet the standard, and a description of the method used to estimate the emissions, examples of such methods would E:\FR\FM\01NOP2.SGM 01NOP2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 212 / Friday, November 1, 2019 / Proposed Rules include product-loss calculations, mass balance calculations, measurements when available, or engineering judgment based on known process parameters (e.g., coating HAP content and application rates and control device efficiencies). The EPA is proposing this requirement to ensure that there is adequate information to determine compliance, to allow the EPA to determine the severity of the failure to meet an applicable standard, and to provide data that may document how the source met the general duty to minimize emissions during a failure to meet an applicable standard. We will no longer require owners or operators to determine whether actions taken to correct a malfunction are consistent with an SSM plan, because plans would no longer be required. The proposed amendments, therefore, eliminate 40 CFR 63.3120(c) that requires reporting of whether the source deviated from its SSM plan, including required actions to communicate with the Administrator, and the crossreference to 40 CFR 63.10(d)(5)(ii) that contains the description of the previously required SSM report format and submittal schedule from this section. These specifications are no longer necessary because the events will be reported in otherwise required reports with similar format and submittal requirements. Section 63.10(d)(5)(ii) describes an immediate report for startups, 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. We are proposing to remove the requirements in 40 CFR 63.3120(a)(6)(viii) that deviation reports must specify whether deviation from an operating limit occurred during a period of SSM. We are also proposing to remove the requirements in 40 CFR 63.3120(a)(6)(x) to break down the total duration of deviations into the startup and shutdown categories. As discussed above in this section, we are proposing to require reporting of the cause of each deviation. Further, the startup and shutdown categories no longer apply because these periods are proposed to be considered normal operation, as discussed in section IV.A.4.b.1 of this preamble. VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:18 Oct 31, 2019 Jkt 250001 c. Technical Amendments to the ALDT NESHAP We propose to amend 40 CFR 63.3166(b) to add the option of conducting EPA Method 18 of appendix A–6 to 40 CFR part 60, ‘‘Measurement of Gaseous Organic Compound Emissions by Gas Chromatography,’’ to measure and then subtract methane emissions from measured total gaseous organic mass emissions as carbon. Facilities using add-on controls as a compliance option can use either EPA Method 25 or EPA Method 25A to measure control device destruction efficiency. Unlike EPA Method 25, EPA Method 25A does not exclude methane from the measurement of organic emissions. Because exhaust streams from coating operations may contain methane from natural gas combustion, we are proposing to allow facilities the option to measure methane using EPA Method 18 and to subtract the methane from the emissions as part of their compliance calculations. We propose to revise the format of references to test methods in 40 CFR part 60. The current reference in 40 CFR 63.3166(a) and (b) to EPA Methods 1, 1A, 2, 2A, 2C, 2D, 2F, 2G, 3, 3A, 3B, 4, 25, and 25A specify that each method is in ‘‘appendix A’’ of part 60. Appendix A of 40 CFR part 60 has been divided into appendices A–1 through A–8. We propose to revise each reference to appendix A to indicate which of the eight sections of appendix A applies to the method. We propose to amend 40 CFR 63.3151(a)(1)(i) and (a)(4), and 40 CFR 63.3171(e)(3), which describe how to determine the mass fraction of organic HAP in each material used, to remove references to Occupational Safety and Health Administration (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 5 to 40 CFR part 63, subpart IIII) 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. PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 58963 We propose to include organic HAP in proposed Table 5 to 40 CFR part 63, subpart IIII if they were categorized in the EPA’s Prioritized Chronic DoseResponse Values for Screening Risk Assessments (dated May 9, 2014), as a ‘‘human carcinogen,’’ ‘‘probable human carcinogen,’’ or ‘‘possible human carcinogen’’ according to The Risk Assessment Guidelines of 1986 (EPA/ 600/8–87/045, August 1987),30 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). We propose to revise the monitoring provisions for thermal and catalytic oxidizers to clarify that a thermocouple is part of the gas temperature monitoring device referred to in 40 CFR 63.3168(c)(3). We propose to add a new paragraph 40 CFR 63.3130(p) and to revise 40 CFR 63.3131(a) to allow that any records required to be maintained by 40 CFR part 63, subpart IIII this part that are submitted electronically via the EPA’s CEDRI may be maintained in electronic format. We also propose to add clarification that this ability to maintain electronic copies does not affect the requirement for facilities to make records, data, and reports available upon request to a delegated air agency or the EPA as part of an on-site compliance evaluation. d. Ongoing Emissions Compliance Demonstrations Requirement As part of an ongoing effort to improve compliance with various federal air emission regulations, the EPA reviewed the compliance demonstration requirements in the ALDT NESHAP. Currently, if a source owner or operator chooses to comply with the standards using add-on controls, the results of an initial performance test are used to determine compliance; however, the rule does not require on-going periodic performance testing for these emission capture systems and add-on controls. We are proposing periodic testing of add-on control devices, in addition to the 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 NESHAP, as the control device ages over time, the destruction efficiency of 30 See https://www.epa.gov/fera/dose-responseassessment-assessing-health-risks-associatedexposure-hazardous-air-pollutants. E:\FR\FM\01NOP2.SGM 01NOP2 58964 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 212 / Friday, November 1, 2019 / Proposed Rules the control device can be compromised due to various factors. The EPA published several documents that identify potential control device operational problems that could decrease control device efficiency.31 These factors are discussed in more detail in the memorandum titled Proposed Periodic Testing Requirement dated February 1, 2019, included in the ALDT Docket. The Institute of Clean Air Companies (ICAC), an industry trade group currently representing 50 emission control device equipment manufacturers, corroborated the fact that control equipment degrades over time in their comments on proposed revisions to the NESHAP General Provisions (72 FR 69, January 3, 2007). ICAC stated that ongoing maintenance and checks of control devices are necessary in order to ensure emissions control technology remains effective.32 ICAC identified both thermal and catalytic oxidizers as effective add-on control devices for VOC reduction and destruction. Thermal oxidizers, in which ‘‘. . . organic compounds are converted into carbon dioxide and water . . .’’ allow ‘‘. . . for the destruction of VOCs and HAP up to levels greater than 99-percent . . . ’’ once ‘‘. . . [t]he oxidation reaction . . .’’ begins, typically ‘‘. . . in the 1,450 degrees Fahrenheit range.’’ That temperature may need to be elevated, depending on the organic compound to be destroyed. Along with that destruction, ‘‘. . . extreme heat, the corrosive nature of chemical-laden air, exposure to weather, and the wear and tear of non-stop use . . .’’ affect thermal oxidizers such that ‘‘. . . left unchecked, the corrosive nature of the gases treated will create equipment downtime, loss of operational efficiency, and eventually failure of the thermal oxidizer.’’ While catalytic oxidizers operate at lower operating temperatures—typically 440 to 750 degrees Fahrenheit—than thermal oxidizers, catalytic oxidizers also provide VOC reduction and destruction. In general, the catalyst 31 See Control Techniques for Volatile Organic Compound Emissions from Stationary Sources, EPA/453/R–92–018, December 1992, Control Technologies for Emissions from Stationary Sources, EPA/625/6–91/014, June 1991, and Survey of Control for Low Concentration Organic Vapor Gas Streams, EPA–456/R–95–003, May 1995. These documents can be found in the Automobiles and Light-Duty Trucks, Miscellaneous Metal Parts, and Plastic Parts and Products Dockets for this action. 32 See Docket Item No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2004– 0094–0173, available at https:// www.regulations.gov. A copy of the ICAC’s comments on the proposed revisions to the General Provisions is also included in the Automobiles and Light-Duty Trucks, Miscellaneous Metal Parts, and Plastic Parts and Products Dockets for this action. VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:18 Oct 31, 2019 Jkt 250001 ‘‘. . . needs to be checked periodically to verify the activity of the catalyst . . .’’ because that ‘‘. . . activity or overall ability of the catalyst to convert target emissions to other by-products will naturally diminish over time.’’ ICAC also mentions chemical poisoning (deactivation of the catalyst by certain compounds) or masking of the catalyst bed, which may occur due to changes in manufacturing processes, as means of catalyst degradation. Finally, ICAC identifies electrical and mechanical component maintenance as important, for if such components are not operating properly, ‘‘. . . the combustion temperature in the . . . oxidizer could drop below the required levels and hazardous air pollutant (HAP) destruction may not be achieved . . .’’ ICAC closes by noting ‘‘. . . it costs more money to operate an oxidizer at peak performance, and if not maintained, performance will deteriorate yielding less destruction of HAP.’’ State websites also provide on-line CAA violations and enforcement actions which include performance issues associated with control devices. A recent search resulted in identification of sources in Ohio and Massachusetts that did not achieve compliance even though they maintained the thermal oxidizer operating temperatures established during previous performance tests, which further corroborates with the ICAC comments and conclusions regarding control device degradation. Based on the need for vigilance in maintaining equipment to stem degradation, we are proposing periodic testing of add-on control devices once every 5 years, in addition to the onetime initial emissions and capture efficiency testing and ongoing temperature measurement to ensure ongoing compliance with the standards. In this action, we are proposing to require periodic performance testing of add-on control devices on a regular frequency (e.g., every 5 years) to ensure the equipment continues to operate properly for facilities using the emission rate with add-on controls compliance option. We estimate that 18 ALDT surface coating existing sources are already required to perform such testing every 5 years synchronized with 40 CFR part 70 air operating permit renewals and for five facilities this would be a new requirement. This proposed periodic testing requirement includes an exception to the general requirement for periodic testing for facilities using the catalytic oxidizer control option at 40 CFR 63.3167(b) and following the catalyst maintenance procedures in 40 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 CFR 63.3167(b)(6). This exception is due to the catalyst maintenance procedures that already require annual testing of the catalyst and other maintenance procedures that provide ongoing demonstrations that the control system is operating properly and may, thus, be considered comparable to conducting a performance test. The proposed periodic performance testing requirement allows an exception from periodic testing for facilities using instruments to continuously measure emissions. Such continuous emissions monitoring systems (CEMS) would show actual emissions. The use of CEMS to demonstrate compliance would obviate the need for periodic oxidizer testing. Moreover, installation and operation of a CEMS with a timesharing component, such that values from more than one oxidizer exhaust could be tabulated in a recurring frequency, could prove less expensive (estimated to have an annual cost below $15,000) than ongoing oxidizer testing. This proposed requirement does not require periodic testing or CEMS monitoring of facilities using the compliant materials option or the emission-rate without add-on controls compliance option because these two compliance options do not use any addon controls or control efficiency measurements in the compliance calculations. The proposed periodic performance testing requirement requires facilities complying with the standards using emission capture systems and add-on controls and which are not already on a 5-year testing schedule conduct the first of the periodic performance tests within 3 years of the effective date of the revised standards. Afterward, they would conduct periodic testing before they renew their operating permits, but no longer than 5 years following the previous performance test. Additionally, facilities that have already tested as a condition of their permit within the last 2 years before the effective date would be permitted to maintain their current 5-year schedule and not be required to move up the date of the next test to the 3-year date specified above. This proposed requirement would require periodic air emissions testing to measure organic HAP destruction or removal efficiency at the inlet and outlet of the add-on control device, or measurement of the control device outlet concentration of organic HAP. The emissions would be measured as total gaseous organic mass emissions as carbon using either EPA Method 25 or 25A of appendix A–7 to 40 CFR part 60, which are the methods currently E:\FR\FM\01NOP2.SGM 01NOP2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 212 / Friday, November 1, 2019 / Proposed Rules required for the initial compliance demonstration. We estimate that the cost associated with this proposed requirement, which includes a control device emissions destruction or removal efficiency test using EPA Method 25 or 25A, would be approximately $19,000 per control device. The cost estimate is included in the memorandum titled Estimated Costs/Impacts 40 CFR Part 63 Subparts IIII, MMMM and PPPP Monitoring Review Revisions, in the ALDT Docket. We have estimated that five facilities subject to the ALDT NESHAP and using the add-on control option for compliance are not currently required to conduct periodic testing as a condition of their permit renewal. Periodic performance tests ensure that any control systems used to comply with the NESHAP in the future would be properly maintained over time, thereby reducing the potential for acute emissions episodes and noncompliance. e. IBR of Alternative Test Methods Under 1 CFR Part 51 The EPA is proposing new and updated test methods for the ALDT NESHAP that include IBR. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is proposing to incorporate by reference the following voluntary consensus standards (VCS) into 40 CFR 63.14: • ASTM Method D1475–13, Standard Test Method for Density of Liquid Coatings, Inks, and Related Products, proposed to be IBR approved for 40 CFR 63.3151(b), 63.3941(b) and (c), 63.3951(c), 63.4551(c); • ASTM D2111–10 (2015), Standard Test Methods for Specific Gravity of Halogenated Organic Solvents and Their Admixtures, proposed to be IBR approved for 40 CFR 63.3951(c), 63.4551(c); • ASTM Method D2369–10 (2015), Test Method for Volatile Content of Coatings, proposed to be IBR approved for 40 CFR 63.3151(a)(2), 63.3961(j), 63.4541(a), 63.4561(j); • ASTM Method D2697–03 (2014), Standard Test Method for Volume Nonvolatile Matter in Clear or Pigmented Coatings, proposed to be IBR approved for 40 CFR 63.3161(f)(1), 63.3941(b); • ASTM D5066–91 (Reapproved 2017), Standard Test Method for Determination of the Transfer Efficiency Under Production Conditions for Spray Application of Automotive PaintsWeight Basis, proposed to be IBR approved for 40 CFR 63.3161(g); • ASTM Method D5965–02 (2013), Standard Test Methods for Specific VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:53 Oct 31, 2019 Jkt 250001 Gravity of Coating Powders, proposed to be ICR approved for 40 CFR 63.3151(b), 63.3951(c); • ASTM Method D6093–97 (2016), Standard Test Method for Percent Volume Nonvolatile Matter in Clear or Pigmented Coatings Using Helium Gas Pycnometer, proposed to be IBR approved for 40 CFR 63.3161(f)(1), 63.3941(b); ASTM D6266–00a (Reapproved 2017), Test Method for Determining the Amount of Volatile Organic Compound (VOC) Released from Waterborne Automotive Coatings and Available for Removal in a VOC Control Device (Abatement), proposed to be IBR approved for 40 CFR 63.3165(e); and EPA–450/3–88–018, Protocol for Determining Daily Volatile Organic Compound Emission Rate of Automobile and Light-Duty Truck Topcoat Operations, proposed to be IBR approved for 40 CFR 63.3161(f), 63.3165(e). Older versions of ASTM methods D2697, D5965, and D6093 were incorporated by reference when the ALDT NESHAP was originally promulgated (69 FR 22602, April 26, 2004). We are proposing to replace the older versions of these methods and ASTM Method D1475 with updated versions, which requires IBR revisions. The updated version of the method replaces the older version in the same paragraph of the rule text. We are also proposing the addition of ASTM Method D2369 to the ALDT NESHAP for the first time by incorporating this method by reference in this rulemaking. Refer to section VIII.J of this preamble for further discussion of these VCS. 5. What compliance dates are we proposing? The EPA is proposing that affected sources must comply with all of the amendments, with the exception of the proposed electronic format for submitting semiannual compliance reports, no later than 181 days after the effective date of the final rule. All affected facilities would have to continue to meet the current requirements of 40 CFR part 63, subpart IIII until the applicable compliance date of the amended rule. The final action is not expected to be a ‘‘major rule’’ as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2), so the effective date of the final rule will be the promulgation date as specified in CAA section 112(d)(10). For existing sources, we are proposing one change that would impact ongoing compliance requirements for 40 CFR part 63, subpart IIII. As discussed elsewhere in this preamble, we are proposing to add a requirement that PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 58965 notifications, performance test results, and semiannual compliance reports be submitted electronically. We are proposing that the semiannual compliance report be submitted electronically using a new template, which is available for review and comment as part of this action. We are also proposing to change the requirements for SSM by removing the exemption from the requirements to meet the standard during SSM periods and by removing the requirement to develop and implement an SSM plan. Our experience with similar industries that are required to convert reporting mechanisms to install necessary hardware and software, become familiar with the process of submitting performance test results electronically through the EPA’s CEDRI, test these new electronic submission capabilities, and reliably employ electronic reporting shows that a time period of a minimum of 90 days, and, more typically, 180 days, is generally necessary to successfully accomplish these revisions. Our experience with similar industries further shows that this sort of regulated facility generally requires a time period of 180 days to read and understand the amended rule requirements; to evaluate their operations to ensure that they can meet the standards during periods of startup and shutdown as defined in the rule and make any necessary adjustments; and to update their operation, maintenance, and monitoring plan to reflect the revised requirements. The EPA recognizes the confusion that multiple different compliance dates for individual requirements would create and the additional burden such an assortment of dates would impose. From our assessment of the 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 181 days of the regulation’s effective date. We solicit comment on these proposed compliance periods, and we specifically request submission of information from sources in this source category regarding specific actions that would need to be undertaken to comply with the proposed amended requirements and the time needed to make the adjustments for compliance with any of the revised requirements. We note that information provided may result in changes to the proposed compliance dates. E:\FR\FM\01NOP2.SGM 01NOP2 58966 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 212 / Friday, November 1, 2019 / Proposed Rules B. What are the analytical results and proposed decisions for the MMPP source category? 1. What are the results of the risk assessment and analyses? As described above in section III of this preamble, for the MMPP source category, we conducted a risk assessment for all HAP emitted. We present results of the risk assessment briefly below and in more detail in the Miscellaneous Metal Parts and Products Risk Assessment Report in the MMPP Docket (Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR– 2019–0312). a. Chronic Inhalation Risk Assessment Results Table 4 below provides a summary of the results of the inhalation risk assessment for the source category. TABLE 4—SURFACE COATING OF MISCELLANEOUS METAL PARTS AND PRODUCTS SOURCE CATEGORY INHALATION RISK ASSESSMENT RESULTS Maximum individual cancer risk (in 1 million) Risk assessment Based on actual emissions Source category ................................ Whole facility ..................................... 1 2 20 100 Based on allowable emissions 30 .................. Estimated population at increased risk of cancer ≥1-in-1 Million Estimated annual cancer incidence (cases per year) Based on actual emissions Based on actual emissions 18,000 370,000 Based on allowable emissions 24,000 .................. 0.008 0.04 Based on allowable emissions Maximum chronic noncancer TOSHI 1 Based on actual emissions 0.01 .................. 0.8 1 Maximum screening acute noncancer HQ 2 Based on allowable emissions Based on actual emissions 1 .................. HQREL = 4 The TOSHI is the sum of the chronic noncancer HQ for substances that affect the same target organ or organ system. The maximum estimated acute exposure concentration was divided by available short-term threshold values to develop HQ values. The results of the inhalation risk modeling using actual emissions data, as shown in Table 4 above, indicate that the maximum individual cancer risk based on actual emissions (lifetime) could be up to 20-in-1 million (driven by naphthalene and ethyl benzene from coating operations), the maximum chronic noncancer TOSHI value based on actual emissions could be up to 0.8 (driven by antimony from coating operations), and the maximum screening acute noncancer HQ value (off-facility site) could be up to 4 (driven by glycol ethers). The total estimated annual cancer incidence (national) from these facilities based on actual emission levels is 0.008 excess cancer cases per year or 1 case in every 125 years. b. Screening Level Acute Risk Assessment Results Table 4 of this preamble also shows the acute risk results for the MMPP source category. The screening analysis for acute impacts was based on an industry-specific multiplier of 1.2, to estimate the peak emission rates from the average emission rates. For more detailed acute risk results refer to the Miscellaneous Metal Parts and Products Risk Assessment Report, in the MMPP Docket. c. Multipathway Risk Screening Results The emissions data for the MMPP source category indicate that three PB– HAP are emitted by sources within this source category: Arsenic, cadmium, and lead. Of the 368 facilities in the source category, two facilities reported emissions of carcinogenic PB–HAP (arsenic) and two facilities reported emissions of non-carcinogenic PB–HAP (cadmium). The PB–HAP emissions VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:18 Oct 31, 2019 Jkt 250001 from these facilities did not exceed the Tier 1 multipathway screening value of 1 for cancer or noncancer. In evaluating the potential for multipathway effects from emissions of lead, we compared modeled annual lead concentrations to the NAAQS for lead (0.15 mg/m3, arithmetic mean concentration over a 3-month period). The highest annual average lead concentration of 0.059 mg/m3 is below the NAAQS level for lead, indicating a low potential for multipathway impacts of concern due to lead even assuming a shorter averaging period is analyzed. d. Environmental Risk Screening Results The emissions data for the MMPP source category indicate that four environmental HAP are emitted by sources within this source category: Arsenic, cadmium, lead and HCl. Therefore, we conducted a screeninglevel evaluation of the potential adverse environmental effects associated with emissions of arsenic, cadmium, lead, and HCl for the MMPP source category. In the Tier 1 screening analysis for PB– HAP (other than lead which was evaluated differently), arsenic and cadmium had no exceedances of any of the ecological benchmarks evaluated. In evaluating the potential for adverse environmental effects from emissions of lead, we compared modeled annual lead concentrations to the secondary NAAQS for lead (0.15 mg/m3, arithmetic mean concentration over a 3-month period). The highest annual average lead concentration of 0.059 mg/m3 is below the secondary NAAQS for lead, indicating a low potential for adverse environmental impacts due to lead even assuming a shorter averaging period is PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 analyzed. For HCl, each individual concentration (i.e., each off-site data point in the modeling domain) was below the ecological benchmarks for all facilities. Therefore, we do not expect an adverse environmental effect as a result of HAP emissions from this source category. e. Facility-Wide Risk Results One hundred and one facilities have a facility-wide cancer MIR greater than or equal to 1-in-1 million. The maximum facility-wide cancer MIR is 100-in-1 million, driven by nickel emissions from welding. The total estimated cancer incidence from the whole facility is 0.01 excess cancer cases per year, or one excess case in every 100 years. Approximately 370,000 people were estimated to have cancer risks above 1-in-1 million from exposure to HAP emitted from both MACT and non-MACT sources of the 368 facilities in this source category. The maximum facility-wide TOSHI for the source category is estimated to be 1, driven by emissions of cobalt from a gel coating operation. f. What demographic groups might benefit from this regulation? To examine the potential for any environmental justice issues that might be associated with the source category, we performed a demographic analysis, which is an assessment of risks to individual demographic groups of the populations living within 5 km and within 50 km of the facilities. In the analysis, we evaluated the distribution of HAP-related cancer and noncancer risks from the MMPP source category across different demographic groups E:\FR\FM\01NOP2.SGM 01NOP2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 212 / Friday, November 1, 2019 / Proposed Rules within the populations living near facilities. The results of the demographic analysis are summarized in Table 5 of this preamble. These results, for various demographic groups, are based on the estimated risks from actual emissions 58967 levels for the population living within 50 km of the facilities. TABLE 5—SURFACE COATING OF MISCELLANEOUS METAL PARTS AND PRODUCTS SOURCE CATEGORY DEMOGRAPHIC RISK ANALYSIS RESULTS Population with cancer risk at or above 1-in-1 million due to surface coating of miscellaneous metal parts and products Nationwide Total Population ............................................................................................. 317,746,049 Population with chronic noncancer HI above 1 due to surface coating of miscellaneous metal parts and products 18,000 0 62 38 75 25 0 0 12 0.8 18 7 12 0.6 9 3 0 0 0 0 14 86 20 80 0 0 14 86 18 82 0 0 6 3 0 White and Minority by Percent White .............................................................................................................. Minority .......................................................................................................... Minority Detail by Percent African American ........................................................................................... Native American ............................................................................................ Hispanic or Latino .......................................................................................... Other and Multiracial ..................................................................................... Income by Percent Below the Poverty Level ................................................................................ Above the Poverty Level ............................................................................... Education by Percent Over 25 Without High a School Diploma ...................................................... Over 25 With a High School Diploma ........................................................... Linguistically Isolated by Percent Linguistically Isolated ..................................................................................... The results of the MMPP source category demographic analysis indicate that emissions from the source category expose approximately 18,000 people to a cancer risk at or above 1-in-1 million and no one is exposed to a chronic noncancer HI greater than 1. The percentages of the at-risk population in the following specific demographic groups are higher than their respective nationwide percentages: ‘‘White,’’ ‘‘Below the Poverty Level,’’ and ‘‘Over 25 and without a high school diploma.’’ The methodology and the results of the demographic analysis are presented in a technical report, Risk and Technology Review—Analysis of Demographic Factors for Populations Living Near Surface Coating of Miscellaneous Metal Parts and Products Source Category, May 2019 (hereafter referred to as the Miscellaneous Metal Parts and Products Demographic Analysis Report), available in the MMPP Docket. VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:18 Oct 31, 2019 Jkt 250001 2. What are our proposed decisions regarding risk acceptability, ample margin of safety, and adverse environmental effects? a. Risk Acceptability As noted in section III.A of this preamble, we weigh all health risk factors in our risk acceptability determination, including the cancer MIR, the number of persons in various cancer and noncancer risk ranges, cancer incidence, the maximum noncancer TOSHI, the maximum acute noncancer HQ, the extent of noncancer risks, the distribution of cancer and noncancer risks in the exposed population, and risk estimation uncertainties (54 FR 38044, September 14, 1989). For the MMPP source category, the risk analysis indicates that the cancer risks to the individual most exposed could be up to 20-in-1 million due to actual emissions and up to 30-in-1 million due to allowable emissions. These risks are considerably less than PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 100-in-1 million, which is the presumptive upper limit of acceptable risk. The risk analysis also shows very low cancer incidence (0.008 cases per year for actual emissions and 0.01 cases per year for allowable emissions), and we did not identify potential for adverse chronic noncancer health effects. The acute screening analysis results in a maximum acute noncancer HQ of 4 at one facility based on use of the acute REL for ethylene glycol monomethyl ether as a surrogate for unspeciated glycol ethers. Since there is not a specified acute dose-response value for unspeciated glycol ethers, we applied the most protective doseresponse value from the other glycol ether compounds, the acute REL for ethylene glycol monomethyl ether, to estimate risk. Given that ethylene glycol monomethyl ether is more toxic than other glycol ethers, the use of this surrogate is a health-protective choice in the EPA’s risk assessment. For acute screening analyses, to better characterize the potential health risks E:\FR\FM\01NOP2.SGM 01NOP2 58968 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 212 / Friday, November 1, 2019 / Proposed Rules associated with estimated worst-case acute exposures to HAP, we examine a wider range of available acute health metrics than we do for our chronic risk assessments. This is in acknowledgement that there are generally more data gaps and uncertainties in acute reference values than there are in chronic reference values. By definition, the acute REL represents a health-protective level of exposure, with effects not anticipated below those levels, even for repeated exposures; however, the level of exposure that would cause health effects is not specifically known. As the exposure concentration increases above the acute REL, the potential for effects increases. Therefore, when an REL is exceeded and an AEGL–1 or ERPG–1 level is available (i.e., levels at which mild, reversible effects are anticipated in the general population for a single exposure), we typically use them as an additional comparative measure, as they provide an upper bound for exposure levels above which exposed individuals could experience effects. However, for glycol ethers, there are no AEGL or ERPG values. Additional uncertainties in the acute exposure assessment that the EPA conducts as part of the risk review under section 112 of the CAA include several factors. The accuracy of an acute inhalation exposure assessment depends on the simultaneous occurrence of independent factors that may vary greatly, such as hourly emission rates, meteorology, and the presence of a person. In the acute screening assessment that we conduct under the RTR program, we include the conservative (health-protective) assumptions that peak emissions from each emission point in 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 exposure. 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. Thus, as discussed in the document titled Residual Risk Assessment for the Surface Coating of Miscellaneous Metal Parts and Products Source Category in Support of the Risk and Technology Review 2019 Proposed Rule, in the docket for this action, by assuming the co-occurrence of independent factors for the acute screening assessment, the results are intentionally biased high and VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:18 Oct 31, 2019 Jkt 250001 are, thus, health-protective. We conclude that adverse effects from acute exposure to emissions of glycol ethers from this source category are not anticipated. Considering all of the health risk information and factors discussed above, including the uncertainties discussed in section III.C.7 of this preamble, we propose that the risks from the MMPP source category are acceptable. b. Ample Margin of Safety Analysis Although we are proposing that the risks from the MMPP source category are acceptable, risk estimates for approximately 18,000 individuals in the exposed population are above 1-in-1 million at the actual emissions level and 24,000 individuals in the exposed population are above 1-in-1 million at the allowable emissions level. Consequently, we further considered whether the MACT standards for the MMPP source category provide an ample margin of safety to protect public health. In this ample margin of safety analysis, we investigated available emissions control options that might reduce the risk from the source category. We considered this information along with all of the health risks and other health information considered in our determination of risk acceptability. As described in section III.B of this preamble, our technology review focused on identifying developments in practices, processes, and control technologies for the MMPP source category, and we reviewed various information sources regarding emission sources that are currently regulated by the MMPP NESHAP. Based on our review (described in section IV.B.3 of this preamble), we identified and evaluated the use of addon control technologies for the rubberto-metal bonding and high- performance subcategories. For the rubber-to-metal bonding subcategory, we evaluated the option of lowering the existing source limit to an emission limit of 10 lb HAP/gallon (gal) solids. Two facilities may need to install thermal oxidizers, if alternative lowHAP coatings or other compliance options are not available. The thermal oxidizers would require a total capital investment of $2 million (combined) for the two facilities, and total annual costs of $410,000 (combined). Estimated emission reductions from the two facilities would be 43 tpy of HAP, and the estimated cost effectiveness would $9,500 per ton of HAP reduced. For the high-performance subcategory, we evaluated lowering both the existing and new source limits PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 to the general use subcategory existing source limit of 2.6 lb HAP/gal solids. One facility in the high-performance coating subcategory may need to install a thermal oxidizer if alternative lowHAP coatings or other compliance options are not available. The cost of installing a thermal oxidizer at this one facility would require a total capital investment of $2.3 million, and total annual costs of $620,000. The estimated emission reduction at this one facility would be 53 tpy of HAP, and the estimated cost effectiveness would be $11,700 per ton of HAP reduced. We have determined that the added costs and cost effectiveness for these two coating subcategories ($9,500 per ton of HAP reduced for the rubber-tometal coating subcategory and $11,700 per ton for the high performance subcategory) are not justified. We think these costs are unreasonable particularly because the risks are already low, and the risks would not be reduced in a meaningful manner by the control of these subcategories. We are proposing that additional emissions controls for this source category are not necessary to provide an ample margin of safety. c. Environmental Effects The emissions data for the MMPP source category indicate that four environmental HAP are emitted by sources within this source category: Arsenic, cadmium, lead, and HCl. In the Tier 1 screening analysis for PB–HAP (other than lead which was evaluated differently), arsenic and cadmium had no exceedances of any of the ecological benchmarks evaluated. For lead, we did not estimate any exceedances of the secondary lead NAAQS. The screeninglevel evaluation of the potential for adverse environmental effects associated with emissions of HCl from the MMPP source category indicated that each individual concentration (i.e., each off-site data point in the modeling domain) was below the ecological benchmarks for all facilities. In addition, we are unaware of any adverse environmental effects caused by HAP emitted by this source category. Therefore, we do not expect there to be an adverse environmental effect as a result of HAP emissions from this source category and we are proposing that it is not necessary to set a more stringent standard to prevent, taking into consideration costs, energy, safety, and other relevant factors, an adverse environmental effect. E:\FR\FM\01NOP2.SGM 01NOP2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 212 / Friday, November 1, 2019 / Proposed Rules 3. What are the results and proposed decisions based on our technology review? As described in section III.B of this preamble, our technology review focused on identifying developments in practices, processes, and control technologies for the MMPP source category. The EPA reviewed various information sources regarding emission sources that are currently regulated by the MMPP NESHAP to support the technology review. The information sources include the following: The RBLC; publicly available state air permit databases and facility operating permits compliance reports; regulatory actions, including technology reviews promulgated for other surface coating NESHAP subsequent to the promulgation of the MMPP NESHAP; state regulations; site visits; and industry information. Based on our review, we identified and evaluated the use of add-on control technologies for two coating subcategories that had not been previously considered during development of the MMPP NESHAP. This analysis is described in detail in the following paragraphs. Aside from this, we did not identify any new or improved process equipment, work practices, or procedures that would further reduce emissions. For a detailed discussion of the EPA’s findings, refer to the Miscellaneous Metal Parts and Products Technology Review Memo, in the MMPP Docket. During the development of the 2004 MMPP NESHAP, numerical emission limits were determined for new and existing major sources within five coating subcategories for a total of 10 HAP emissions limits. The MACT emission limits were based on different data sources, depending on the coating subcategory. In the general use coating subcategory and the high- performance coating subcategory, the MACT emission limits were based on the most stringent state VOC limits and HAP-toVOC ratios to convert the VOC limits to HAP limits. For the general use coating subcategory, the HAP-to-VOC ratio was developed from industry survey data. For the high-performance coating subcategory, the HAP-to-VOC ratio was developed from industry information. For rubber-to-metal coating, the MACT emission limits were based on survey data on the HAP content of the coatings. For magnet wire coating, the MACT emission limits were based on survey data and also accounted for the fact that magnet wire coating uses an oven to cure the coatings that is fueled by coating solvent vapors, reducing overall VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:18 Oct 31, 2019 Jkt 250001 emissions. For the EPFP coating subcategory, the MACT emission limits were based on data received in public comments on the proposed NESHAP. With the exception of the emission limits for the magnet wire coating subcategory, none of the emission limits for new or existing sources in the other subcategories accounted for the use of add-on controls, and the documentation of the MACT analysis did not identify facilities that were using add-on controls. The EPA investigated the use of emissions capture systems and add-on controls but found that the costs would be prohibitive for the incremental emissions reductions achieved. The EPA estimated that it would be technically feasible for capture systems and add-on controls could reduce emissions by at least 95 percent, but the cost for facilities in this source category could be as much as $1 million. The EPA concluded that without information on the benefits that would be achieved by further reducing emissions beyond the floor, the additional emissions reductions did not warrant the cost of add-on controls.33 A search of the RBLC database for the MMPP surface coating category provided 42 entries representing 23 facilities with permit dates of 2000 or later. Entries in the RBLC documented facilities subject to VOC content and HAP content limits. Emission control strategies identified in the RBLC included using electrodeposition coatings, using high efficiency and robotic spray guns, and using add-on controls, including catalytic oxidizers, RTOs, and adsorbers. The RBLC review did not identify any facilities subject to HAP limits more stringent than those in 40 CFR part 63, subpart MMMM. We reviewed other surface coating NESHAP promulgated subsequent to the MMPP NESHAP to determine whether any requirements exceed the MMPP MACT level of control or include technologies that were not considered during the development of the original MMPP NESHAP. These NESHAP include Paint Stripping and Miscellaneous Surface Coating Operations at Area Sources (40 CFR part 63, subpart HHHHHH), and Nine Metal Fabrication and Finishing Area Source Categories (40 CFR part 63, subpart XXXXXX). We also reviewed the results of the technology reviews for other surface coating NESHAP promulgated after the MMPP NESHAP. These technology reviews include the NESHAP for Printing and Publishing (40 CFR part 63, subpart KK), Shipbuilding 33 67 PO 00000 FR 52792–52793, August 13, 2002. Frm 00035 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 58969 and Ship Repair (40 CFR part 63, subpart II), Wood Furniture Manufacturing (40 CFR part 63, subpart JJ), and Aerospace Manufacturing and Rework Facilities (40 CFR part 63, subpart GG). The review of these more recently promulgated NESHAP and the technology reviews of other NESHAP did not identify any control technologies that were not already considered during the development of 40 CFR part 63, subpart MMMM, with the exception of some applications of add-on controls, which are discussed in more detail below in this section. Using the EPA’s NEI and the ECHO databases, we identified 368 major source facilities that are currently subject to the MMPP NESHAP. The EPA also collected operating permits for over 100 of these facilities. Based on these permits, we identified a number of facilities that were in the rubber-tometal coating and high-performance coating subcategories that were using add-on controls to reduce air emissions. We identified six facilities in the highperformance coating subcategory and four of these facilities use a thermal oxidizer to reduce emissions. We identified 15 facilities in the rubber to metal coating subcategory and nine of these use a thermal oxidizer to reduce emissions. Based on these findings, we identified the use of a thermal oxidizer as a potential development for these two subcategories because the MACT emission limits were based on only the HAP content of the coatings and not on the use of an add-on control, such as a thermal oxidizer. We further evaluated the add-on controls as a technology development by collecting semi-annual compliance reports or inspection reports for all six facilities in the high-performance subcategory and the 15 facilities in the rubber to metal coating subcategory to confirm that the facilities were subject to these subcategory emission limits and to determine the actual emission rate these facilities were achieving. For several facilities, we determined that the facilities were using the add-on controls for complying with limits on VOC emissions, but were not accounting for the add-on controls in demonstrating compliance with the HAP limits in 40 CFR part 63, subpart MMMM. The current existing source emission limit for the rubber-to-metal subcategory is 37.7 lb HAP/gal solids, and the new source limit is 6.8 lb HAP/gal solids. The EPA evaluated the option of lowering the existing source limit to an emission limit of 10 lb HAP/gal solids. We chose this level because several smaller facilities could meet this limit without having to install controls, based E:\FR\FM\01NOP2.SGM 01NOP2 58970 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 212 / Friday, November 1, 2019 / Proposed Rules on their semi-annual compliance reports. Eight of the 15 facilities in the rubberto-metal subcategory have emission rates below 10 lb HAP/gal solids through use of a thermal oxidizer. One facility does not have a thermal oxidizer but can meet the 10 lb HAP/gal solids limit through the emissions averaging between the general use and rubber-tometal subcategories allowed in 40 CFR 63.3890(c)(2) of the current NESHAP. Four rubber-to-metal facilities do not have a thermal oxidizer but their current emission rate is less than 10 lb/gal solids. For the remaining two facilities, installing thermal oxidizers, if alternative low-HAP coatings or other compliance options are not available, would require a total capital investment of $2 million (combined) for the two facilities, and total annual costs of $410,000 (combined). Estimated emission reductions from the two facilities would be 43 tpy of HAP, and the estimated cost effectiveness would be $9,500 per ton of HAP reduced. The estimated emission reductions are based on the reported HAP emissions for these two facilities in the NEI and their semiannual compliance reports and assumes a 95-percent emission reduction from thermal oxidation. These costs and emission reductions for the rubber-tometal subcategory are documented in detail in the Miscellaneous Metal Parts and Products Technology Review Memo, in the MMPP Docket. The current existing and new source emission limits for the highperformance subcategory are both 27.5 lb HAP/gal solids. The EPA evaluated the option of lowering both the existing and new source limits to the general use subcategory existing source limit of 2.6 lb HAP/gal solids. Five of the six facilities in the high-performance subcategory could comply with the general use subcategory limit of 2.6 lb HAP/gal solids for their highperformance coatings operations. One facility in the high-performance coating subcategory may need to install a thermal oxidizer if alternative lowHAP coatings or other compliance options are not available. The cost of installing a thermal oxidizer at this one facility would require a total capital investment of $2.3 million, and total annual costs of $620,000. The estimated emission reduction this one facility would be 53 tpy of HAP, and the estimated cost effectiveness would be $11,700 per ton of HAP reduced. The estimated emission reduction is based on the reported HAP emissions for this facility’s semi-annual compliance report and assumes a 95-percent emission VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:53 Oct 31, 2019 Jkt 250001 reduction from thermal oxidation. These costs and emission reductions for the high performance subcategory are documented in detail in the Miscellaneous Metal Parts and Products Technology Review Memo, in the MMPP Docket. However, the EPA has determined that the added costs and cost effectiveness for these two coating subcategories ($9,500 per ton of HAP reduced for the rubber-to-metal coating subcategory and $11,700 per ton for the high-performance subcategory) are not justified. Therefore, we are proposing no revisions to the MMPP NESHAP pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6). For further discussion of the technology review results, refer to the Miscellaneous Metal Parts and Products Technology Review Memo, in the MMPP Docket. 4. What other actions are we proposing for the Surface Coating of MMPP source category? We are proposing to require electronic submittal of notifications (initial and compliance status), semiannual reports, and performance test reports for MMPP surface coating facilities. In addition, we are proposing revisions to the SSM provisions of the MACT rule in order to ensure that they are consistent with the Court decision in Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F. 3d 1019 (D.C. Cir. 2008), which vacated two provisions that exempted sources from the requirement to comply with otherwise applicable CAA section 112(d) emission standards during periods of SSM. We are proposing to require periodic emissions testing of add-on control devices. We also are proposing to add optional EPA Method 18, to IBR an alternative test method, and to make various technical and editorial changes. Our analyses and proposed changes related to these issues are discussed in the sections below. a. Electronic Reporting Requirements The EPA is proposing that owners and operators of MMPP surface coating facilities submit electronic copies of initial notifications required in 40 CFR 63.9(b) and 63.3910(b), notifications of compliance status required in 40 CFR 63.9(h) and 63.3910(c), performance test reports required in 40 CFR 63.3920(b), and semiannual reports required in 40 CFR 63.3920(a) through the EPA’s CDX, using the CEDRI. A description of the EPA’s CDX and the EPA’s proposed rationale and details on the addition of these electronic reporting requirements for the MMPP source category is the same as for the ALDT source category, as discussed in section IV.A.4.a of this preamble. No specific form is proposed PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 at this time for the initial notifications required in 40 CFR 63.9(b) and notification of compliance status in 40 CFR 63.9(h). Until the EPA has completed electronic forms for these notifications, the notifications will be required to be submitted via CEDRI in PDF. After development of the final forms, we will notify sources about their availability via the CEDRI website and the CHIEF Listserv. For semiannual reports required in 40 CFR 63.3920(a), the proposed rule requires that owners or operators use the appropriate spreadsheet template to submit information to CEDRI. A draft version of the proposed template for this report is included in the docket for this rulemaking.34 The EPA specifically requests comment on the content, layout, and overall design of the template. Regarding submittal of performance test reports via the EPA’s ERT, as discussed in section IV.A.4.a of this preamble for the ALDT NESHAP, the proposal to submit performance test data electronically to the EPA applies only if the EPA has developed an electronic reporting form for the test method as listed on the EPA’s ERT website. For the MMPP NESHAP, all of the EPA test methods listed under 40 CFR part 63, subpart MMMM, are currently supported by the ERT, except for EPA Method 18 (an optional test method proposed in this action), which appears in the proposed text for 40 CFR 63.3966. As mentioned above in section IV.A.4.a of this preamble, the rule proposes that should an owner or operator choose to use EPA Method 18, then its results would be submitted in PDF using the attachment module of the ERT. Also, as discussed in section IV.A.4.a of this preamble for the ALDT NESHAP, we are proposing to provide facilities with the ability to seek extensions for submitting electronic reports for circumstances beyond the control of the facility. In proposed 40 CFR 63.3920(g), we address the situation for facilities subject to the MMPP NESHAP where an extension may be warranted due to outages of the EPA’s CDX or CEDRI, which may prevent access to the system and submittal of the required reports. In proposed 40 CFR 63.3920(h), we address the situation for facilities subject to the MMPP NESHAP where an extension may be warranted due to a force majeure event, which is defined as an event that will be or has been caused 34 See Electronic Reporting Template for Surface Coating of Miscellaneous Metal Parts and Products Subpart MMMM Semiannual Reports, in docket ID NO. EPA–HQ–OAR–0312. E:\FR\FM\01NOP2.SGM 01NOP2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 212 / Friday, November 1, 2019 / Proposed Rules by circumstances beyond the control of the affected facility, its contractors, or any entity controlled by the affected facility that prevents compliance with the requirement to submit a report electronically as required by this rule. 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 to implement Executive Order 13563 and is in keeping with the EPA’s Agencywide policy developed in response to the White House’s Digital Government Strategy. For more information on the benefits of electronic reporting, see the memorandum titled 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–2019–0312. b. SSM Requirements (1.) Proposed Elimination of the SSM Exemption The EPA is proposing to eliminate the SSM exemption in the MMPP NESHAP. The EPA’s proposed rationale for the elimination of the SSM exemption for the MMPP source category is the same as for the ALDT source category, which is discussed in section IV.A.4.b.1 of this preamble. We are also proposing several revisions to Table 2 to Subpart MMMM of 40 CFR part 63 (Applicability of General Provisions to Subpart MMMM of Part 63, hereafter referred to as the ‘‘General Provisions table to subpart MMMM’’) as is explained in more detail below in section IV.B.4.b.2 of this VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:18 Oct 31, 2019 Jkt 250001 preamble. For example, we are proposing to eliminate the incorporation of the General Provisions’ requirement that the source develop an SSM plan. We are also proposing to eliminate and revise certain recordkeeping and reporting requirements related to the SSM exemption as further described below. The EPA has attempted to ensure that the provisions we are proposing to eliminate are inappropriate, unnecessary, or redundant in the absence of the SSM exemption. We are specifically seeking comment on the specific proposed deletions and revisions and also whether additional provisions should be revised to achieve the stated goal. In proposing these rule amendments, the EPA has taken into account startup and shutdown periods and, for the same reasons explained in section IV.A.4.b.1 of this preamble for the ALDT source category, has not proposed alternate standards for those periods in the MMPP NESHAP. Startups and shutdowns are part of normal operations for the MMPP source category. As currently specified in 40 CFR 63.3892(b), any coating operation(s) for which you use the emission rate with add-on controls option must meet the applicable operating limits in Table 1 to 40 CFR part 63, subpart MMMM ‘‘at all times,’’ except for solvent recovery systems for which you conduct liquidliquid material balances according to 40 CFR 63.3961(j). (Solvent recovery systems for which you conduct a liquidliquid material balance require a monthly calculation of the solvent recovery device’s collection and recovery efficiency for volatile organic matter.) Also, as currently specified in 40 CFR 63.3900(a)(2), any coating operation(s) for which you use the emission rate with add-on controls option must be in compliance ‘‘at all times’’ with the applicable emission limit in 40 CFR 63.3890. During startup and shutdown periods, in order for a facility (using add-on controls to meet the standards) to meet the emission and operating standards, the control device for a coating operation needs to be turned on and operating at specified levels before the facility begins coating operations, and the control equipment needs to continue to be operated until after the facility ceases coating operations. In some cases, the facility needs to run thermal oxidizers on supplemental fuel before VOC levels are sufficient for the combustion to be (nearly) selfsustaining. Note that we are also proposing new related language in 40 CFR 63.3900(b) to require that the owner or operator operate and maintain PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 58971 the coating operation, including pollution control equipment, at all times to minimize emissions. See section IV.A.4.b.2 of this preamble for further discussion of this proposed revision. Although no statutory language compels the EPA to set standards for malfunctions, the EPA has the discretion to do so where feasible, as discussed previously in section IV.A.4.b.1 of this preamble for the ALDT source category. It is unlikely that a malfunction would result in a violation of the standards during MMPP surface coatings operations for facilities using the compliant material option or the emission rate without add-on controls option. Facilities using these options have demonstrated that the organic HAP contents of the coating materials do not exceed the emission limits in 40 CFR 63.3890(a) or (b), either on a coating-bycoating basis or by using averaging among coatings. A malfunction event is more likely for MMPP coating facilities that use the emission rate with add-on controls option. For this option, facilities must demonstrate that the average emission rate does not exceed the emission limits in 40 CFR 63.3890(a) or (b), and the facility is complying with the control device operating limits listed in Table 1 to 40 CFR part 63, subpart MMMM of the MMPP NESHAP. The operating limits are specific to the type of control device and established by the facility during its initial performance test. In the unlikely event that a source fails to comply with the applicable CAA section 112(d) standards as a result of a malfunction event, the EPA would determine an appropriate response based on, among other things, the good faith efforts of the source to minimize emissions during malfunction periods, including preventative and corrective actions, as well as root cause analyses to ascertain and rectify excess emissions. Refer to section IV.A.4.b.1 of this preamble for further discussion of the EPA’s actions in response to a source failing to comply with the applicable CAA section 112(d) standards as a result of a malfunction event for the ALDT source category, which applies to this source category. (2.) Proposed Revisions to the General Provisions Applicability Table 40 CFR 63.3900(b) General duty. We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table to subpart MMMM (Table 2) entry for 40 CFR 63.6(e)(1)(i) by changing the ‘‘yes’’ in column 3 to a ‘‘no.’’ Section 63.6(e)(1)(i) describes the general duty to minimize emissions. Some of the language in that section is E:\FR\FM\01NOP2.SGM 01NOP2 58972 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 212 / Friday, November 1, 2019 / Proposed Rules 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 63.3900(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 63.3900(b) does not include that language from 40 CFR 63.6(e)(1). We are also proposing to revise the General Provisions table to subpart MMMM (Table 2) entry for 40 CFR 63.6(e)(1)(ii) by changing the ‘‘yes’’ in column 3 to a ‘‘no.’’ Section 63.6(e)(1)(ii) imposes requirements that are not necessary with the elimination of the SSM exemption or are redundant with the general duty requirement being added at 40 CFR 63.3900(b). SSM plan. We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table to subpart MMMM (Table 2) entry for 40 CFR 63.6(e)(3) by changing the ‘‘yes’’ in column 3 to a ‘‘no.’’ Generally, these paragraphs require development of an SSM plan and specify SSM recordkeeping and reporting requirements related to the SSM plan. We are also proposing to remove from 40 CFR part 63, subpart SSSS, the current provisions requiring the SSM plan in 40 CFR 63.5180(f) and requiring reporting related to the SSM plan in 40 CFR 63.5180(f)(1). As noted, the EPA is proposing to remove the SSM exemptions. Therefore, affected units will be subject to an emission standard during such events. The applicability of a standard during such events will ensure that sources have ample incentive to plan for and achieve compliance, and, thus, the SSM plan requirements are no longer necessary. Compliance with standards. We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table to subpart MMMM (Table 2) entry for 40 CFR 63.6(f)(1) by changing the ‘‘yes’’ in column 3 to a ‘‘no.’’ The current language of 40 CFR 63.6(f)(1) exempts sources from nonopacity standards during periods of SSM. As discussed above, the Court in Sierra Club vacated the exemptions contained in this provision and held that the CAA requires that some CAA section 112 standards apply continuously. Consistent with Sierra Club, the EPA is proposing to revise VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:18 Oct 31, 2019 Jkt 250001 standards in this rule to apply at all times. 40 CFR 63.3964 Performance testing. We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table to subpart MMMM (Table 2) entry for 40 CFR 63.7(e)(1) by changing the ‘‘yes’’ in column 3 to a ‘‘no.’’ Section 63.7(e)(1) describes performance testing requirements. The EPA is instead proposing to add a performance testing requirement at 40 CFR 63.3964(a)(1). The performance testing requirements we are proposing to add differ from the General Provisions performance testing provisions in several respects. The regulatory text does not include the language in 40 CFR 63.7(e)(1) that restated the SSM exemption and language that precluded startup and shutdown periods from being considered ‘‘representative’’ for purposes of performance testing. Also, the proposed performance testing provisions will not allow performance testing during startup or shutdown. As in 40 CFR 63.7(e)(1), performance tests conducted under this subpart should not be conducted during malfunctions because conditions during malfunctions are often not representative of normal operating conditions. Section 63.7(e) requires that the owner or operator maintain records of the process information necessary to document operating conditions during the test and include in such records an explanation to support that such conditions represent normal operation. The EPA is proposing to add language to 40 CFR 63.3964(a)(1) clarifying that the owner or operator must make such records available to the Administrator upon request. Monitoring. We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table to subpart MMMM (Table 2) entry for 40 CFR 63.8(c)(1) by changing the ‘‘yes’’ in column 3 to a ‘‘no.’’ The crossreferences to the general duty and SSM plan requirements in those subparagraphs are not necessary in light of other requirements of 40 CFR 63.8 that require good air pollution control practices (40 CFR 63.8(c)(1)) and that set out the requirements of a quality control program for monitoring equipment (40 CFR 63.8(d)). Further, we are proposing to revise 40 CFR 63.3968(a) to add a requirement to maintain the monitoring equipment at all times in accordance with 40 CFR 63.3900(b) and keep the necessary parts readily available for routine repairs of the monitoring equipment, consistent with the requirements in 40 CFR 63.8(c)(1)(ii). The reference to 40 CFR 63.8(c)(1)(ii) is no longer needed since it is redundant to the requirement in 40 CFR 63.3968(a). PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table to subpart MMMM (Table 2) entry for 40 CFR 63.8(c)(6) by changing the ‘‘yes’’ in column 3 to a ‘‘no.’’ The reference to 40 CFR 63.8(c)(6) is no longer needed since it is redundant to the requirement in 40 CFR 63.5170 that specifies the requirements for monitoring systems for capture systems and add-on control devices at sources using these to comply. We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table to subpart MMMM (Table 2) entry for 40 CFR 63.8(c)(8) by changing the ‘‘yes’’ in column 3 to a ‘‘no.’’ The reference to 40 CFR 63.8(c)(8) is no longer needed since it is redundant to the requirements in 40 CFR 63.3920(a) that requires reporting of CPMS out-of-control periods. We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table to subpart MMMM (Table 2) entry for 40 CFR 63.8(d)–(e) by changing the ‘‘yes’’ in column 3 to a ‘‘no.’’ The requirements for quality control program and performance evaluation of CMS are not required under 40 CFR part 63, subpart MMMM. We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table to subpart MMMM (Table 2) entry for 40 CFR 63.8(g) by changing the ‘‘yes’’ in column 3 to a ‘‘no.’’ The reference to 40 CFR 63.8(g) is no longer needed since it is redundant to the requirement in 40 CFR 63.3967 and 63.3968 that specify monitoring data reduction. 40 CFR 63.5190 Recordkeeping. We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table to subpart MMMM (Table 2) entry for 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(i) by changing the ‘‘yes’’ in column 3 to a ‘‘no.’’ Section 63.10(b)(2)(i) describes the recordkeeping requirements during startup and shutdown. These recording provisions are no longer necessary because the EPA is proposing that recordkeeping and reporting applicable to normal operations will apply to startup and shutdown. In the absence of special provisions applicable to startup and shutdown, such as a startup and shutdown plan, there is no reason to retain additional recordkeeping for startup and shutdown periods. We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table to subpart MMMM (Table 2) entry for 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(ii) by changing the ‘‘yes’’ in column 3 to a ‘‘no.’’ Section 63.10(b)(2)(ii) describes the recordkeeping requirements during a malfunction, requiring a record of ‘‘the occurrence and duration of each malfunction.’’ A similar record is already required in 40 CFR 63.3930(j), which requires a record of ‘‘the date, E:\FR\FM\01NOP2.SGM 01NOP2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 212 / Friday, November 1, 2019 / Proposed Rules time, and duration of each deviation,’’ which the EPA is retaining. The regulatory text in 40 CFR 63.3930(j) differs from the General Provisions in that the General Provisions requires the creation and retention of a record of the occurrence and duration of each malfunction of process, air pollution control, and monitoring equipment; whereas 40 CFR 63.3930(j) applies to any failure to meet an applicable standard and is requiring that the source record the date, time, and duration of the failure rather than the ‘‘occurrence.’’ The EPA is also proposing to add to 40 CFR 63.3930(j) a requirement that sources also keep records that include a list of the affected source or equipment and actions taken to minimize emissions, an estimate of the quantity of each regulated pollutant emitted over the emission limit for which the source failed to meet the standard, and a description of the method used to estimate the emissions. Examples of such methods would include productloss calculations, mass balance calculations, measurements when available, or engineering judgment based on known process parameters (e.g., coating HAP content and application rates and control device efficiencies). The EPA proposes to require that sources keep records of this information to ensure that there is adequate information to allow the EPA to determine the severity of any failure to meet a standard, and to provide data that may document how the source met the general duty to minimize emissions when the source has failed to meet an applicable standard. We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table to subpart MMMM (Table 2) entry for 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(iv) by changing the ‘‘yes’’ in column 3 to a ‘‘no.’’ When applicable, the provision requires sources to record actions taken during SSM events when actions were inconsistent with their SSM plan. The requirement is no longer appropriate because SSM plans will no longer be required. The requirement previously applicable under 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(iv)(B) to record actions to minimize emissions and record corrective actions is now applicable by reference to 40 CFR 63.3930(j)(4). We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table to subpart MMMM (Table 2) entry for 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(v) by changing the ‘‘yes’’ in column 3 to a ‘‘no.’’ When applicable, the provision requires sources to record actions taken during SSM events to show that actions taken were consistent with their SSM plan. The requirement is no longer appropriate because SSM plans will no longer be required. VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:18 Oct 31, 2019 Jkt 250001 We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table to subpart MMMM (Table 2) entry for 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(x)–(xiii) by changing the ‘‘yes’’ in column 3 to a ‘‘no.’’ When applicable, the provision requires sources to record actions taken during SSM events to show that actions taken were consistent with their SSM plan. The requirement is no longer appropriate because SSM plans will no longer be required. 40 CFR 63.3920 Reporting. We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table to subpart MMMM (Table 2) entry for 40 CFR 63.10(d)(5) by changing the ‘‘yes’’ in column 3 to a ‘‘no.’’ Section 63.10(d)(5) describes the reporting requirements for startups, shutdowns, and malfunctions. To replace the General Provisions reporting requirement, the EPA is proposing to add reporting requirements to 40 CFR 63.3920(a). The replacement language differs from the General Provisions requirement in that it eliminates periodic SSM reports as a stand-alone report. We are proposing language that requires sources that fail to meet an applicable standard at any time to report the information concerning such events in the semi-annual compliance report already required under this rule. Subpart MMMM of 40 CFR part 63 currently requires reporting of the date, time period, and cause of each deviation. We are clarifying in the rule that, if the cause of a deviation from a standard is unknown, this should be specified in the report. We are also proposing to change ‘‘date and time period’’ or ‘‘date and time’’ to ‘‘date, time, and duration’’ (see proposed revisions to 40 CFR 63.3920(a)(7)). Further, we are proposing that the report must also contain the number of deviations from the standard and a list of the affected sources or equipment. For deviation reports addressing deviations from an applicable emission limit in 40 CFR 63.3890 or operating limit in Table 1 to 40 CFR part 63, subpart MMMM, we are proposing that the report also include an estimate of the quantity of each regulated pollutant emitted over any emission limit for which the source failed to meet the standard, and a description of the method used to estimate the emissions. (3.) Other SSM Changes Regarding the proposed new requirement discussed above to estimate the quantity of each regulated pollutant emitted over any emission limit for which the source failed to meet the standard, and a description of the method used to estimate the emissions, examples of such methods would PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 58973 include product-loss calculations, mass balance calculations, measurements when available, or engineering judgment based on known process parameters (e.g., coating HAP content and application rates and control device efficiencies). The EPA is proposing this requirement to ensure that there is adequate information to determine compliance, to allow the EPA to determine the severity of the failure to meet an applicable standard, and to provide data that may document how the source met the general duty to minimize emissions during a failure to meet an applicable standard. We will no longer require owners or operators to determine whether actions taken to correct a malfunction are consistent with an SSM plan, because plans would no longer be required. The proposed amendments, therefore, eliminate 40 CFR 63.3920(c) that requires reporting of whether the source deviated from its SSM plan, including required actions to communicate with the Administrator, and the crossreference to 40 CFR 63.10(d)(5) that contains the description of the previously required SSM report format and submittal schedule from this section. These specifications are no longer necessary because the events will be reported in otherwise required reports with similar format and submittal requirements. We are proposing to remove the requirements in 40 CFR 63.3920(a)(7) that deviation reports must specify whether a deviation from an operating limit occurred during a period of SSM. We are also proposing to remove the requirements in 40 CFR 63. 3920(a)(7) to break down the total duration of deviations into the startup and shutdown categories. As discussed above in this section, we are proposing to require reporting of the cause of each deviation. Further, the startup and shutdown categories no longer apply because these periods are proposed to be considered normal operation, as discussed in section IV.A.4.b.1 of this preamble for the ALDT source category, which also applies to this source category. c. Technical Amendments to the MMPP NESHAP We propose to amend 40 CFR 63.3966(b) to add the option of conducting EPA Method 18 of appendix A to 40 CFR part 60, ‘‘Measurement of Gaseous Organic Compound Emissions by Gas Chromatography,’’ to measure and then subtract methane emissions from measured total gaseous organic mass emissions as carbon. Facilities using the emission rate with add-on E:\FR\FM\01NOP2.SGM 01NOP2 58974 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 212 / Friday, November 1, 2019 / Proposed Rules control compliance option can use either EPA Method 25 or EPA Method 25A to measure control device destruction efficiency. Unlike EPA Method 25, Method 25A does not exclude methane from the measurement of organic emissions. Because exhaust streams from coating operations may contain methane from natural gas combustion, we are proposing to allow facilities the option to measure methane using EPA Method 18 and to subtract the methane from the emissions as part of their compliance calculations. We also propose to revise the format of references to test methods in 40 CFR part 60. The current references in 40 CFR 63.5160(d)(1) to EPA Methods 1, 1A, 2, 2A, 2C, 2D, 2F, 2G, 3, 3A, 3B, 4, 25, and 25A specify that each method is in ‘‘appendix A’’ of 40 CFR part 60. Appendix A of 40 CFR part 60 has been divided into appendices A–1 through A–8. We propose to revise each reference to appendix A to indicate which of the eight sections of appendix A applies to the method. We propose to amend 40 CFR 63.3941(a)(1)(i) and (a)(4), which describe how to demonstrate compliance with the emission limitations using the compliant material option, and the definition of ‘‘non-HAP coating’’ in 40 CFR 63.3981 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 0.1percent or greater by mass. We propose to remove this reference because 29 CFR 1910.1200(d)(4) has been amended and no longer readily defines which compounds are carcinogens. We propose to replace these references to OSHA-defined carcinogens at 29 CFR 1910.1200(d)(4) with a list (in proposed new Table 5 to 40 CFR part 63, subpart MMMM) 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 5 to 40 CFR part 63, subpart MMMM 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 VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:18 Oct 31, 2019 Jkt 250001 1987),35 or as ‘‘carcinogenic to humans,’’ ‘‘likely to be carcinogenic to humans,’’ or with ‘‘suggestive evidence of carcinogenic potential’’ according to the Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment (EPA/630/P–03/001F, March 2005). Current 40 CFR 63.3931 specifies how records must be maintained. We propose to add clarification to this provision at 40 CFR 63.3931(a) that specifies the allowance to retain electronic records applies to all records that were submitted as reports electronically via the EPA’s CEDRI. We also propose to add text to the same provision clarifying that this ability to maintain electronic copies does not affect the requirement for facilities to make records, data, and reports available upon request to a delegated air agency or the EPA as part of an on-site compliance evaluation. d. Ongoing Emissions Compliance Demonstrations As part of an ongoing effort to improve compliance with various federal air emission regulations, the EPA reviewed the compliance demonstration requirements in the MMPP NESHAP. Currently, if a source owner or operator chooses to comply with the standards using add-on controls, the results of an initial performance test are used to determine compliance; however, the rule does not require on-going periodic performance testing for these emission capture systems and add-on controls. In this action, we are proposing to require periodic testing of add-on control devices, in addition to the one-time initial emissions and capture efficiency testing, and ongoing temperature measurement, to ensure ongoing compliance with the standards. As described more fully in section IV.A.4.d of this preamble for the ALDT source category, the EPA documented potential operational problems associated with control devices in several publications; 36 the ICAC, in their comments on a separate rulemaking on the proposed revisions related to the NESHAP General Provisions (72 FR 69, January 3, 2007), commented that ongoing maintenance 35 See https://www.epa.gov/fera/dose-responseassessment-assessing-health-risks-associatedexposure-hazardous-air-pollutants. 36 See Control Techniques for Volatile Organic Compound Emissions from Stationary Sources, EPA/453/R–92–018, December 1992, Control Technologies for Emissions from Stationary Sources, EPA/625/6–91/014, June 1991, and Survey of Control for Low Concentration Organic Vapor Gas Streams, EPA–456/R–95–003, May 1995. These documents can be found in the ALDT, MMPP, and PPP Dockets for this action. PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 and checks of control devices are necessary in order to ensure emissions control technology, including both thermal and catalytic oxidizers, remains effective; 37 and state websites list CAA enforcement information that further corroborates the potential problems identified by the EPA and ICAC comments and conclusions. Given the need for vigilance in maintaining equipment to stem degradation, the EPA is proposing to require periodic testing of add-on control devices, in addition to the onetime initial emissions and capture efficiency testing and ongoing temperature measurement, to ensure ongoing compliance with the MMPP NESHAP. In this action, the EPA is proposing to require periodic performance testing of add-on control devices on a regular frequency (e.g., every 5 years) to ensure the equipment continues to operate properly for facilities using the emission rate with add-on controls compliance option. We note that the majority of state operating permits for existing MMPP surface coating sources already require such testing every 5 years synchronized with 40 CFR part 70 air operating permit renewals. This proposed periodic testing requirement includes an exception to the general requirement for periodic testing for facilities using the catalytic oxidizer control option at 40 CFR 63.3967(b) and following the catalyst maintenance procedures in 40 CFR 63.3967(b)(4). This exception is due to the catalyst maintenance procedures that already require annual testing of the catalyst and other maintenance procedures that provide ongoing demonstrations that the control system is operating properly and may, thus, be considered comparable to conducting a performance test. The proposed periodic performance testing requirement allows an exception from periodic testing for facilities using instruments to continuously measure emissions. Such CEMS would show actual emissions. The use of CEMS to demonstrate compliance would obviate the need for periodic oxidizer testing. Moreover, installation and operation of a CEMS with a timesharing component, such that values from more than one oxidizer exhaust could be tabulated in a recurring frequency, could prove less expensive (estimated to have an annual cost below $15,000) than ongoing oxidizer testing. 37 See Docket Item No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2004– 0094–0173, available at https:// www.regulations.gov/. A copy of the ICAC’s comments on the proposed revisions to the General Provisions is also included in the ALDT, MMPP, and PPP Dockets for this action. E:\FR\FM\01NOP2.SGM 01NOP2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 212 / Friday, November 1, 2019 / Proposed Rules This proposed requirement would not require periodic testing or CEMS monitoring of facilities using the ‘‘as purchased’’ or ‘‘as applied’’ compliant coatings options because these compliance options do not use any addon controls or control efficiency measurements in the compliance calculations. The proposed periodic performance testing requirement would require that facilities complying with the standards using emission capture systems and add-on controls and which are not already on a 5-year testing schedule to conduct the first of the periodic performance tests within 3 years of the effective date of the revised standards. Afterward, they would conduct the periodic testing before they renew their operating permits, but no longer than 5 years following the previous performance test. Additionally, facilities that have already tested as a condition of their permit within the last 2 years before the effective date would be permitted to maintain their current 5year schedule and not be required to move up the date of the next test to the 3-year date specified above. This proposed requirement would require periodic air emissions testing to measure organic HAP destruction or removal efficiency at the inlet and outlet of the add-on control device, or measurement of the control device outlet concentration of organic HAP. The emissions would be measured as total gaseous organic mass emissions as carbon using either EPA Method 25 or 25A of appendix A–7 to 40 CFR part 60, which are the methods currently required for the initial compliance demonstration. We estimate that the cost to perform a control device emissions destruction or removal efficiency test using EPA Method 25 or 25A would be approximately $19,000 per control device. The cost estimate is included in the memorandum titled Draft Costs/ Impacts of the 40 CFR part 63 Subparts IIII, MMMM, and PPPP Monitoring Review Revisions, in the MMPP Docket. We have reviewed the operating permits for facilities subject to the several other surface coating NESHAP, and we found that affected sources currently using emission capture systems and add-on controls are often, but not always, required to conduct periodic control device performance tests as a condition of their 40 CFR part 70 operating permits. We estimate that seven MMPP surface coating facilities currently are not required to conduct periodic testing of their control devices as a condition of their permit renewal. Periodic performance tests ensure that all control VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:18 Oct 31, 2019 Jkt 250001 systems used to comply with the NESHAP would be properly maintained over time, thereby reducing the potential for acute emissions episodes and non-compliance. We are requesting comment on adding periodic testing of add-on control devices to the MMPP NESHAP and on the suggested 5-year schedule for the periodic testing. e. IBR of Alternative Test Methods Under 1 CFR Part 51 The EPA is proposing new and updated test methods for the MMPP NESHAP that include IBR. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is proposing to add the following optional EPA methods and incorporate by reference the VCS described in the amendments to 40 CFR 63.14: • EPA Method 18 of appendix A to 40 CFR part 60, Measurement of Gaseous Organic Compound Emissions by Gas Chromatography, proposed to be IBR approved for 40 CFR 63.3966(b)(4); • ASTM Method D1475–13, Standard Test Method for Density of Liquid Coatings, Inks, and Related Products, proposed to be IBR approved for 40 CFR 63.3941(b)(4), 63.3941(c), and 63.3951(c); • ASTM Method D2111–10 (2015), Standard Test Methods for Specific Gravity of Halogenated Organic Solvents and Their Admixtures, proposed to be IBR approved for 40 CFR 63.3951(c); • ASTM Method D2369–10 (2015), Test Method for Volatile Content of Coatings, proposed to be IBR approved for 40 CFR 63.3961(j)(3); • ASTM Method D2697–03 (2014), Standard Test Method for Volume Nonvolatile Matter in Clear or Pigmented Coatings, proposed to be IBR approved for 40 CFR 63.3941(b)(1); • ASTM Method D5965–02 (2013), Standard Test Methods for Specific Gravity of Coating Powders, proposed to be IBR approved for 40 CFR 3951(c); and • ASTM Method D6093–97 (2016), Standard Test Method for Percent Volume Nonvolatile Matter in Clear or Pigmented Coatings Using Helium Gas Pycnometer, proposed to be IBR approved for 40 CFR 63.3941(b)(1). Older versions of ASTM methods D1475, D2697, D5965, and D6093 were incorporated by reference when the MMPP NESHAP was originally promulgated (69 FR 130, January 2, 2004). We are proposing to replace the older versions of these methods with updated versions, which requires IBR revisions. The updated version of the method replaces the older version in the same paragraph of the rule text. We are PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 58975 also proposing the addition of EPA Method 18 and incorporating by reference ASTM methods D2111 and D2369 to the MMPP NESHAP for the first time in this rulemaking. Refer to section VIII.J of this preamble for further discussion of these VCS. 5. What compliance dates are we proposing? The EPA is proposing that affected sources must comply with all of the amendments, with the exception of the proposed electronic format for submitting semiannual compliance reports, no later than 181 days after the effective date of the final rule. All affected facilities would have to continue to meet the current requirements of 40 CFR part 63, subpart MMMM 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 MMMM. As discussed elsewhere in this preamble, we are proposing to add a requirement that notifications, performance test results, and semiannual compliance reports be submitted electronically. We are proposing that the semiannual compliance report be submitted electronically using a new template, which is available for review and comment as part of this action. We are also proposing to change the requirements for SSM by removing the exemption from the requirements to meet the standard during SSM periods and by removing the requirement to develop and implement an SSM plan. Our experience with similar industries that are required to convert reporting mechanisms to install necessary hardware and software, become familiar with the process of submitting performance test results electronically through the EPA’s CEDRI, test these new electronic submission capabilities, and reliably employ electronic reporting shows that a time period of a minimum of 90 days, and, more typically, 180 days is generally necessary to successfully accomplish these revisions. Our experience with similar industries further shows that this sort of regulated facility generally requires a time period of 180 days to read and understand the amended rule requirements; to evaluate their operations to ensure that they can meet the standards during periods of startup and shutdown as defined in the rule and make any necessary E:\FR\FM\01NOP2.SGM 01NOP2 58976 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 212 / Friday, November 1, 2019 / Proposed Rules adjustments; and to update their operation, maintenance, and monitoring plan to reflect the revised requirements. The EPA recognizes the confusion that multiple different compliance dates for individual requirements would create and the additional burden such an assortment of dates would impose. From our assessment of the 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 181 days of the regulation’s effective date. We solicit comment on these proposed compliance periods, and we specifically request submission of information from sources in this source category regarding specific actions that would need to be undertaken to comply with the proposed amended requirements and the time needed to make the adjustments for compliance with any of the revised requirements. We note that information provided may result in changes to the proposed compliance dates. category, we conducted a risk assessment for all HAP emitted. We present results of the risk assessment briefly below and in more detail in the Surface Coating of Plastic Parts and Products Risk Assessment Report, in the PPP Docket (Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– OAR–2019–0313). C. What are the analytical results and proposed decisions for the surface coating of plastic parts and products source category? Table 6 of this preamble provides a summary of the results of the inhalation risk assessment for the source category. a. Chronic Inhalation Risk Assessment Results 1. What are the results of the risk assessment and analyses? As described above in section III of this preamble, for the PPP source TABLE 6—SURFACE COATING OF PLASTIC PARTS AND PRODUCTS SOURCE CATEGORY INHALATION RISK ASSESSMENT RESULTS Maximum individual cancer risk (in 1 million) Estimated population at increased risk of cancer ≥1-in-1 million Estimated annual cancer incidence (cases per year) Based on actual emissions Based on actual emissions Maximum screening acute noncancer HQ 2 Maximum chronic noncancer TOSHI 1 Risk assessment Based on actual emissions Source Category ............................... Whole Facility .................................... 1 The 2 The 10 70 Based on allowable emissions 10 .................. 600 29,000 Based on allowable emissions 700 .................. 0.001 0.006 Based on allowable emissions Based on actual emissions 0.001 .................. 1 1 Based on allowable emissions 1 Based on actual emissions HQREL = 4. TOSHI is the sum of the chronic noncancer HQ for substances that affect the same target organ or organ system. maximum estimated acute exposure concentration was divided by available short-term threshold values to develop HQ values. The results of the inhalation risk modeling using actual emissions data, as shown in Table 6 of this preamble, indicate that the maximum individual cancer risk based on actual emissions (lifetime) could be up to 10-in-1 million (driven by ethyl benzene, naphthalene, and formaldehyde from coating operations), the maximum chronic noncancer TOSHI value based on actual emissions could be up to 1 (driven by hexamethylene-1,6-diisocyanate from coating operations), and the maximum screening acute noncancer HQ value (off-facility site) could be up to 4 (driven by glycol ethers). The total estimated annual cancer incidence (national) from these facilities based on actual emission levels is 0.001 excess cancer cases per year or 1 case in every 1,000 years. of Plastic Parts and Products Risk Assessment Report, in the PPP Docket. b. Screening Level Acute Risk Assessment Results Twenty-two facilities have a facilitywide cancer MIR greater than or equal to 1-in-1 million. The maximum facilitywide cancer MIR is 70-in-1 million, driven by nickel and formaldehyde from a co-located boiler. The total estimated cancer incidence from the whole facility is 0.006 excess cancer cases per year, or one excess case in every 200 years. Approximately 29,000 people were estimated to have cancer risks above 1- Table 6 of this preamble also shows the acute risk results for the PPP source category. The screening analysis for acute impacts was based on an industryspecific multiplier of 1.2, to estimate the peak emission rates from the average emission rates. For more detailed acute risk results refer to the Surface Coating VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:18 Oct 31, 2019 Jkt 250001 c. Multipathway Risk Screening Results There are no PB–HAP emitted by facilities in the PPP source category. Therefore, we do not expect any human health multipathway risks as a result of emissions from this source category. d. Environmental Risk Screening Results The emissions data for the PPP source category indicate that no environmental HAP are emitted by sources within this source category. Therefore, we do not expect an adverse environmental effect as a result of HAP emissions from this source category. e. Facility-Wide Risk Results PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 in-1 million from exposure to HAP emitted from both MACT and nonMACT sources of the 125 facilities in this source category. The maximum facility-wide TOSHI for the source category is estimated to be 1, driven by emissions of nickel and formaldehyde from a co-located boiler. f. What demographic groups might benefit from this regulation? To examine the potential for any environmental justice issues that might be associated with the source category, we performed a demographic analysis, which is an assessment of risks to individual demographic groups of the populations living within 5 km and within 50 km of the facilities. In the analysis, we evaluated the distribution of HAP-related cancer and noncancer risks from the PPP source category across different demographic groups within the populations living near facilities.38 38 Demographic groups included in the analysis are: White, African American, Native American, other races and multiracial, Hispanic or Latino, children 17 years of age and under, adults 18 to 64 years of age, adults 65 years of age and over, adults without a high school diploma, people living below the poverty level, people living above the poverty level, and linguistically isolated people. E:\FR\FM\01NOP2.SGM 01NOP2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 212 / Friday, November 1, 2019 / Proposed Rules The results of the demographic analysis are summarized in Table 7 of this preamble. These results, for various demographic groups, are based on the estimated risks from actual emissions 58977 levels for the population living within 50 km of the facilities. TABLE 7—SURFACE COATING OF PLASTIC PARTS AND PRODUCTS SOURCE CATEGORY DEMOGRAPHIC RISK ANALYSIS RESULTS Population with cancer risk at or above 1-in-1 million due to surface coating of plastic parts and products Nationwide Total Population ....................................................................................................... 317,746,049 Population with chronic noncancer HI above 1 due to surface coating of plastic parts and products 500 0 62 38 92 8 0 0 12 0.8 18 7 4 0.1 3 1 0 0 0 0 14 86 19 81 0 0 14 86 14 86 0 0 6 0 0 White and Minority by Percent White ........................................................................................................................ Minority .................................................................................................................... Minority Detail by Percent African American ..................................................................................................... Native American ...................................................................................................... Hispanic or Latino .................................................................................................... Other and Multiracial ............................................................................................... Income by Percent Below the Poverty Level .......................................................................................... Above the Poverty Level ......................................................................................... Education by Percent Over 25 Without High a School Diploma ................................................................ Over 25 With a High School Diploma ..................................................................... Linguistically Isolated by Percent Linguistically Isolated ............................................................................................... The results of the PPP source category demographic analysis indicate that emissions from the source category expose approximately 500 people to a cancer risk at or above 1-in-1 million and no one is exposed to a chronic noncancer HI greater than 1. The percentages of the at-risk population in the following specific demographic groups are higher than their respective nationwide percentages: ‘‘White,’’ and ‘‘Below the Poverty Level.’’ The methodology and the results of the demographic analysis are presented in a technical report, Risk and Technology Review—Analysis of Demographic Factors for Populations Living Near Surface Coating of Plastic Parts and Products Source Category Operations, April 2019 (hereafter referred to as the Plastic Parts and Products Demographic Analysis Report), available in the PPP Docket. VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:18 Oct 31, 2019 Jkt 250001 2. What are our proposed decisions regarding risk acceptability, ample margin of safety, and adverse environmental effects? a. Risk Acceptability As noted in section III.A of this preamble, we weigh all health risk factors in our risk acceptability determination, including the cancer MIR, the number of persons in various cancer and noncancer risk ranges, cancer incidence, the maximum noncancer TOSHI, the maximum acute noncancer HQ, the extent of noncancer risks, the distribution of cancer and noncancer risks in the exposed population, and risk estimation uncertainties (54 FR 38044, September 14, 1989). For the PPP source category, the risk analysis indicates that the cancer risks to the individual most exposed could be up to 10-in-1 million due to actual emissions and allowable emissions. These risks are considerably less than 100-in-1 million, which is the presumptive upper limit of acceptable risk. The risk analysis also shows very PO 00000 Frm 00043 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 low cancer incidence (0.001 cases per year for actual and allowable emissions), and we did not identify any potential for adverse chronic noncancer health effects. The acute screening analysis results in a maximum acute noncancer HQ of 4 at one facility based on use of the acute REL for ethylene glycol monomethyl ether as a surrogate for unspeciated glycol ethers. Since there is not a specified acute dose-response value for unspeciated glycol ethers, we applied the most protective doseresponse value from the other glycol ether compounds, the acute REL for ethylene glycol monomethyl ether, to estimate risk. Given that ethylene glycol monomethyl ether is more toxic than other glycol ethers, the use of this surrogate is a health-protective choice in the EPA’s risk assessment. For acute screening analyses, to better characterize the potential health risks associated with estimated worst-case acute exposures to HAP, we examine a wider range of available acute health metrics than we do for our chronic risk assessments. This is in E:\FR\FM\01NOP2.SGM 01NOP2 58978 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 212 / Friday, November 1, 2019 / Proposed Rules acknowledgement that there are generally more data gaps and uncertainties in acute reference values than there are in chronic reference values. By definition, the acute REL represents a health-protective level of exposure, with effects not anticipated below those levels, even for repeated exposures; however, the level of exposure that would cause health effects is not specifically known. As the exposure concentration increases above the acute REL, the potential for effects increases. Therefore, when an REL is exceeded and an AEGL–1 or ERPG–1 level is available (i.e., levels at which mild, reversible effects are anticipated in the general population for a single exposure), we typically use them as an additional comparative measure, as they provide an upper bound for exposure levels above which exposed individuals could experience effects. However, for glycol ethers, there are no AEGL or ERPG values. Additional uncertainties in the acute exposure assessment that the EPA conducts as part of the risk review under section 112 of the CAA include several factors. The accuracy of an acute inhalation exposure assessment depends on the simultaneous occurrence of independent factors that may vary greatly, such as hourly emission rates, meteorology, and the presence of a person. In the acute screening assessment that we conduct under the RTR program, we include the conservative (health-protective) assumptions that peak emissions from each emission point in 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 exposure. 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. Thus, as discussed in the document titled Residual Risk Assessment for the Surface Coating of Plastic Parts and Products Source Category in Support of the Risk and Technology Review 2019 Proposed Rule, in the PPP docket for this action, by assuming the cooccurrence of independent factors for the acute screening assessment, the results are intentionally biased high and are, thus, health-protective. We conclude that adverse effects from acute exposure to emissions of glycol ethers from this source category are not anticipated. VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:18 Oct 31, 2019 Jkt 250001 Considering all of the health risk information and factors discussed above, including the uncertainties discussed in section III.C.7 of this preamble, we propose that the risks from the PPP source category are acceptable. b. Ample Margin of Safety Analysis Although we are proposing that the risks from the PPP source category are acceptable, risk estimates for approximately 500 individuals in the exposed population are above 1-in-1 million at the actual emissions level and 700 individuals in the exposed population are above 1-in-1 million at the allowable emissions level. Consequently, we further considered whether the MACT standards for the PPP source category provide an ample margin of safety to protect public health. In this ample margin of safety analysis, we investigated available emissions control options that might reduce the risk from the source category. We considered this information along with all of the health risks and other health information considered in our determination of risk acceptability. As described in section III.B of this preamble, our technology review focused on identifying developments in practices, processes, and control technologies for the PPP source category, and we reviewed various information sources regarding emission sources that are currently regulated by the PPP NESHAP. Based on our review, we did not identify any cost-effective measures to further reduce HAP. Therefore, considering all of the available health information along with the absence of additional measures for reducing HAP, we are proposing that additional emissions controls for this source category are not necessary and that the current standards provide an ample margin of safety. c. Environmental Effects The emissions data for the PPP source category indicate that no environmental HAP are emitted by sources within this source category. In addition, we are unaware of any adverse environmental effects caused by HAP emitted by this source category. Therefore, we do not expect there to be an adverse environmental effect as a result of HAP emissions from this source category and we are proposing that it is not necessary to set a more stringent standard to prevent, taking into consideration costs, energy, safety, and other relevant factors, an adverse environmental effect. PO 00000 Frm 00044 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 3. What are the results and proposed decisions based on our technology review? As described in section III.B of this preamble, our technology review focused on identifying developments in practices, processes, and control technologies for the PPP source category. The EPA reviewed various information sources regarding emission sources that are currently regulated by the PPP NESHAP to support the technology review. The information sources included the following: the RBLC; publicly available state air permit databases; regulatory actions, including technology reviews promulgated for other surface coating NESHAP subsequent to the PPP NESHAP; state regulations; facility operating permits; site visits; and industry information. Based on our review, we did not identify any add-on control technologies, process equipment, work practices, or procedures that had not been previously considered during development of the PPP NESHAP, and we did not identify any new or improved add-on control technologies that would result in additional emission reductions. A brief summary of the EPA’s findings in conducting the technology review of plastic part surface coating operations follows. For a detailed discussion of the EPA’s findings, refer to the Plastic Parts and Products Technology Review Memo, in the PPP Docket. During the development of the 2004 PPP NESHAP, numerical emission limits were determined for new and existing major sources within four coating subcategories for a total of eight HAP emissions limits. The emission limits were based on industry survey responses and the industry’s use of lowor no-HAP coatings and thinners and add-on capture and control technologies. Using the EPA’s NEI and the ECHO databases, we identified 125 major source facilities that are currently subject to the PPP NESHAP. A search of the RBLC database for improvements in plastic parts and product coating technologies provided 20 facilities with permit dates of 2000 or later. The results of the RBLC search included facilities subject to VOC and HAP content limits, and using high volume/low pressure spray guns, robotic electrostatic application, thermal oxidizers, catalytic oxidizers, and adsorbers. All of these control technologies were in use by the plastic parts and product coating industry during development of the PPP NESHAP and were already considered in the development of the PPP NESHAP. E:\FR\FM\01NOP2.SGM 01NOP2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 212 / Friday, November 1, 2019 / Proposed Rules Therefore, we concluded that the results of the RBLC search are consistent with current PPP NESHAP requirements and did not identify any improvements in add-on control technology or processes and work practices that are not already reflected in the rule. We also collected permit information from about 45 major source surface coating facilities subject to the PPP NESHAP. (Many of these facilities were also subject to 40 CFR part 63, subparts IIII or MMMM.) The review of these permits did not identify a facility subject to HAP limits more stringent than those in the PPP NESHAP and did not identify any control technologies or work practices that were not already considered in the development of the NESHAP. We reviewed other surface coating NESHAP promulgated subsequent to the PPP NESHAP to determine whether any requirements exceed the PPP MACT level of control or include technologies that were not considered during the development of the original PPP NESHAP. These NESHAP include Paint Stripping and Miscellaneous Surface Coating Operations at Area Sources (40 CFR part 63, subpart HHHHHH), and Nine Metal Fabrication and Finishing Area Source Categories (40 CFR part 63, subpart XXXXXX). We also reviewed the results of the technology reviews for other surface coating NESHAP promulgated after the PPP NESHAP. These technology reviews include the NESHAP for Printing and Publishing (40 CFR part 63, subpart KK), Shipbuilding and Ship Repair (40 CFR part 63, subpart II), Wood Furniture Manufacturing (40 CFR part 63, subpart JJ), and Aerospace Manufacturing and Rework Facilities (40 CFR part 63, subpart GG). The review of these more recently promulgated NESHAP and the technology reviews of other NESHAP did not identify any control technologies that were not already considered during the development of the 2004 PPP NESHAP. The developments considered in these other technology reviews included the use of emission capture systems and thermal oxidizers to reduce emissions. Because the PPP NESHAP already includes a compliance option involving the use of a PTE and an add-on control device, and because these measures were considered in the development of the PPP NESHAP, we concluded that these measures do not represent a development in control technology under CAA section 112(d)(6). We also identified and considered alternatives to conventional solvent borne coatings during MACT development (e.g., waterborne coatings, low-HAP/high- VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:18 Oct 31, 2019 Jkt 250001 solids coatings, low energy radiation cured coating) and the presence of facilities using these coatings is reflected in the current MACT standards. We found no other improvements in add-on control technology or other equipment during review of the RBLC, the state operating permits, and subsequent NESHAP that were not already identified and considered during development of the PPP NESHAP. Finally, we identified no developments in work practices or procedures for the PPP source category that were not previously identified and considered during MACT development. Based on these findings, we conclude that there have not been any developments in add-on control technology or other equipment not identified and considered during MACT development, nor any improvements in add-on controls, nor any significant changes in the cost (including cost effectiveness) of the add-on controls. Therefore, we are proposing no revisions to the PPP NESHAP pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6). For further discussion of the technology review results, refer to the Plastic Parts and Products Technology Review Memo, in the PPP Docket. 4. What other actions are we proposing for the surface coating of plastic parts and products source category? We are proposing to require electronic submittal of notifications (initial and compliance status), semiannual reports, and performance test reports for PPP surface coating facilities. In addition, we are proposing revisions to the SSM provisions of the MACT rule in order to ensure that they are consistent with the Court decision in Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F. 3d 1019 (D.C. Cir. 2008), which vacated two provisions that exempted sources from the requirement to comply with otherwise applicable CAA section 112(d) emission standards during periods of SSM. We are proposing to require periodic emissions testing of add-on control devices. We also are proposing to add optional EPA Method 18, to IBR an alternative test method, and to make various technical and editorial changes. Our analyses and proposed changes related to these issues are discussed in the sections below. a. Electronic Reporting Requirements The EPA is proposing that owners and operators of PPP surface coating facilities submit electronic copies of initial notifications required in 40 CFR 63.9(b) and 63.4510(b), notifications of compliance status required in 40 CFR 63.9(h) and 63.4510(c), performance test PO 00000 Frm 00045 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 58979 reports required in 40 CFR 63.4520(b), and semiannual reports required in 40 CFR 63.4520(a) through the EPA’s CDX, using the CEDRI. A description of the EPA’s CDX and the EPA’s proposed rationale and details on the addition of these electronic reporting requirements for the PPP source category is the same as for the ALDT source category, as discussed in section IV.A.4.a of this preamble. No specific form is proposed at this time for the initial notifications required in 40 CFR 63.9(b) and notifications of compliance status in 40 CFR 63.9(h). Until the EPA has completed electronic forms for these notifications, the notifications will be required to be submitted via CEDRI in PDF. After development of the final forms, we will notify sources about their availability via the CEDRI website and the CHIEF Listserv. For semiannual reports required in 40 CFR 63.4520(a), the proposed rule requires that owners or operators use the appropriate spreadsheet template to submit information to CEDRI. A draft version of the proposed template for this report is included in the docket for this rulemaking.39 The EPA specifically requests comment on the content, layout, and overall design of the template. Regarding submittal of performance test reports via the EPA’s ERT, as discussed in section IV.A.4.a of this preamble for the ALDT NESHAP, the proposal to submit performance test data electronically to the EPA applies only if the EPA has developed an electronic reporting form for the test method as listed on the EPA’s ERT website. For the PPP NESHAP, all of the EPA test methods listed under 40 CFR part 63, subpart PPPP, are currently supported by the ERT, except for EPA Method 18 (an optional test method proposed in this action), which appears in the proposed text for 40 CFR 63.4566. As mentioned above in section IV.A.4.a of this preamble, the rule proposes that should an owner or operator choose to use EPA Method 18, then its results would be submitted in PDF using the attachment module of the ERT. Also, as discussed in section IV.A.4.a of this preamble for the ALDT NESHAP, we are proposing to provide facilities with the ability to seek extensions for submitting electronic reports for circumstances beyond the control of the facility. In proposed 40 CFR 63.4520(g), we address the situation for facilities subject to the PPP NESHAP where an 39 See Electronic Reporting Template for Surface Coating of Plastic Parts and Products Subpart PPPP Semiannual Reports, in Docket ID NO. EPA–HQ– OAR–2019–0313. E:\FR\FM\01NOP2.SGM 01NOP2 58980 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 212 / Friday, November 1, 2019 / Proposed Rules extension may be warranted due to outages of the EPA’s CDX or CEDRI, which may prevent access to the system and submittal of the required reports. In proposed 40 CFR 63.4520(h), we address the situation for facilities subject to the PPP NESHAP where an extension may be warranted due to a force majeure event, which is defined as an event that will be or has been caused by circumstances beyond the control of the affected facility, its contractors, or any entity controlled by the affected facility that prevents compliance with the requirement to submit a report electronically as required by this rule. Examples of such events are acts of nature, acts of war and 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 to implement Executive Order 13563 and is in keeping with the EPA’s Agencywide policy developed in response to the White House’s Digital Government Strategy. For more information on the benefits of electronic reporting, see the memorandum titled 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–2019–0313. b. SSM Requirements (1.) Proposed Elimination of the SSM Exemption The EPA is proposing to eliminate the SSM exemption in the PPP NESHAP. The EPA’s proposed rationale for the elimination of the SSM exemption for the PPP source category is the same as VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:18 Oct 31, 2019 Jkt 250001 for the ALDT source category, which is discussed in section IV.A.4.b.1 of this preamble. We are also proposing several revisions to Table 2 to subpart PPPP of 40 CFR part 63 (Applicability of General Provisions to Subpart PPPP of Part 63, hereafter referred to as the ‘‘General Provisions table to subpart PPPP’’) as is explained in more detail below in section IV.C.4.b.2 of this preamble. For example, we are proposing to eliminate the incorporation of the General Provisions’ requirement that the source develop an SSM plan. Further, we are proposing to eliminate and revise certain recordkeeping and reporting requirements related to the SSM exemption as further described below. The EPA has attempted to ensure that the provisions we are proposing to eliminate are inappropriate, unnecessary, or redundant in the absence of the SSM exemption. We are specifically seeking comment on the specific proposed deletions and revisions and also whether additional provisions should be revised to achieve the stated goal. In proposing these rule amendments, the EPA has taken into account startup and shutdown periods and, for the same reasons explained in section IV.A.4.b.1 of this preamble for the ALDT source category, has not proposed alternate standards for those periods in the PPP NESHAP. Startups and shutdowns are part of normal operations for the PPP source category. As currently specified in 40 CFR 63.4500(a), any coating operation(s) for which you use the emission rate with add-on controls option must meet the applicable operating limits in Table 1 to 40 CFR part 63, subpart PPPP ‘‘at all times,’’ except for solvent recovery systems for which you conduct liquid-liquid material balances according to 40 CFR 63.4561(j). (Solvent recovery systems for which you conduct a liquid-liquid material balance require a monthly calculation of the solvent recovery device’s collection and recovery efficiency for volatile organic matter.) Also, as currently specified in 40 CFR 63.4500(a)(2), any coating operation(s) for which you use the emission rate with add-on controls option must be in compliance ‘‘at all times’’ with the applicable emission limit in 40 CFR 63.4490. During startup and shutdown periods, in order for a facility (using add-on controls to meet the standards) to meet the emission and operating standards, the control device for a coating operation needs to be turned on and operating at specified levels before the facility begins coating operations, and the control equipment needs to continue to be operated until after the PO 00000 Frm 00046 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 facility ceases coating operations. In some cases, the facility needs to run thermal oxidizers on supplemental fuel before VOC levels are sufficient for the combustion to be (nearly) selfsustaining. Note that we are also proposing new related language in 40 CFR 63.4500(b) to require that the owner or operator operate and maintain the coating operation, including pollution control equipment, at all times to minimize emissions. See section IV.A.4.b.2 of this preamble for further discussion of this proposed revision. Although no statutory language compels the EPA to set standards for malfunctions, the EPA has the discretion to do so where feasible, as discussed previously in section IV.A.4.b.1 of this preamble for the ALDT source category. It is unlikely that a malfunction would result in a violation of the standards during PPP surface coatings operations for facilities using the compliant material option or the emission rate without add-on controls option. Facilities using these options have demonstrated that the organic HAP contents of the coating materials do not exceed the emission limits in 40 CFR 63.4490(a) or (b), either on a coating-bycoating basis or by using averaging among coatings. A malfunction event is more likely for PPP coating facilities that use the emission rate with add-on controls option. For this option, facilities must demonstrate that the average emission rate does not exceed the emission limits in 40 CFR 63.4490(a) or (b), and the facility is complying with the control device operating limits listed in Table 1 to 40 CFR part 63, subpart PPPP of the PPP NESHAP. The operating limits are specific to the type of control device and established by the facility during its initial performance test. In the unlikely event that a source fails to comply with the applicable CAA section 112(d) standards as a result of a malfunction event, the EPA would determine an appropriate response based on, among other things, the good faith efforts of the source to minimize emissions during malfunction periods, including preventative and corrective actions, as well as root cause analyses to ascertain and rectify excess emissions. Refer to section IV.A.4.b.1 of this preamble for further discussion of the EPA’s actions in response to a source failing to comply with the applicable CAA section 112(d) standards as a result of a malfunction event for the ALDT source category, which applies to this source category. E:\FR\FM\01NOP2.SGM 01NOP2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 212 / Friday, November 1, 2019 / Proposed Rules (2.) Proposed Revisions to the General Provisions Applicability Table 40 CFR 63.4500(b) General duty. We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table to subpart PPPP (Table 2) entry for 40 CFR 63.6(e)(1)(i) by changing the ‘‘yes’’ in column 3 to a ‘‘no.’’ Section 63.6(e)(1)(i) describes the general duty to minimize emissions. Some of the language in that section is no longer necessary or appropriate in light of the elimination of the SSM exemption. We are proposing instead to add general duty regulatory text at 40 CFR 63.4500(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 63.4500(b) does not include that language from 40 CFR 63.6(e)(1). We are also proposing to revise the General Provisions table to subpart PPPP (Table 2) entry for 40 CFR 63.6(e)(1)(ii) by changing the ‘‘yes’’ in column 3 to a ‘‘no.’’ Section 63.6(e)(1)(ii) imposes requirements that are not necessary with the elimination of the SSM exemption or are redundant with the general duty requirement being added at 40 CFR 63.4500(b). SSM plan. We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table to subpart PPPP (Table 2) entry for 40 CFR 63.6(e)(3) by changing the ‘‘yes’’ in column 3 to a ‘‘no.’’ Generally, these paragraphs require development of an SSM plan and specify SSM recordkeeping and reporting requirements related to the SSM plan. We are also proposing to remove from 40 CFR part 63, subpart PPPP, the current provisions requiring the SSM plan in 40 CFR 63.4500(c) and requiring reporting related to the SSM plan in 40 CFR 63.4520(c). As noted, the EPA is proposing to remove the SSM exemptions. Therefore, affected units will be subject to an emission standard during such events. The applicability of a standard during such events will ensure that sources have ample incentive to plan for and achieve compliance, and, thus, the SSM plan requirements are no longer necessary. Compliance with standards. We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table to subpart PPPP (Table 2) entry for 40 CFR 63.6(f)(1) by changing the ‘‘yes’’ in column 3 to a VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:18 Oct 31, 2019 Jkt 250001 ‘‘no.’’ The current language of 40 CFR 63.6(f)(1) exempts sources from nonopacity standards during periods of SSM. As discussed above, the Court in Sierra Club vacated the exemptions contained in this provision and held that the CAA requires that some CAA section 112 standards apply continuously. Consistent with Sierra Club, the EPA is proposing to revise standards in this rule to apply at all times. 40 CFR 63.4564 Performance testing. We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table to subpart PPPP (Table 2) entry for 40 CFR 63.7(e)(1) by changing the ‘‘yes’’ in column 3 to a ‘‘no.’’ Section 63.7(e)(1) describes performance testing requirements. The EPA is instead proposing to add a performance testing requirement at 40 CFR 63.4564(a)(1). The performance testing requirements we are proposing to add differ from the General Provisions performance testing provisions in several respects. The regulatory text does not include the language in 40 CFR 63.7(e)(1) that restated the SSM exemption and language that precluded startup and shutdown periods from being considered ‘‘representative’’ for purposes of performance testing. Also, the proposed performance testing provisions will not allow performance testing during startup or shutdown. As in 40 CFR 63.7(e)(1), performance tests conducted under this subpart should not be conducted during malfunctions because conditions during malfunctions are often not representative of normal operating conditions. Section 63.7(e) requires that the owner or operator maintain records of the process information necessary to document operating conditions during the test and include in such records an explanation to support that such conditions represent normal operation. The EPA is proposing to add language clarifying that the owner or operator must make such records available to the Administrator upon request. Monitoring. We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table to subpart PPPP (Table 2) entry for 40 CFR 63.8(a)(4) by changing the ‘‘yes’’ in column 3 to a ‘‘no.’’ Section 63.8(a)(4) describes additional monitoring requirements for control devices. Subpart PPPP of 40 CFR part 63 does not have monitoring requirements for flares. We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table to subpart PPPP (Table 2) entry for 40 CFR 63.8(c)(1) by changing the ‘‘yes’’ in column 3 to a ‘‘no.’’ The crossreferences to the general duty and SSM PO 00000 Frm 00047 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 58981 plan requirements in those subparagraphs are not necessary in light of other requirements of 40 CFR 63.8 that require good air pollution control practices (40 CFR 63.8(c)(1)) and that set out the requirements of a quality control program for monitoring equipment (40 CFR 63.8(d)). Further, we are proposing to revise 40 CFR 63.4568(a) to add a requirement to maintain the monitoring equipment at all times in accordance with 40 CFR 63.4500(b) and keep the necessary parts readily available for routine repairs of the monitoring equipment, consistent with the requirements in 40 CFR 63.8(c)(1)(ii). The reference to 40 CFR 63.8(c)(1)(ii) is no longer needed since it is redundant to the requirement in 40 CFR 63.4568(a). 40 CFR 63.4530 Recordkeeping. We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table to subpart PPPP (Table 2) entry for 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(i) by changing the ‘‘yes’’ in column 3 to a ‘‘no.’’ Section 63.10(b)(2)(i) describes the recordkeeping requirements during startup and shutdown. These recording provisions are no longer necessary because the EPA is proposing that recordkeeping and reporting applicable to normal operations will apply to startup and shutdown. In the absence of special provisions applicable to startup and shutdown, such as a startup and shutdown plan, there is no reason to retain additional recordkeeping for startup and shutdown periods. We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table to subpart PPPP (Table 2) entry for 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(ii) by changing the ‘‘yes’’ in column 3 to a ‘‘no.’’ Section 63.10(b)(2)(ii) describes the recordkeeping requirements during a malfunction, requiring a record of ‘‘the occurrence and duration of each malfunction.’’ A similar record is already required in 40 CFR 63.4530(h), which requires a record of ‘‘the date, time, and duration of each deviation,’’ which the EPA is retaining. The regulatory text in 40 CFR 63.4530(h) differs from the General Provisions in that the General Provisions requires the creation and retention of a record of the occurrence and duration of each malfunction of process, air pollution control, and monitoring equipment; whereas 40 CFR 63.4530(h) applies to any failure to meet an applicable standard and is requiring that the source record the date, time, and duration of the failure rather than the ‘‘occurrence.’’ The EPA is also proposing to add to 40 CFR 63.4530(h) a requirement that sources also keep records that include a list of the affected source or equipment and actions taken to minimize emissions, an estimate of the quantity of E:\FR\FM\01NOP2.SGM 01NOP2 58982 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 212 / Friday, November 1, 2019 / Proposed Rules each regulated pollutant emitted over the emission limit for which the source failed to meet the standard, and a description of the method used to estimate the emissions. Examples of such methods would include productloss calculations, mass balance calculations, measurements when available, or engineering judgment based on known process parameters (e.g., coating HAP content and application rates and control device efficiencies). The EPA proposes to require that sources keep records of this information to ensure that there is adequate information to allow the EPA to determine the severity of any failure to meet a standard, and to provide data that may document how the source met the general duty to minimize emissions when the source has failed to meet an applicable standard. We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table to subpart PPPP (Table 2) entry for 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(iv) by changing the ‘‘yes’’ in column 3 to a ‘‘no.’’ When applicable, the provision requires sources to record actions taken during SSM events when actions were inconsistent with their SSM plan. The requirement is no longer appropriate because SSM plans will no longer be required. The requirement previously applicable under 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(iv)(B) to record actions to minimize emissions and record corrective actions is now applicable by reference to 40 CFR 63.4530(h)(4). We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table to subpart PPPP (Table 2) entry for 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(v) by changing the ‘‘yes’’ in column 3 to a ‘‘no.’’ When applicable, the provision requires sources to record actions taken during SSM events to show that actions taken were consistent with their SSM plan. The requirement is no longer appropriate because SSM plans will no longer be required. We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table to subpart PPPP (Table 2) entry for 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(x)–(xiii) by changing the ‘‘yes’’ in column 3 to a ‘‘no.’’ When applicable, the provision requires sources to record actions taken during SSM events to show that actions taken were consistent with their SSM plan. The requirement is no longer appropriate because SSM plans will no longer be required. 40 CFR 63.4520 Reporting. We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table to subpart PPPP (Table 2) entry for 40 CFR 63.10(d)(5) by changing the ‘‘yes’’ in column 3 to a ‘‘no.’’ Section 63.10(d)(5) describes the reporting requirements for startups, shutdowns, and malfunctions. To VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:18 Oct 31, 2019 Jkt 250001 replace the General Provisions reporting requirement, the EPA is proposing to add reporting requirements to 40 CFR 63.4520(a)(7). The replacement language differs from the General Provisions requirement in that it eliminates periodic SSM reports as a stand-alone report. We are proposing language that requires sources that fail to meet an applicable standard at any time to report the information concerning such events in the semi-annual compliance report already required under this rule. Subpart PPPP of 40 CFR part 63 currently requires reporting of the date, time period, and cause of each deviation. We are clarifying in the rule that, if the cause of a deviation from a standard is unknown, this should be specified in the report. We are also proposing to change ‘‘date and time period’’ or ‘‘date and time’’ to ‘‘date, time, and duration’’ (see proposed revisions to 40 CFR 63.4520(a)(7)(vi), 63.4520(a)(7)(viii), and 63.4520(a)(7)(xiii)). Further, we are proposing that the report must also contain the number of deviations from the standard and a list of the affected sources or equipment. For deviation reports addressing deviations from an applicable emission limit in 40 CFR 63.4490 or operating limit in Table 1 to 40 CFR part 63, subpart PPPP, we are proposing that the report also include an estimate of the quantity of each regulated pollutant emitted over any emission limit for which the source failed to meet the standard, and a description of the method used to estimate the emissions. Regarding the proposed new requirement discussed above to estimate the quantity of each regulated pollutant emitted over any emission limit for which the source failed to meet the standard, and a description of the method used to estimate the emissions, examples of such methods would include product-loss calculations, mass balance calculations, measurements when available, or engineering judgment based on known process parameters (e.g., coating HAP content and application rates and control device efficiencies). The EPA is proposing this requirement to ensure that there is adequate information to determine compliance, to allow the EPA to determine the severity of the failure to meet an applicable standard, and to provide data that may document how the source met the general duty to minimize emissions during a failure to meet an applicable standard. We will no longer require owners or operators to determine whether actions taken to correct a malfunction are consistent with an SSM plan, because PO 00000 Frm 00048 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 plans would no longer be required. The proposed amendments, therefore, eliminate 40 CFR 63.4520(c) that requires reporting of whether the source deviated from its SSM plan, including required actions to communicate with the Administrator, and the crossreference to 40 CFR 63.10(d)(5) that contains the description of the previously required SSM report format and submittal schedule from this section. These specifications are no longer necessary because the events will be reported in otherwise required reports with similar format and submittal requirements. We are proposing to remove the requirements in 40 CFR 63.4520(a)(7)(viii) that deviation reports must specify whether a deviation from an operating limit occurred during a period of SSM. We are also proposing to remove the requirements in 40 CFR 63.4520(a)(7)(viii) to break down the total duration of deviations into the startup and shutdown categories. As discussed above in this section, we are proposing to require reporting of the cause of each deviation. Further, the startup and shutdown categories no longer apply because these periods are proposed to be considered normal operation, as discussed in section IV.A.4.b.1 of this preamble for the ALDT source category, which also applies to this source category. c. Technical Amendments to the Plastic Parts and Products NESHAP We propose to amend 40 CFR 63.4566(b)(4) to add the option of conducting EPA Method 18 of appendix A to 40 CFR part 60, ‘‘Measurement of Gaseous Organic Compound Emissions by Gas Chromatography,’’ to measure and then subtract methane emissions from measured total gaseous organic mass emissions as carbon. Facilities using the emission rate with add-on control compliance option can use either EPA Method 25 or EPA Method 25A to measure control device destruction efficiency. Unlike EPA Method 25, EPA Method 25A does not exclude methane from the measurement of organic emissions. Because exhaust streams from coating operations may contain methane from natural gas combustion, we are proposing to allow facilities the option to measure methane using EPA Method 18 and to subtract the methane from the emissions as part of their compliance calculations. We also propose to revise the format of references to test methods in 40 CFR part 60. The current references in 40 CFR 63.4566(a) to EPA Methods 1, 1A, 2, 2A, 2C, 2D, 2F, 2G, 3, 3A, 3B, 4, 25, and 25A specify that each method is in E:\FR\FM\01NOP2.SGM 01NOP2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 212 / Friday, November 1, 2019 / Proposed Rules ‘‘appendix A’’ of 40 CFR part 60. Appendix A of 40 CFR part 60 has been divided into appendices A–1 through A–8. We propose to revise each reference to appendix A to indicate which of the eight sections of appendix A applies to the method. We propose to amend 40 CFR 63.4541(a)(1)(i) and 63.4541(a)(4), which describe how to demonstrate compliance with the emission limitations using the compliant material option, and the definition of ‘‘non-HAP coating’’ in 40 CFR 63.4581, to remove references to OSHA-defined carcinogens as specified in 29 CFR 1910.1200(d)(4). The reference to OSHA-defined carcinogens as specified in 29 CFR 1910.1200(d)(4) is intended to specify which compounds must be included in calculating total organic HAP content of a coating material if they are present at 0.1 percent or greater by mass. We propose to remove this reference because 29 CFR 1910.1200(d)(4) has been amended and no longer readily defines which compounds are carcinogens. We propose to replace these references to OSHA-defined carcinogens at 29 CFR 1910.1200(d)(4) with a list (in proposed new Table 5 to 40 CFR part 63, subpart PPPP) 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 5 to 40 CFR part 63, subpart PPPP if they were categorized in the EPA’s Prioritized Chronic DoseResponse Values for Screening Risk Assessments (dated May 9, 2014), as a ‘‘human carcinogen,’’ ‘‘probable human carcinogen,’’ or ‘‘possible human carcinogen’’ according to The Risk Assessment Guidelines of 1986 (EPA/ 600/8–87/045, August 1987),40 or as ‘‘carcinogenic to humans,’’ ‘‘likely to be carcinogenic to humans,’’ or with ‘‘suggestive evidence of carcinogenic potential’’ according to the Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment (EPA/ 630/P–03/001F, March 2005). Current 40 CFR 63.4530 specifies records that must be maintained. We propose to add clarification to this provision at 40 CFR 63.4530(a) that specifies the allowance to retain electronic records applies to all records that were submitted as reports electronically via the EPA’s CEDRI. We also propose to add text to the same provision clarifying that this ability to maintain electronic copies does not affect the requirement for facilities to 40 See https://www.epa.gov/fera/dose-responseassessment-assessing-health-risks-associatedexposure-hazardous-air-pollutants. VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:18 Oct 31, 2019 Jkt 250001 make records, data, and reports available upon request to a delegated air agency or the EPA as part of an on-site compliance evaluation. We propose to clarify and harmonize the general requirement in 40 CFR 63.4500(b) with the reporting requirement in 40 CFR 63.4520(a)(5), 63.4520(a)(6), and 63.4520(a)(7), and the recordkeeping requirement in 40 CFR 63.4530(h)(4). d. Ongoing Emissions Compliance Demonstrations As part of an ongoing effort to improve compliance with various federal air emission regulations, the EPA reviewed the compliance demonstration requirements in the PPP NESHAP. Currently, if a source owner or operator chooses to comply with the standards using add-on controls, the results of an initial performance test are used to determine compliance; however, the rule does not require on-going periodic performance testing for these emission capture systems and add-on controls. In this action, we are proposing to require periodic testing of add-on control devices, in addition to the one-time initial emissions and capture efficiency testing, and ongoing temperature measurement, to ensure ongoing compliance with the standards. As described more fully in section IV.A.4.d of this preamble for the ALDT source category, the EPA documented potential operational problems associated with control devices in several publications; 41 the ICAC, in their comments on a separate rulemaking on the proposed revisions related to the NESHAP General Provisions (72 FR 69, January 3, 2007), commented that ongoing maintenance and checks of control devices are necessary in order to ensure emissions control technology, including both thermal and catalytic oxidizers, remains effective; 42 and state websites list CAA enforcement information that further corroborates the potential problems 41 See Control Techniques for Volatile Organic Compound Emissions from Stationary Sources, EPA/453/R–92–018, December 1992, Control Technologies for Emissions from Stationary Sources, EPA/625/6–91/014, June 1991, and Survey of Control for Low Concentration Organic Vapor Gas Streams, EPA–456/R–95–003, May 1995. These documents can be found in the Automobiles and Light-Duty Trucks, Miscellaneous Metal Parts, and Plastic Parts and Products Dockets for this action. 42 See Docket Item No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2004– 0094–0173, available at www.regulations.gov. A copy of the ICAC’s comments on the proposed revisions to the General Provisions is also included in the Automobiles and Light-Duty Trucks, Miscellaneous Metal Parts, and Plastic Parts and Products Dockets for this action. PO 00000 Frm 00049 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 58983 identified by the EPA and ICAC comments and conclusions. Given the need for vigilance in maintaining equipment to stem degradation, the EPA is proposing to require periodic testing of add-on control devices, in addition to the onetime initial emissions and capture efficiency testing and ongoing temperature measurement, to ensure ongoing compliance with the PPP NESHAP. In this action, the EPA is requiring periodic performance testing of add-on control devices on a regular frequency (e.g., every 5 years) to ensure the equipment continues to operate properly for facilities using the emission rate with add-on controls compliance option. We note that about half of the state operating permits for existing plastic parts coating sources already require such testing every 5 years synchronized with 40 CFR part 70 air operating permit renewals. This proposed periodic testing requirement includes an exception to the general requirement for periodic testing for facilities using the catalytic oxidizer control option at 40 CFR 63.4567(b) and following the catalyst maintenance procedures in 40 CFR 63.4567(b)(4). This exception is due to the catalyst maintenance procedures that already require annual testing of the catalyst and other maintenance procedures that provide ongoing demonstrations that the control system is operating properly and may, thus, be considered comparable to conducting a performance test. The proposed periodic performance testing requirement allows an exception from periodic testing for facilities using instruments to continuously measure emissions. Such CEMS would show actual emissions. The use of CEMS to demonstrate compliance would obviate the need for periodic oxidizer testing. Moreover, installation and operation of a CEMS with a timesharing component, such that values from more than one oxidizer exhaust could be tabulated in a recurring frequency, could prove less expensive (estimated to have an annual cost below $15,000) than ongoing oxidizer testing. This proposed requirement would not require periodic testing or CEMS monitoring of facilities using the compliant material or the emission rate without add-on controls options because these compliance options do not use any add-on controls or control efficiency measurements in the compliance calculations. The proposed periodic performance testing requirement would require that facilities complying with the standards using emission capture systems and E:\FR\FM\01NOP2.SGM 01NOP2 58984 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 212 / Friday, November 1, 2019 / Proposed Rules add-on controls and which are not already on a 5-year testing schedule to conduct the first of the periodic performance tests within 3 years of the effective date of the revised standards. Afterward, they would conduct the periodic testing before they renew their operating permits, but no longer than 5 years following the previous performance test. Additionally, facilities that have already tested as a condition of their permit within the last 2 years before the effective date would be permitted to maintain their current 5year schedule and not be required to move up the date of the next test to the 3-year date specified above. This proposed requirement would require periodic air emissions testing to measure organic HAP destruction or removal efficiency at the inlet and outlet of the add-on control device. The emissions would be measured as total gaseous organic mass emissions as carbon using either EPA Method 25 or 25A of appendix A–7 to 40 CFR part 60, which are the methods currently required for the initial compliance demonstration. We estimate that the cost to perform a control device emissions destruction or removal efficiency test using EPA Method 25 or 25A would be approximately $19,000 per control device. The cost estimate is included in the memorandum titled Draft Costs/ Impacts of the 40 CFR part 63 Subparts IIII, MMMM and PPPP Monitoring Review Revisions, in the ALDT, MMPP, and PPP Dockets. We have reviewed the operating permits for facilities subject to the several other surface coating NESHAP, and we found that affected sources currently using emission capture systems and add-on controls are often, but not always, required to conduct periodic control device performance tests as a condition of their 40 CFR part 70 operating permits. We estimate that three PPP surface coating facilities currently are not required to conduct periodic testing of their control devices as a condition of their permit renewal. Periodic performance tests ensure that all control systems used to comply with the NESHAP would be properly maintained over time, thereby reducing the potential for acute emissions episodes and noncompliance. We are requesting comment on adding periodic testing of add-on control devices to the PPP NESHAP and on the suggested 5-year schedule for the periodic testing. VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:18 Oct 31, 2019 Jkt 250001 e. IBR of Alternative Test Methods Under 1 CFR Part 51 The EPA is proposing new and updated test methods for the PPP NESHAP that include IBR. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is proposing to add the following optional EPA method and incorporate by reference the VCS described in the amendments to 40 CFR 63.14: • EPA Method 18 of appendix A to 40 CFR part 60, Measurement of Gaseous Organic Compound Emissions by Gas Chromatography, proposed for 40 CFR 63.4566(b)(4); • ASTM Method D1475–13, Standard Test Method for Density of Liquid Coatings, Inks, and Related Products, proposed to be IBR approved for 40 CFR 63.4551(c); • ASTM Method D2111–10 (2015), Standard Test Methods for Specific Gravity of Halogenated Organic Solvents and Their Admixtures, proposed to be IBR approved for 40 CFR 63.4551(c); and • ASTM Method D2369–10 (2015), Test Method for Volatile Content of Coatings, proposed to be IBR approved for 40 CFR 63.4541(a)(2) and 634561(j)(3). An older version of ASTM Method D1475 was incorporated by reference when the PPP NESHAP was originally promulgated (69 FR 20968, April 19, 2004). We are proposing to replace the older version of this method with an updated version, which requires IBR revisions. The updated version of the method replaces the older version in the same paragraph of the rule text. We are also proposing the addition of EPA Method 18 and incorporating by reference ASTM Methods D2111 and D2369 to the PPP NESHAP for the first time in this rulemaking. Refer to section VIII.J of this preamble for further discussion of these VCS. 5. What compliance dates are we proposing? The EPA is proposing that affected sources must comply with all of the amendments, with the exception of the proposed electronic format for submitting semiannual compliance reports, no later than 181 days after the effective date of the final rule. All affected facilities would have to continue to meet the current requirements of 40 CFR part 63, subpart PPPP 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). PO 00000 Frm 00050 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 For existing sources, we are proposing two changes that would impact ongoing compliance requirements for 40 CFR part 63, subpart PPPP. As discussed elsewhere in this preamble, we are proposing to add a requirement that notifications, performance test results, and semiannual compliance reports be submitted electronically. We are proposing that the semiannual compliance report be submitted electronically using a new template, which is available for review and comment as part of this action. We are also proposing to change the requirements for SSM by removing the exemption from the requirements to meet the standard during SSM periods and by removing the requirement to develop and implement an SSM plan. Our experience with similar industries that are required to convert reporting mechanisms to install necessary hardware and software, become familiar with the process of submitting performance test results electronically through the EPA’s CEDRI, test these new electronic submission capabilities, and reliably employ electronic reporting shows that a time period of a minimum of 90 days, and, more typically, 180 days is generally necessary to successfully accomplish these revisions. Our experience with similar industries further shows that this sort of regulated facility generally requires a time period of 180 days to read and understand the amended rule requirements; to evaluate their operations to ensure that they can meet the standards during periods of startup and shutdown as defined in the rule and make any necessary adjustments; and to update their operation, maintenance, and monitoring plan to reflect the revised requirements. The EPA recognizes the confusion that multiple different compliance dates for individual requirements would create and the additional burden such an assortment of dates would impose. From our assessment of the 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 181 days of the regulation’s effective date. We solicit comment on these proposed compliance periods, and we specifically request submission of information from sources in this source category regarding specific actions that would need to be undertaken to comply with the proposed amended requirements and the time needed to E:\FR\FM\01NOP2.SGM 01NOP2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 212 / Friday, November 1, 2019 / Proposed Rules make the adjustments for compliance with any of the revised requirements. We note that information provided may result in changes to the proposed compliance dates. D. Proposed Corrections to Earlier Subparts We are proposing the following corrections to three subparts that were amended in a final rule notice published in the Federal Register on March 15, 2019 (84 FR 9590). The proposed corrections are to the NESHAP for Surface Coating of Large Appliances (40 CFR part 63, subpart NNNN); the NESHAP for Printing, Coating, and Dyeing of Fabrics and Other Textiles (40 CFR part 63, subpart OOOO); and the NESHAP for Surface Coating of Metal Furniture (40 CFR part 63, subpart RRRR). Note that these proposed corrections are not published in the amendatory rule text in the Federal Register (see 84 FR 9590) and are discussed below. We are proposing to correct 40 CFR 63.4168 of subpart NNNN. The original instructions to 40 CFR 63.4168 in the final rule were, ‘‘Section 63.4168 is amended by revising paragraphs (a)(4) and (5) and (c)(2) and (3) to read as follows . . .’’ (84 FR 9618). The instructions should have said, ‘‘Section 63.4168 is amended by revising paragraphs (a)(4) and (5) and (c)(2) and the introductory text of (c)(3) to read as follows . . .’’ As a result, the subparagraphs 40 CFR 63.4168(c)(3)(i) through (iii), which were not intended to be affected by this action, were deleted in the CFR. We are proposing to insert these paragraphs back into the CFR. Please submit any comments on this proposed correction to the docket for the Surface Coating of Large Appliances (Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– OAR–2017–0670). We are proposing to correct 40 CFR 63.4371 of subpart OOOO. The instructions in the final rule were to revise the definition of ‘‘Deviation,’’ but the amendatory text contained revised definitions of ‘‘Deviation’’ and ‘‘No organic HAP.’’ The current definition of ‘‘No organic HAP’’ in the CFR contains a reference that is no longer accurate. The instruction to revise the definition of ‘‘No organic HAP’’ was inadvertently deleted; and, the new definition was not inserted. We are proposing to insert this new definition as indicated in the amendatory language in the final rule (84 FR 9631, March 15, 2019). Please submit any comments on this proposed correction to the docket for the Printing, Coating, and Dyeing of Fabrics and Other Textiles (Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– OAR–2017–0668). VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:18 Oct 31, 2019 Jkt 250001 We are proposing to correct 40 CFR 63.4965 of subpart RRRR. The original instructions to 40 CFR 63.4965 in the final rule were, ‘‘Section 63.4965 is amended by revising paragraphs (a)(1) through (4) and paragraph (b) to read as follows . . .’’ (84 FR 9641). The instructions should have said, ‘‘Section 63.4965 is amended by revising paragraphs (a)(1) through (4) and the introductory text of paragraph (b) to read as follows . . .’’ As a result, the subparagraphs 40 CFR 63.4965(b)(1) through (3), which were not intended to be affected by this action, were deleted in the CFR. We are proposing to insert these paragraphs back into the CFR. Please submit any comments on this proposed correction to the docket for the Surface Coating of Metal Furniture (Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2017– 0669). V. Summary of Cost, Environmental, and Economic Impacts A. What are the affected sources? Currently, we estimate 43 major source facilities are subject to the ALDT NESHAP and operating in the United States. The affected source under the NESHAP is the collection of all coating operations; all storage containers and mixing vessels in which coatings, thinners, and cleaning materials are stored or mixed; all manual and automated equipment and containers used for conveying coatings, thinners, and cleaning materials; and all storage containers and all manual and automated equipment and containers used for conveying waste materials generated by a coating operation. A coating operation is defined as the equipment used to apply coating to a substrate (coating application) and to dry or cure the coating after application. A single coating operation always includes at least the point at which a coating is applied and all subsequent points in the affected source where organic HAP emissions from that coating occur. There may be multiple coating operations in an affected source. Coating application with hand-held nonrefillable aerosol containers, touchup bottles, touchup markers, marking pens, or pinstriping equipment is not a coating operation for the purposes of this subpart. The application of temporary materials such as protective oils and ‘‘travel waxes’’ that are designed to be removed from the vehicle before it is delivered to a retail purchaser is not a coating operation for the purposes of 40 CFR part 63, subpart IIII. Currently, we estimate 368 major source facilities are subject to the MMPP PO 00000 Frm 00051 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 58985 NESHAP and operating in the United States. The affected source under the NESHAP is the collection of all coating operations; all storage containers and mixing vessels in which coatings, thinners, and cleaning materials are stored or mixed; all manual and automated equipment and containers used for conveying coatings, thinners, and cleaning materials; and all storage containers and all manual and automated equipment and containers used for conveying waste materials generated by a coating operation. A coating operation is defined as the equipment used to apply cleaning materials to a substrate to prepare it for coating application (surface preparation) or to remove dried coating; to apply coating to a substrate (coating application) and to dry or cure the coating after application; or to clean coating operation equipment (equipment cleaning). A single coating operation may include any combination of these types of equipment, but always includes at least the point at which a given quantity of coating or cleaning material is applied to a given part and all subsequent points in the affected source where organic HAP are emitted from the specific quantity of coating or cleaning material on the specific part. There may be multiple coating operations in an affected source. Coating application with handheld, nonrefillable aerosol containers, touch-up markers, or marking pens is not a coating operation for the purposes of 40 CFR part 63, subpart MMMM. Currently, we estimate 125 major source facilities are subject to the PPP NESHAP and operating in the United States. The affected source under the NESHAP is the collection of coating operations; all storage containers and mixing vessels in which coatings, thinners, and cleaning materials are stored or mixed; all manual and automated equipment and containers used for conveying coatings, thinners, and cleaning materials; and all storage containers and all manual and automated equipment and containers used for conveying waste materials generated by a coating operation. A coating operation is defined as the equipment used to apply cleaning materials to a substrate to prepare it for coating application (surface preparation) or to remove dried coating; to apply coating to a substrate (coating application) and to dry or cure the coating after application; or to clean coating operation equipment (equipment cleaning). A single coating operation may include any combination of these types of equipment, but always E:\FR\FM\01NOP2.SGM 01NOP2 58986 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 212 / Friday, November 1, 2019 / Proposed Rules includes at least the point at which a given quantity of coating or cleaning material is applied to a given part and all subsequent points in the affected source where organic HAP are emitted from the specific quantity of coating or cleaning material on the specific part. There may be multiple coating operations in an affected source. Coating application with handheld, nonrefillable aerosol containers, touch-up markers, or marking pens is not a coating operation for the purposes of 40 CFR part 63, subpart PPPP. B. What are the air quality impacts? At the current level of control, estimated emissions of volatile organic HAP from the 43 facilities in the ALDT source category are approximately 1,700 tpy. Current estimated emissions of volatile organic HAP from the 368 facilities in the MMPP source category are approximately 2,700 tpy. Current estimated emissions of volatile organic HAP from the 125 facilities in the PPP source category are approximately 760 tpy. The proposed amendments require that all major sources in the ALDT, MMPP, and PPP source categories comply with the relevant emission standards at all times, including periods of SSM. We were unable to quantify the emissions that occur during periods of SSM or the specific emissions reductions that would occur as a result of this action. However, eliminating the SSM exemption has the potential to reduce emissions by requiring facilities to meet the applicable standard during SSM periods. Indirect or secondary air emissions impacts are impacts that would result from the increased electricity usage associated with the operation of control devices (e.g., increased secondary emissions of criteria pollutants from power plants). Energy impacts consist of the electricity and steam needed to operate control devices and other equipment. The proposed amendments would have no effect on the energy needs of the affected facilities in any of the three source categories and would, therefore, have no indirect or secondary air emissions impacts. C. What are the cost impacts? We estimate that each facility in these three source categories will experience costs as a result of these proposed amendments that are estimated as part of the reporting and recordkeeping costs. Each facility will experience costs to read and understand the rule amendments. Costs associated with elimination of the SSM exemption were estimated as part of the reporting and VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:53 Oct 31, 2019 Jkt 250001 recordkeeping costs and include time for re-evaluating previously developed SSM record systems. Costs associated with the requirement to electronically submit notifications and semi-annual compliance reports using CEDRI were estimated as part of the reporting and recordkeeping costs and include time for becoming familiar with CEDRI and the reporting template for semi-annual compliance reports. The recordkeeping and reporting costs are presented in section V.III.C of this preamble. We are also proposing a requirement for performance testing no less frequently than every 5 years for sources in each source category using the addon controls compliance options. We estimate that five major source facilities subject to the ALDT NESHAP would incur costs to conduct periodic testing because they are currently using the emission rate with add-on controls compliance option. This total does not include facilities in the source category that have add-on controls and are currently required to perform periodic performance testing as a condition of their state operating permit. The cost for a facility to conduct a destruction or removal efficiency performance test using EPA Method 25 or 25A is estimated to be about $19,000, and the total cost for all five facilities subject to the ALDT NESHAP in a single year would be $95,000. Similarly, we estimate that seven major source facilities subject to the MMPP NESHAP would incur costs to conduct periodic testing because they are currently using the emission rate with add-on controls compliance option, at a total cost in a single year of $133,000. Finally, we estimate that three major source facilities subject to the PPP NESHAP, at a cost in a single year of $57,000. For further information on the potential costs, see the memorandum titled Draft Costs/Impacts of the 40 CFR Part 63 Subparts IIII, MMMM, and PPPP Monitoring Review Revisions, June 2019, in the ALDT, MMPP, and PPP Dockets. D. What are the economic impacts? The economic impact analysis is designed to inform decision makers about the potential economic consequences of a regulatory action. For the current proposals, the EPA estimated the cost of becoming familiar with the rule and re-evaluating previously developed SSM record systems and performing periodic emissions testing at certain facilities with add-on controls that are not already required to perform testing. To assess the maximum potential impact, the largest cost expected to be experienced in any one year is PO 00000 Frm 00052 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 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 ALDT NESHAP, the total cost is estimated to be approximately $110,000 for the 43 affected entities in the first year of the rule, and an additional $120,000 in testing and reporting costs for five facilities in the third year of the rule and every 5 years thereafter. The 43 affected facilities are owned by 14 different parent companies, and the total costs associated with the proposed requirements range from 0.000002 to 0.0056 percent of annual sales revenue per ultimate owner. These costs are not expected to result in a significant market impact, regardless of whether they are passed on to the purchaser or absorbed by the firms. For the proposed revisions to the MMPP NESHAP, the total cost is estimated to be approximately $960,000 for the 368 affected entities in the first year of the rule, and an additional $170,000 in testing and reporting costs for seven facilities in the third year of the rule and every 5 years thereafter. The 368 affected facilities are owned by 265 different parent companies, and the total costs associated with the proposed requirements range from 0.000002 to 0.25 percent of annual sales revenue per ultimate owner. These costs are not expected to result in a significant market impact, regardless of whether they are passed on to the purchaser or absorbed by the firms. For the proposed revisions to the PPP NESHAP, the total cost is estimated to be approximately $330,000 for the 125 affected entities in the first year of the rule, and an additional $74,000 in testing and reporting costs for three facilities in the third year of the rule and every 5 years thereafter. The 125 affected facilities are owned by 94 different parent companies, and the total costs associated with the proposed requirements range from 0.000008 to 0.22 percent of annual sales revenue per ultimate owner. These costs are not expected to result in a significant market impact, regardless of whether they are passed on to the purchaser or absorbed by the firms. The EPA also prepared a small business screening assessment to determine whether any of the identified affected entities are small entities, as defined by the U.S. Small Business Administration. One of the facilities potentially affected by the proposed revisions to the ALDT NESHAP is a small entity. However, the annualized costs associated with the proposed requirement is 0.0056 percent of annual E:\FR\FM\01NOP2.SGM 01NOP2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 212 / Friday, November 1, 2019 / Proposed Rules sales revenue for the owner of that facility. Of the facilities potentially affected by the proposed revisions to the MMPP NESHAP, 110 are small entities. However, the annualized costs associated with the proposed requirements for the 103 ultimate owners of these 110 affected small entities range from 0.001 to 0.25 percent of annual sales revenues per ultimate owner. Of the facilities potentially affected by the proposed revisions to the PPP NESHAP, 35 are small entities. However, the annualized costs associated with the proposed requirements for the 35 ultimate owners of these 35 affected small entities range from 0.0009 to 0.22 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? As stated above in section V.B. of this preamble, we were unable to quantify the specific emissions reductions associated with eliminating the SSM exemption, although this proposed change has the potential to reduce emissions of volatile organic HAP. Because these proposed amendments are not considered economically significant, as defined by Executive Order 12866, we did not monetize the benefits of reducing these emissions. This does not mean that there are no benefits associated with the potential reduction in volatile organic HAP from this rule. VI. Request for Comments We solicit comments on this proposed action. In addition to general comments on this proposed action, we are also interested in additional data that may improve the risk assessments and other analyses. We are specifically interested in receiving any improvements to the data used in the site-specific emissions profiles used for risk modeling. Such data should include supporting documentation in sufficient detail to allow characterization of the quality and representativeness of the data or information. Section VII of this preamble provides more information on submitting data. VII. Submitting Data Corrections The site-specific emissions profiles used in the source category risk and demographic analyses and instructions are available for download on the RTR website at https://www.epa.gov/ stationary-sources-air-pollution/surfacecoating-automobiles-and-light-dutytrucks-national-emission, for the ALDT VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:18 Oct 31, 2019 Jkt 250001 NESHAP; https://www.epa.gov/ stationary-sources-air-pollution/surfacecoating-miscellaneous-metal-parts-andproducts-national for the MMPP NESHAP; and https://www.epa.gov/ stationary-sources-air-pollution/surfacecoating-plastic-parts-and-productsnational-emission for the PPP NESHAP. The data files include detailed information for each HAP emissions release point for the facilities in these source categories. If you believe that the data are not representative or are inaccurate, please identify the data in question, provide your reason for concern, and provide any ‘‘improved’’ data that you have, if available. When you submit data, you must provide documentation of the basis for the revised values to support your suggested changes. To submit comments on the data downloaded from the RTR website, complete the following steps: 1. Within this downloaded file, enter suggested revisions to the data fields appropriate for that information. 2. Fill in the commenter information fields for each suggested revision (i.e., commenter name, commenter organization, commenter email address, commenter phone number, and revision comments). 3. Gather documentation for any suggested emissions revisions (e.g., performance test reports, material balance calculations). 4. Send the entire downloaded file with suggested revisions in Microsoft® Access format and all accompanying documentation to the ALDT, MMPP, or PPP Docket, as applicable (through the method described in the ADDRESSES section of this preamble). 5. If you are providing comments on a single facility or multiple facilities, you need only submit one file for all facilities. The file should contain all suggested changes for all sources at that facility (or facilities). We request that all data revision comments be submitted in the form of updated Microsoft® 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/surface-coating-automobilesand-light-duty-trucks-national-emission, for the ALDT NESHAP; https:// www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-airpollution/surface-coatingmiscellaneous-metal-parts-andproducts-national for the MMPP NESHAP; and https://www.epa.gov/ stationary-sources-air-pollution/surfacecoating-plastic-parts-and-productsnational-emission for the PPP NESHAP. PO 00000 Frm 00053 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 58987 VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews Additional information about these statutes and Executive Orders can be found at https://www.epa.gov/lawsregulations/laws-and-executive-orders. A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review This action is not a significant regulatory action and was, therefore, not submitted to OMB for review. B. Executive Order 13771: Reducing Regulations and Controlling Regulatory Costs This action is not expected to be an Executive Order 13771 regulatory action because this action is not significant under Executive Order 12866. C. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) The information collection activities in this proposal have been submitted for approval to OMB under the PRA, as discussed for each source category covered by this proposal in sections VIII.C.1 through 3. 1. Surface Coating of Automobiles and Light-Duty Trucks The Information Collection Request (ICR) document that the EPA prepared has been assigned EPA ICR number 2045.07. You can find a copy of the ICR in the ALDT Docket (Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2019–0314), and it is briefly summarized here. As part of the RTR for the ALDT NESHAP, the EPA is not proposing to revise the emission limit requirements. The EPA is proposing to revise the SSM provisions of the rule and proposing the use of electronic data reporting for future performance test data submittals, notifications, and reports. This information is being collected to assure compliance with 40 CFR part 63, subpart IIII. Respondents/affected entities: Facilities performing surface coating of automobiles and light-duty trucks. Respondent’s obligation to respond: Mandatory (40 CFR part 63, subpart IIII). Estimated number of respondents: In the 3 years after the amendments are final, approximately 43 respondents per year would be subject to the NESHAP and no additional respondents are expected to become subject to the NESHAP during that period. Frequency of response: The total number of responses in year 1 is 129 and in year 3 is 15. Year 2 would have no responses. Total estimated burden: The average annual burden to the ALDT surface E:\FR\FM\01NOP2.SGM 01NOP2 58988 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 212 / Friday, November 1, 2019 / Proposed Rules coating facilities over the 3 years if the amendments are finalized is estimated to be 410 hours (per year). The average annual burden to the Agency over the 3 years after the amendments are final is estimated to be 19 hours (per year). Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b). Total estimated cost: The average annual cost to the ALDT surface coating facilities is $47,000 in labor costs and in the first 3 years after the amendments are final. The average annual capital and operation and maintenance (O&M) costs is $32,000. The total average annual Agency cost over the first 3 years after the amendments are final is estimated to be $910. 2. Surface Coating of Miscellaneous Metal Parts and Products The ICR document that the EPA prepared has been assigned EPA ICR number 2056.07. You can find a copy of the ICR in the MMPP Docket (Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2019–0312), and it is briefly summarized here. As part of the RTR for the MMPP NESHAP, the EPA is not proposing to revise the emission limit requirements. The EPA is proposing to revise the SSM provisions of the rule and proposing the use of electronic data reporting for future performance test data submittals, notifications, and reports. This information is being collected to assure compliance with 40 CFR part 63, subpart MMMM. Respondents/affected entities: Facilities performing surface coating of miscellaneous metal parts and products. Respondent’s obligation to respond: Mandatory (40 CFR part 63, subpart MMMM). Estimated number of respondents: In the 3 years after the amendments are final, approximately 368 respondents per year will be subject to the NESHAP and no additional respondents are expected to become subject to the NESHAP during that period. Frequency of response: The total number of responses in year 1 is 1,104 and in year 3 is 14. Year 2 would have no responses. Total estimated burden: The average annual burden to the MMPP surface coating facilities over the 3 years if the amendments are finalized is estimated to be 2,934 hours (per year). The average annual burden to the Agency over the 3 years after the amendments are final is estimated to be 27 hours (per year) for the Agency. Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b). Total estimated cost: The average annual cost to the MMPP surface coating facilities is $334,000 in labor costs in the first 3 years after the amendments are final. The average VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:18 Oct 31, 2019 Jkt 250001 annual capital and O&M cost is $44,000. The average annual Agency cost over the first 3 years after the amendments are final is estimated to be $1,300. 3. Surface Coating of Plastic Parts and Products The ICR document that the EPA prepared has been assigned EPA ICR number 2044.07. You can find a copy of the ICR in the PPP Docket (Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2019–0313), and it is briefly summarized here. As part of the RTR for the PPP NESHAP, the EPA is not proposing to revise the emission limit requirements. The EPA is proposing to revise the SSM provisions of the rule and proposing the use of electronic data reporting for future performance test data submittals, notifications, and reports. This information is being collected to assure compliance with 40 CFR part 63, subpart PPPP. Respondents/affected entities: Facilities performing surface coating of plastic parts and products. Respondent’s obligation to respond: Mandatory (40 CFR part 63, subpart PPPP). Estimated number of respondents: In the 3 years after the amendments are final, approximately 125 respondents per year will be subject to the NESHAP and no additional respondents are expected to become subject to the NESHAP during that period. Frequency of response: The total number of responses in year 1 is 375 and in year 3 is 9. Year 2 would have no responses. Total estimated burden: The average annual burden to the PPP surface coating facilities over the 3 years if the amendments are finalized is estimated to be 1,007 hours (per year). The average annual burden to the Agency over the 3 years after the amendments are final is estimated to be 18 hours (per year) for the Agency. Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b). Total estimated cost: The average annual cost to the PPP surface coating facilities is $115,000 in labor costs in the first 3 years after the amendments are final. The average annual capital and O&M cost is $19,000. The average annual Agency cost over the first 3 years after the amendments are final is estimated to be $870. 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 PO 00000 Frm 00054 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 accuracy of the provided burden estimates and any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden to the EPA using the dockets identified at the beginning of this rule. You may also send your ICR-related comments to OMB’s Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs via email to OIRA_ submission@omb.eop.gov, Attention: Desk Officer for the EPA. Since OMB is required to make a decision concerning the ICR between 30 and 60 days after receipt, OMB must receive comments no later than December 2, 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 economic impact associated with the proposed requirements in this action for the affected small entities is described in section V.D. above. E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) This action does not contain an unfunded mandate of $100 million or more as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531–1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. The action imposes no enforceable duty on any state, local, or tribal governments or the private sector. F. Executive Order 13132: Federalism This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. G. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments This action does not have tribal implications as specified in Executive Order 13175. No tribal facilities are known to be engaged in any of the industries that would be affected by this action (ALDT surface coating, MMPP surface coating, and PPP surface coating). Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action. H. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is not economically significant as defined in Executive Order 12866, and because the EPA does not believe the environmental E:\FR\FM\01NOP2.SGM 01NOP2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 212 / Friday, November 1, 2019 / Proposed Rules health or safety risks addressed by this action present a disproportionate risk to children. This action’s health and risk assessments are contained in sections III.A and C, IV.A.1 and 2, IV.B.1 and 2, and IV.C.1 and 2 of this preamble and are further documented in the Automobiles and Light-Duty Trucks Risk Assessment Report, in the ALDT Docket, Miscellaneous Metal Parts and Products Risk Assessment Report, in the MMPP Docket and the Plastic Parts and Products Risk Assessment Report, in the PPP Docket. I. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211 because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866. J. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) and 1 CFR Part 51 This rulemaking involves technical standards. We are proposing to amend the ALDT NESHAP, the MMPP NESHAP, and the PPP NESHAP in this action to provide owners and operators with the option of using two new methods. We are proposing to add EPA Method 18 of appendix A to 40 CFR part 60, ‘‘Measurement of Gaseous Organic Compound Emissions by Gas Chromatography’’ to measure and subtract methane emissions from measured total gaseous organic mass emissions as carbon. We are also proposing to amend each of these NESHAP to incorporate by reference ASTM Method D2369–10 (2015), ‘‘Test Method for Volatile Content of Coatings’’ into these three NESHAP as an alternative to EPA Method 24 for the determination of the volatile matter content in surface coatings. ASTM Method D2369–10 (2015) is a test method that allows for more accurate results for multi-component chemical resistant coatings. We are proposing to amend the MMPP NESHAP and the PPP NESHAP to incorporate by reference ASTM Method D2111–10 (2015), ‘‘Standard Test Methods for Specific Gravity of Halogenated Organic Solvents and Their Admixtures,’’ as an alternative to ASTM Method D1475–13. ASTM Method D2111–10 (2015) is a test method that allows measurement of specific gravity at different temperatures that are chosen by the analyst. We are proposing to amend all three NESHAP to update ASTM Method D1475–98, ‘‘Standard Test Method for Density of Liquid Coatings, Inks, and VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:18 Oct 31, 2019 Jkt 250001 Related Products,’’ by incorporating by reference ASTM Method D1475–13. This test method covers the measurement of the density of paints, inks, varnishes, lacquers, and components thereof, other than pigments, when in fluid form. We are proposing to amend the ALDT NESHAP and the MMPP NESHAP to update ASTM Method D2697–86 (1998), ‘‘Standard Test Method for Volume Nonvolatile Matter in Clear or Pigmented Coatings,’’ by incorporating by reference ASTM Method D2697–03 (2014), which is the updated version of the previously approved method, and to update ASTM Method D6093–97 (2003), ‘‘Standard Test Method for Percent Volume Nonvolatile Matter in Clear or Pigmented Coatings Using Helium Gas Pycnometer,’’ by incorporating by reference ASTM Method D6093–97 (2016), which is the updated version of the previously approved method. ASTM Method D2697–03 (2014) is a test method that can be used to determine the volume of nonvolatile matter in clear and pigmented coatings and ASTM Method D6093–97 (2016) is a test method that can be used to determine the percent volume of nonvolatile matter in clear and pigmented coatings. We are proposing to amend the ALDT NESHAP to update ASTM D5066–91, ‘‘Standard Test Method for Determination of the Transfer Efficiency Under Production Conditions for Spray Application of Automotive PaintsWeight Basis,’’ by incorporating by reference ASTM D5066–91 (Reapproved 2017). This test method covers procedures for determination of the transfer efficiency (using a weight method) under production conditions for in-plant spray application of automotive paints as outlined in Section 18 of EPA 450/3–88–018. We are proposing to amend the ALDT NESHAP and the MMPP NESHAP to update ASTM Method D5965, ‘‘Standard Test Methods for Specific Gravity of Coating Powders,’’ by incorporating by reference ASTM Method D5965–02 (2013). These test methods cover three procedures for determining the specific gravity (see definition) of coating powders, i.e., Test Method A—For Testing Coating Powders, Excluding Metallics; Test Method B—For Tests Requiring Greater Precision than Test Method A, Including Metallics, Using Helium Pycnometry; and Test Method C—For Theoretical Calculation Based on Raw Material. We are proposing to amend the ALDT NESHAP to update ASTM D6266–00a, ‘‘Test Method for Determining the Amount of Volatile Organic Compound PO 00000 Frm 00055 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 58989 (VOC) Released from Waterborne Automotive Coatings and Available for Removal in a VOC Control Device (Abatement),’’ by incorporating by reference ASTM D6266–00a (Reapproved 2017). This test method describes the determination of the amount of VOC released from applied waterborne automotive coatings that is available for delivery to a VOC control device. The determination is accomplished by measuring the weight loss of a freshly coated test panel subject to evaporation or drying and by analysis of the VOC or water content in the coating. The ASTM standards are available from the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM), 100 Barr Harbor Drive, Post Office Box C700, West Conshohocken, PA 19428–2959. See https://www.astm.org/. The EPA is proposing to amend the ALDT NESHAP to incorporate by reference EPA–450/3–88–018 ‘‘Protocol for Determining Daily Volatile Organic Compound Emission Rate of Automobile and Light Duty Truck Topcoat Operations’’ for use in §§ 63.3161(f), 63.3165(e). This protocol determines the daily VOC emission rate (pounds of VOC per gallon of coating solids deposited) for a complete automobile and light-duty truck topcoat operation and is available in the ALDT Docket. The protocol is designed for uses in cases where topcoat emission limit is stated in units of pounds of VOC per gallon of solids deposited, compliance is demonstrated each day, and entire topcoat operation is treated as a single entity. The protocol uses the number of square feet coated on each vehicle in each booth with each coating as the basis for the daily weighting of individual transfer efficiency and bake oven exhaust control values. The method is intended to apply to primary coatings for new ALDT bodies, body parts for new ALDT, and other parts that are coated along with these bodies or body parts. It can also be downloaded from EPA’s website at the National Service Center for Environmental Publications, just access the following website at https://nepis.epa.gov and search either the title or document number. The EPA is not proposing ASTM Method D1963–85 (1996), ‘‘Standard Test Method for Specific Gravity of Drying Oils, Varnishes, Resins, and Related Materials at 25/25 C,’’ as an alternative for the determination of the specific gravity because ASTM has withdrawn the method without replacement. The EPA is also not proposing California Air Resources Board Method 310, ‘‘Determination of Volatile Organic E:\FR\FM\01NOP2.SGM 01NOP2 58990 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 212 / Friday, November 1, 2019 / Proposed Rules Compounds in Consumer Products and Reactive Organic Compounds in Aerosol Coating Products,’’ as an alternative to EPA Method 24 because the EPA has approved the method only for consumer products and aerosol coatings, which do not apply to the rulemakings or source categories addressed in this action. ASTM D5087–02 was previously approved for incorporation by reference into § 63.3165(e). Although we identified another 14 VCS for ALDT, MMPP, and PPP as being possible alternatives for methods included in these rules, we are not proposing to add these VCS in these rulemakings. See the memoranda titled Voluntary Consensus Standard Results for Surface Coating of Automobiles and Light-duty Trucks, June 2019, Voluntary Consensus Standard Results for Surface Coating of Miscellaneous Metal Parts and Products, June 2019, and Voluntary Consensus Standard Results for Surface Coating of Plastic Parts and Products, June 2019, in the ALDT Docket, MMPP Docket, and the PPP Docket, respectively, for the reasons for these determinations. Under 40 CFR 63.7(f) and 40 CFR 63.8(f) of subpart A of the General Provisions, a source may apply to the EPA for permission to use alternative test methods or alternative monitoring requirements in place of any required testing methods, performance specifications, or procedures in the final rule or any amendments. The EPA welcomes comments on this aspect of the proposed rulemaking and, specifically, invites the public to identify potentially applicable VCS and to explain why such standards should be used in this regulation. K. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations The EPA believes that this action does not have disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority populations, lowincome populations, and/or indigenous peoples, as specified in Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). The documentation for this decision is contained in sections IV.A.1 and 2, sections IV.B.1 and 2, and IV.C.1 and 2 of this preamble and the technical reports titled Risk and Technology Review—Analysis of Demographic Factors for Populations Living Near Surface Coating of Automobiles and Light-Duty Trucks Source Category Operations, March 2019, Risk and Technology Review—Analysis of Demographic Factors for Populations Living Near Surface Coating of VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:18 Oct 31, 2019 Jkt 250001 Miscellaneous Metal Parts and Products Source Category Operations, May 2019, and Risk and Technology Review— Analysis of Demographic Factors for Populations Living Near Surface Coating of Plastic Parts and Products Source Category Operations, April 2019, available in the ALDT Docket, MMPP Docket, and the PPP Docket, respectively. As discussed in sections IV.A.1, IV.B.1, and IV.C.1 of this preamble, we performed a demographic analysis for each source category, which is an assessment of risks to individual demographic groups, of the population close to the facilities (within 50 km and within 5 km). In this analysis, we evaluated the distribution of HAPrelated cancer risks and noncancer hazards from the ALDT, MMPP, and PPP source categories across different social, demographic, and economic groups within the populations living near operations identified as having the highest risks. The results of the ALDT source category demographic analysis indicate that approximately 15,000 people are exposed to a cancer risk at or above 1in-1 million and no one is exposed to a chronic noncancer HI greater than 1. The overall percent of the population that is minorities is similar nationally (38 percent) and for the category population with cancer risk greater than or equal to 1-in-1 million (40 percent). However, the category population with cancer risk greater than or equal to 1-in1 million has a greater percent Hispanic population (27 percent) as compared to the national percent Hispanic population (18 percent). The proximity results (irrespective of risk) indicate that the overall percentage of the population that is minority is higher (48 percent) within 5 km of ALDT facilities than the nationwide percentage (38 percent). This is driven by a higher percentage of ‘‘African American’’ (27 percent) within 5 km of facilities in this category than the nationwide percentage (12 percent). The results of the MMPP source category demographic analysis indicate that approximately 18,000 people are exposed to a cancer risk at or above 1in-1 million and no one is exposed to a chronic noncancer HI greater than 1. The percentages of the at-risk population in the following specific demographic groups are higher than their respective nationwide percentages: ‘‘White,’’ ‘‘Below the Poverty Level,’’ and ‘‘Over 25 and Without a High School Diploma.’’ The proximity results (irrespective of risk) indicate that the overall percentage of the population that is minority is PO 00000 Frm 00056 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 higher (45 percent) within 5 km of MMPP facilities than the nationwide percentage (38 percent). This is driven by a higher percentage of ‘‘African American’’ (18 percent) within 5 km of facilities in this category than the nationwide percentage (12 percent). The results of the PPP source category demographic analysis indicate that approximately 500 people are exposed to a cancer risk at or above 1-in-1 million and no one is exposed to a chronic noncancer HI greater than 1. The percentages of the at-risk population in the following specific demographic groups are higher than their respective nationwide percentages: ‘‘White’’ and ‘‘Below the Poverty Level.’’ The proximity results (irrespective of risk) indicate that the population percentages for all demographic categories located within 5 km of PPP facilities are very similar to their respective nationwide percentages. We do not expect this proposal to achieve significant reductions in HAP emissions. The EPA anticipates that this action does not have disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority populations, low-income populations, and/or indigenous peoples, as specified in Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994) because it does not significantly affect the level of protection provided to human health or the environment. The documentation for this decision is contained in section IV of this preamble and the technical reports titled Risk and Technology Review—Analysis of Demographic Factors for Populations Living Near Surface Coating of Automobiles and Light-Duty Trucks Category Operations, June 2019, Risk and Technology Review—Analysis of Demographic Factors for Populations Living Near Surface Coating of Miscellaneous Metal Parts and Products Source Category Operations, June 2019, and Risk and Technology Review—Analysis of Demographic Factors for Populations Living Near Surface Coating of Plastic Parts and Products Source Category Operations, June 2019, which are available in the ALDT Docket, MMPP Docket, and the PPP Docket, respectively. List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63 Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Appendix A, Hazardous substances, Incorporation by reference, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Surface coating of automobiles and light-duty trucks, Surface coating of miscellaneous metal E:\FR\FM\01NOP2.SGM 01NOP2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 212 / Friday, November 1, 2019 / Proposed Rules parts and products, Surface coating of plastic parts and products. Dated: August 16, 2019. Andrew R. Wheeler, Administrator. For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Environmental Protection Agency proposes to amend part 63 of title 40, chapter I, of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows: PART 63—NATIONAL EMISSION STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANTS FOR SOURCE CATEGORIES 1. The authority citation for part 63 continues to read as follows: ■ Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. Subpart A—General Provisions 2. Section 63.14 is amended by: a. Revising paragraphs (h)(12), (13), (21), (26), (29), (30), (66), (76), (78), (79), and (81); ■ b. Redesignating paragraphs (n)(1) through (24) as paragraphs (n)(2) through (25); and ■ c. Adding new paragraph (n)(1). The revisions and addition read as follows: ■ ■ § 63.14 Incorporations by reference * * * * * (h) * * * (12) ASTM D1475–98 (Reapproved 2003), ‘‘Standard Test Method for Density of Liquid Coatings, Inks, and Related Products,’’ IBR approved for § 63.4141(b) and (c). (13) ASTM D1475–13, Standard Test Method for Density of Liquid Coatings, Inks, and Related Products, approved November 1, 2013, IBR approved for §§ 63.3151(b), 63.3941(b) and (c), 63.3951(c), 63.4141(b) and (c), 63.4551(c), 63.4741(b) and (c), 63.4751(c), and 63.4941(b) and (c). * * * * * (21) 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 §§ 63.3951(c), 63.4141(b) and (c), 63.4551(c), and 63.4741(a). * * * * * (26) ASTM D2369–10 (Reapproved 2015)e, Standard Test Method for Volatile Content of Coatings, approved June 1, 2015, IBR approved for §§ 63.3151(a), 63.3961(j), 63.4141(a) and (b), 63.4161(h), 63.4321(e), 63.4341(e), 63.4351(d), 63.4541(a), 63.4561(j), 63.4741(a), 63.4941(a) and (b), and 63.4961(j). * * * * * VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:18 Oct 31, 2019 Jkt 250001 (29) ASTM D2697–86 (Reapproved 1998), Standard Test Method for Volume Nonvolatile Matter in Clear or Pigmented Coatings, IBR approved for §§ 63.3521(b), 63.4141(b), 63.4741(b), 63.4941(b), and 63.5160(c). (30) ASTM D2697–03 (Reapproved 2014), Standard Test Method for Volume Nonvolatile Matter in Clear or Pigmented Coatings, approved July 1, 2014, IBR approved for §§ 63.3161(f), 63.3941(b), 63.4141(b), 63.4741(a) and (b), and 63.4941(b). * * * * * (66) ASTM D5066–91 (Reapproved 2017), Standard Test Method for Determination of the Transfer Efficiency Under Production Conditions for Spray Application of Automotive PaintsWeight Basis, IBR approved for § 63.3161(g). * * * * * (76) ASTM D5965–02 (2013), Standard Test Methods for Specific Gravity of Coating Powders, IBR approved for §§ 63.3151(b) and 63.3951(c). * * * * * (78) ASTM D6093–97 (Reapproved 2003), Standard Test Method for Percent Volume Nonvolatile Matter in Clear or Pigmented Coatings Using a Helium Gas Pycnometer, IBR approved for §§ 63.3521 and 63.5160(c). (79) ASTM D6093–97 (Reapproved 2016), Standard Test Method for Percent Volume Nonvolatile Matter in Clear or Pigmented Coatings Using a Helium Gas Pycnometer, Approved December 1, 2016, IBR approved for §§ 63.3161(f), 63.3941(b), 63.4141(b), 63.4741(a) and (b), and 63.4941(b). * * * * * (81) ASTM D6266–00a (Reapproved 2017), Test Method for Determining the Amount of Volatile Organic Compound (VOC) Released from Waterborne Automotive Coatings and Available for Removal in a VOC Control Device (Abatement), IBR approved for § 63.3165(e). * * * * * (n) * * * (1) EPA–450/3–88–018, Protocol for Determining Daily Volatile Organic Compound Emission Rate of Automobile and Light-Duty Truck Topcoat Operations, IBR approved for §§ 63.3161(f) and 63.3165(e) * * * * * PO 00000 Frm 00057 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 58991 Subpart IIII—National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Surface Coating of Automobiles and Light-Duty Trucks 3. Section 63.3092 is amended by revising paragraph (a)(2) to read as follows: ■ § 63.3092 How must I control emissions from my electrodeposition primer system if I want to comply with the combined primersurfacer, topcoat, final repair, glass bonding primer, and glass bonding adhesive emission limit? * * * * * (a) * * * (2) 0.10 percent by weight of any organic HAP in Table 5 of this subpart. * * * * * ■ 4. Section 63.3093 is amended by revising paragraph (b) to read as follows: § 63.3093 meet? What operating limits must I * * * * * (b) Except as provided in paragraph (d) of this section, for any controlled coating operation(s), you must meet the operating limits specified in Table 1 to this subpart. These operating limits apply to the emission capture and addon control systems on the coating operation(s) for which you use this option, and you must establish the operating limits during performance tests according to the requirements in § 63.3167. You must meet the operating limits at all times after you establish them. * * * * * ■ 5. Section 63.3100 is amended by revising paragraphs (b), (d), and (f) to read as follows: § 63.3100 What are my general requirements for complying with this subpart? * * * * * (b) Before [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register], the coating operations must be in compliance with the operating limits for emission capture systems and add-on control devices required by § 63.3093 at all times except during periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction. On and after [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register], the coating operations must be in compliance with the operating limits for emission capture systems and add-on control devices required by § 63.3093 at all times. * * * * * (d) Before [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register], you must always operate and maintain your affected source including all air pollution control and monitoring E:\FR\FM\01NOP2.SGM 01NOP2 58992 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 212 / Friday, November 1, 2019 / Proposed Rules equipment you use for purposes of complying with this subpart according to the provisions in § 63.6(e)(1)(i). On and after [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register], at all times, the owner or operator must operate and maintain any affected source, including associated air pollution control equipment and monitoring equipment, in a manner consistent with safety and good air pollution control practices for minimizing emissions. The general duty to minimize emissions does not require the owner or operator to make any further efforts to reduce emissions if levels required by the applicable standard have been achieved. Determination of whether a source is operating in compliance with operation and maintenance requirements will be based on information available to the Administrator that may include, but is not limited to, monitoring results, review of operation and maintenance procedures, review of operation and maintenance records, and inspection of the affected source. * * * * * (f) Before [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register], if your affected source uses emission capture systems and add-on control devices, you must develop a written startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan (SSMP) according to the provisions in § 63.6(e)(3). The SSMP must address startup, shutdown, and corrective actions in the event of a malfunction of the emission capture system or the add-on control devices. On and after [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register], the SSMP is not required. ■ 6. Section 63.3120 is amended by: ■ a. Revising paragraphs (a)(4), (a)(5) introductory text, (a)(5)(iv), (a)(6) introductory text, (a)(6)(iii), (a)(6)(vi) through (viii), (a)(6)(x), and (a)(6)(xiii) and (xiv); ■ b. Adding paragraphs (a)(5)(v) and (a)(6)(xv); ■ c. Revising paragraphs (a)(7) introductory text and (a)(7)(i) and (iii); ■ d. Adding paragraph (a)(7)(iv); ■ e. Revising paragraphs (a)(8) introductory text, (a)(8)(ii), (a)(8)(v) through (vii), (a)(8)(ix), (a)(8)(xii), (a)(9) introductory text, (a)(9)(i) and (ii), and (c) introductory text; and ■ f. Adding paragraphs (d) through (h). The revisions and additions read as follows: § 63.3120 What reports must I submit? (a) * * * (4) No deviations. If there were no deviations from the emission limits, operating limits, or work practices in VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:18 Oct 31, 2019 Jkt 250001 §§ 63.3090, 63.3091, 63.3092, 63.3093, and 63.3094 that apply to you, the semiannual compliance report must include a statement that there were no deviations from the applicable emission limitations during the reporting period. If you used control devices to comply with the emission limits, and there were no periods during which the CPMS were out of control as specified in § 63.8(c)(7), the semiannual compliance report must include a statement that there were no periods during which the CPMS were out of control during the reporting period. (5) Deviations: Adhesive, sealer, and deadener. Before [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register], if there was a deviation from the applicable emission limits in § 63.3090(c) and (d) or § 63.3091(c) and (d), the semiannual compliance report must contain the information in paragraphs (a)(5)(i) through (iv) of this section. On and after [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register], if there was a deviation from the applicable emission limits in § 63.3090(c) and (d) or § 63.3091(c) and (d), the semiannual compliance report must contain the information in paragraphs (a)(5)(i) through (v) of this section. * * * * * (iv) The reason for the deviation (including unknown cause, if applicable). (v) On and after [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register], the number of deviations and, for each deviation, a list of the affected source or equipment, an estimate of the quantity of each regulated pollutant emitted over the applicable emission limit in § 63.3090(c) and (d) or § 63.3091(c) and (d), and a description of the method used to estimate the emissions. (6) Deviations: Combined electrodeposition primer, primersurfacer, topcoat, final repair, glass bonding primer and glass bonding adhesive, or combined primer-surfacer, topcoat, final repair, glass bonding primer, and glass bonding adhesive plus all coatings and thinners, except for deadener materials and for adhesive and sealer materials that are not components of glass bonding systems, used in coating operations added to the affected source pursuant to § 63.3082(c). Before [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register], if there was a deviation from the applicable emission limits in § 63.3090(a) or (b) or § 63.3091(a) or (b) or the applicable operating limit(s) in PO 00000 Frm 00058 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 Table 1 to this subpart, the semiannual compliance report must contain the information in paragraphs (a)(6)(i) through (xiv) of this section. On and after [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register], if there was a deviation from the applicable emission limits in § 63.3090(a) or (b) or § 63.3091(a) or (b) or the applicable operating limit(s) in Table 1 to this subpart, the semiannual compliance report must contain the information in paragraphs (a)(6)(i) through (xv) of this section. * * * * * (iii) The date and time that each malfunction of the capture system or add-on control devices used to control emissions from these operations started and stopped. * * * * * (vi) Before [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register], the date and time that each CPMS was inoperative, except for zero (low-level) and high-level checks. On and after [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register], for each instance that the CPMS was inoperative, except for zero (low-level) and high-level checks, the date, time, and duration that the CPMS was inoperative; the cause (including unknown cause) for the CPMS being inoperative; and descriptions of corrective actions taken. (vii) Before [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register], the date and time period that each CPMS was out of control, including the information in § 63.8(c)(8). On and after [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register], for each instance that the CPMS was out of control, as specified in § 63.8(c)(7), the date, time, and duration that the CPMS was out-ofcontrol; the cause (including unknown cause) for the CPMS being out-ofcontrol; and descriptions of corrective actions taken. (viii) Before [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register], The date and time period of each deviation from an operating limit in Table 1 to this subpart; date and time period of each bypass of an add-on control device; and whether each deviation occurred during a period of startup, shutdown, or malfunction or during another period. On and after [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register], the date, time, and duration of each deviation from an operating limit in Table 1 to this subpart; and the date, E:\FR\FM\01NOP2.SGM 01NOP2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 212 / Friday, November 1, 2019 / Proposed Rules time, and duration of each bypass of an add-on control device. * * * * * (x) Before [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register], a breakdown of the total duration of the deviations from each operating limit in Table 1 to this subpart and bypasses of each add-on control device during the semiannual reporting period into those that were due to startup, shutdown, control equipment problems, process problems, other known causes, and other unknown causes. On and after [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register], a breakdown of the total duration of the deviations from each operating limit in Table 1 to this subpart and bypasses of each add-on control device during the semiannual reporting period into those that were due to control equipment problems, process problems, other known causes, and other unknown causes. * * * * * (xiii) Before [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register], for each deviation from the work practice standards a description of the deviation, the date and time period of the deviation, and the actions you took to correct the deviation. On and after [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register], for deviations from the work practice standards, the number of deviations, and, for each deviation, the information in paragraphs (a)(6)(xiii)(A) and (B) of this section. (A) A description of the deviation, the date, time, and duration of the deviation; and the actions you took to minimize emissions in accordance with § 63.3100(d). (B) A list of the affected sources or equipment for which a deviation occurred, the cause of the deviation (including unknown cause, if applicable), and any corrective actions taken to return the affected unit to its normal or usual manner of operation. (xiv) Before [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register], a statement of the cause of each deviation. On and after [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register], for deviations from an emission limitation in § 63.3090(a) or (b) or § 63.3091(a) or (b) or operating limit in Table 1 of this subpart, a statement of the cause of each deviation (including unknown cause, if applicable). (xv) On and after [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register], for each deviation from an emission limitation in VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:18 Oct 31, 2019 Jkt 250001 § 63.3090(a) or (b), or § 63.3091(a) or (b), or operating limit in Table 1 to this subpart, a list of the affected sources or equipment for which a deviation occurred, an estimate of the quantity of each regulated pollutant emitted over any emission limit in § 63.3090(a) or (b) or § 63.3091(a) or (b), and a description of the method used to estimate the emissions. (7) Deviations: Separate electrodeposition primer organic HAP content limit. Before [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register], if you used the separate electrodeposition primer organic HAP content limits in § 63.3092(a), and there was a deviation from these limits, the semiannual compliance report must contain the information in paragraphs (a)(7)(i) through (iii) of this section. On and after [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register], if you used the separate electrodeposition primer organic HAP content limits in § 63.3092(a), and there was a deviation from these limits, the semiannual compliance report must contain the information in paragraphs (a)(7)(i) through (iv) of this section. (i) Identification of each material used that deviated from the emission limit, and the date, time, and duration each was used. * * * * * (iii) A statement of the cause of each deviation (including unknown case, if applicable). (iv) On and after [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register], the number of deviations, a list of the affected source or equipment, an estimate of the quantity of each regulated pollutant emitted over any emission limit in § 63.3092(a), and a description of the method used to estimate the emissions. (8) Deviations: Separate electrodeposition primer bake oven capture and control limitations. Before [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register], if you used the separate electrodeposition primer bake oven capture and control limitations in § 63.3092(b), and there was a deviation from the limitations in § 63.3092(b) or the applicable operating limit in Table 1 to this subpart, the semiannual compliance report must contain the information in paragraphs (a)(8)(i) through (xii) of this section. On and after [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register], if you used the separate electrodeposition primer bake oven capture and control limitations in § 63.3092(b), and there was a deviation PO 00000 Frm 00059 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 58993 from the limitations in § 63.3092(b) or the applicable operating limit in Table 1 to this subpart, the semiannual compliance report must contain the information in paragraphs (a)(8)(i) through (xiv) of this section. * * * * * (ii) The date and time that each malfunction of the capture systems or control devices used to control emissions from the electrodeposition primer bake oven started and stopped. * * * * * (v) Before [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register], the date and time that each CPMS was inoperative, except for zero (low-level) and high-level checks. On and after [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register], for each instance that the CPMS was inoperative, except for zero (low-level) and high-level checks, the date, time, and duration that the CPMS was inoperative; the cause (including unknown cause) for the CPMS being inoperative; and descriptions of corrective actions taken. (vi) Before [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register], the date, time, and duration that each CPMS was out of control, including the information in § 63.8(c)(8). On and after [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register], for each instance that the CPMS was out of control, as specified in § 63.8(c)(7), the date, time, and duration that the CPMS was out-ofcontrol; the cause (including unknown cause) for the CPMS being out-ofcontrol; and descriptions of corrective actions taken. (vii) Before [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register], the date and time period of each deviation from an operating limit in Table 1 to this subpart; date and time period of each bypass of an add-on control device; and whether each deviation occurred during a period of startup, shutdown, or malfunction or during another period. On and after [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register], the date, time, and duration of each deviation from an operating limit in Table 1 to this subpart; and the date, time, and duration of each bypass of an add-on control device. * * * * * (ix) Before [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register], a breakdown of the total duration of the deviations from each operating limit in Table 1 to this subpart and bypasses of each add-on control device during the semiannual reporting E:\FR\FM\01NOP2.SGM 01NOP2 58994 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 212 / Friday, November 1, 2019 / Proposed Rules period into those that were due to startup, shutdown, control equipment problems, process problems, other known causes, and other unknown causes. On and after [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register], a breakdown of the total duration of the deviations from each operating limit in Table 1 to this subpart and bypasses of each add-on control device during the semiannual reporting period into those that were due to control equipment problems, process problems, other known causes, and other unknown causes. * * * * * (xii) A statement of the cause of each deviation (including unknown cause, if applicable). (9) Deviations: Work practice plans. Before [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register], if there was a deviation from an applicable work practice plan developed in accordance with § 63.3094(b) or (c), the semiannual compliance report must contain the information in paragraphs (a)(9)(i) through (iii) of this section. On and after [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register], if there were deviations from an applicable work practice plan developed in accordance with § 63.3094(b) or (c), the semiannual compliance report must contain the number of deviations, and, for each deviation, the information in paragraphs (a)(9)(i) through (iii) of this section. (i) Before [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register], the time period during which each deviation occurred. On and after [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register], the date, time, and duration of the deviation. (ii) Before [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register], the nature of each deviation. On and after [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register], the nature of the deviation, including a list of the affected sources or equipment for which the deviation occurred, and the cause of the deviation (including unknown cause, if applicable). * * * * * (c) Startup, shutdown, and malfunction reports. Before [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register], if you used add-on control devices and you had a startup, shutdown, or malfunction during the semiannual reporting period, you must submit the reports specified in paragraphs (c)(1) and (2) of this section. VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:18 Oct 31, 2019 Jkt 250001 On and after [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register], the reports specified in paragraphs (c)(1) and (2) of this section are not required. * * * * * (d) On and after [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register], you must submit the results of the performance test required in paragraph (b) of this section following the procedure specified in paragraphs (d)(1) through (3) of this section. (1) For data collected using test methods supported by the EPA’s Electronic Reporting Tool (ERT) as listed on the EPA’s ERT website (https://www.epa.gov/electronicreporting-air-emissions/electronicreporting-tool-ert) at the time of the test, you must submit the results of the performance test to the EPA via the Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface (CEDRI). (CEDRI can be accessed through the EPA’s Central Data Exchange (CDX) (https:// cdx.epa.gov/)). Performance test data must be submitted in a file format generated through the use of the EPA’s ERT or an alternate electronic file format consistent with the extensible markup language (XML) schema listed on the EPA’s ERT website. (2) For data collected using test methods that are not supported by the EPA’s ERT as listed on the EPA’s ERT website at the time of the test, you must submit the results of the performance test to the Administrator at the appropriate address listed in § 63.13, unless the Administrator agrees to or specifies an alternate reporting method. (3) If you claim that some of the performance test information being submitted under paragraph (c)(1) of this section is confidential business information (CBI), you must submit a complete file generated through the use of the EPA’s ERT or an alternate electronic file consistent with the XML schema listed on the EPA’s ERT website, including information claimed to be CBI, on a compact disc, flash drive, or other commonly used electronic storage medium to the EPA. The electronic medium must be clearly marked as CBI and mailed to U.S. EPA/ OAPQS/CORE CBI Office, Attention: Group Leader, Measurement Policy Group, MD C404–02, 4930 Old Page Rd., Durham, NC 27703. The same ERT or alternate file with the CBI omitted must be submitted to the EPA via the EPA’s CDX as described in paragraph (c)(1) of this section. (e) On and after [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the PO 00000 Frm 00060 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 Federal Register], the owner or operator shall submit the initial notifications required in § 63.9(b) and the notification of compliance status required in § 63.9(h) and § 63.3110(c) to the EPA via the CEDRI. (CEDRI can be accessed through the EPA’s CDX (https:// cdx.epa.gov/)). The owner or operator must upload to CEDRI an electronic copy of each applicable notification in portable document format (PDF). The applicable notification must be submitted by the deadline specified in this subpart, regardless of the method in which the reports are submitted. Owners or operators who claim that some of the information required to be submitted via CEDRI is CBI shall submit a complete report generated using the appropriate form in CEDRI or an alternate electronic file consistent with the extensible markup language (XML) schema listed on the EPA’s CEDRI website, including information claimed to be CBI, on a compact disc, flash drive, or other commonly used electronic storage medium to the EPA. The electronic medium shall be clearly marked as CBI and mailed to U.S. EPA/ OAQPS/CORE CBI Office, Attention: Group Leader, Measurement Policy Group, MD C404–02, 4930 Old Page Rd., Durham, NC 27703. The same file with the CBI omitted shall be submitted to the EPA via the EPA’s CDX as described earlier in this paragraph. (f) On and after [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register], or once the reporting template has been available on the CEDRI website for 1 year, whichever date is later, the owner or operator shall submit the semiannual compliance report required in paragraph (a) of this section to the EPA via the CEDRI. The CEDRI interface can be accessed through the EPA’s CDX (https://cdx.epa.gov/). The owner or operator must use the appropriate electronic template on the CEDRI Web for this subpart or an alternate electronic file format consistent with the XML schema listed on the CEDRI website (https:// www.epa.gov/electronic-reporting-airemissions/compliance-and-emissionsdata-reporting-interface-cedri). If the reporting form for the semiannual compliance report specific to this subpart is not available in CEDRI at the time that the report is due, you must submit the report to the Administrator at the appropriate addresses listed in § 63.13. Once the form has been available in CEDRI for 1 year, you must begin submitting all subsequent reports via CEDRI. The reports must be submitted by the deadlines specified in this subpart, regardless of the method in E:\FR\FM\01NOP2.SGM 01NOP2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 212 / Friday, November 1, 2019 / Proposed Rules which the reports are submitted. Owners or operators who claim that some of the information required to be submitted via CEDRI is CBI shall submit a complete report generated using the appropriate form in CEDRI or an alternate electronic file consistent with the XML schema listed on the EPA’s CEDRI website, including information claimed to be CBI, on a compact disc, flash drive, or other commonly used electronic storage medium to the EPA. The electronic medium shall be clearly marked as CBI and mailed to U.S. EPA/ OAQPS/CORE CBI Office, Attention: Group Leader, Measurement Policy Group, MD C404–02, 4930 Old Page Rd., Durham, NC 27703. The same file with the CBI omitted shall be submitted to the EPA via the EPA’s CDX as described earlier in this paragraph. (g) If you are required to electronically submit a report through the CEDRI in the EPA’s CDX, and due to a planned or actual outage of either the EPA’s CEDRI or CDX systems within the period of time beginning 5 business days prior to the date that the submission is due, you will be or are precluded from accessing CEDRI or CDX and submitting a required report within the time prescribed, you may assert a claim of EPA system outage for failure to timely comply with the reporting requirement. You must submit notification to the Administrator in writing as soon as possible following the date you first knew, or through due diligence should have known, that the event may cause or caused a delay in reporting. You must provide to the Administrator a written description identifying the date, time and length of the outage; a rationale for attributing the delay in reporting beyond the regulatory deadline to the EPA system outage; describe the measures taken or to be taken to minimize the delay in reporting; and identify a date by which you propose to report, or if you have already met the reporting requirement at the time of the notification, the date you reported. In any circumstance, the report must be submitted electronically as soon as possible after the outage is resolved. The decision to accept the claim of EPA system outage and allow an extension to the reporting deadline is solely within the discretion of the Administrator. (h) If you are required to electronically submit a report through CEDRI in the EPA’s CDX and a force majeure event is about to occur, occurs, or has occurred or there are lingering effects from such an event within the period of time beginning 5 business days prior to the date the submission is due, the owner or operator may assert a claim of force majeure for failure to VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:18 Oct 31, 2019 Jkt 250001 58995 timely comply with the reporting requirement. For the purposes of this section, a force majeure event is defined as an event that will be or has been caused by circumstances beyond the control of the affected facility, its contractors, or any entity controlled by the affected facility that prevents you from complying with the requirement to submit a report electronically within the time period prescribed. Examples of such events are acts of nature (e.g., hurricanes, earthquakes, or floods), acts of war or terrorism, or equipment failure or safety hazard beyond the control of the affected facility (e.g., large scale power outage). If you intend to assert a claim of force majeure, you must submit notification to the Administrator in writing as soon as possible following the date you first knew, or through due diligence should have known, that the event may cause or caused a delay in reporting. You must provide to the Administrator a written description of the force majeure event and a rationale for attributing the delay in reporting beyond the regulatory deadline to the force majeure event; describe the measures taken or to be taken to minimize the delay in reporting; and identify a date by which you propose to report, or if you have already met the reporting requirement at the time of the notification, the date you reported. In any circumstance, the reporting must occur as soon as possible after the force majeure event occurs. The decision to accept the claim of force majeure and allow an extension to the reporting deadline is solely within the discretion of the Administrator. ■ 7. Section 63.3130 is amended by revising paragraphs (g) and (h) and adding paragraph (p) to read as follows: (2) A list of the affected sources or equipment for which the deviation occurred and the cause of the deviation, as reported under § 63.3120(a)(5) through (9). (3) An estimate of the quantity of each regulated pollutant emitted over any applicable emission limit in § 63.3090 (a) through (d) or 63.3091(a) through (d) or any applicable operating limit in Table 1 to this subpart, and a description of the method used to calculate the estimate, as reported under § 63.3120(a)(5) through (9). (4) A record of actions taken to minimize emissions in accordance with § 63.3100(d) and any corrective actions taken to return the affected unit to its normal or usual manner of operation. (h) Before [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register], the records required by § 63.6(e)(3)(iii) through (v) related to startup, shutdown, and malfunction. On and after [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register], the provisions of this paragraph no longer apply. * * * * * (p) On and after [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register], any records required to be maintained by this subpart that are submitted electronically via the EPA’s CEDRI may be maintained in electronic format. This ability to maintain electronic copies does not affect the requirement for facilities to make records, data, and reports available upon request to a delegated air agency or the EPA as part of an on-site compliance evaluation. ■ 8. Section 63.3131 is amended by revising paragraph (a) to read as follows: § 63.3130 § 63.3131 In what form and for how long must I keep my records? What records must I keep? * * * * * (g) Before [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register], a record of the date, time, and duration of each deviation, and for each deviation, a record of whether the deviation occurred during a period of startup, shutdown, or malfunction. On and after [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register], for each deviation from an emission limitation, operating limit, or work practice plan reported under § 63.3120(a)(5) through (9), a record of the information specified in paragraphs (g)(1) through (4) of this section, as applicable. (1) The date, time, and duration of the deviation, and for each deviation, the information as reported under § 63.3120(a)(5) through (9). PO 00000 Frm 00061 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 (a) Your records must be in a form suitable and readily available for expeditious review according to § 63.10(b)(1). Where appropriate, the records may be maintained as electronic spreadsheets or as a database. On and after [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register], any records required to be maintained by this subpart that are submitted electronically via the EPA’s CEDRI may be maintained in electronic format. This ability to maintain electronic copies does not affect the requirement for facilities to make records, data, and reports available upon request to a delegated air agency or the EPA as part of an on-site compliance evaluation. * * * * * E:\FR\FM\01NOP2.SGM 01NOP2 58996 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 212 / Friday, November 1, 2019 / Proposed Rules 9. Section 63.3151 is amended by revising paragraphs (a)(1)(i), (a)(2) and (4), and (b) to read as follows. ■ § 63.3151 How do I demonstrate initial compliance with the emission limitations? * * * * * (a) * * * (1) * * * (i) Count each organic HAP in Table 5 to this subpart that is present at 0.1 percent by mass or more and at 1.0 percent by mass or more for other compounds. For example, if toluene (not listed in Table 5 to this subpart) is measured to be 0.5 percent of the material by mass, you do not have to count it. Express the mass fraction of each organic HAP you count as a value truncated to four places after the decimal point (e.g., 0.3791). * * * * * (2) EPA Method 24 (appendix A–7 to 40 CFR part 60). For coatings, you may use EPA Method 24 to determine the mass fraction of nonaqueous volatile matter and use that value as a substitute for mass fraction of organic HAP. As an alternative to using EPA Method 24, you may use ASTM D2369–10 (2015)e (incorporated by reference, see § 63.14). * * * * * (4) Information from the supplier or manufacturer of the material. You may rely on information other than that generated by the test methods specified in paragraphs (a)(1) through (3) of this section, such as manufacturer’s formulation data, if it represents each organic HAP in Table 5 to this subpart that is present at 0.1 percent by mass or more and at 1.0 percent by mass or more for other compounds. For example, if toluene (not listed in Table 5 of this subpart) is 0.5 percent of the material by mass, you do not have to count it. If there is a disagreement between such information and results of a test conducted according to paragraphs (a)(1) through (3) of this section, then the test method results will take precedence, unless after consultation, the facility demonstrates to the satisfaction of the enforcement authority that the facility’s data are correct. * * * * * (b) Determine the density of each material used. Determine the density of each material used during the compliance period from test results using ASTM D1475–13 (incorporated by reference, see § 63.14) or for powder coatings, test method A or test method B of ASTM D5965–02 (2013) (incorporated by reference, see § 63.14), or information from the supplier or manufacturer of the material. If there is disagreement between ASTM D1475–13 VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:18 Oct 31, 2019 Jkt 250001 test results or ASTM D5965–02 (2013), test method A or test method B test results and the supplier’s or manufacturer’s information, the test results will take precedence unless after consultation, the facility demonstrates to the satisfaction of the enforcement authority that the facility’s data are correct. * * * * * ■ 10. Section 63.3160 is amended by revising the section heading and paragraph (b)(1) to read as follows: § 63.3160 By what date must I conduct initial performance tests and other initial compliance demonstrations? * * * * * (b) * * * (1) All emission capture systems, addon control devices, and CPMS must be installed and operating no later than the applicable compliance date specified in § 63.3083. You must conduct an initial performance test of each capture system and add-on control device according to the procedures in §§ 63.3164 through 63.3166 and establish the operating limits required by § 63.3093 no later than the compliance date specified in § 63.3083. * * * * * ■ 11. Section 63.3161 is amended by revising paragraphs (a), (f)(1), (g), and (k)(3) to read as follows: § 63.3161 How do I demonstrate initial compliance? (a) You must meet all of the requirements of this section to demonstrate initial compliance. To demonstrate initial compliance, the organic HAP emissions from the combined electrodeposition primer, primer-surfacer, topcoat, final repair, glass bonding primer, and glass bonding adhesive operations plus all coatings and thinners, except for deadener materials and for adhesive and sealer materials that are not components of glass bonding systems, used in coating operations added to the affected source pursuant to § 63.3082(c) must meet the applicable emission limitation in § 63.3090(a) or § 63.3091(a) and the applicable operating limits and work practice standards in §§ 63.3093 and 63.3094. * * * * * (f) * * * (1) ASTM Method D2697–03 (2014) or ASTM Method D6093–97 (2016). You may use ASTM D2697–03 (Reapproved 2014) (incorporated by reference, see § 63.14), or ASTM D6093–97 (Reapproved 2016) (incorporated by reference, see § 63.14), to determine the volume fraction of coating solids for each coating. Divide the nonvolatile PO 00000 Frm 00062 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 volume percent obtained with the methods by 100 to calculate volume fraction of coating solids. * * * * * (g) Determine the transfer efficiency for each coating. You must determine the transfer efficiency for each primersurfacer and topcoat coating, and for all coatings, except for deadener and for adhesive and sealer that are not components of glass bonding systems, used in coating operations added to the affected source pursuant to § 63.3082(c) using ASTM D5066–91 (Reapproved 2017) (incorporated by reference, see § 63.14), or the guidelines presented in ‘‘Protocol for Determining Daily Volatile Organic Compound Emission Rate of Automobile and Light-Duty Truck Topcoat Operations,’’ EPA–450/3–88– 018. You may conduct transfer efficiency testing on representative coatings and for representative spray booths as described in ‘‘Protocol for Determining Daily Volatile Organic Compound Emission Rate of Automobile and Light-Duty Truck Topcoat Operations,’’ EPA–450/3–88– 018. You may assume 100 percent transfer efficiency for electrodeposition primer coatings, glass bonding primers, and glass bonding adhesives. For final repair coatings, you may assume 40 percent transfer efficiency for air atomized spray and 55 percent transfer efficiency for electrostatic spray and high volume, low pressure spray. For blackout, chip resistant edge primer, interior color, in-line repair, lower body anti-chip coatings, or underbody antichip coatings, you may assume 40 percent transfer efficiency for air atomized spray, 55 percent transfer efficiency for electrostatic spray and high volume-low pressure spray, and 80 percent transfer efficiency for airless spray. * * * * * (k) * * * (3) Determine the mass fraction of volatile organic matter for each coating and thinner used in the coating operation controlled by the solvent recovery system during the month, kg volatile organic matter per kg coating. You may determine the volatile organic matter mass fraction using EPA Method 24 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A–7, or an EPA approved alternative method, or you may use information provided by the manufacturer or supplier of the coating. In the event of any inconsistency between information provided by the manufacturer or supplier and the results of EPA Method 24 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A–7, or an approved alternative method, the test method results will govern unless after E:\FR\FM\01NOP2.SGM 01NOP2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 212 / Friday, November 1, 2019 / Proposed Rules consultation, the facility demonstrates to the satisfaction of the enforcement authority that the facility’s data are correct. * * * * * ■ 12. Section 63.3163 is amended by revising the section heading and paragraph (c) introductory text, adding paragraph (c)(3), and revising paragraphs (f) and (h) to read as follows: § 63.3163 How do I conduct periodic performance tests and demonstrate continuous compliance with the emission limitations? * * * * * (c) You must demonstrate continuous compliance with each operating limit required by § 63.3093 that applies to you, as specified in Table 1 to this subpart, and you must conduct performance tests as specified in paragraph (c)(3) of this section. * * * * * (3) Except for solvent recovery systems for which you conduct liquidliquid material balances according to § 63.3161(k) for controlled coating operations, you must conduct periodic performance tests and establish the operating limits required by § 63.3093 within 5 years following the previous performance test. You must conduct the first periodic performance test before [date 3 years after date of publications of final rule in the Federal Register], unless you are already required to complete periodic performance tests as a requirement of renewing your facility’s operating permit under 40 CFR part 70 or 40 CFR part 71 and have conducted a performance test on or after [date 2 years before date of publications of final rule in the Federal Register]. Thereafter you must conduct a performance test no later than 5 years following the previous performance test. Operating limits must be confirmed or reestablished during each performance test. For any control device for which you are using the catalytic oxidizer control option at § 63.3167(b) and following the catalyst maintenance procedures in § 63.3167(b)(6), you are not required to conduct periodic control device performance testing as specified by this paragraph. For any control device for which instruments are used to continuously measure organic compound emissions, you are not required to conduct periodic control device performance testing as specified by this paragraph. * * * * * (f) If there were no deviations from the emission limitations, submit a statement as part of the semiannual compliance report that you were in compliance with the emission VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:18 Oct 31, 2019 Jkt 250001 limitations during the reporting period because the organic HAP emission rate for each compliance period was less than or equal to the applicable emission limit in § 63.3090(a) or § 63.3091(a), § 63.3090(b) or § 63.3091(b), or § 63.3092(a) or § 63.3092(b), you achieved the operating limits required by § 63.3093, and you achieved the work practice standards required by § 63.3094 during each compliance period. * * * * * (h) Before [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register], consistent with §§ 63.6(e) and 63.7(e)(1), deviations that occur during a period of startup, shutdown, or malfunction of the emission capture system, add-on control device, or coating operation that may affect emission capture or control device efficiency are not violations if you demonstrate to the Administrator’s satisfaction that you were operating in accordance with § 63.6(e)(1). The Administrator will determine whether deviations that occur during a period you identify as a startup, shutdown, or malfunction are violations according to the provisions in § 63.6(e). On and after [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register], the provisions of this paragraph no longer apply. * * * * * ■ 13. Section 63.3164 is amended by revising paragraphs (a) introductory text and (a)(1) to read as follows: § 63.3164 What are the general requirements for performance tests? (a) You must conduct each applicable performance test required by §§ 63.3160, 63.3163, and 63.3171 according to the requirements in § 63.7(e)(1) and under the conditions in this section unless you obtain a waiver of the performance test according to the provisions in § 63.7(h). (1) Representative coating operation operating conditions. You must conduct the performance test under representative operating conditions for the coating operation. Before [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register], operations during periods of startup, shutdown, or malfunction, and during periods of nonoperation do not constitute representative conditions. You must record the process information that is necessary to document operating conditions during the test and explain why the conditions represent normal operation. On and after [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register], operations during periods of startup, shutdown, or nonoperation do not constitute PO 00000 Frm 00063 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 58997 representative conditions for purposes of conducting a performance test. The owner or operator may not conduct performance tests during periods of malfunction. You must record the process information that is necessary to document operating conditions during the test and explain why the conditions represent normal operation. Upon request, you must make available to the Administrator such records as may be necessary to determine the conditions of performance tests. * * * * * ■ 14. Section 63.3165 is amended by revising the introductory text and paragraphs (e) introductory text, the definition of ‘‘Wvocc,i’’ in Equation 6 of paragraph (e)(2), the definition of ‘‘Wvocc,i’’ in Equation 7 of paragraph (e)(3), and the definition of ‘‘Ws,i’’ in Equation 8 of paragraph (e)(4) to read as follows: § 63.3165 How do I determine the emission capture system efficiency? You must use the procedures and test methods in this section to determine capture efficiency as part of the performance test required by § 63.3160 and § 63.3163. For purposes of this subpart, a spray booth air seal is not considered a natural draft opening in a PTE or a temporary total enclosure provided you demonstrate that the direction of air movement across the interface between the spray booth air seal and the spray booth is into the spray booth. For purposes of this subpart, a bake oven air seal is not considered a natural draft opening in a PTE or a temporary total enclosure provided you demonstrate that the direction of air movement across the interface between the bake oven air seal and the bake oven is into the bake oven. You may use lightweight strips of fabric or paper, or smoke tubes to make such demonstrations as part of showing that your capture system is a PTE or conducting a capture efficiency test using a temporary total enclosure. You cannot count air flowing from a spray booth air seal into a spray booth as air flowing through a natural draft opening into a PTE or into a temporary total enclosure unless you elect to treat that spray booth air seal as a natural draft opening. You cannot count air flowing from a bake oven air seal into a bake oven as air flowing through a natural draft opening into a PTE or into a temporary total enclosure unless you elect to treat that bake oven air seal as a natural draft opening. * * * * * (e) Panel testing to determine the capture efficiency of flash-off or bake oven emissions. You may conduct panel E:\FR\FM\01NOP2.SGM 01NOP2 58998 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 212 / Friday, November 1, 2019 / Proposed Rules testing to determine the capture efficiency of flash-off or bake oven emissions using ASTM D5087–02 (incorporated by reference, see § 63.14), ASTM D6266–00a (Reapproved 2017) (incorporated by reference, see § 63.14), or the guidelines presented in ‘‘Protocol for Determining Daily Volatile Organic Compound Emission Rate of Automobile and Light-Duty Truck Topcoat Operations,’’ EPA–450/3–88– 018 . You may conduct panel testing on representative coatings as described in ‘‘Protocol for Determining Daily Volatile Organic Compound Emission Rate of Automobile and Light-Duty Truck Topcoat Operations,’’ EPA–450/3–88– 018. The results of these panel testing procedures are in units of mass of VOC per volume of coating solids deposited and must be converted to a percent value for use in this subpart. If you panel test representative coatings, then you may convert the panel test result for each representative coating either to a unique percent capture efficiency for each coating grouped with that representative coating by using coating specific values for the volume of coating solids deposited per volume of coating used, mass of VOC per volume of coating, volume fraction solids, transfer efficiency, density and mass fraction VOC in Equations 4 through 6 of this section; or to a composite percent capture efficiency for the group of coatings by using composite values for the group of coatings for the volume of coating solids deposited per volume of coating used and for the mass of VOC per volume of coating, and average values for the group of coatings for volume fraction solids, transfer efficiency, density and mass fraction VOC in Equations 4 through 6 of this section. If you panel test each coating, then you must convert the panel test result for each coating to a unique percent capture efficiency for that coating by using coating specific values for the volume of coating solids deposited per volume of coating used, mass of VOC per volume of coating, volume fraction solids, transfer efficiency, density, and mass fraction VOC in Equations 4 through 6 of this section. Panel test results expressed in units of mass of VOC per volume of coating solids deposited must be converted to percent capture efficiency using Equation 4 of this section. An alternative for using panel test results expressed in units of mass of VOC per mass of coating solids deposited is presented in paragraph (e)(3) of this section. * * * * * (2) * * * VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:18 Oct 31, 2019 Jkt 250001 Wvocc,i = Mass fraction of VOC in coating, i, or average mass fraction of VOC for the group of coatings, including coating, i, kg VOC per kg coating, determined by EPA Method 24 (appendix A–7 to 40 CFR part 60) or the guidelines for combining analytical VOC content and formulation solvent content presented in Section 9 of ‘‘Protocol for Determining Daily Volatile Organic Compound Emission Rate of Automobile and Light-Duty Truck Topcoat Operations,’’ EPA– 450/3–88–018 (Docket ID No. OAR–2002– 0093 and Docket ID No. A–2001–22). (3) * * * Wvocc,i = Mass fraction of VOC in coating, i, or average mass fraction of VOC for the group of coatings, including coating, i, kg VOC per kg coating, determined by EPA Method 24 (appendix A–7 to 40 CFR part 60) or the guidelines for combining analytical VOC content and formulation solvent content presented in Section 9 of ‘‘Protocol for Determining Daily Volatile Organic Compound Emission Rate of Automobile and Light-Duty Truck Topcoat Operations,’’ EPA– 450/3–88–018 (Docket ID No. OAR–2002– 0093 and Docket ID No. A–2001–22). (4) * * * Ws, i = Mass fraction of coating solids for coating, i, or average mass fraction of coating solids for the group of coatings including coating, i, kg coating solids per kg coating, determined by EPA Method 24 (appendix A– 7 to 40 CFR part 60) or the guidelines for combining analytical VOC content and formulation solvent content presented in ‘‘Protocol for Determining Daily Volatile Organic Compound Emission Rate of Automobile and Light-Duty Truck Topcoat Operations,’’ EPA–450/3–88–018 (Docket ID No. OAR–2002–0093 and Docket ID No. A– 2001–22). * * * * * ■ 15. Section 63.3166 is amended by revising the introductory text and paragraphs (a)(1) through (4) and (b) introductory text, and adding paragraph (b)(4) to read as follows: § 63.3166 How do I determine the add-on control device emission destruction or removal efficiency? You must use the procedures and test methods in this section to determine the add-on control device emission destruction or removal efficiency as part of the performance test required by §§ 63.3160, 63.3163, or 63.3171. You must conduct three test runs as specified in § 63.7(e)(3), and each test run must last at least 1 hour. (a) * * * (1) Use EPA Method 1 or 1A of appendix A–1 to 40 CFR part 60, as appropriate, to select sampling sites and velocity traverse points. (2) Use EPA Method 2, 2A, 2C, 2D, or 2F of appendix A–1, or 2G of appendix A–2 to 40 CFR part 60, as appropriate, to measure gas volumetric flow rate. (3) Use EPA Method 3, 3A, or 3B of appendix A–2 to 40 CFR part 60, as PO 00000 Frm 00064 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 appropriate, for gas analysis to determine dry molecular weight. The ANSI/ASME PTC 19.10–1981, ‘‘Flue and Exhaust Gas Analyses [Part 10, Instruments and Apparatus]’’ (incorporated by reference, see § 63.14), may be used as an alternative to EPA Method 3B. (4) Use EPA Method 4 of appendix A– 3 to 40 CFR part 60 to determine stack gas moisture. * * * * * (b) Measure total gaseous organic mass emissions as carbon at the inlet and outlet of the add-on control device simultaneously, using either EPA Method 25 or 25A of appendix A–7 to 40 CFR part 60, as specified in paragraphs (b)(1) through (4) of this section. You must use the same method for both the inlet and outlet measurements. * * * * * (4) You may use EPA Method 18 of appendix A–6 to 40 CFR part 60 to subtract methane emissions from measured total gaseous organic mass emissions as carbon. * * * * * ■ 16. Section 63.3167 is amended by revising the section heading, introductory text, and paragraph (f)(1) to read as follows: § 63.3167 How do I establish the add-on control device operating limits during performance tests? During the performance tests required by §§ 63.3160, 63.3163, and 63.3171 (and described in §§ 63.3164 and 63.3166), you must establish the operating limits required by § 63.3093 according to this section, unless you have received approval for alternative monitoring and operating limits under § 63.8(f) as specified in § 63.3093. * * * * * (f) * * * (1) During the capture efficiency determination required by §§ 63.3160 and 63.3163 and described in §§ 63.3164 and 63.3165, you must monitor and record either the gas volumetric flow rate or the duct static pressure for each separate capture device in your emission capture system at least once every 15 minutes during each of the three test runs at a point in the duct between the capture device and the add-on control device inlet. * * * * * ■ 17. Section 63.3168 is amended by revising paragraphs (a)(4) through (7) and (c)(3) introductory text to read as follows: E:\FR\FM\01NOP2.SGM 01NOP2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 212 / Friday, November 1, 2019 / Proposed Rules § 63.3168 What are the requirements for continuous parameter monitoring system installation, operation, and maintenance? (a) * * * (4) You must maintain the CPMS at all times in accordance with § 63.3100(d) and have readily available necessary parts for routine repairs of the monitoring equipment. (5) Before [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register], you must operate the CPMS and collect emission capture system and add-on control device parameter data at all times that a controlled coating operation is operating, except during monitoring malfunctions, associated repairs, and required quality assurance or control activities (including, if applicable, calibration checks and required zero and span adjustments). On and after [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register], you must operate the CPMS and collect emission capture system and add-on control device parameter data at all times that a controlled coating operation is operating in accordance with § 63.3100(d). (6) Before [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register], you must not use emission capture system or add-on control device parameter data recorded during monitoring malfunctions, associated repairs, out-of-control periods, or required quality assurance or control activities when calculating data averages. You must use all the data collected during all other periods in calculating the data averages for determining compliance with the emission capture system and add-on control device operating limits. On and after [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register], startups and shutdowns are normal operation for this source category. Emissions from these activities are to be included when determining if the standards specified in §§ 63.3090, 63.3091, 63.3092, 63.4292, and 63.4293 are being attained. You must not use emission capture system or add-on control device parameter data recorded during monitoring malfunctions, associated repairs, out-of-control periods, or required quality assurance or control activities when calculating data averages. You must use all the data collected during all other periods in calculating the data averages for determining compliance with the emission capture system and add-on control device operating limits. (7) A monitoring malfunction is any sudden, infrequent, not reasonably preventable failure of the CPMS to VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:18 Oct 31, 2019 Jkt 250001 provide valid data. Monitoring failures that are caused in part by poor maintenance or careless operation are not malfunctions. Before [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register], any period for which the monitoring system is out of control and data are not available for required calculations is a deviation from the monitoring requirements. On and after [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register], except for periods of required quality assurance or control activities, any period during which the CPMS fails to operate and record data continuously as required by paragraph (a)(1) of this section, or generates data that cannot be included in calculating averages as specified in paragraph (a)(7) of this section constitutes a deviation from the monitoring requirements. * * * * * (c) * * * (3) For all thermal oxidizers and catalytic oxidizers, you must meet the requirements in paragraphs (a)(1) through (6) and (c)(3)(i) through (vii) of this section for each gas temperature monitoring device. For the purposes of this paragraph (c)(3), a thermocouple is part of the temperature sensor. * * * * * ■ 18. Section 63.3171 is amended by revising paragraphs (a) and (e)(3) to read as follows: § 63.3171 How do I demonstrate initial compliance? (a) You must meet all of the requirements of this section to demonstrate initial compliance. To demonstrate initial compliance, the organic HAP emissions from the combined primer-surfacer, topcoat, final repair, glass bonding primer, and glass bonding adhesive operations plus all coatings and thinners, except for deadener materials and for adhesive and sealer materials that are not components of glass bonding systems, used in coating operations added to the affected source pursuant to § 63.3082(c) must meet the applicable emission limitation in § 63.3090(b) or § 63.3091(b); the organic HAP emissions from the electrodeposition primer operation must meet the applicable emissions limitations in § 63.3092(a) or (b); and you must meet the applicable operating limits and work practice standards in §§ 63.3093 and 63.3094. * * * * * (e) * * * (3) Information from the supplier or manufacturer of the material. You may rely on information other than that generated by the test methods specified PO 00000 Frm 00065 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 58999 in paragraphs (e)(1) and (2) of this section, such as manufacturer’s formulation data, if it represents each organic HAP in Table 5 to this subpart that is present at 0.1 percent by mass, and at 1.0 percent by mass or more for other compounds. If there is a disagreement between such information and results of a test conducted according to paragraph (e)(1) or (2) of this section, then the test method results will take precedence unless after consultation, the facility demonstrates to the satisfaction of the enforcement authority that the facility’s data are correct. * * * * * ■ 19. Section 63.3176 is amended by revising the definition of ‘‘Deviation’’ to read as follows: § 63.3176 subpart? What definitions apply to this * * * * * Deviation means: (1) Before [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register], any instance in which an affected source subject to this subpart or an owner or operator of such a source: (i) Fails to meet any requirement or obligation established by this subpart including but not limited to any emission limit, operating limit, or work practice standard; (ii) Fails to meet any term or condition that is adopted to implement an applicable requirement in this subpart and that is included in the operating permit for any affected source required to obtain such a permit; or (iii) Fails to meet any emission limit or operating limit or work practice standard in this subpart during startup, shutdown, or malfunction, regardless of whether or not such failure is permitted by this subpart; and (2) On and after [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register], any instance in which an affected source subject to this subpart or an owner or operator of such a source: (i) Fails to meet any requirement or obligation established by this subpart including but not limited to any emission limit, operating limit, or work practice standard; or (ii) Fails to meet any term or condition that is adopted to implement an applicable requirement in this subpart and that is included in the operating permit for any affected source required to obtain such a permit. * * * * * ■ 20. Table 2 to subpart IIII of part 63 is revised to read as follows: E:\FR\FM\01NOP2.SGM 01NOP2 59000 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 212 / Friday, November 1, 2019 / Proposed Rules TABLE 2 TO SUBPART IIII OF PART 63—APPLICABILITY OF GENERAL PROVISIONS TO SUBPART IIII OF PART 63 You must comply with the applicable General Provisions requirements according to the following table: Citation Subject Applicable to subpart IIII § 63.1(a)(1)–(12) ............................ § 63.1(b)(1)–(3) .............................. General Applicability ..................... Initial Applicability Determination .. Yes. Yes ................................................ § 63.1(c)(1) ..................................... Applicability After Standard Established. Applicability of Permit Program for Area Sources. Extensions and Notifications ........ Applicability of Permit Program Before Relevant Standard is Set. Definitions ..................................... Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. § 63.6(e)(1)(i)–(ii) ........................... Units and Abbreviations ............... Prohibited Activities ...................... Circumvention/Fragmentation ....... Preconstruction Review Applicability. Requirements for Existing, Newly Constructed, and Reconstructed Sources. Application for Approval of Construction/Reconstruction. Approval of Construction/Reconstruction. Approval of Construction/Reconstruction Based on Prior State Review. Compliance With Standards and Maintenance Requirements— Applicability. Compliance Dates for New and Reconstructed Sources. Compliance Dates for Existing Sources. Operation and Maintenance ......... § 63.6(e)(1)(iii) ................................ § 63.6(e)(3)(i), (e)(3)(iii)–(ix) ........... Operation and Maintenance ......... SSMP ............................................ § 63.6(f)(1) ...................................... Compliance Except During Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction. § 63.6(f)(2)–(3) ............................... Methods for Determining Compliance. Use of an Alternative Standard .... Compliance With Opacity/Visible Emission Standards. § 63.1(c)(2) ..................................... § 63.1(c)(5) ..................................... § 63.1(e) ......................................... § 63.2 ............................................. § 63.3 ............................................. § 63.4(a)(1)–(2) .............................. § 63.4(b)–(c) ................................... § 63.5(a) ......................................... § 63.5(b)(1), (3), (4), (6) ................. § 63.5(d)(1)(i)–(ii)(F), (d)(1)(ii)(H), (d)(1)(ii)(J), (d)(1)(iii), (d)(2)–(4). § 63.5(e) ......................................... § 63.5(f) .......................................... § 63.6(a) ......................................... § 63.6(b)(1)–(5), (b)(7) ................... § 63.6(c)(1), (2), (5) ........................ § 63.6(g) ......................................... § 63.6(h) ......................................... § 63.6(i)(1)–(14) ............................. 63.6(j) ............................................. § 63.7(a)(1) ..................................... VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:18 Oct 31, 2019 Extension of Compliance .............. Presidential Compliance Exemption. Performance Test Requirements—Applicability. Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00066 Fmt 4701 Explanation No ................................................. Applicability to subpart IIII is also specified in § 63.3081. Area sources are not subject to subpart IIII. Yes. Yes. Yes ................................................ Additional definitions are specified in § 63.3176. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes ................................................ Yes ................................................ Yes before [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register]. No on and after [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register]. Yes ................................................ Yes before [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register]. No on and after [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register]. Yes before [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register]. No on and after [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register]. Yes. Yes. No ................................................. Section 63.3083 specifies the compliance dates. Section 63.3083 specifies the compliance dates. See § 63.3100(d) for general duty requirement. Subpart IIII does not establish opacity standards and does not require continuous opacity monitoring systems (COMS). Yes. Yes. Yes ................................................ Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\01NOP2.SGM Applies to all affected sources. Additional requirements for performance testing are specified in §§ 63.3164 and 63.3166. 01NOP2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 212 / Friday, November 1, 2019 / Proposed Rules 59001 TABLE 2 TO SUBPART IIII OF PART 63—APPLICABILITY OF GENERAL PROVISIONS TO SUBPART IIII OF PART 63— Continued You must comply with the applicable General Provisions requirements according to the following table: Citation Subject § 63.7(a)(2) except (a)(2)(i)–(viii) ... Performance Test ments—Dates. § 63.7(a)(3)–(4) .............................. Performance Tests Required By the Administrator, Force Majeure. Performance Test Requirements—Notification, Quality Assurance, Facilities Necessary for Safe Testing Conditions During Test. Conduct of performance tests ...... § 63.7(b)–(d) ................................... § 63.7(e)(1) ..................................... § 63.7(e)(2)–(4) .............................. § 63.7(f) .......................................... § 63.7(g)–(h) ................................... Require- Conduct of performance tests ...... Performance Test Requirements—Use of Alternative Test Method. Performance Test Requirements—Data Analysis, Recordkeeping, Reporting, Waiver of Test. Applicable to subpart IIII Explanation Yes ................................................ Applies only to performance tests for capture system and control device efficiency at sources using these to comply with the standards. Section 63.3160 specifies the schedule for performance test requirements that are earlier than those specified in § 63.7(a)(2). Yes. Yes ................................................ Yes before [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register]. No on and after [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register]. Yes. Yes ................................................ Yes ................................................ § 63.8(a)(1)–(2) .............................. Monitoring Requirements—Applicability. Yes ................................................ § 63.8(a)(4) ..................................... No ................................................. § 63.8(b) ......................................... § 63.8(c)(1) ..................................... Additional Monitoring Requirements. Conduct of Monitoring .................. Continuous Monitoring Systems (CMS) Operation and Maintenance. 63.8(c)(2)–(3) ................................. CMS Operation and Maintenance Yes. Yes before [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register]. No on and after [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register]. Yes ................................................ § 63.8(c)(4) ..................................... CMS .............................................. No ................................................. § 63.89(c)(5) ................................... COMS ........................................... No ................................................. VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:18 Oct 31, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00067 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\01NOP2.SGM Applies only to performance tests for capture system and add-on control device efficiency at sources using these to comply with the standards. See § 63.3164. Applies to all test methods except those used to determine capture system efficiency. Applies only to performance tests for capture system and add-on control device efficiency at sources using these to comply with the standards. Applies only to monitoring of capture system and add-on control device efficiency at sources using these to comply with the standards. Additional requirements for monitoring are specified in § 63.3168. Subpart IIII does not have monitoring requirements for flares. Section 63.3168 specifies the requirements for the operation of CMS for capture systems and add-on control devices at sources using these to comply. Applies only to monitoring of capture system and add-on control device efficiency at sources using these to comply with the standards. Additional requirements for CMS operations and maintenance are specified in § 63.3168. Section 63.3168 specifies the requirements for the operation of CMS for capture systems and add-on control devices at sources using these to comply with the standards. Subpart IIII does not have opacity or visible emission standards. 01NOP2 59002 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 212 / Friday, November 1, 2019 / Proposed Rules TABLE 2 TO SUBPART IIII OF PART 63—APPLICABILITY OF GENERAL PROVISIONS TO SUBPART IIII OF PART 63— Continued You must comply with the applicable General Provisions requirements according to the following table: Citation Subject Applicable to subpart IIII Explanation § 63.8(c)(6) ..................................... CMS Requirements ...................... No ................................................. Section 63.3168 specifies the requirements for monitoring systems for capture systems and add-on control devices at sources using these to comply with the standards. § 63.8(c)(7) ..................................... § 63.8(c)(8) ..................................... CMS Out-of-Control Periods ........ CMS Out-of-Control Periods Reporting. Yes. No ................................................. § 63.8(d)–(e) ................................... Quality Control Program and CMS Performance Evaluation. No ................................................. § 63.8(f)(1)–(5) ............................... Use of an Alternative Monitoring Method. Alternative to Relative Accuracy Test. Data Reduction ............................. Yes. Notification Requirements ............ Initial Notifications ......................... Application for Approval of Construction or Reconstruction. Request for Extension of Compliance. Special Compliance Requirement Notification. Notification of Performance Test .. Yes. Yes. Yes. Notification of Visible Emissions/ Opacity Test. Additional Notifications When Using CMS. Notification of Compliance Status No ................................................. Clarifications ................................. Adjustment of Submittal Deadlines. Change in Previous Information ... Recordkeeping/Reporting—Applicability and General Information. General Recordkeeping Requirements. Recordkeeping of Occurrence and Duration of Startups and Shutdowns and of Failures to Meet Standards. Yes. Yes. § 63.8(f)(6) ...................................... § 63.8(g) ......................................... § 63.9(a) ......................................... § 63.9(b)(1)–(2) .............................. § 63.9(b)(4)(i), (b)(4)(v), (b)(5) ....... § 63.9(c) ......................................... § 63.9(d) ......................................... § 63.9(e) ......................................... § 63.9(f) .......................................... § 63.9(g) ......................................... § 63.9(h)(1)–(3) .............................. § 63.9(h)(5)–(6) .............................. § 63.9(i) .......................................... § 63.9(j) .......................................... § 63.10(a) ....................................... § 63.10(b)(1) ................................... § 63.10(b)(2)(i)–(ii) .......................... § 63.10(b)(2)(iii) .............................. § 63.10(b)(2)(iv)–(v) ....................... § 63.10(b)(2)(vi) .............................. VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:18 Oct 31, 2019 Recordkeeping Relevant to Maintenance of Air Pollution Control and Monitoring Equipment. Actions Taken to Minimize Emissions During SSM. Recordkeeping for CMS Malfunctions. Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00068 Fmt 4701 No ................................................. No ................................................. Section 63.3120 requires reporting of CMS out-of-control periods. Subpart IIII does not require the use of continuous emissions monitoring systems (CEMS). Subpart IIII does not require the use of CEMS. Sections 63.3167 and 63.3168 specify monitoring data reduction. Yes. Yes. Yes ................................................ No ................................................. Yes ................................................ Applies only to capture system and add-on control device performance tests at sources using these to comply with the standards. Subpart IIII does not have opacity or visible emission standards. Subpart IIII does not require the use of CEMS. Section 63.3110 specifies the dates for submitting the notification of compliance status. Yes. Yes. Yes ................................................ Yes before [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register]. No on and after [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register]. Yes. Yes before [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register]. No on and after [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register]. Yes before [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register]. No on and after [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register]. Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\01NOP2.SGM Additional requirements are specified in §§ 63.3130 and 63.3131. See 63.3130(g). See § 63.3130(g)(4) for a record of actions taken to minimize emissions during a deviation from the standard. See § 63.3130(g) for records of periods of deviation from the standard, including instances where a CMS is inoperative or out-of-control. 01NOP2 59003 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 212 / Friday, November 1, 2019 / Proposed Rules TABLE 2 TO SUBPART IIII OF PART 63—APPLICABILITY OF GENERAL PROVISIONS TO SUBPART IIII OF PART 63— Continued You must comply with the applicable General Provisions requirements according to the following table: Citation Subject Applicable to subpart IIII § 63.10(b)(2)(vii)–(xi) ...................... § 63.10(b)(2)(xii) ............................. § 63.10(b)(2)(xiii) ............................ Records ........................................ Records ........................................ ....................................................... Yes. Yes. No ................................................. § 63.10(b)(2)(xiv) ............................ § 63.10(b)(3) ................................... ....................................................... Recordkeeping Requirements for Applicability Determinations. Additional Recordkeeping Requirements for Sources with CMS. Additional Recordkeeping Requirements for Sources with CMS. Yes. Yes. § 63.10(c)(10)–(14) ........................ § 63.10(c)(15) ................................. ....................................................... Records Regarding the SSM Plan § 63.10(d)(1) ................................... General Reporting Requirements Yes. Yes before [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register]. No on and after [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register]. Yes ................................................ § 63.10(d)(2) ................................... Report of Performance Test Results. Reporting Opacity or Visible Emissions Observations. Yes ................................................ Progress Reports for Sources With Compliance Extensions. Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction Reports. Yes. § 63.10(c)(1)–(6) ............................ § 63.10(c)(7)–(8) ............................ § 63.10(d)(3) ................................... § 63.10(d)(4) ................................... § 63.10(d)(5) ................................... Explanation Yes. No ................................................. No ................................................. Yes before [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register]. No on and after [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register]. No ................................................. § 63.10(e)(1)–(2) ............................ Additional CMS Reports ............... § 63.10(e)(3) ................................... Excess Emissions/CMS Performance Reports. No ................................................. § 63.10(e)(4) ................................... COMS Data Reports .................... No ................................................. § 63.10(f) ........................................ § 63.11 ........................................... Recordkeeping/Reporting Waiver Control Device Requirements/ Flares. State Authority and Delegations ... Addresses ..................................... Incorporation by Reference .......... Availability of Information/Confidentiality. Yes. No ................................................. § 63.12 § 63.13 § 63.14 § 63.15 ........................................... ........................................... ........................................... ........................................... Subpart IIII does not require the use of CEMS. See § 63.3130(g) for records of periods of deviation from the standard, including instances where a CMS is inoperative or out-of-control. Additional requirements are specified in § 63.3120. Additional requirements are specified in § 63.3120(b). Subpart IIII does not require opacity or visible emissions observations. See 63.3120(a)(6). Subpart IIII does not require the use of CEMS. Section 63.3120(b) specifies the contents of periodic compliance reports. Subpart IIII does not specify requirements for opacity or COMS. Subpart IIII does not specify use of flares for compliance. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. 21. Table 5 to subpart IIII of part 63 is added to read as follows: ■ TABLE 5 TO SUBPART IIII OF PART 63—LIST OF HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANTS THAT MUST BE COUNTED TOWARD TOTAL ORGANIC HAP CONTENT IF PRESENT AT 0.1 PERCENT OR MORE BY MASS Chemical name CAS No. 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane .................................................................................................................................................................... 1,1,2-Trichloroethane ........................................................................................................................................................................... 1,1-Dimethylhydrazine ......................................................................................................................................................................... 1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane .............................................................................................................................................................. 1,2-Diphenylhydrazine ......................................................................................................................................................................... VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:18 Oct 31, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00069 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\01NOP2.SGM 01NOP2 79–34–5 79–00–5 57–14–7 96–12–8 122–66–7 59004 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 212 / Friday, November 1, 2019 / Proposed Rules TABLE 5 TO SUBPART IIII OF PART 63—LIST OF HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANTS THAT MUST BE COUNTED TOWARD TOTAL ORGANIC HAP CONTENT IF PRESENT AT 0.1 PERCENT OR MORE BY MASS—Continued Chemical name CAS No. 1,3-Butadiene ....................................................................................................................................................................................... 1,3-Dichloropropene ............................................................................................................................................................................ 1,4-Dioxane .......................................................................................................................................................................................... 2,4,6-Trichlorophenol ........................................................................................................................................................................... 2,4/2,6-Dinitrotoluene (mixture) ........................................................................................................................................................... 2,4-Dinitrotoluene ................................................................................................................................................................................. 2,4-Toluene diamine ............................................................................................................................................................................ 2-Nitropropane ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 3,3′-Dichlorobenzidine ......................................................................................................................................................................... 3,3′-Dimethoxybenzidine ..................................................................................................................................................................... 3,3′-Dimethylbenzidine ........................................................................................................................................................................ 4,4′-Methylene bis(2-chloroaniline) ...................................................................................................................................................... Acetaldehyde ....................................................................................................................................................................................... Acrylamide ........................................................................................................................................................................................... Acrylonitrile .......................................................................................................................................................................................... Allyl chloride ......................................................................................................................................................................................... alpha-Hexachlorocyclohexane (a-HCH) .............................................................................................................................................. Aniline .................................................................................................................................................................................................. Benzene ............................................................................................................................................................................................... Benzidine ............................................................................................................................................................................................. Benzotrichloride ................................................................................................................................................................................... Benzyl chloride .................................................................................................................................................................................... beta-Hexachlorocyclohexane (b-HCH) ................................................................................................................................................ Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate .................................................................................................................................................................... Bis(chloromethyl)ether ......................................................................................................................................................................... Bromoform ........................................................................................................................................................................................... Captan ................................................................................................................................................................................................. Carbon tetrachloride ............................................................................................................................................................................ Chlordane ............................................................................................................................................................................................ Chlorobenzilate .................................................................................................................................................................................... Chloroform ........................................................................................................................................................................................... Chloroprene ......................................................................................................................................................................................... Cresols (mixed) .................................................................................................................................................................................... DDE ..................................................................................................................................................................................................... Dichloroethyl ether ............................................................................................................................................................................... Dichlorvos ............................................................................................................................................................................................ Epichlorohydrin .................................................................................................................................................................................... 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 .............................................................................................................................................................................................. VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:18 Oct 31, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00070 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\01NOP2.SGM 01NOP2 106–99–0 542–75–6 123–91–1 88–06–2 25321–14–6 121–14–2 95–80–7 79–46–9 91–94–1 119–90–4 119–93–7 101–14–4 75–07–0 79–06–1 107–13–1 107–05–1 319–84–6 62–53–3 71–43–2 92–87–5 98–07–7 100–44–7 319–85–7 117–81–7 542–88–1 75–25–2 133–06–2 56–23–5 57–74–9 510–15–6 67–66–3 126–99–8 1319–77–3 3547–04–4 111–44–4 62–73–7 106–89–8 140–88–5 106–93–4 107–06–2 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 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 212 / Friday, November 1, 2019 / Proposed Rules 59005 TABLE 5 TO SUBPART IIII OF PART 63—LIST OF HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANTS THAT MUST BE COUNTED TOWARD TOTAL ORGANIC HAP CONTENT IF PRESENT AT 0.1 PERCENT OR MORE BY MASS—Continued Chemical name CAS No. Vinyl bromide ....................................................................................................................................................................................... Vinyl chloride ....................................................................................................................................................................................... Vinylidene chloride ............................................................................................................................................................................... Subpart MMMM—National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Surface Coating of Miscellaneous Metal Parts and Products 22. Section 63.3900 is amended by revising paragraphs (a)(2)(i) and (ii), (b), and (c) to read as follows: ■ § 63.3900 What are my general requirements for complying with this subpart? (a) * * * (2) * * * (i) Before [date 181 days after publication of final rule in the Federal Register], the coating operation(s) must be in compliance with the applicable emission limit in § 63.3890 at all times except during periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction. On or after [date 181 days after publication of final rule in the Federal Register] you must be in compliance with the applicable emission limits in § 63. 3890 and the operating limits in Table 1 of this subpart at all times. (ii) Before [date 181 days after publication of final rule in the Federal Register], the coating operation(s) must be in compliance with the operating limits for emission capture systems and add-on control devices required by § 63.3892 at all times except during periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction, and except for solvent recovery systems for which you conduct liquid-liquid material balances according to § 63.3961(j). On or after [date 181 days after publication of final rule in the Federal Register] the coating operation(s) must be in compliance with the operating limits for emission capture systems and add-on control devices required by § 63.3892 at all times, except for solvent recovery systems for which you conduct liquid-liquid material balances according to § 63.3961(j). * * * * * (b) Before [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register], you must always operate and maintain your affected source, including all air pollution control and monitoring equipment you use for purposes of complying with this subpart, according to the provisions in § 63.6(e)(1)(i). On and after [date 181 days after date of VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:18 Oct 31, 2019 Jkt 250001 publication of final rule in the Federal Register], at all times, the owner or operator must operate and maintain any affected source, including associated air pollution control equipment and monitoring equipment, in a manner consistent with safety and good air pollution control practices for minimizing emissions. The general duty to minimize emissions does not require the owner or operator to make any further efforts to reduce emissions if levels required by the applicable standard have been achieved. Determination of whether a source is operating in compliance with operation and maintenance requirements will be based on information available to the Administrator that may include, but is not limited to, monitoring results, review of operation and maintenance procedures, review of operation and maintenance records, and inspection of the affected source. (c) Before [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register], if your affected source uses an emission capture system and add-on control device, you must develop a written startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan (SSMP) according to the provisions in § 63.6(e)(3). The plan must address the startup, shutdown, and corrective actions in the event of a malfunction of the emission capture system or the add-on control device. The plan must also address any coating operation equipment that may cause increased emissions or that would affect capture efficiency if the process equipment malfunctions, such as conveyors that move parts among enclosures. On and after [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register], the SSMP is not required. ■ 23. Section 63.3920 is amended by: ■ a. Revising paragraphs (a)(5) introductory text and (a)(5)(i) and (iv); ■ b. Adding paragraph (a)(5)(v); ■ c. Revising paragraphs (a)(6) introductory text and (a)(6)(iii); ■ d. Adding paragraph (a)(6)(iv); ■ e. Revising paragraphs (a)(7) introductory text, (a)(7)(iii), (a)(7)(vi) through (viii), (a)(7) (x), and (a)(7)(xiii) and (xiv); ■ f. Adding paragraph (a)(7)(xv); PO 00000 Frm 00071 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 593–60–2 75–01–4 75–35–4 g. Revising paragraph (c) introductory text; and ■ h. Adding paragraphs (d) through (h). The revisions and additions read as follows: ■ § 63.3920 What reports must I submit? (a) * * * (5) Deviations: Compliant material option. If you used the compliant material option and there was a deviation from the applicable organic HAP content requirements in § 63.3890, the semiannual compliance report must contain the information in paragraphs (a)(5)(i) through (v) of this section. (i) Identification of each coating used that deviated from the applicable emission limit, and each thinner and/or other additive, and cleaning material used that contained organic HAP, and the dates, time and duration each was used. * * * * * (iv) Before [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register], a statement of the cause of each deviation. On and after [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register], a statement of the cause of each deviation (including unknown cause, if applicable). (v) On and after [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register], the number of deviations and, for each deviation, a list of the affected source or equipment, an estimate of the quantity of each regulated pollutant emitted over any applicable emission limit in § 63.3890, a description of the method used to estimate the emissions, and the actions you took to minimize emissions in accordance with § 63.3900(b). (6) Deviations: Emission rate without add-on controls option. If you used the emission rate without add-on controls option and there was a deviation from the applicable emission limit in § 63.3890, the semiannual compliance report must contain the information in paragraphs (a)(6)(i) through (iv) of this section. * * * * * (iii) Before [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register], a statement of the cause of each deviation. On and after [date 181 E:\FR\FM\01NOP2.SGM 01NOP2 59006 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 212 / Friday, November 1, 2019 / Proposed Rules days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register], a statement of the cause of each deviation (including unknown cause, if applicable). (iv) On and after [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register], the number of deviations and, for each deviation, the date, time, duration, a list of the affected source or equipment, an estimate of the quantity of each regulated pollutant emitted over any applicable emission limit in § 63.3890, a description of the method used to estimate the emissions, and the actions you took to minimize emissions in accordance with § 63.3900(b). (7) Deviations: Emission rate with add-on controls option. If you used the emission rate with add-on controls option and there was a deviation from the applicable emission limit in § 63.3890 or the applicable operating limit(s) in Table 1 to this subpart (including any periods when emissions bypassed the add-on control device and were diverted to the atmosphere), before [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register], the semiannual compliance report must contain the information in paragraphs (a)(7)(i) through (xiv) of this section. This includes periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction during which deviations occurred. On and after [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register], the semiannual compliance report must contain the information in paragraphs (a)(7)(i) through (xii), (a)(7)(xiv), and (a)(7)(xv) of this section. If you use the emission rate with add-on controls option and there was a deviation from the applicable work practice standards in § 63.3893(b), the semiannual compliance report must contain the information in paragraph (a)(7)(xiii) of this section. * * * * * (iii) The date and time that each malfunction of the capture system or add-on control devices started and stopped. * * * * * (vi) Before [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register], the date and time that each CPMS was inoperative, except for zero (low-level) and high-level checks. On and after [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register], the number of instances that the CPMS was inoperative, and for each instance, except for zero (low-level) and high-level checks, the date, time, and duration that the CPMS was inoperative; the cause (including unknown cause) VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:18 Oct 31, 2019 Jkt 250001 for the CPMS being inoperative; and the actions you took to minimize emissions in accordance with § 63.3900(b). (vii) Before [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register], the date, time, and duration that each CPMS was out-ofcontrol, including the information in § 63.8(c)(8). On and after [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register], the number of instances that the CPMS was out of control as specified in § 63.8(c)(7) and, for each instance, the date, time, and duration that the CPMS was out-ofcontrol; the cause (including unknown cause) for the CPMS being out-ofcontrol; and descriptions of corrective actions taken. (viii) Before [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register], the date and time period of each deviation from an operating limit in Table 1 to this subpart; date and time period of any bypass of the add-on control device; and whether each deviation occurred during a period of startup, shutdown, or malfunction or during another period. On and after [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register], the number of deviations from an operating limit in Table 1 to this subpart and, for each deviation, the date, time, and duration of each deviation; and the date, time, and duration of any bypass of the add-on control device. * * * * * (x) Before [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register], a breakdown of the total duration of the deviations from the operating limits in Table 1 of this subpart and bypasses of the add-on control device during the semiannual reporting period into those that were due to startup, shutdown, control equipment problems, process problems, other known causes, and other unknown causes. On and after [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register], a breakdown of the total duration of the deviations from the operating limits in Table 1 to this subpart and bypasses of the add-on control device during the semiannual reporting period into those that were due to control equipment problems, process problems, other known causes, and other unknown causes. * * * * * (xiii) Before [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register], for each deviation from the work practice standards, a description of the deviation, the date PO 00000 Frm 00072 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 and time period of the deviation, and the actions you took to correct the deviation. On and after [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register], for deviations from the work practice standards, the number of deviations, and, for each deviation, the information in paragraphs (a)(7)(xiii)(A) and (B) of this section: (A) A description of the deviation; the date, time, and duration of the deviation; and the actions you took to minimize emissions in accordance with § 63.3900(b). (B) The description required in paragraph (a)(7)(xiii)(A) of this section must include a list of the affected sources or equipment for which a deviation occurred and the cause of the deviation (including unknown cause, if applicable). (xiv) Before [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register], statement of the cause of each deviation. On and after [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register], for deviations from an emission limit in § 63.3890 or an operating limit in Table 1 to this subpart, a statement of the cause of each deviation (including unknown cause, if applicable) and the actions you took to minimize emissions in accordance with § 63.3900(b). (xv) On and after [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register], for each deviation from an emission limit in § 63.3890 or operating limit in Table 1 to this subpart, a list of the affected sources or equipment for which a deviation occurred, an estimate of the quantity of each regulated pollutant emitted over any emission limit in § 63.3890 or operating limit in Table 1 to this subpart, and a description of the method used to estimate the emissions. * * * * * (c) Startup, shutdown, malfunction reports. Before [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register], if you used the emission rate with add-on controls option and you had a startup, shutdown, or malfunction during the semiannual reporting period, you must submit the reports specified in paragraphs (c)(1) and (2) of this section. On and after [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register], the reports specified in paragraphs (c)(1) and (2) of this section are not required. * * * * * (d) On and after [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register], you must submit the results of the performance test required E:\FR\FM\01NOP2.SGM 01NOP2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 212 / Friday, November 1, 2019 / Proposed Rules in §§ 63.3940 and 63.3950 following the procedure specified in paragraphs (d)(1) through (3) of this section. (1) For data collected using test methods supported by the EPA’s Electronic Reporting Tool (ERT) as listed on the EPA’s ERT website (https://www.epa.gov/electronicreporting-air-emissions/electronicreporting-tool-ert) at the time of the test, you must submit the results of the performance test to the EPA via the CEDRI. The CEDRI interface can be accessed through the EPA’s CDX (https://cdx.epa.gov//). Performance test data must be submitted in a file format generated through the use of the EPA’s ERT or an alternate electronic file format consistent with the XML schema listed on the EPA’s ERT website. (2) For data collected using test methods that are not supported by the EPA’s ERT as listed on the EPA’s ERT website at the time of the test, you must submit the results of the performance test to the Administrator at the appropriate address listed in § 63.13, unless the Administrator agrees to or specifies an alternate reporting method. (3) If you claim that some of the performance test information being submitted under paragraph (d)(1) of this section is CBI, you must submit a complete file generated through the use of the EPA’s ERT or an alternate electronic file consistent with the XML schema listed on the EPA’s ERT website, including information claimed to be CBI, on a compact disc, flash drive, or other commonly used electronic storage medium to the EPA. The electronic medium must be clearly marked as CBI and mailed to U.S. EPA/ OAPQS/CORE CBI Office, Attention: Group Leader, Measurement Policy Group, MD C404–02, 4930 Old Page Rd., Durham, NC 27703. The same ERT or alternate file with the CBI omitted must be submitted to the EPA via the EPA’s CDX as described in paragraph (d)(1) of this section. (e) On and after [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register], the owner or operator shall submit the initial notifications required in § 63.9(b) and the notification of compliance status required in § 63.9(h) and § 63.3910(c) to the EPA via the CEDRI. The CEDRI interface can be accessed through the EPA’s CDX (https://cdx.epa.gov/). The owner or operator must upload to CEDRI an electronic copy of each applicable notification in portable document format (PDF). The applicable notification must be submitted by the deadline specified in this subpart, regardless of the method in which the reports are submitted. Owners or VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:18 Oct 31, 2019 Jkt 250001 operators who claim that some of the information required to be submitted via CEDRI is CBI shall submit a complete report generated using the appropriate form in CEDRI or an alternate electronic file consistent with the XML schema listed on the EPA’s CEDRI website, including information claimed to be CBI, on a compact disc, flash drive, or other commonly used electronic storage medium to the EPA. The electronic medium shall be clearly marked as CBI and mailed to U.S. EPA/OAQPS/CORE CBI Office, Attention: Group Leader, Measurement Policy Group, MD C404– 02, 4930 Old Page Rd., Durham, NC 27703. The same file with the CBI omitted shall be submitted to the EPA via the EPA’s CDX as described earlier in this paragraph. (f) On and after [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register], or once the reporting template has been available on the CEDRI website for 1 year, whichever date is later, the owner or operator shall submit the semiannual compliance report required in paragraph (a) of this section to the EPA via the CEDRI. The CEDRI interface can be accessed through the EPA’s CDX (https://cdx.epa.gov/). The owner or operator must use the appropriate electronic template on the CEDRI website for this subpart or an alternate electronic file format consistent with the XML schema listed on the CEDRI website (https:// www.epa.gov/electronic-reporting-airemissions/compliance-and-emissionsdata-reporting-interface-cedri). The date report templates become available will be listed on the CEDRI website. If the reporting form for the semiannual compliance report specific to this subpart is not available in CEDRI at the time that the report is due, you must submit the report to the Administrator at the appropriate addresses listed in § 63.13. Once the form has been available in CEDRI for 1 year, you must begin submitting all subsequent reports via CEDRI. The reports must be submitted by the deadlines specified in this subpart, regardless of the method in which the reports are submitted. Owners or operators who claim that some of the information required to be submitted via CEDRI is CBI shall submit a complete report generated using the appropriate form in CEDRI or an alternate electronic file consistent with the XML schema listed on the EPA’s CEDRI website, including information claimed to be CBI, on a compact disc, flash drive, or other commonly used electronic storage medium to the EPA. The electronic medium shall be clearly marked as CBI and mailed to U.S. EPA/ PO 00000 Frm 00073 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 59007 OAQPS/CORE CBI Office, Attention: Group Leader, Measurement Policy Group, MD C404–02, 4930 Old Page Rd., Durham, NC 27703. The same file with the CBI omitted shall be submitted to the EPA via the EPA’s CDX as described earlier in this paragraph. (g) If you are required to electronically submit a report through the CEDRI in the EPA’s CDX, and due to a planned or actual outage of either the EPA’s CEDRI or CDX systems within the period of time beginning 5 business days prior to the date that the submission is due, you will be or are precluded from accessing CEDRI or CDX and submitting a required report within the time prescribed, you may assert a claim of EPA system outage for failure to timely comply with the reporting requirement. You must submit notification to the Administrator in writing as soon as possible following the date you first knew, or through due diligence should have known, that the event may cause or caused a delay in reporting. You must provide to the Administrator a written description identifying the date, time and length of the outage; a rationale for attributing the delay in reporting beyond the regulatory deadline to the EPA system outage; describe the measures taken or to be taken to minimize the delay in reporting; and identify a date by which you propose to report, or if you have already met the reporting requirement at the time of the notification, the date you reported. In any circumstance, the report must be submitted electronically as soon as possible after the outage is resolved. The decision to accept the claim of EPA system outage and allow an extension to the reporting deadline is solely within the discretion of the Administrator. (h) If you are required to electronically submit a report through CEDRI in the EPA’s CDX and a force majeure event is about to occur, occurs, or has occurred or there are lingering effects from such an event within the period of time beginning 5 business days prior to the date the submission is due, the owner or operator may assert a claim of force majeure for failure to timely comply with the reporting requirement. For the purposes of this section, a force majeure event is defined as an event that will be or has been caused by circumstances beyond the control of the affected facility, its contractors, or any entity controlled by the affected facility that prevents you from complying with the requirement to submit a report electronically within the time period prescribed. Examples of such events are acts of nature (e.g., hurricanes, earthquakes, or floods), acts of war or terrorism, or equipment failure E:\FR\FM\01NOP2.SGM 01NOP2 59008 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 212 / Friday, November 1, 2019 / Proposed Rules or safety hazard beyond the control of the affected facility (e.g., large scale power outage). If you intend to assert a claim of force majeure, you must submit notification to the Administrator in writing as soon as possible following the date you first knew, or through due diligence should have known, that the event may cause or caused a delay in reporting. You must provide to the Administrator a written description of the force majeure event and a rationale for attributing the delay in reporting beyond the regulatory deadline to the force majeure event; describe the measures taken or to be taken to minimize the delay in reporting; and identify a date by which you propose to report, or if you have already met the reporting requirement at the time of the notification, the date you reported. In any circumstance, the reporting must occur as soon as possible after the force majeure event occurs. The decision to accept the claim of force majeure and allow an extension to the reporting deadline is solely within the discretion of the Administrator. ■ 24. Section 63.3930 is amended by revising paragraphs (j), (k) introductory text, and (k)(1) and (2) to read as follows: § 63.3930 What records must I keep? * * * * * (j) Before [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register], you must keep records of the date, time, and duration of each deviation. On and after [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register], for each deviation from an emission limitation reported under § 63.3920(a)(5) through (7), a record of the information specified in paragraphs (j)(1) through (4) of this section, as applicable. (1) The date, time, and duration of the deviation, as reported under § 63.3920(a)(5) through (7). (2) A list of the affected sources or equipment for which the deviation occurred and the cause of the deviation, as reported under § 63.3920(a)(5) through (7). (3) An estimate of the quantity of each regulated pollutant emitted over any applicable emission limit in § 63.3890 or any applicable operating limit in Table 1 to this subpart, and a description of the method used to calculate the estimate, as reported under § 63.3920(a)(5) through (7). (4) A record of actions taken to minimize emissions in accordance with § 63.3900(b) and any corrective actions taken to return the affected unit to its normal or usual manner of operation. VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:18 Oct 31, 2019 Jkt 250001 (k) If you use the emission rate with add-on controls option, you must also keep the records specified in paragraphs (k)(1) through (8) of this section. (1) Before [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register], for each deviation, a record of whether the deviation occurred during a period of startup, shutdown, or malfunction. On and after [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register], a record of whether the deviation occurred during a period of startup, shutdown, or malfunction is not required. (2) Before [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register], the records in § 63.6(e)(3)(iii) through (v) related to startup, shutdown, and malfunction. On and after [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register], the records in § 63.6(e)(3)(iii) through (v) related to startup, shutdown, and malfunction are not required. * * * * * ■ 25. Section 63.3931 is amended by revising paragraph (a) to read as follows: § 63.3931 In what form and for how long must I keep my records? (a) Your records must be in a form suitable and readily available for expeditious review, according to § 63.10(b)(1). Where appropriate, the records may be maintained as electronic spreadsheets or as a database. On and after [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register], any records required to be maintained by this subpart that are in reports that were submitted electronically via the EPA’s CEDRI may be maintained in electronic format. This ability to maintain electronic copies does not affect the requirement for facilities to make records, data, and reports available upon request to a delegated air agency or the EPA as part of an on-site compliance evaluation. * * * * * ■ 26. Section 63.3941 is amended by revising paragraphs (a)(1)(i), (a)(4), (b)(1), the definition of ‘‘Davg’’ in Equation 1 of paragraph (b)(4), and paragraph (c) to read as follows: § 63.3941 How do I demonstrate initial compliance with the emission limitations? * * * * * (a) * * * (1) * * * (i) Count each organic HAP in Table 5 to this subpart that is measured to be present at 0.1 percent by mass or more and at 1.0 percent by mass or more for other compounds. For example, if toluene (not listed in Table 5 to this subpart) is measured to be 0.5 percent PO 00000 Frm 00074 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 of the material by mass, you do not have to count it. Express the mass fraction of each organic HAP you count as a value truncated to four places after the decimal point (e.g., 0.3791). * * * * * (4) Information from the supplier or manufacturer of the material. You may rely on information other than that generated by the test methods specified in paragraphs (a)(1) through (3) of this section, such as manufacturer’s formulation data, if it represents each organic HAP in Table 5 to this subpart that is present at 0.1 percent by mass or more and at 1.0 percent by mass or more for other compounds. For example, if toluene (not listed in Table 5 to this subpart) is 0.5 percent of the material by mass, you do not have to count it. For reactive adhesives in which some of the HAP react to form solids and are not emitted to the atmosphere, you may rely on manufacturer’s data that expressly states the organic HAP or volatile matter mass fraction emitted. If there is a disagreement between such information and results of a test conducted according to paragraphs (a)(1) through (3) of this section, then the test method results will take precedence unless, after consultation, you demonstrate to the satisfaction of the enforcement agency that the formulation data are correct. * * * * * (b) * * * (1) ASTM Method D2697–03 (2014) or D6093–97 (2016). You may use ASTM D2697–03 (Reapproved 2014) (incorporated by reference, see § 63.14), or D6093–97 (Reapproved 2016) (incorporated by reference, see § 63.14), to determine the volume fraction of coating solids for each coating. Divide the nonvolatile volume percent obtained with the methods by 100 to calculate volume fraction of coating solids. * * * * * (4) * * * Davg = Average density of volatile matter in the coating, grams volatile matter per liter volatile matter, determined from test results using ASTM D1475–13 (incorporated by reference, see § 63.14), information from the supplier or manufacturer of the material, or reference sources providing density or specific gravity data for pure materials. If there is disagreement between ASTM D1475–13 test results and other information sources, the test results will take precedence unless, after consultation you demonstrate to the satisfaction of the enforcement agency that the formulation data are correct. (c) Determine the density of each coating. Determine the density of each coating used during the compliance period from test results using ASTM E:\FR\FM\01NOP2.SGM 01NOP2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 212 / Friday, November 1, 2019 / Proposed Rules D1475–13 (incorporated by reference, see § 63.14), information from the supplier or manufacturer of the material, or specific gravity data for pure chemicals. If there is disagreement between ASTM D1475–13 test results and the supplier’s or manufacturer’s information, the test results will take precedence unless, after consultation you demonstrate to the satisfaction of the enforcement agency that the formulation data are correct. * * * * * ■ 27. Section 63.3951 is amended by revising paragraph (c) to read as follows: § 63.3951 How do I demonstrate initial compliance with the emission limitations? * * * * * (c) Determine the density of each material. Determine the density of each liquid coating, thinner and/or other additive, and cleaning material used during each month from test results using ASTM D1475–13 or ASTM D2111–10 (Reapproved 2015) (both incorporated by reference, see § 63.14), information from the supplier or manufacturer of the material, or reference sources providing density or specific gravity data for pure materials. If you are including powder coatings in the compliance determination, determine the density of powder coatings, using ASTM D5965–02 (2013) (incorporated by reference, see § 63.14), or information from the supplier. If there is disagreement between ASTM D1475–13 or ASTM D2111–10 (2015) test results and other such information sources, the test results will take precedence unless, after consultation you demonstrate to the satisfaction of the enforcement agency that the formulation data are correct. If you purchase materials or monitor consumption by weight instead of volume, you do not need to determine material density. Instead, you may use the material weight in place of the combined terms for density and volume in Equations 1A, 1B, 1C, and 2 of this section. * * * * * ■ 28. Section 63.3960 is amended by revising paragraphs (a)(1) and (4), (b)(1), and (c) introductory text to read as follows: § 63.3960 By what date must I conduct performance tests and other initial compliance demonstrations? (a) * * * (1) All emission capture systems, addon control devices, and CPMS must be installed and operating no later than the applicable compliance date specified in § 63.3883. Except for solvent recovery systems for which you conduct liquid- VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:18 Oct 31, 2019 Jkt 250001 liquid material balances according to § 63.3961(j), you must conduct according to the schedule in paragraphs (a)(1)(i) and (ii) of this section initial and periodic performance tests of each capture system and add-on control device according to the procedures in §§ 63.3964, 63.3965, and 63.3966 and establish the operating limits required by § 63.3892. For a solvent recovery system for which you conduct liquidliquid material balances according to § 63.3961(j), you must initiate the first material balance no later than the applicable compliance date specified in § 63.3883. For magnet wire coating operations, you may, with approval, conduct a performance test of one representative magnet wire coating machine for each group of identical or very similar magnet wire coating machines. (i) You must conduct the initial performance test and establish the operating limits required by § 63.3892 no later than 180 days after the applicable compliance date specified in § 63.3883. (ii) You must conduct periodic performance tests and establish the operating limits required by § 63.3892 within 5 years following the previous performance test. You must conduct the first periodic performance test before [date 3 years after date of publications of final rule in the Federal Register], unless you are already required to complete periodic performance tests as a requirement of renewing your facility’s operating permit under 40 CFR part 70 or 40 CFR part 71 and have conducted a performance test on or after [date 2 years before date of publications of final rule in the Federal Register]. Thereafter you must conduct a performance test no later than 5 years following the previous performance test. Operating limits must be confirmed or reestablished during each performance test. For any control device for which you are using the catalytic oxidizer control option at § 63.3967(b) and following the catalyst maintenance procedures in § 63.3967(b)(4), you are not required to conduct periodic testing control device performance testing as specified by this paragraph. For any control device for which instruments are used to continuously measure organic compound emissions, you are not required to conduct periodic control device performance testing as specified by this paragraph. * * * * * (4) For the initial compliance demonstration, you do not need to comply with the operating limits for the emission capture system and add-on PO 00000 Frm 00075 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 59009 control device required by § 63.3892 until after you have completed the initial performance tests specified in paragraph (a)(1) of this section. Instead, you must maintain a log detailing the operation and maintenance of the emission capture system, add-on control device, and continuous parameter monitors during the period between the compliance date and the performance test. You must begin complying with the operating limits established based on the initial performance tests specified in paragraph (a)(1) of this section for your affected source on the date you complete the performance tests. For magnet wire coating operations, you must begin complying with the operating limits for all identical or very similar magnet wire coating machines on the date you complete the performance test of a representative magnet wire coating machine. The requirements in this paragraph (a)(4) do not apply to solvent recovery systems for which you conduct liquid-liquid material balances according to the requirements in § 63.3961(j). (b) * * * (1) All emission capture systems, addon control devices, and CPMS must be installed and operating no later than the applicable compliance date specified in § 63.3883. Except for magnet wire coating operations and solvent recovery systems for which you conduct liquidliquid material balances according to § 63.3961(j), you must conduct according to the schedule in paragraphs (b)(1)(i) and (ii) of this section initial and periodic performance tests of each capture system and add-on control device according to the procedures in §§ 63.3964, 63.3965, and 63.3966 and establish the operating limits required by § 63.3892. For magnet wire coating operations, you may, with approval, conduct a performance test of a single magnet wire coating machine that represents identical or very similar magnet wire coating machines. For a solvent recovery system for which you conduct liquid-liquid material balances according to § 63.3961(j), you must initiate the first material balance no later than the compliance date specified in § 63.3883. (i) You must conduct the initial performance test and establish the operating limits required by § 63.3892 no later than 180 days after the applicable compliance date specified in § 63.3883. (ii) You must conduct periodic performance tests and establish the operating limits required by § 63.3892 within 5 years following the previous performance test. You must conduct the first periodic performance test before E:\FR\FM\01NOP2.SGM 01NOP2 59010 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 212 / Friday, November 1, 2019 / Proposed Rules [date 3 years after date of publications of final rule in the Federal Register], unless you are already required to complete periodic performance tests as a requirement of renewing your facility’s operating permit under 40 CFR part 70 or 40 CFR part 71 and have conducted a performance test on or after [date 2 years before date of publications of final rule in the Federal Register]. Thereafter you must conduct a performance test no later than 5 years following the previous performance test. Operating limits must be confirmed or reestablished during each performance test. For any control device for which you are using the catalytic oxidizer control option at § 63.3967(b) and following the catalyst maintenance procedures in § 63.3967(b)(4), you are not required to conduct periodic testing control device performance testing as specified by this paragraph. For any control device for which instruments are used to continuously measure organic compound emissions, you are not required to conduct periodic control device performance testing as specified by this paragraph. * * * * * (c) You are not required to conduct an initial performance test to determine capture efficiency or destruction efficiency of a capture system or control device if you receive approval to use the results of a performance test that has been previously conducted on that capture system or control device. Any such previous tests must meet the conditions described in paragraphs (c)(1) through (3) of this section. You are still required to conduct a periodic performance test according to the applicable requirements of paragraphs (a)(1)(ii) and (b)(2)(ii) of this section. * * * * * ■ 29. Section 63.3961 is amended by revising paragraph (j)(3) to read as follows: § 63.3961 How do I demonstrate initial compliance? * * * * * (j) * * * (3) Determine the mass fraction of volatile organic matter for each coating, thinner and/or other additive, and cleaning material used in the coating operation controlled by the solvent recovery system during the month, kg volatile organic matter per kg coating. You may determine the volatile organic matter mass fraction using EPA Method 24 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A–7, ASTM D2369–10 (Reapproved 2015)e, (incorporated by reference, see § 63.14), or an EPA approved alternative method, or you may use information provided by the manufacturer or supplier of the VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:18 Oct 31, 2019 Jkt 250001 coating. In the event of any inconsistency between information provided by the manufacturer or supplier and the results of EPA Method 24 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A–7, ASTM D2369–10 (Reapproved 2015)e, or an approved alternative method, the test method results will take precedence unless, after consultation you demonstrate to the satisfaction of the enforcement agency that the formulation data are correct. * * * * * ■ 30. Section 63.3963 is amended by revising paragraph (f) and adding paragraph (i) to read as follows: § 63.3963 How do I demonstrate continuous compliance with the emission limitations? * * * * * (f) As part of each semiannual compliance report required in § 63.3920, you must identify the coating operation(s) for which you used the emission rate with add-on controls option. If there were no deviations from the emission limits in § 63.3890, the operating limits in § 63.3892, and the work practice standards in § 63.3893, submit a statement that you were in compliance with the emission limitations during the reporting period because the organic HAP emission rate for each compliance period was less than or equal to the applicable emission limit in § 63.3890, and you achieved the operating limits required by § 63.3892 and the work practice standards required by § 63.3893 during each compliance period. * * * * * (i) On and after [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register], deviations that occur due to malfunction of the emission capture system, add-on control device, or coating operation that may affect emission capture or control device efficiency are required to operate in accordance with § 63.3900(b). The Administrator will determine whether the deviations are violations according to the provisions in § 63.3900(b). * * * * * ■ 31. Section 63.3964 is amended by revising paragraphs (a) introductory text and (a)(1) to read as follows: § 63.3964 What are the general requirements for performance tests? (a) Before [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register], you must conduct each performance test required by § 63.3960 according to the requirements in § 63.7(e)(1) and under the conditions in this section, unless you obtain a waiver of the performance test according to the PO 00000 Frm 00076 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 provisions in § 63.7(h). On and after [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register], you must conduct each performance test required by § 63.3960 according to the requirements in this section unless you obtain a waiver of the performance test according to the provisions in § 63.7(h). (1) Representative coating operation operating conditions. You must conduct the performance test under representative operating conditions for the coating operation. Operations during periods of startup, shutdown, or periods of nonoperation do not constitute representative conditions for purposes of conducting a performance test. The owner or operator may not conduct performance tests during periods of malfunction. You must record the process information that is necessary to document operating conditions during the test and explain why the conditions represent normal operation. Upon request, you must make available to the Administrator such records as may be necessary to determine the conditions of performance tests. * * * * * ■ 32. Section 63.3965 is amended by revising the introductory text to read as follows: § 63.3965 How do I determine the emission capture system efficiency? You must use the procedures and test methods in this section to determine capture efficiency as part of each performance test required by § 63.3960. * * * * * ■ 33. Section 63.3966 is amended by revising the introductory text and paragraph (b) to read as follows: § 63.3966 How do I determine the add-on control device emission destruction or removal efficiency? You must use the procedures and test methods in this section to determine the add-on control device emission destruction or removal efficiency as part of the performance test required by § 63.3960. For each performance test, you must conduct three test runs as specified in § 63.7(e)(3) and each test run must last at least 1 hour. If the source is a magnet wire coating machine, you may use the procedures in section 3.0 of appendix A to this subpart as an alternative. * * * * * (b) Measure total gaseous organic mass emissions as carbon at the inlet and outlet of the add-on control device simultaneously, using either EPA Method 25 or 25A of appendix A–7 to 40 CFR part 60. (1) Use EPA Method 25 of appendix A–7 to 40 CFR part 60 if the add-on E:\FR\FM\01NOP2.SGM 01NOP2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 212 / Friday, November 1, 2019 / Proposed Rules control device is an oxidizer and you expect the total gaseous organic concentration as carbon to be more than 50 parts per million (ppm) at the control device outlet. (2) Use EPA Method 25A of appendix A–7 to 40 CFR part 60 if the add-on control device is an oxidizer and you expect the total gaseous organic concentration as carbon to be 50 ppm or less at the control device outlet. (3) Use EPA Method 25A of appendix A–7 to 40 CFR part 60 if the add-on control device is not an oxidizer. (4) You may use EPA Method 18 of appendix A–6 to 40 CFR part 60 to subtract methane emissions from measured total gaseous organic mass emissions as carbon. * * * * * ■ 34. Section 63.3967 is amended by revising paragraphs (a)(1) and (2), (b)(1) through (3), (d)(1) and (2), and (e)(1) through (4) to read as follows: § 63.3967 How do I establish the emission capture system and add-on control device operating limits during the performance test? * * * * * (a) * * * (1) During performance tests, you must monitor and record the combustion temperature at least once every 15 minutes during each of the three test runs. You must monitor the temperature in the firebox of the thermal oxidizer or immediately downstream of the firebox before any substantial heat exchange occurs. (2) For each performance test, use the data collected during the performance test to calculate and record the average combustion temperature maintained during the performance test. This average combustion temperature is the minimum operating limit for your thermal oxidizer. (b) * * * (1) During performance tests, you must monitor and record the temperature just before the catalyst bed and the temperature difference across the catalyst bed at least once every 15 minutes during each of the three test runs. (2) For each performance test, use the data collected during the performance test to calculate and record the average temperature just before the catalyst bed and the average temperature difference across the catalyst bed maintained during the performance test. These are the minimum operating limits for your catalytic oxidizer. (3) You must monitor the temperature at the inlet to the catalyst bed and implement a site-specific inspection and maintenance plan for your catalytic VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:18 Oct 31, 2019 Jkt 250001 oxidizer as specified in paragraph (b)(4) of this section. During the performance test, you must monitor and record the temperature just before the catalyst bed at least once every 15 minutes during each of the three test runs. For each performance test, use the data collected during the performance test to calculate and record the average temperature just before the catalyst bed during the performance test. This is the minimum operating limit for your catalytic oxidizer. * * * * * (d) * * * (1) During performance tests, you must monitor and record the condenser outlet (product side) gas temperature at least once every 15 minutes during each of the three test runs. (2) For each performance test, use the data collected during the performance test to calculate and record the average condenser outlet (product side) gas temperature maintained during the performance test. This average condenser outlet gas temperature is the maximum operating limit for your condenser. (e) * * * (1) During performance tests, you must monitor and record the desorption concentrate stream gas temperature at least once every 15 minutes during each of the three runs of the performance test. (2) For each performance test, use the data collected during the performance test to calculate and record the average temperature. This is the minimum operating limit for the desorption concentrate gas stream temperature. (3) During performance tests, you must monitor and record the pressure drop of the dilute stream across the concentrator at least once every 15 minutes during each of the three runs of the performance test. (4) For each performance test, use the data collected during the performance test to calculate and record the average pressure drop. This is the minimum operating limit for the dilute stream across the concentrator. * * * * * ■ 35. Section 63.3968 is amended by revising paragraphs (a)(4), (5), and (7) and (c)(3) introductory text to read as follows: § 63.3968 What are the requirements for continuous parameter monitoring system installation, operation, and maintenance? (a) * * * (4) Before [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register], you must maintain the CPMS at all times and have available necessary parts for routine repairs of the monitoring equipment. On and after PO 00000 Frm 00077 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 59011 [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register], you must maintain the CPMS at all times in accordance with § 63.3900(b) and keep necessary parts readily available for routine repairs of the monitoring equipment. (5) Before [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register], you must operate the CPMS and collect emission capture system and add-on control device parameter data at all times that a controlled coating operation is operating, except during monitoring malfunctions, associated repairs, and required quality assurance or control activities (including, if applicable, calibration checks and required zero and span adjustments). On and after [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register], you must operate the CPMS and collect emission capture system and add-on control device parameter data at all times in accordance with § 63.3900(b). * * * * * (7) A monitoring malfunction is any sudden, infrequent, not reasonably preventable failure of the CPMS to provide valid data. Monitoring failures that are caused in part by poor maintenance or careless operation are not malfunctions. Before [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register], any period for which the monitoring system is out-ofcontrol and data are not available for required calculations is a deviation from the monitoring requirements. On and after [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register], except for periods of required quality assurance or control activities, any period for which the CPMS fails to operate and record data continuously as required by paragraph (a)(5) of this section, or generates data that cannot be included in calculating averages as specified in (a)(6) of this section constitutes a deviation from the monitoring requirements. * * * * * (c) * * * (3) For all thermal oxidizers and catalytic oxidizers, you must meet the requirements in paragraphs (a) and (c)(3)(i) through (v) of this section for each gas temperature monitoring device. For the purposes of this paragraph (c)(3), a thermocouple is part of the temperature sensor. * * * * * ■ 36. Section 63.3981 is amended by revising the definitions of ‘‘Deviation’’ and ‘‘Non-HAP coating’’ to read as follows: E:\FR\FM\01NOP2.SGM 01NOP2 59012 § 63.3981 subpart? Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 212 / Friday, November 1, 2019 / Proposed Rules What definitions apply to this * * * * * Deviation means: (1) Before [date 181 days after date of publication in the Federal Register], any instance in which an affected source subject to this subpart, or an owner or operator of such a source: (i) Fails to meet any requirement or obligation established by this subpart including but not limited to, any emission limit or operating limit or work practice standard; (ii) Fails to meet any term or condition that is adopted to implement an applicable requirement in this subpart and that is included in the operating permit for any affected source required to obtain such a permit; or (iii) Fails to meet any emission limit, or operating limit, or work practice standard in this subpart during startup, shutdown, or malfunction, regardless of whether or not such failure is permitted by this subpart; and (2) On and after [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register], any instance in which an affected source subject to this subpart or an owner or operator of such a source: (i) Fails to meet any requirement or obligation established by this subpart including but not limited to any emission limit, operating limit, or work practice standard; or (ii) Fails to meet any term or condition that is adopted to implement an applicable requirement in this subpart and that is included in the operating permit for any affected source required to obtain such a permit. * * * * * Non-HAP coating means, for the purposes of this subpart, a coating that contains no more than 0.1 percent by mass of any individual organic HAP that is listed in Table 5 to this subpart and no more than 1.0 percent by mass for any other individual HAP. * * * * * ■ 37. Table 2 to Subpart MMMM of part 63 is revised to read as follows: TABLE 2 TO SUBPART MMMM OF PART 63—APPLICABILITY OF GENERAL PROVISIONS TO SUBPART MMMM OF PART 63 You must comply with the applicable General Provisions requirements according to the following table: Citation Subject Applicable to subpart MMMM § 63.1(a)(1)–(14) ............................ § 63.1(b)(1)–(3) .............................. General Applicability ..................... Initial Applicability Determination .. Yes. Yes ................................................ § 63.1(c)(1) ..................................... Applicability After Standard Established. Applicability of Permit Program for Area Sources. Extensions and Notifications ........ Applicability of Permit Program Before Relevant Standard is Set. Definitions ..................................... Yes. Units and Abbreviations ............... Prohibited Activities ...................... Circumvention/Severability ........... Construction/Reconstruction ......... Requirements for Existing Newly Constructed, and Reconstructed Sources. Application for Approval of Construction/Reconstruction. Approval of Construction/Reconstruction. Approval of Construction/Reconstruction Based on Prior State Review. Compliance With Standards and Maintenance Requirements— Applicability. Compliance Dates for New and Reconstructed Sources. Compliance Dates for Existing Sources. Operation and Maintenance ......... Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. § 63.1(c)(2)–(3) .............................. § 63.1(c)(4)–(5) .............................. § 63.1(e) ......................................... § 63.2 ............................................. § 63.1(a)–(c) ................................... § 63.4(a)(1)–(5) .............................. § 63.4(b)–(c) ................................... § 63.5(a) ......................................... § 63.5(b)(1)–(6) .............................. § 63.5(d) ......................................... § 63.5(e) ......................................... § 63.5(f) .......................................... § 63.6(a) ......................................... § 63.6(b)(1)–(7) .............................. § 63.6(c)(1)–(5) .............................. § 63.6(e)(1)–(2) .............................. § 63.6(e)(3) ..................................... VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:18 Oct 31, 2019 Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction Plan. Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00078 Fmt 4701 No ................................................. Explanation Applicability to subpart MMMM is also specified in § 63.3881. Area sources are not subject to subpart MMMM. Yes. Yes. Yes ................................................ Additional definitions are specified in § 63.3981. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes ................................................ Yes ................................................ Yes before [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register]. No on and after [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register]. Yes before [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register]. No on and after [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register]. Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\01NOP2.SGM Section 63.3883 specifies the compliance dates. Section 63.3883 specifies the compliance dates. See § 63.3900(b) for general duty requirement. 01NOP2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 212 / Friday, November 1, 2019 / Proposed Rules 59013 TABLE 2 TO SUBPART MMMM OF PART 63—APPLICABILITY OF GENERAL PROVISIONS TO SUBPART MMMM OF PART 63—Continued You must comply with the applicable General Provisions requirements according to the following table: Citation Subject Applicable to subpart MMMM § 63.6(f)(1) ...................................... Compliance Except During Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction. § 63.6(f)(2)–(3) ............................... Methods for Determining Compliance.. Use of an Alternative Standard .... Compliance With Opacity/Visible Emission Standards. Yes before [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register]. No on and after [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register]. Yes. § 63.6(g)(1)–(3) .............................. § 63.6(h) ......................................... § 63.6(i)(1)–(16) ............................. § 63.6(j) .......................................... Yes. No ................................................. Extension of Compliance .............. Presidential Compliance Exemption. Performance Test Requirements—Applicability. Yes. Yes. § 63.7(a)(2) ..................................... Performance Test ments—Dates. Yes ................................................ § 63.7(a)(3)–(4) .............................. Performance Tests Required By the Administrator, Force Majeure. Performance Test Requirements—Notification, Quality Assurance, Facilities Necessary for Safe Testing, Conditions During Test. Conduct of Performance Tests .... § 63.7(a)(1) ..................................... § 63.7(b)–(d) ................................... § 63.7(e)(1) ..................................... § 63.7(e)(2)–(4) .............................. § 63.7(f) .......................................... § 63.7(g)–(h) ................................... Require- Conduct of Performance Tests .... Performance Test Requirements—Use of Alternative Test Method. Performance Test Requirements—Data Analysis, Recordkeeping, Reporting, Waiver of Test. Yes ................................................ Yes ................................................ Yes before [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register]. No on and after [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register]. Yes. Yes ................................................ Yes ................................................ Monitoring Requirements—Applicability. Yes ................................................ § 63.8(a)(4) ..................................... Additional ments. No ................................................. § 63.8(b) ......................................... Conduct of Monitoring .................. VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:18 Oct 31, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00079 Require- Fmt 4701 Subpart MMMM does not establish opacity standards and does not require continuous opacity monitoring systems (COMS). Applies to all affected sources. Additional requirements for performance testing are specified in §§ 63.3964, 63.3965, and 63.3966. Applies only to performance tests for capture system and control device efficiency at sources using these to comply with the standard. Section 63.3960 specifies the schedule for performance test requirements that are earlier than those specified in § 63.7(a)(2). Yes. § 63.8(a)(1)–(3) .............................. Monitoring Explanation Applies only to performance tests for capture system and add-on control device efficiency at sources using these to comply with the standard. See §§ 63.3964 Applies to all test methods except those used to determine capture system efficiency. Applies only to performance tests for capture system and add-on control device efficiency at sources using these to comply with the standard. Applies only to monitoring of capture system and add-on control device efficiency at sources using these to comply with the standard. Additional requirements for monitoring are specified in § 63.3968. Subpart MMMM does not have monitoring requirements for flares. Yes. Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\01NOP2.SGM 01NOP2 59014 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 212 / Friday, November 1, 2019 / Proposed Rules TABLE 2 TO SUBPART MMMM OF PART 63—APPLICABILITY OF GENERAL PROVISIONS TO SUBPART MMMM OF PART 63—Continued You must comply with the applicable General Provisions requirements according to the following table: Citation Subject Applicable to subpart MMMM Explanation § 63.8(c)(1) ..................................... Continuous Monitoring System (CMS) Operation and Maintenance. Section 63.3968 specifies the requirements for the operation of CMS for capture systems and add-on control devices at sources using these to comply. § 63.8(c)(2)–(3) .............................. CMS Operation and Maintenance Yes before [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register]. No on and after [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register]. Yes ................................................ § 63.8(c)(4) ..................................... CMS .............................................. No ................................................. § 63.8(c)(5) ..................................... COMS ........................................... No ................................................. § 63.8(c)(6) ..................................... CMS Requirements ...................... No ................................................. § 63.8(c)(7) ..................................... § 63.8(c)(8) ..................................... CMS Out-of-Control Periods ........ CMS Out-of-Control Periods and Reporting. Quality Control Program and CMS Performance Evaluation. Yes. No ................................................. Use of an Alternative Monitoring Method. Alternative to Relative Accuracy Test. Yes. § 63.8(g)(1)–(5) .............................. Data Reduction ............................. No ................................................. § 63.9(a)–(d) ................................... § 63.9(e) ......................................... Notification Requirements ............ Notification of Performance Test .. Yes. Yes ................................................ § 63.9(f) .......................................... Notification of Visible Emissions/ Opacity Test. No ................................................. § 63.9(g)(1)–(3) .............................. Additional Notifications Using CMS. No ................................................. § 63.9(h) ......................................... Notification of Compliance Status Yes ................................................ § 63.9(i) .......................................... Adjustment of Submittal Deadlines. Change in Previous Information ... Recordkeeping/Reporting—Applicability and General Information. General Recordkeeping Requirements. Recordkeeping of Occurrence and Duration of Startups and Shutdowns and of Failures to Meet Standards. Yes. § 63.8(d)–(e) ................................... § 63.8(f)(1)–(5) ............................... § 63.8(f)(6) ...................................... § 63.9(j) .......................................... § 63.10(a) ....................................... § 63.10(b)(1) ................................... § 63.10(b)(2)(i)–(ii) .......................... VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:18 Oct 31, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00080 When Fmt 4701 No ................................................. No ................................................. Applies only to monitoring of capture system and add-on control device efficiency at sources using these to comply with the standard. Additional requirements for CMS operations and maintenance are specified in § 63.3968. § 63.3968 specifies the requirements for the operation of CMS for capture systems and add-on control devices at sources using these to comply. Subpart MMMM does not have opacity or visible emission standards. Section 63.3968 specifies the requirements for monitoring systems for capture systems and add-on control devices at sources using these to comply. § 63.3920 requires reporting of CMS out-of-control periods. Subpart MMMM does not require the use of continuous emissions monitoring systems. Subpart MMMM does not require the use of continuous emissions monitoring systems. Sections 63.3967 and 63.3968 specify monitoring data reduction. Applies only to capture system and add-on control device performance tests at sources using these to comply with the standard. Subpart MMMM does not have opacity or visible emissions standards. Subpart MMMM does not require the use of continuous emissions monitoring systems. Section 63.3910 specifies the dates for submitting the notification of compliance status. Yes. Yes. Yes ................................................ Yes before [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register]. No on and after [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register]. Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\01NOP2.SGM Additional requirements are specified in §§ 63.3930 and 63.3931. See § 63.3930(j). 01NOP2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 212 / Friday, November 1, 2019 / Proposed Rules 59015 TABLE 2 TO SUBPART MMMM OF PART 63—APPLICABILITY OF GENERAL PROVISIONS TO SUBPART MMMM OF PART 63—Continued You must comply with the applicable General Provisions requirements according to the following table: Citation Subject Applicable to subpart MMMM § 63.10(b)(2)(iii) .............................. Recordkeeping Relevant to Maintenance of Air Pollution Control and Monitoring Equipment. Actions Taken to Minimize Emissions During Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction. Yes ................................................ § 63.10(b)(2)(iii) Yes before [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register]. No on and after [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register]. Yes before [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register]. No on and after [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register]. Yes. No ................................................. See § 63.3930(j) for a record of actions taken to minimize emissions duration a deviation from the standard. § 63.10(b)(2) (iv)–(v) ...................... § 63.10(b)(2) (vi) ............................ Recordkeeping for CMS Malfunctions. § 63.10(b)(2) (xii) ............................ § 63.10(b)(2) (xiii) ........................... Records ........................................ ....................................................... § 63.10(b)(2) (xiv) ........................... § 63.10(b)(3) ................................... ....................................................... Recordkeeping Requirements for Applicability Determinations. Additional Recordkeeping Requirements for Sources with CMS. Additional Recordkeeping Requirements for Sources with CMS. Yes. Yes. Additional Recordkeeping Requirements for Sources with CMS. Records Regarding the Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction Plan. Yes. § 63.10(c) (1)–(6) ........................... § 63.10(c) (7)–(8) ........................... § 63.10(c)(10)–(14) ........................ § 63.10(c)(15) ................................. No ................................................. Yes before [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register]. No on and after [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register]. Yes ................................................ General Reporting Requirements § 63.10(d)(2) ................................... Report of Performance Test Results. Reporting Opacity or Visible Emissions Observations. Yes ................................................ Progress Reports for Sources With Compliance Extensions. Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction Reports. Yes. § 63.10(d)(4) ................................... § 63.10(d)(5) ................................... No ................................................. Yes before [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register]. No on and after [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register]. No ................................................. § 63.10(e) (1)–(2) ........................... Additional CMS Reports ............... § 63.10(e) (3) ................................. Excess Emissions/CMS Performance Reports. No ................................................. § 63.10(e) (4) ................................. COMS Data Reports .................... No ................................................. § 63.10(f) ........................................ § 63.11 ........................................... Recordkeeping/Reporting Waiver Control Device Requirements/ Flares. State Authority and Delegations ... Addresses ..................................... Incorporation by Reference .......... Yes. No ................................................. § 63.12 ........................................... § 63.13 ........................................... § 63.14 ........................................... VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:18 Oct 31, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00081 Fmt 4701 See § 63.3930(j) for records of periods of deviation from the standard, including instances where a CMS is inoperative or out-of-control. Subpart MMMM does not require the use of continuous emissions monitoring systems. Yes. § 63.10(d)(1) ................................... § 63.10(d)(3) ................................... Explanation See § 63.3930(j) for records of periods of deviation from the standard, including instances where a CMS is inoperative or out-of-control. Additional requirements are specified in § 63.3920. Additional requirements are specified in § 63.3920(b) and (d). Subpart MMMM does not require opacity or visible emissions observations. See § 63.3920 (a)(7) and (c). Subpart MMMM does not require the use of continuous emissions monitoring systems. Section 63.3920 (b) specifies the contents of periodic compliance reports. Subpart MMMMM does not specify requirements for opacity or COMS. Subpart MMMM does not specify use of flares for compliance. Yes. Yes. Yes. Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\01NOP2.SGM 01NOP2 59016 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 212 / Friday, November 1, 2019 / Proposed Rules TABLE 2 TO SUBPART MMMM OF PART 63—APPLICABILITY OF GENERAL PROVISIONS TO SUBPART MMMM OF PART 63—Continued You must comply with the applicable General Provisions requirements according to the following table: Citation Subject § 63.15 ........................................... Availability of fidentiality. Applicable to subpart MMMM Information/Con- Explanation Yes. 38. Table 5 to Subpart MMMM of part 63 is added to read as follows: ■ TABLE 5 TO SUBPART MMMM OF PART 63—LIST OF HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANTS THAT MUST BE COUNTED TOWARD TOTAL ORGANIC HAP CONTENT IF PRESENT AT 0.1 PERCENT OR MORE BY MASS Chemical name CAS No. 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane .................................................................................................................................................................... 1,1,2-Trichloroethane ........................................................................................................................................................................... 1,1-Dimethylhydrazine ......................................................................................................................................................................... 1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane .............................................................................................................................................................. 1,2-Diphenylhydrazine ......................................................................................................................................................................... 1,3-Butadiene ....................................................................................................................................................................................... 1,3-Dichloropropene ............................................................................................................................................................................ 1,4-Dioxane .......................................................................................................................................................................................... 2,4,6-Trichlorophenol ........................................................................................................................................................................... 2,4/2,6-Dinitrotoluene (mixture) ........................................................................................................................................................... 2,4-Dinitrotoluene ................................................................................................................................................................................. 2,4-Toluene diamine ............................................................................................................................................................................ 2-Nitropropane ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 3,3′-Dichlorobenzidine ......................................................................................................................................................................... 3,3′-Dimethoxybenzidine ..................................................................................................................................................................... 3,3′-Dimethylbenzidine ........................................................................................................................................................................ 4,4′-Methylene bis(2-chloroaniline) ...................................................................................................................................................... Acetaldehyde ....................................................................................................................................................................................... Acrylamide ........................................................................................................................................................................................... Acrylonitrile .......................................................................................................................................................................................... Allyl chloride ......................................................................................................................................................................................... alpha-Hexachlorocyclohexane (a-HCH) .............................................................................................................................................. Aniline .................................................................................................................................................................................................. Benzene ............................................................................................................................................................................................... Benzidine ............................................................................................................................................................................................. Benzotrichloride ................................................................................................................................................................................... Benzyl chloride .................................................................................................................................................................................... beta-Hexachlorocyclohexane (b-HCH) ................................................................................................................................................ Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate .................................................................................................................................................................... Bis(chloromethyl)ether ......................................................................................................................................................................... Bromoform ........................................................................................................................................................................................... Captan ................................................................................................................................................................................................. Carbon tetrachloride ............................................................................................................................................................................ Chlordane ............................................................................................................................................................................................ Chlorobenzilate .................................................................................................................................................................................... Chloroform ........................................................................................................................................................................................... Chloroprene ......................................................................................................................................................................................... Cresols (mixed) .................................................................................................................................................................................... DDE ..................................................................................................................................................................................................... Dichloroethyl ether ............................................................................................................................................................................... Dichlorvos ............................................................................................................................................................................................ Epichlorohydrin .................................................................................................................................................................................... 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) ................................................................................................................................... VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:18 Oct 31, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00082 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\01NOP2.SGM 01NOP2 79–34–5 79–00–5 57–14–7 96–12–8 122–66–7 106–99–0 542–75–6 123–91–1 88–06–2 25321–14–6 121–14–2 95–80–7 79–46–9 91–94–1 119–90–4 119–93–7 101–14–4 75–07–0 79–06–1 107–13–1 107–05–1 319–84–6 62–53–3 71–43–2 92–87–5 98–07–7 100–44–7 319–85–7 117–81–7 542–88–1 75–25–2 133–06–2 56–23–5 57–74–9 510–15–6 67–66–3 126–99–8 1319–77–3 3547–04–4 111–44–4 62–73–7 106–89–8 140–88–5 106–93–4 107–06–2 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 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 212 / Friday, November 1, 2019 / Proposed Rules 59017 TABLE 5 TO SUBPART MMMM OF PART 63—LIST OF HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANTS THAT MUST BE COUNTED TOWARD TOTAL ORGANIC HAP CONTENT IF PRESENT AT 0.1 PERCENT OR MORE BY MASS—Continued Chemical name CAS No. 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 ............................................................................................................................................................................... Subpart NNNN—National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Surface Coating of Large Appliances 39. Section 63.4168 is amended by adding paragraphs (c)(3)(i) through (vii) to read as follows: ■ § 63.4168 What are the requirements for continuous parameter monitoring system installation, operation, and maintenance? * * * * * (c) * * * (3) * * * (i) Locate the temperature sensor in a position that provides a representative temperature. (ii) Use a temperature sensor with a measurement sensitivity of 4 degrees Fahrenheit or 0.75 percent of the temperature value, whichever is larger. (iii) Shield the temperature sensor system from electromagnetic interference and chemical contaminants. (iv) If a gas temperature chart recorder is used, it must have a measurement sensitivity in the minor division of at least 20 degrees Fahrenheit. (v) Perform an electronic calibration at least semiannually according to the procedures in the manufacturer’s owners manual. Following the electronic calibration, you must conduct a temperature sensor validation check in which a second or redundant temperature sensor placed nearby the process temperature sensor must yield a reading within 30 degrees Fahrenheit of VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:18 Oct 31, 2019 Jkt 250001 the process temperature sensor’s reading. (vi) Any time the sensor exceeds the manufacturer’s specified maximum operating temperature range, either conduct calibration and validation checks or install a new temperature sensor. (vii) At least monthly, inspect components for integrity and electrical connections for continuity, oxidation, and galvanic corrosion. * * * * * Subpart OOOO—National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Printing, Coating, and Dyeing of Fabrics and Other Textiles 40. Section 63.4371 is amended by revising the definition for ‘‘No organic HAP’’ to read as follows: ■ § 63.4371 subpart? What definitions apply to this * * * * * No organic HAP means no organic HAP in Table 5 to this subpart is present at 0.1 percent by mass or more and no organic HAP not listed in Table 5 to this subpart is present at 1.0 percent by mass or more. The organic HAP content of a regulated material is determined according to § 63.4321(e)(1). * * * * * PO 00000 Subpart PPPP—National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Surface Coating of Plastic Parts and Products 41. Section 63.4492 is amended by revising paragraph (b) to read as follows: ■ § 63.4492 meet? What operating limits must I * * * * * (b) For any controlled coating operation(s) on which you use the emission rate with add-on controls option, except those for which you use a solvent recovery system and conduct a liquid-liquid material balance according to § 63.4561(j), you must meet the operating limits specified in Table 1 to this subpart. These operating limits apply to the emission capture and control systems on the coating operation(s) for which you use this option, and you must establish the operating limits during the performance tests required in § 63.4560 according to the requirements in § 63.4567. You must meet the operating limits established during the most recent performance tests required in § 63.4560 at all times after you establish them. * * * * * ■ 42. Section 63.4500 is amended by revising paragraphs (a)(2)(i) and (ii), (b), and (c) to read as follows: § 63.4500 What are my general requirements for complying with this subpart? (a) * * * (2) * * * Frm 00083 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 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 E:\FR\FM\01NOP2.SGM 01NOP2 59018 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 212 / Friday, November 1, 2019 / Proposed Rules (i) The coating operation(s) must be in compliance with the applicable emission limit in § 63.4490 at all times. (ii) The coating operation(s) must be in compliance with the operating limits for emission capture systems and addon control devices required by § 63.4492 at all times, except for solvent recovery systems for which you conduct liquidliquid material balances according to § 63.4561(j). * * * * * (b) Before [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register], you must always operate and maintain your affected source, including all air pollution control and monitoring equipment you use for purposes of complying with this subpart, according to the provisions in § 63.6(e)(1)(i). On and after [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register], at all times, the owner or operator must operate and maintain any affected source, including associated air pollution control equipment and monitoring equipment, in a manner consistent with safety and good air pollution control practices for minimizing emissions. The general duty to minimize emissions does not require the owner or operator to make any further efforts to reduce emissions if levels required by the applicable standard have been achieved. Determination of whether a source is operating in compliance with operation and maintenance requirements will be based on information available to the Administrator that may include, but is not limited to, monitoring results, review of operation and maintenance procedures, review of operation and maintenance records, and inspection of the affected source. (c) Before [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register], if your affected source uses an emission capture system and add-on control device, you must develop a written startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan (SSMP) according to the provisions in § 63.6(e)(3). The plan must address the startup, shutdown, and corrective actions in the event of a malfunction of the emission capture system or the add-on control device. The plan must also address any coating operation equipment that may cause increased emissions or that would affect capture efficiency if the process equipment malfunctions, such as conveyors that move parts among enclosures. On and after [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register], the SSMP is not required. ■ 43. Section 63.4520 is amended by: VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:18 Oct 31, 2019 Jkt 250001 a. Revising paragraphs (a)(5) introductory text and (a)(5)(i) and (iv); ■ b. Adding paragraph (a)(5)(v); ■ c. Revising paragraph (a)(6) introductory text and (a)(6)(iii); ■ d. Adding paragraph (a)(6)(iv); ■ e. Revising paragraph (a)(7) introductory text, (a)(7)(iii), (a)(7)(vi) through (viii), (a)(7)(x), and (a)(7)(xiii) and (xiv); ■ f. Adding paragraph (a)(7)(xv); ■ g. Revising paragraph (c) introductory text; and ■ h. Adding paragraphs (d) through (h). The revisions and additions read as follows: ■ § 63.4520 What reports must I submit? (a) * * * (5) Deviations: Compliant material option. If you used the compliant material option and there was a deviation from the applicable organic HAP content requirements in § 63.4490, the semiannual compliance report must contain the information in paragraphs (a)(5)(i) through (v) of this section. (i) Identification of each coating used that deviated from the applicable emission limit, and each thinner and/or other additive, and cleaning material used that contained organic HAP, and the date, time, and duration each was used. * * * * * (iv) Before [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register], a statement of the cause of each deviation. On and after [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register], a statement of the cause of each deviation (including unknown cause, if applicable). (v) On and after [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register], the number of deviations and, for each deviation, a list of the affected source or equipment, an estimate of the quantity of each regulated pollutant emitted over any applicable emission limit in § 63.4490, a description of the method used to estimate the emissions, and the actions you took to minimize emissions in accordance with § 63.4500(b). (6) Deviations: Emission rate without add-on controls option. If you used the emission rate without add-on controls option and there was a deviation from the applicable emission limit in § 63.4490, the semiannual compliance report must contain the information in paragraphs (a)(6)(i) through (iv) of this section. * * * * * (iii) Before [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal PO 00000 Frm 00084 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 Register], a statement of the cause of each deviation. On and after [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register], a statement of the cause of each deviation (including unknown cause, if applicable). (iv) On and after [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register], the number of deviations, date, time, duration, a list of the affected source or equipment, an estimate of the quantity of each regulated pollutant emitted over any applicable emission limit in § 63.4490, a description of the method used to estimate the emissions, and the actions you took to minimize emissions in accordance with § 63.4500(b). (7) Deviations: Emission rate with add-on controls option. If you used the emission rate with add-on controls option and there was a deviation from the applicable emission limit in § 63.4490 or the applicable operating limit(s) in Table 1 to this subpart (including any periods when emissions bypassed the add-on control device and were diverted to the atmosphere), before [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register], the semiannual compliance report must contain the information in paragraphs (a)(7)(i) through (xiv) of this section. This includes periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction during which deviations occurred. On and after [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register], the semiannual compliance report must contain the information in paragraphs (a)(7)(i) through (xii), (a)(7)(xiv), and (a)(7)(xv) of this section. If you use the emission rate with add-on controls option and there was a deviation from the applicable work practice standards in § 63.4493(b), the semiannual compliance report must contain the information in paragraph (a)(7)(xiii) of this section. * * * * * (iii) The date and time that each malfunction of the capture system or add-on control devices started and stopped. * * * * * (vi) Before [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register], the date and time that each CPMS was inoperative, except for zero (low-level) and high-level checks. On and after [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register], the number of instances that the CPMS was inoperative, and for each instance, except for zero (low-level) and high-level checks, the date, time, and duration that the CPMS was inoperative; E:\FR\FM\01NOP2.SGM 01NOP2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 212 / Friday, November 1, 2019 / Proposed Rules the cause (including unknown cause) for the CPMS being inoperative; and the actions you took to minimize emissions in accordance with § 63.4500(b). (vii) Before [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register], the date, time, and duration that each CPMS was out-ofcontrol, including the information in § 63.8(c)(8). On and after [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register], the number of instances that the CPMS was out of control as specified in § 63.8(c)(7) and, for each instance, the date, time, and duration that the CPMS was out-ofcontrol; the cause (including unknown cause) for the CPMS being out-ofcontrol; and descriptions of corrective actions taken. (viii) Before [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register], the date and time period of each deviation from an operating limit in Table 1 to this subpart; date and time period of any bypass of the add-on control device; and whether each deviation occurred during a period of startup, shutdown, or malfunction or during another period. On and after [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register], the number of deviations from an operating limit in Table 1 to this subpart and, for each deviation, the date, time, and duration of each deviation; the date, time, and duration of any bypass of the add-on control device. * * * * * (x) Before [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register], a breakdown of the total duration of the deviations from the operating limits in Table 1 of this subpart and bypasses of the add-on control device during the semiannual reporting period into those that were due to startup, shutdown, control equipment problems, process problems, other known causes, and other unknown causes. On and after [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register], a breakdown of the total duration of the deviations from the operating limits in Table 1 to this subpart and bypasses of the add-on control device during the semiannual reporting period into those that were due to control equipment problems, process problems, other known causes, and other unknown causes. * * * * * (xiii) Before [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register], for each deviation from the work practice standards, a VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:18 Oct 31, 2019 Jkt 250001 description of the deviation, the date and time period of the deviation, and the actions you took to correct the deviation. On and after [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register], for deviations from the work practice standards, the number of deviations, and, for each deviation, the information in paragraphs (a)(7)(xiii)(A) and (B) of this section: (A) A description of the deviation; the date, time, and duration of the deviation; and the actions you took to minimize emissions in accordance with § 63.4500(b). (B) The description required in paragraph (a)(7)(xiii)(A) of this section must include a list of the affected sources or equipment for which a deviation occurred and the cause of the deviation (including unknown cause, if applicable. (xiv) Before [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register], a statement of the cause of each deviation. On and after [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register], for deviations from an emission limit in § 63.4490 or an operating limit in Table 1 to this subpart, a statement of the cause of each deviation (including unknown cause, if applicable) and the actions you took to minimize emissions in accordance with § 63.4500(b). (xv) On and after [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register], for each deviation from an emission limit in § 63.4490 or operating limit in Table 1 to this subpart, a list of the affected sources or equipment for which a deviation occurred, an estimate of the quantity of each regulated pollutant emitted over any emission limit in § 63.4490 or operating limit in Table 1 to this subpart, and a description of the method used to estimate the emissions. * * * * * (c) Startup, shutdown, malfunction reports. Before [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register], if you used the emission rate with add-on controls option and you had a startup, shutdown, or malfunction during the semiannual reporting period, you must submit the reports specified in paragraphs (c)(1) and (2) of this section. On and after [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register], the reports specified in paragraphs (c)(1) and (2) of this section are not required. * * * * * (d) On and after [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register], you must submit the PO 00000 Frm 00085 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 59019 results of the performance tests required in § 63.4560 following the procedure specified in paragraphs (d)(1) through (3) of this section. (1) For data collected using test methods supported by the EPA’s Electronic Reporting Tool (ERT) as listed on the EPA’s ERT website (https://www.epa.gov/electronicreporting-air-emissions/electronicreporting-tool-ert) at the time of the test, you must submit the results of the performance test to the EPA via the CEDRI. The CEDRI interface can be accessed through the EPA’s CDX (https://cdx.epa.gov/). Performance test data must be submitted in a file format generated through the use of the EPA’s ERT or an alternate electronic file format consistent with the XML schema listed on the EPA’s ERT website. (2) For data collected using test methods that are not supported by the EPA’s ERT as listed on the EPA’s ERT website at the time of the test, you must submit the results of the performance test to the Administrator at the appropriate address listed in § 63.13, unless the Administrator agrees to or specifies an alternate reporting method. (3) If you claim that some of the performance test information being submitted under paragraph (d)(1) of this section is CBI, you must submit a complete file generated through the use of the EPA’s ERT or an alternate electronic file consistent with the XML schema listed on the EPA’s ERT website, including information claimed to be CBI, on a compact disc, flash drive, or other commonly used electronic storage medium to the EPA. The electronic medium must be clearly marked as CBI and mailed to U.S. EPA/ OAPQS/CORE CBI Office, Attention: Group Leader, Measurement Policy Group, MD C404–02, 4930 Old Page Rd., Durham, NC 27703. The same ERT or alternate file with the CBI omitted must be submitted to the EPA via the EPA’s CDX as described in paragraph (d)(1) of this section. (e) On and after [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register], the owner or operator shall submit the initial notifications required in § 63.9(b) and the notification of compliance status required in § 63.9(h) and § 63.4510(c) to the EPA via the CEDRI. The CEDRI interface can be accessed through the EPA’s CDX (https://cdx.epa.gov/). The owner or operator must upload to CEDRI an electronic copy of each applicable notification in portable document format (PDF). The applicable notification must be submitted by the deadline specified in this subpart, regardless of the method in which the E:\FR\FM\01NOP2.SGM 01NOP2 59020 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 212 / Friday, November 1, 2019 / Proposed Rules reports are submitted. Owners or operators who claim that some of the information required to be submitted via CEDRI is CBI shall submit a complete report generated using the appropriate form in CEDRI or an alternate electronic file consistent with the XML schema listed on the EPA’s CEDRI website, including information claimed to be CBI, on a compact disc, flash drive, or other commonly used electronic storage medium to the EPA. The electronic medium shall be clearly marked as CBI and mailed to U.S. EPA/OAQPS/CORE CBI Office, Attention: Group Leader, Measurement Policy Group, MD C404– 02, 4930 Old Page Rd., Durham, NC 27703. The same file with the CBI omitted shall be submitted to the EPA via the EPA’s CDX as described earlier in this paragraph. (f) On and after [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register], or once the reporting template has been available on the CEDRI website for 1 year, whichever date is later, the owner or operator shall submit the semiannual compliance report required in paragraph (a) of this section to the EPA via the CEDRI. (CEDRI can be accessed through the EPA’s CDX (https://cdx.epa.gov/)). The owner or operator must use the appropriate electronic template on the CEDRI website for this subpart or an alternate electronic file format consistent with the XML schema listed on the CEDRI website (https:// www.epa.gov/electronic-reporting-airemissions/compliance-and-emissionsdata-reporting-interface-cedri). The date report templates become available will be listed on the CEDRI website. If the reporting form for the semiannual compliance report specific to this subpart is not available in CEDRI at the time that the report is due, you must submit the report to the Administrator at the appropriate addresses listed in § 63.13. Once the form has been available in CEDRI for 1 year, you must begin submitting all subsequent reports via CEDRI. The reports must be submitted by the deadlines specified in this subpart, regardless of the method in which the reports are submitted. Owners or operators who claim that some of the information required to be submitted via CEDRI is CBI shall submit a complete report generated using the appropriate form in CEDRI or an alternate electronic file consistent with the XML schema listed on the EPA’s CEDRI website, including information claimed to be CBI, on a compact disc, flash drive, or other commonly used electronic storage medium to the EPA. The electronic medium shall be clearly VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:18 Oct 31, 2019 Jkt 250001 marked as CBI and mailed to U.S. EPA/ OAQPS/CORE CBI Office, Attention: Group Leader, Measurement Policy Group, MD C404–02, 4930 Old Page Rd., Durham, NC 27703. The same file with the CBI omitted shall be submitted to the EPA via the EPA’s CDX as described earlier in this paragraph. (g) If you are required to electronically submit a report through the CEDRI in the EPA’s CDX, and due to a planned or actual outage of either the EPA’s CEDRI or CDX systems within the period of time beginning 5 business days prior to the date that the submission is due, you will be or are precluded from accessing CEDRI or CDX and submitting a required report within the time prescribed, you may assert a claim of EPA system outage for failure to timely comply with the reporting requirement. You must submit notification to the Administrator in writing as soon as possible following the date you first knew, or through due diligence should have known, that the event may cause or caused a delay in reporting. You must provide to the Administrator a written description identifying the date, time and length of the outage; a rationale for attributing the delay in reporting beyond the regulatory deadline to the EPA system outage; describe the measures taken or to be taken to minimize the delay in reporting; and identify a date by which you propose to report, or if you have already met the reporting requirement at the time of the notification, the date you reported. In any circumstance, the report must be submitted electronically as soon as possible after the outage is resolved. The decision to accept the claim of EPA system outage and allow an extension to the reporting deadline is solely within the discretion of the Administrator. (h) If you are required to electronically submit a report through CEDRI in the EPA’s CDX and a force majeure event is about to occur, occurs, or has occurred or there are lingering effects from such an event within the period of time beginning 5 business days prior to the date the submission is due, the owner or operator may assert a claim of force majeure for failure to timely comply with the reporting requirement. For the purposes of this section, a force majeure event is defined as an event that will be or has been caused by circumstances beyond the control of the affected facility, its contractors, or any entity controlled by the affected facility that prevents you from complying with the requirement to submit a report electronically within the time period prescribed. Examples of such events are acts of nature (e.g., hurricanes, earthquakes, or floods), acts PO 00000 Frm 00086 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 of war or terrorism, or equipment failure or safety hazard beyond the control of the affected facility (e.g., large scale power outage). If you intend to assert a claim of force majeure, you must submit notification to the Administrator in writing as soon as possible following the date you first knew, or through due diligence should have known, that the event may cause or caused a delay in reporting. You must provide to the Administrator a written description of the force majeure event and a rationale for attributing the delay in reporting beyond the regulatory deadline to the force majeure event; describe the measures taken or to be taken to minimize the delay in reporting; and identify a date by which you propose to report, or if you have already met the reporting requirement at the time of the notification, the date you reported. In any circumstance, the reporting must occur as soon as possible after the force majeure event occurs. The decision to accept the claim of force majeure and allow an extension to the reporting deadline is solely within the discretion of the Administrator. ■ 44. Section 63.4530 is amended by revising paragraphs (h), (i) introductory text, and (i)(1) and (2) to read as follows: § 63.4530 What records must I keep? * * * * * (h) Before [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register], you must keep records of the date, time, and duration of each deviation. On and after [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register], for each deviation from an emission limitation reported under § 63.4520(a)(5) through (7), a record of the information specified in paragraphs (h)(1) through (4) of this section, as applicable. (1) The date, time, and duration of the deviation, as reported under § 63.4520(a)(5) through (7). (2) A list of the affected sources or equipment for which the deviation occurred and the cause of the deviation, as reported under § 63.4520(a)(5) through (7). (3) An estimate of the quantity of each regulated pollutant emitted over any applicable emission limit in § 63.4490 or any applicable operating limit in Table 1 to this subpart, and a description of the method used to calculate the estimate, as reported under § 63.4520(a)(5) through (7). (4) A record of actions taken to minimize emissions in accordance with § 63.4500(b) and any corrective actions taken to return the affected unit to its normal or usual manner of operation. E:\FR\FM\01NOP2.SGM 01NOP2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 212 / Friday, November 1, 2019 / Proposed Rules (i) If you use the emission rate with add-on controls option, you must also keep the records specified in paragraphs (i)(1) through (8) of this section. (1) Before [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register], for each deviation, a record of whether the deviation occurred during a period of startup, shutdown, or malfunction. On and after [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register], a record of whether the deviation occurred during a period of startup, shutdown, or malfunction is not required. (2) Before [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register], the records in § 63.6(e)(3)(iii) through (v) related to startup, shutdown, and malfunction. On and after [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register], the records in § 63.6(e)(3)(iii) through (v) related to startup, shutdown, and malfunction are not required. * * * * * ■ 45. Section 63.4531 is amended by revising paragraph (a) to read as follows: § 63.4531 In what form and for how long must I keep my records? (a) Your records must be in a form suitable and readily available for expeditious review, according to § 63.10(b)(1). Where appropriate, the records may be maintained as electronic spreadsheets or as a database. On and after [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register], any records required to be maintained by this subpart that are in reports that were submitted electronically via the EPA’s CEDRI may be maintained in electronic format. This ability to maintain electronic copies does not affect the requirement for facilities to make records, data, and reports available upon request to a delegated air agency or the EPA as part of an on-site compliance evaluation. * * * * * ■ 46. Section 63.4541 is amended by revising paragraphs (a)(1)(i) and (a)(2) and (4) to read as follows: § 63.4541 How do I demonstrate initial compliance with the emission limitations? * * * * * (a) * * * (1) * * * (i) Count each organic HAP in Table 5 to this subpart that is measured to be present at 0.1 percent by mass or more and at 1.0 percent by mass or more for other compounds. For example, if toluene (not listed in Table 5 to this subpart) is measured to be 0.5 percent of the material by mass, you do not have to count it. Express the mass fraction of VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:18 Oct 31, 2019 Jkt 250001 each organic HAP you count as a value truncated to four places after the decimal point (e.g., 0.3791). * * * * * (2) EPA Method 24 (appendix A–7 to 40 CFR part 60). For coatings, you may use EPA Method 24 to determine the mass fraction of nonaqueous volatile matter and use that value as a substitute for mass fraction of organic HAP. As an alternative to using EPA Method 24, you may use ASTM D2369–10 (Reapproved 2015) e (incorporated by reference, see § 63.14). For reactive adhesives in which some of the HAP react to form solids and are not emitted to the atmosphere, you may use the alternative method contained in appendix A to this subpart, rather than EPA Method 24. You may use the volatile fraction that is emitted, as measured by the alternative method in appendix A to this subpart, as a substitute for the mass fraction of organic HAP. * * * * * (4) Information from the supplier or manufacturer of the material. You may rely on information other than that generated by the test methods specified in paragraphs (a)(1) through (3) of this section, such as manufacturer’s formulation data, if it represents each organic HAP in Table 5 to this subpart that is present at 0.1 percent by mass or more and at 1.0 percent by mass or more for other compounds. For example, if toluene (not listed in Table 5 to this subpart) is 0.5 percent of the material by mass, you do not have to count it. For reactive adhesives in which some of the HAP react to form solids and are not emitted to the atmosphere, you may rely on manufacturer’s data that expressly states the organic HAP or volatile matter mass fraction emitted. If there is a disagreement between such information and results of a test conducted according to paragraphs (a)(1) through (3) of this section, then the test method results will take precedence unless, after consultation you demonstrate to the satisfaction of the enforcement agency that the formulation data are correct. * * * * * ■ 47. Section 63.4551 is amended by revising paragraph (c) to read as follows: § 63.4551 How do I demonstrate initial compliance with the emission limitations? * * * * * (c) Determine the density of each material. Determine the density of each liquid coating, thinner and/or other additive, and cleaning material used during each month from test results using ASTM D1475–13 or ASTM D2111–10 (Reapproved 2015) (both incorporated by reference, see § 63.14), PO 00000 Frm 00087 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 59021 information from the supplier or manufacturer of the material, or reference sources providing density or specific gravity data for pure materials. If there is disagreement between ASTM D1475–13 or ASTM D2111–10 (2015) and other such information sources, the test results will take precedence unless, after consultation you demonstrate to the satisfaction of the enforcement agency that the formulation data are correct. If you purchase materials or monitor consumption by weight instead of volume, you do not need to determine material density. Instead, you may use the material weight in place of the combined terms for density and volume in Equations 1A, 1B, 1C, and 2 of this section. * * * * * ■ 48. Section 63.4560 is amended by revising the section heading and paragraphs (a)(1) and (4), (b)(1), and (c) introductory text to read as follows: § 63.4560 By what date must I conduct performance tests and initial compliance demonstrations? (a) * * * (1) All emission capture systems, addon control devices, and CPMS must be installed and operating no later than the applicable compliance date specified in § 63.4483. Except for solvent recovery systems for which you conduct liquidliquid material balances according to § 63.4561(j), you must conduct according to the schedule in paragraphs (a)(1)(i) and (ii) of this section initial and periodic performance tests of each capture system and add-on control device according to the procedures in §§ 63.4564, 63.4565, and 63.4566 and establish the operating limits required by § 63.4492. For a solvent recovery system for which you conduct liquidliquid material balances according to § 63.4561(j), you must initiate the first material balance no later than the applicable compliance date specified in § 63.4483. (i) You must conduct the initial performance test and establish the operating limits required by § 63.4492 no later than 180 days after the applicable compliance date specified in § 63.4483. (ii) You must conduct periodic performance tests and establish the operating limits required by § 63.4492 within 5 years following the previous performance test. You must conduct the first periodic performance test before [date 3 years after date of publications of final rule in the Federal Register], unless you are already required to complete periodic performance tests as a requirement of renewing your facility’s operating permit under 40 CFR E:\FR\FM\01NOP2.SGM 01NOP2 59022 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 212 / Friday, November 1, 2019 / Proposed Rules part 70 or 40 CFR part 71 and have conducted a performance test on or after [date 2 years before date of publications of final rule in the Federal Register]. Thereafter you must conduct a performance test no later than 5 years following the previous performance test. Operating limits must be confirmed or reestablished during each performance test. For any control device for which you are using the catalytic oxidizer control option at § 63.4567(b) and following the catalyst maintenance procedures in § 63.4567(b)(4), you are not required to conduct periodic control device performance testing as specified by this paragraph. For any control device for which instruments are used to continuously measure organic compound emissions, you are not required to conduct periodic control device performance testing as specified by this paragraph. * * * * * (4) For the initial compliance demonstration, you do not need to comply with the operating limits for the emission capture system and add-on control device required by § 63.4492 until after you have completed the initial performance tests specified in paragraph (a)(1) of this section. Instead, you must maintain a log detailing the operation and maintenance of the emission capture system, add-on control device, and continuous parameter monitors during the period between the compliance date and the performance test. You must begin complying with the operating limits established based on the initial performance tests specified in paragraph (a)(1) of this section for your affected source on the date you complete the performance tests. The requirements in this paragraph (a)(4) do not apply to solvent recovery systems for which you conduct liquid-liquid material balances according to the requirements in § 63.4561(j). (b) * * * (1) All emission capture systems, addon control devices, and CPMS must be installed and operating no later than the applicable compliance date specified in § 63.4483. Except for solvent recovery systems for which you conduct liquidliquid material balances according to § 63.4561(j), you must conduct according to the schedule in paragraphs (b)(1)(i) and (ii) of this section initial and periodic performance tests of each capture system and add-on control device according to the procedures in §§ 63.4564, 63.4565, and 63.4566 and establish the operating limits required by § 63.4492. For a solvent recovery system for which you conduct liquidliquid material balances according to VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:18 Oct 31, 2019 Jkt 250001 § 63.4561(j), you must initiate the first material balance no later than the compliance date specified in § 63.4483. (i) You must conduct the initial performance test and establish the operating limits required by § 63.4492 no later than 180 days after the applicable compliance date specified in § 63.4483. (ii) You must conduct periodic performance tests and establish the operating limits required by § 63.4492 within 5 years following the previous performance test. You must conduct the first periodic performance test before [date 3 years after date of publications of final rule in the Federal Register], unless you are already required to complete periodic performance tests as a requirement of renewing your facility’s operating permit under 40 CFR part 70 or 40 CFR part 71 and have conducted a performance test on or after [date 2 years before date of publications of final rule in the Federal Register]. Thereafter you must conduct a performance test no later than 5 years following the previous performance test. Operating limits must be confirmed or reestablished during each performance test. For any control device for which you are using the catalytic oxidizer control option at § 63.4567(b) and following the catalyst maintenance procedures in § 63.4567(b)(4), you are not required to conduct periodic control device performance testing as specified by this paragraph. For any control device for which instruments are used to continuously measure organic compound emissions, you are not required to conduct periodic control device performance testing as specified by this paragraph. * * * * * (c) You are not required to conduct an initial performance test to determine capture efficiency or destruction efficiency of a capture system or control device if you receive approval to use the results of a performance test that has been previously conducted on that capture system or control device. Any such previous tests must meet the conditions described in paragraphs (c)(1) through (3) of this section. You are still required to conduct a periodic performance test according to the applicable requirements of paragraphs (a)(1)(ii) and (b)(2)(ii) of this section. * * * * * ■ 49. Section 63.4561 is amended by revising paragraphs (j)(3) and (n) to read as follows: § 63.4561 How do I demonstrate initial compliance? * PO 00000 * * (j) * * * Frm 00088 * Fmt 4701 * Sfmt 4702 (3) Determine the mass fraction of volatile organic matter for each coating, thinner and/or other additive, and cleaning material used in the coating operation controlled by the solvent recovery system during the month, kg volatile organic matter per kg coating. You may determine the volatile organic matter mass fraction using EPA Method 24 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A–7, ASTM D2369–10 (Reapproved 2015)e (incorporated by reference, see § 63.14), or an EPA approved alternative method. Alternatively, you may determine the volatile organic matter mass fraction using information provided by the manufacturer or supplier of the coating. In the event of any inconsistency between information provided by the manufacturer or supplier and the results of EPA Method 24 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A–7, ASTM D2369–10 (Reapproved 2015)e, or an approved alternative method, the test method results will take precedence unless, after consultation you demonstrate to the satisfaction of the enforcement agency that the formulation data are correct. * * * * * (n) Compliance demonstration. The organic HAP emission rate for the initial compliance period, calculated using Equation 5 of this section, must be less than or equal to the applicable emission limit for each subcategory in § 63.4490 or the predominant activity or facilityspecific emission limit allowed in § 63.4490(c). You must keep all records as required by §§ 63.4530 and 63.4531. As part of the notification of compliance status required by § 63.4510, you must identify the coating operation(s) for which you used the emission rate with add-on controls option and submit a statement that the coating operation(s) was (were) in compliance with the emission limitations during the initial compliance period because the organic HAP emission rate was less than or equal to the applicable emission limit in § 63.4490, and for control devices other than solvent recovery system using a liquid-liquid material balance, you achieved the operating limits required by § 63.4492 and the work practice standards required by § 63.4493. ■ 50. Section 63.4563 is amended by revising paragraph (f) and adding paragraph (g) to read as follows: § 63.4563 How do I demonstrate continuous compliance with the emission limitations? * * * * * (f) As part of each semiannual compliance report required in § 63.4520, you must identify the coating operation(s) for which you used the emission rate with add-on controls E:\FR\FM\01NOP2.SGM 01NOP2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 212 / Friday, November 1, 2019 / Proposed Rules option. If there were no deviations from the emission limits in § 63.4490, the operating limits in § 63.34492, and the work practice standards in § 63.4493, submit a statement that you were in compliance with the emission limitations during the reporting period because the organic HAP emission rate for each compliance period was less than or equal to the applicable emission limit in § 63.4490, and you achieved the operating limits required by § 63.4492 and the work practice standards required by § 63.4493 during each compliance period. (g) On and after [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register], deviations that occur due to malfunction of the emission capture system, add-on control device, or coating operation that may affect emission capture or control device efficiency are required to operate in accordance with § 63.4500(b). The Administrator will determine whether the deviations are violations according to the provisions in § 63.4500(b). * * * * * ■ 51. Section 63.4564 is amended by revising paragraphs (a) introductory text and (a)(1) to read as follows: § 63.4564 What are the general requirements for performance tests? (a) Before [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register], you must conduct each performance test required by § 63.4560 according to the requirements in § 63.7(e)(1) and under the conditions in this section, unless you obtain a waiver of the performance test according to the provisions in § 63.7(h). On and after [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register], you must conduct each performance test required by § 63.4560 according to the requirements in this section unless you obtain a waiver of the performance test according to the provisions in § 63.7(h). (1) Representative coating operation operating conditions. You must conduct the performance test under representative operating conditions for the coating operation. Operations during periods of startup, shutdown, or nonoperation do not constitute representative conditions for purposes of conducting a performance test. The owner or operator may not conduct performance tests during periods of malfunction. You must record the process information that is necessary to document operating conditions during the test and explain why the conditions represent normal operation. Upon request, you must make available to the Administrator such records as may be VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:18 Oct 31, 2019 Jkt 250001 necessary to determine the conditions of performance tests. * * * * * ■ 52. Section 63.4565 is amended by revising the introductory text to read as follows: § 63.4565 How do I determine the emission capture system efficiency? You must use the procedures and test methods in this section to determine capture efficiency as part of each performance test required by § 63.4560. * * * * * ■ 53. Section 63.4566 is amended by revising the introductory text and paragraphs (a)(1) through (4) and (b) to read as follows: § 63.4566 How do I determine the add-on control device emission destruction or removal efficiency? You must use the procedures and test methods in this section to determine the add-on control device emission destruction or removal efficiency as part of the performance test required by § 63.4560. For each performance test, you must conduct three test runs as specified in § 63.7(e)(3) and each test run must last at least 1 hour. (a) * * * (1) Use EPA Method 1 or 1A of appendix A–1 to 40 CFR part 60, as appropriate, to select sampling sites and velocity traverse points. (2) Use EPA Method 2, 2A, 2C, 2D, or 2F of appendix A–1 to 40 CFR part 60, or 2G of appendix A–2 to 40 CFR part 60, as appropriate, to measure gas volumetric flow rate. (3) Use EPA Method 3, 3A, or 3B of appendix A–2 to 40 CFR part 60, as appropriate, for gas analysis to determine dry molecular weight. (4) Use EPA Method 4 of appendix A– 3 to 40 CFR part 60, to determine stack gas moisture. * * * * * (b) Measure total gaseous organic mass emissions as carbon at the inlet and outlet of the add-on control device simultaneously, using either EPA Method 25 or 25A of appendix A–7 to 40 CFR part 60. (1) Use EPA Method 25 of appendix A–7 if the add-on control device is an oxidizer and you expect the total gaseous organic concentration as carbon to be more than 50 parts per million (ppm) at the control device outlet. (2) Use EPA Method 25A of appendix A–7 if the add-on control device is an oxidizer and you expect the total gaseous organic concentration as carbon to be 50 ppm or less at the control device outlet. PO 00000 Frm 00089 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 59023 (3) Use EPA Method 25A of appendix A–7 if the add-on control device is not an oxidizer. (4) You may use EPA Method 18 in appendix A–6 of part 60 to subtract methane emissions from measured total gaseous organic mass emissions as carbon. * * * * * ■ 54. Section 63.4567 is amended by revising the introductory text and paragraphs (a)(1) and (2), (b)(1) through (3), (c)(1), (d)(1) and (2), and (e)(1) through (4) to read as follows: § 63.4567 How do I establish the emission capture system and add-on control device operating limits during the performance test? During performance tests required by § 63.4560 and described in §§ 63.4564, 63.4565, and 63.4566, you must establish the operating limits required by § 63.4492 according to this section, unless you have received approval for alternative monitoring and operating limits under § 63.8(f) as specified in § 63.4492. (a) * * * (1) During performance tests, you must monitor and record the combustion temperature at least once every 15 minutes during each of the three test runs. You must monitor the temperature in the firebox of the thermal oxidizer or immediately downstream of the firebox before any substantial heat exchange occurs. (2) For each performance test, use the data collected during the performance test to calculate and record the average combustion temperature maintained during the performance test. This average combustion temperature is the minimum operating limit for your thermal oxidizer. (b) * * * (1) During performance tests, you must monitor and record the temperature just before the catalyst bed and the temperature difference across the catalyst bed at least once every 15 minutes during each of the three test runs. (2) For each performance test, use the data collected during the performance test to calculate and record the average temperature just before the catalyst bed and the average temperature difference across the catalyst bed maintained during the performance test. These are the minimum operating limits for your catalytic oxidizer. (3) You must monitor the temperature at the inlet to the catalyst bed and implement a site-specific inspection and maintenance plan for your catalytic oxidizer as specified in paragraph (b)(4) of this section. During performance E:\FR\FM\01NOP2.SGM 01NOP2 59024 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 212 / Friday, November 1, 2019 / Proposed Rules tests, you must monitor and record the temperature just before the catalyst bed at least once every 15 minutes during each of the three test runs. For each performance test, use the data collected during the performance test to calculate and record the average temperature just before the catalyst bed during the performance test. This is the minimum operating limit for your catalytic oxidizer. * * * * * (c) * * * (1) During performance tests, you must monitor and record the total regeneration desorbing gas (e.g., steam or nitrogen) mass flow for each regeneration cycle, and the carbon bed temperature after each carbon bed regeneration and cooling cycle for the regeneration cycle either immediately preceding or immediately following the performance test. * * * * * (d) * * * (1) During performance tests, you must monitor and record the condenser outlet (product side) gas temperature at least once every 15 minutes during each of the three test runs of the performance test. (2) For each performance test, use the data collected during the performance test to calculate and record the average condenser outlet (product side) gas temperature maintained during the performance test. This average condenser outlet gas temperature is the maximum operating limit for your condenser. (e) * * * (1) During performance tests, you must monitor and record the desorption concentrate stream gas temperature at least once every 15 minutes during each of the three runs of the performance test. (2) For each performance test, use the data collected during the performance test to calculate and record the average temperature. This is the minimum operating limit for the desorption concentrate gas stream temperature. (3) During each performance test, you must monitor and record the pressure drop of the dilute stream across the concentrator at least once every 15 minutes during each of the three runs of the performance test. (4) For each performance test, use the data collected during the performance test to calculate and record the average pressure drop. This is the minimum operating limit for the dilute stream across the concentrator. * * * * * ■ 55. Section 63.4568 is amended by revising paragraphs (a)(4), (5), and (7) VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:18 Oct 31, 2019 Jkt 250001 and (c)(3) introductory text to read as follows: § 63.4568 What are the requirements for continuous parameter monitoring system installation, operation, and maintenance? (a) * * * (4) Before [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register], you must maintain the CPMS at all times and have available necessary parts for routine repairs of the monitoring equipment. On and after [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register], you must maintain the CPMS at all times in accordance with § 63.4500(b) and keep necessary parts readily available for routine repairs of the monitoring equipment. (5) Before [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register], you must operate the CPMS and collect emission capture system and add-on control device parameter data at all times that a controlled coating operation is operating, except during monitoring malfunctions, associated repairs, and required quality assurance or control activities (including, if applicable, calibration checks and required zero and span adjustments). On and after [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register], you must operate the CPMS and collect emission capture system and add-on control device parameter data at all times in accordance with § 63.4500(b). * * * * * (7) A monitoring malfunction is any sudden, infrequent, not reasonably preventable failure of the CPMS to provide valid data. Monitoring failures that are caused in part by poor maintenance or careless operation are not malfunctions. Before [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register], any period for which the monitoring system is out-ofcontrol and data are not available for required calculations is a deviation from the monitoring requirements. On and after [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register], except for periods of required quality assurance or control activities, any period for which the CPMS fails to operate and record data continuously as required by paragraph (a)(5) of this section, or generates data that cannot be included in calculating averages as specified in (a)(6) of this section constitutes a deviation from the monitoring requirements. * * * * * (c) * * * (3) For all thermal oxidizers and catalytic oxidizers, you must meet the PO 00000 Frm 00090 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 requirements in paragraphs (a) and (c)(3)(i) through (v) of this section for each gas temperature monitoring device. For the purposes of this paragraph (c)(3), a thermocouple is part of the temperature sensor. * * * * * ■ 56. Section 63.4581 is amended by revising the definitions of ‘‘Deviation’’ and ‘‘Non-HAP coating’’ to read as follows: § 63.4581 subpart? What definitions apply to this * * * * * Deviation means: (1) Before [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register], any instance in which an affected source subject to this subpart, or an owner or operator of such a source: (i) Fails to meet any requirement or obligation established by this subpart including but not limited to, any emission limit or operating limit or work practice standard; (ii) Fails to meet any term or condition that is adopted to implement an applicable requirement in this subpart and that is included in the operating permit for any affected source required to obtain such a permit; or (iii) Fails to meet any emission limit, or operating limit, or work practice standard in this subpart during startup, shutdown, or malfunction, regardless of whether or not such failure is permitted by this subpart; and (2) On and after [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register], any instance in which an affected source subject to this subpart or an owner or operator of such a source: (i) Fails to meet any requirement or obligation established by this subpart including but not limited to any emission limit, operating limit, or work practice standard; or (ii) Fails to meet any term or condition that is adopted to implement an applicable requirement in this subpart and that is included in the operating permit for any affected source required to obtain such a permit. * * * * * Non-HAP coating means, for the purposes of this subpart, a coating that contains no more than 0.1 percent by mass of any individual organic HAP that is listed in Table 5 to this subpart and no more than 1.0 percent by mass for any other individual HAP. * * * * * ■ 57. Table 2 to Subpart PPPP of part 63 is revised to read as follows: E:\FR\FM\01NOP2.SGM 01NOP2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 212 / Friday, November 1, 2019 / Proposed Rules 59025 TABLE 2 TO SUBPART PPPP OF PART 63—APPLICABILITY OF GENERAL PROVISIONS TO SUBPART PPPP OF PART 63 You must comply with the applicable General Provisions requirements according to the following table: Citation Subject Applicable to subpart PPPP § 63.1(a)(1)–(12) ............................ § 63.1(b)(1)–(3) .............................. General Applicability ..................... Initial Applicability Determination .. Yes. Yes ................................................ § 63.1(c)(1) ..................................... Applicability After Standard Established. Applicability of Permit Program for Area Sources. Extensions and Notifications ........ Applicability of Permit Program Before Relevant Standard is Set. Definitions ..................................... Yes. Units and Abbreviations ............... Prohibited Activities ...................... Circumvention/Fragmentation ....... Construction/Reconstruction ......... Requirements for Existing, Newly Constructed, and Reconstructed Sources. Application for Approval of Construction/Reconstruction. Approval of Construction/Reconstruction. Approval of Construction/Reconstruction Based on Prior State Review. Compliance With Standards and Maintenance Requirements— Applicability. Compliance Dates for New and Reconstructed Sources. Compliance Dates for Existing Sources. Operation and Maintenance ......... Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. § 63.1(c)(2) ..................................... § 63.1(c)(5) ..................................... § 63.1(e) ......................................... § 63.2 ............................................. § 63.3 ............................................. § 63.4(a)(1)–(2) .............................. § 63.4(b)–(c) ................................... § 63.5(a) ......................................... § 63.5(b)(1), (3), (4), (6) ................. § 63.5(d)(1)(i)\(ii)(F), (d)(1)(ii)(H), (d)(1)(ii)(J), (d)(1)(iii), (d)(2)–(4). § 63.5(e) ......................................... § 63.5(f) .......................................... § 63.6(a) ......................................... § 63.6(b)(1)–(5), (b)(7) ................... § 63.6(c)(1), (2), (5) ........................ § 63.6(e)(1)(i)–(ii) ........................... § 63.6(e)(1)(iii) ................................ § 63.6(e)(3)(i), (e)(3)(iii)–(ix) ........... Operation and Maintenance ......... Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction Plan (SSMP). § 63.6(f)(1) ...................................... Compliance Except During Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction. § 63.6(f)(2)–(3) ............................... Methods for Determining Compliance. Use of an Alternative Standard .... Compliance With Opacity/Visible Emission Standards. § 63.6(g) ......................................... § 63.6(h) ......................................... § 63.6(i)(1)–(14), (16) ..................... § 63.6(j) .......................................... § 63.7(a)(1) ..................................... VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:18 Oct 31, 2019 Extension of Compliance .............. Presidential Compliance Exemption. Performance Test Requirements—Applicability. Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00091 Fmt 4701 Explanation No ................................................. Applicability to subpart PPPP is also specified in § 63.4481. Area sources are not subject to subpart PPPP. Yes. Yes. Yes ................................................ Additional definitions are specified in § 63.4581. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes ................................................ Yes ................................................ Yes before [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register] No on and after [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register]. Yes. Yes before [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register]. No on and after [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register]. Yes before [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register]. No on and after [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register]. Yes. Yes. No ................................................. Section 63.4483 specifies the compliance dates. Section 63.4483 specifies the compliance dates. See § 63.4500(b) for general duty requirement. Subpart PPPP does not establish opacity standards and does not require continuous opacity monitoring systems (COMS). Yes. Yes. Yes ................................................ Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\01NOP2.SGM Applies to all affected sources. Additional requirements for performance testing are specified in §§ 63.4564, 63.4565, and 63.4566. 01NOP2 59026 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 212 / Friday, November 1, 2019 / Proposed Rules TABLE 2 TO SUBPART PPPP OF PART 63—APPLICABILITY OF GENERAL PROVISIONS TO SUBPART PPPP OF PART 63— Continued You must comply with the applicable General Provisions requirements according to the following table: Citation Subject § 63.7(a)(2), except (a)(2)(i)–(viii) .. Performance Test ments—Dates. § 63.7(a)(3)–(4) .............................. Performance Tests Required By the Administrator, Force Majeure. Performance Test Requirements—Notification, Quality Assurance, Facilities Necessary for Safe Testing, Conditions During Test. Conduct of Performance Tests .... § 63.7(b)–(d) ................................... § 63.7(e)(1) ..................................... § 63.7(e)(2)–(4) .............................. § 63.7(f) .......................................... § 63.7(g)–(h) ................................... Require- Conduct of Performance Tests .... Performance Test Requirements—Use Alternative Test Method. Performance Test Requirements—Data Analysis, Recordkeeping, Reporting, Waiver of Test. Applicable to subpart PPPP Explanation Yes ................................................ Applies only to performance tests for capture system and control device efficiency at sources using these to comply with the standards. Section 63.4560 specifies the schedule for performance test requirements that are earlier than those specified in § 63.7(a)(2). Yes. Yes ................................................ Yes before [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register]. No on and after [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register]. Yes. Yes ................................................ Yes ................................................ § 63.8(a)(1)–(2) .............................. Monitoring Requirements—Applicability. Yes ................................................ § 63.8(a)(4) ..................................... Additional ments. Require- No ................................................. § 63.8(b) ......................................... § 63.8(c)(1) ..................................... Conduct of Monitoring .................. Continuous Monitoring System (CMS) Operation and Maintenance. § 63.8(c)(2)–(3) .............................. CMS Operation and Maintenance Yes. Yes before [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register]. No on and after [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register]. Yes ................................................ § 63.8(c)(4) ..................................... CMS .............................................. No ................................................. § 63.8(c)(5) ..................................... COMS ........................................... No ................................................. VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:18 Oct 31, 2019 Jkt 250001 Monitoring PO 00000 Frm 00092 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\01NOP2.SGM Applies only to performance tests for capture system and add-on control device efficiency at sources using these to comply with the standards. See § 63.4500 and § 63.4564(a). Applies to all test methods except those of used to determine capture system efficiency. Applies only to performance tests for capture system and add-on control device efficiency at sources using these to comply with the standards. Applies only to monitoring of capture system and add-on control device efficiency at sources using these to comply with the standards. Additional requirements for monitoring are specified in § 63.4568. Subpart PPPP does not have monitoring requirements for flares. Section 63.4568 specifies the requirements for the operation of CMS for capture systems and add-on control devices at sources using these to comply. Applies only to monitoring of capture system and add-on control device efficiency at sources using these to comply with the standard. Additional requirements for CMS operations and maintenance are specified in § 63.4568. Section 63.4568 specifies the requirements for the operation of CMS for capture systems and add-on control devices at sources using these to comply. Subpart PPPP does not have opacity or visible emission standards. 01NOP2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 212 / Friday, November 1, 2019 / Proposed Rules 59027 TABLE 2 TO SUBPART PPPP OF PART 63—APPLICABILITY OF GENERAL PROVISIONS TO SUBPART PPPP OF PART 63— Continued You must comply with the applicable General Provisions requirements according to the following table: Citation Subject Applicable to subpart PPPP Explanation § 63.8(c)(6) ..................................... CMS Requirements ...................... No ................................................. Section 63.4568 specifies the requirements for monitoring systems for capture systems and add-on control devices at sources using these to comply. § 63.8(c)(7) ..................................... § 63.8(c)(8) ..................................... CMS Out-of-Control Periods ........ CMS Out-of-Control Periods and Reporting. Yes. No ................................................. § 63.8(d)–(e) ................................... Quality Control Program and CMS Performance Evaluation. No ................................................. § 63.8(f)(1)–(5) ............................... Use of an Alternative Monitoring Method. Alternative to Relative Accuracy Test. Yes. § 63.8(g) ......................................... Data Reduction ............................. No ................................................. § 63.9(a)–(d) ................................... § 63.9(e) ......................................... Notification Requirments .............. Notification of Performance Test .. Yes. Yes ................................................ § 63.9(f) .......................................... Notification of Visible Emissions/ Opacity Test. No ................................................. § 63.9(g) ......................................... Additional Notifications Using CMS. No ................................................. § 63.9(h)(1)–(3), (5)–(6) ................. Notification of Compliance Status Yes ................................................ § 63.9(i) .......................................... Adjustment of Submittal Deadlines. Change in Previous Information ... Recordkeeping/Reporting—Applicability and General Information. General Recordkeeping Requirements. Recordkeeping of Occurrence and Duration of Startups and Shutdowns and of Failures to Meet Standards. Yes. § 63.8(f)(6) ...................................... § 63.9(j) .......................................... § 63.10(a) ....................................... § 63.10(b)(1) ................................... § 63.10(b)(2)(i)–(ii) .......................... § 63.10(b)(2)(iii) .............................. § 63.10(b)(2)(iv)–(v) ....................... When Recordkeeping Relevant to Maintenance of Air Pollution Control and Monitoring Equipment. Actions Taken to Minimize Emissions During Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction. No ................................................. Yes ................................................ Yes before [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register]. No on and after [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register]. Yes. § 63.10(b)(2)(vi) .............................. Recordkeeping for CMS Malfunctions. § 63.10(b)(2)(vii)–(xii) ..................... § 63.10(b)(2)(xiii) ............................ Records ........................................ ....................................................... § 63.10(b)(2)(xiv) ............................ ....................................................... Yes. 20:18 Oct 31, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00093 Fmt 4701 Subpart PPPP does not require the use of continuous emissions monitoring systems. Sections 63.4567 and 63.4568 specify monitoring data reduction. Applies only to capture system and add-on control device performance tests at sources using these to comply with the standards. Subpart PPPP does not have opacity or visible emission standards. Subpart PPPP does not require the use of continuous emissions monitoring systems. Section 63.4510 specifies the dates for submitting the notification of compliance status. Yes. Yes. Yes before [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register]. No on and after [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register]. Yes before [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register]. No on and after [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register]. Yes. No ................................................. VerDate Sep<11>2014 Section 63.4520 requires reporting of CMS out-of-control periods. Subpart PPPP does not require the use of continuous emissions monitoring systems. Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\01NOP2.SGM Additional requirements are specified in §§ 63.4530 and 63.4531. See § 63.4530(h). See § 63.4530(h)(4) for a record of actions taken to minimize emissions during a deviation from the standard. See § 63.4530(h) for records of periods of deviation from the standard, including instances where a CMS is inoperative or out-of-control. Subpart PPPP does not require the use of continuous emissions monitoring systems. 01NOP2 59028 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 212 / Friday, November 1, 2019 / Proposed Rules TABLE 2 TO SUBPART PPPP OF PART 63—APPLICABILITY OF GENERAL PROVISIONS TO SUBPART PPPP OF PART 63— Continued You must comply with the applicable General Provisions requirements according to the following table: Citation Subject § 63.10(b)(3) ................................... Recordkeeping Requirements for Applicability Determinations. Additional Recordkeeping Requirements for Sources with CMS. Additional Recordkeeping Requirements for Sources with CMS. Yes. Additional Recordkeeping Requirements for Sources with CMS. Records Regarding the Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction Plan. Yes. § 63.10(c)(1),(5)–(6) ....................... § 63.10(c)(7)–(8) ............................ § 63.10(c)(10)–(14) ........................ § 63.10(c)(15) ................................. Applicable to subpart PPPP Explanation Yes. No ................................................. Yes before [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register]. No on and after [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register]. Yes ................................................ § 63.10(d)(1) ................................... General Reporting Requirements § 63.10(d)(2) ................................... Report of Performance Test Results. Reporting Opacity or Visible Emissions Observations. Yes ................................................ Progress Reports for Sources With Compliance Extensions. Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction Reports. Yes. § 63.10(d)(3) ................................... § 63.10(d)(4) ................................... § 63.10(d)(5) ................................... No ................................................. Yes before [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register]. No on and after [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register]. No ................................................. § 63.10(e)(1)–(2) ............................ Additional CMS Reports ............... § 63.10(e)(3) ................................... Excess Emissions/CMS Performance Reports. No ................................................. § 63.10(e)(4) ................................... COMS Data Reports .................... No ................................................. § 63.10(f) ........................................ § 63.11 ........................................... Recordkeeping/Reporting Waiver Control Device Requirements/ Flares. State Authority and Delegations ... Addresses ..................................... Incorporation by Reference .......... Availability of Information/Confidentiality. Yes. No ................................................. § 63.12 § 63.13 § 63.14 § 63.15 ........................................... ........................................... ........................................... ........................................... See § 63.4530(h) for records of periods of deviation from the standard, including instances where a CMS is inoperative or out-of-control. Additional requirements are specified in § 63.4520. Additional requirements are specified in § 63.4520(b). Subpart PPPP does not require opacity or visible emissions observations. See § 63.4520(a)(7). Subpart PPPP does not require the use of continuous emissions monitoring systems. Section 63.4520(b) specifies the contents of periodic compliance reports. Subpart PPPP does not specify requirements for opacity or COMS. Subpart PPPP does not specify use of flares for compliance. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. 58. Table 5 to Subpart PPPP of part 63 is added to read as follows: ■ TABLE 5 TO SUBPART PPPP OF PART 63—LIST OF HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANTS THAT MUST BE COUNTED TOWARD TOTAL ORGANIC HAP CONTENT IF PRESENT AT 0.1 PERCENT OR MORE BY MASS Chemical name CAS No. 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane .................................................................................................................................................................... 1,1,2-Trichloroethane ........................................................................................................................................................................... 1,1-Dimethylhydrazine ......................................................................................................................................................................... 1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane .............................................................................................................................................................. 1,2-Diphenylhydrazine ......................................................................................................................................................................... 1,3-Butadiene ....................................................................................................................................................................................... 1,3-Dichloropropene ............................................................................................................................................................................ VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:18 Oct 31, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00094 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\01NOP2.SGM 01NOP2 79–34–5 79–00–5 57–14–7 96–12–8 122–66–7 106–99–0 542–75–6 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 212 / Friday, November 1, 2019 / Proposed Rules 59029 TABLE 5 TO SUBPART PPPP OF PART 63—LIST OF HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANTS THAT MUST BE COUNTED TOWARD TOTAL ORGANIC HAP CONTENT IF PRESENT AT 0.1 PERCENT OR MORE BY MASS—Continued Chemical name CAS No. 1,4-Dioxane .......................................................................................................................................................................................... 2,4,6-Trichlorophenol ........................................................................................................................................................................... 2,4/2,6-Dinitrotoluene (mixture) ........................................................................................................................................................... 2,4-Dinitrotoluene ................................................................................................................................................................................. 2,4-Toluene diamine ............................................................................................................................................................................ 2-Nitropropane ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 3,3′-Dichlorobenzidine ......................................................................................................................................................................... 3,3′-Dimethoxybenzidine ..................................................................................................................................................................... 3,3′-Dimethylbenzidine ........................................................................................................................................................................ 4,4′-Methylene bis(2-chloroaniline) ...................................................................................................................................................... Acetaldehyde ....................................................................................................................................................................................... Acrylamide ........................................................................................................................................................................................... Acrylonitrile .......................................................................................................................................................................................... Allyl chloride ......................................................................................................................................................................................... alpha-Hexachlorocyclohexane (a-HCH) .............................................................................................................................................. Aniline .................................................................................................................................................................................................. Benzene ............................................................................................................................................................................................... Benzidine ............................................................................................................................................................................................. Benzotrichloride ................................................................................................................................................................................... Benzyl chloride .................................................................................................................................................................................... beta-Hexachlorocyclohexane (b-HCH) ................................................................................................................................................ Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate .................................................................................................................................................................... Bis(chloromethyl)ether ......................................................................................................................................................................... Bromoform ........................................................................................................................................................................................... Captan ................................................................................................................................................................................................. Carbon tetrachloride ............................................................................................................................................................................ Chlordane ............................................................................................................................................................................................ Chlorobenzilate .................................................................................................................................................................................... Chloroform ........................................................................................................................................................................................... Chloroprene ......................................................................................................................................................................................... Cresols (mixed) .................................................................................................................................................................................... DDE ..................................................................................................................................................................................................... Dichloroethyl ether ............................................................................................................................................................................... Dichlorvos ............................................................................................................................................................................................ Epichlorohydrin .................................................................................................................................................................................... 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 ....................................................................................................................................................................................... VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:18 Oct 31, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00095 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\01NOP2.SGM 01NOP2 123–91–1 88–06–2 25321–14–6 121–14–2 95–80–7 79–46–9 91–94–1 119–90–4 119–93–7 101–14–4 75–07–0 79–06–1 107–13–1 107–05–1 319–84–6 62–53–3 71–43–2 92–87–5 98–07–7 100–44–7 319–85–7 117–81–7 542–88–1 75–25–2 133–06–2 56–23–5 57–74–9 510–15–6 67–66–3 126–99–8 1319–77–3 3547–04–4 111–44–4 62–73–7 106–89–8 140–88–5 106–93–4 107–06–2 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 59030 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 212 / Friday, November 1, 2019 / Proposed Rules TABLE 5 TO SUBPART PPPP OF PART 63—LIST OF HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANTS THAT MUST BE COUNTED TOWARD TOTAL ORGANIC HAP CONTENT IF PRESENT AT 0.1 PERCENT OR MORE BY MASS—Continued Chemical name CAS No. Vinylidene chloride ............................................................................................................................................................................... § 63.4965 How do I determine the add-on control device emission destruction or removal efficiency? Subpart RRRR—National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Surface Coating of Metal Furniture * 59. Section 63.4965 is amended by adding paragraphs (b)(1) through (3) to read as follows: ■ VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:18 Oct 31, 2019 Jkt 250001 * * * * (b) * * * (1) Use EPA Method 25 if the add-on control device is an oxidizer and you expect the total gaseous organic concentration as carbon to be more than 50 parts per million (ppm) at the control device outlet. PO 00000 Frm 00096 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 9990 75–35–4 (2) Use EPA Method 25A if the addon control device is an oxidizer and you expect the total gaseous organic concentration as carbon to be 50 ppm or less at the control device outlet. (3) Use EPA Method 25A if the addon control device is not an oxidizer. * * * * * [FR Doc. 2019–18345 Filed 10–25–19; 4:15 pm] BILLING CODE 6560–50–P E:\FR\FM\01NOP2.SGM 01NOP2

Agencies

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 212 (Friday, November 1, 2019)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 58936-59030]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-18345]



[[Page 58935]]

Vol. 84

Friday,

No. 212

November 1, 2019

Part III





Environmental Protection Agency





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





40 CFR Part 63





National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Surface 
Coating of Automobiles and Light-Duty Trucks; Surface Coating of 
Miscellaneous Metal Parts and Products; Surface Coating of Plastic 
Parts and Products; Surface Coating of Large Appliances; Printing, 
Coating, and Dyeing of Fabrics and Other Textiles; and Surface Coating 
of Metal Furniture Residual Risk and Technology Reviews; Proposed Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 84 , No. 212 / Friday, November 1, 2019 / 
Proposed Rules

[[Page 58936]]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 63

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0314, EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0312, EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0313, EPA-
HQ-OAR-2017-0670, EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0668, EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0669; FRL-9998-
77-OAR]
RIN 2060-AT49 and RIN 2060-AT72


National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Surface 
Coating of Automobiles and Light-Duty Trucks; Surface Coating of 
Miscellaneous Metal Parts and Products; Surface Coating of Plastic 
Parts and Products; Surface Coating of Large Appliances; Printing, 
Coating, and Dyeing of Fabrics and Other Textiles; and Surface Coating 
of Metal Furniture Residual Risk and Technology Reviews

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing 
amendments to address the results of the residual risk and technology 
reviews (RTR) that the EPA is required to conduct in accordance with 
the Clean Air Act (CAA) with regard to the National Emissions Standards 
for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for the Surface Coating of 
Automobiles and Light-Duty Trucks (ALDT), the NESHAP for the Surface 
Coating of Miscellaneous Metal Parts and Products (MMPP), and the 
NESHAP for the Surface Coating of Plastic Parts and Products (PPP). The 
EPA is proposing to find the risks due to emissions of air toxics from 
these source categories under the current standards are acceptable and 
the standards provide an ample margin of safety to protect public 
health. We are proposing no revisions to the numerical emission limits 
based on these analyses. The EPA is proposing to amend provisions 
addressing emissions during periods of startup, shutdown, and 
malfunction (SSM); to amend provisions regarding electronic reporting 
of performance test results; to amend provisions regarding monitoring 
requirements; and to make miscellaneous clarifying and technical 
corrections. This notice also proposes technical corrections to the 
NESHAP for Surface Coating of Large Appliances; NESHAP for Printing, 
Coating, and Dyeing of Fabrics and Other Textiles; and NESHAP for 
Surface Coating of Metal Furniture.

DATES: 
    Comments. Comments must be received on or before December 16, 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 December 2, 2019.
    Public hearing. If anyone contacts us requesting a public hearing 
on or before November 6, 2019, we will hold a hearing. Additional 
information about the hearing, if requested, will be published in a 
subsequent Federal Register document and posted at https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/surface-coating-automobiles-and-light-duty-trucks-national-emission, https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/surface-coating-miscellaneous-metal-parts-and-products-national and https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/surface-coating-plastic-parts-and-products-national-emission. 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-2019-0314 for 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 63, subpart 
IIII, Automobiles and Light-Duty Trucks; Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0312 for 40 CFR part 63, subpart MMMM, Surface Coating of Miscellaneous 
Metal Parts and Products; Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0313 for 40 CFR 
part 63, subpart PPPP, Surface Coating of Plastic Parts and Products; 
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0668 for 40 CFR part 63, subpart OOOO, 
Printing Coating, and Dyeing of Fabrics and Other Textiles; EPA-HQ-OAR-
2017-0669 for 40 CFR part 63, subpart RRRR, Surface Coating of Metal 
Furniture; Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0670, for 40 CFR part 63 
subpart NNNN for Surface Coating of Large Appliances 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-2019-0312, EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0313, EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0314, HQ-OAR-
2017-0668, EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0669, or EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0670 (specify the 
applicable docket number) in the subject line of the message.
     Fax: (202) 566-9744. Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0312, EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0313, or EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0314, HQ-OAR-2017-
0668, EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0669, or EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0670 (specify the 
applicable docket number).
     Mail: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Docket 
Center, Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0312, EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0313, or 
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0314, HQ-OAR-2017-0668, EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0669, or EPA-
HQ-OAR-2017-0670 (specify the applicable docket number), Mail Code 
28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20460.
     Hand/Courier Delivery: EPA Docket Center, WJC West 
Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20004. 
The Docket Center's hours of operation are 8:30 a.m.-4:30 p.m., Monday-
Friday (except federal holidays).
    Instructions: All submissions received must include the applicable 
Docket ID No. for this rulemaking. Comments received may be posted 
without change to https://www.regulations.gov/, including any personal 
information provided. For detailed instructions on sending comments and 
additional information on the rulemaking process, see the SUPPLEMENTARY 
INFORMATION section of this document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For questions about this proposed 
action for the Surface Coating of Miscellaneous Metal Parts and 
Products (MMPP) NESHAP, the Surface Coating of Plastic Parts and 
Products (PPP) NESHAP, and the technical corrections to the NESHAP for 
Surface Coating of Large Appliances contact Ms. Kim Teal, Minerals and 
Manufacturing Group, Sector Policies and Programs Division (D243-04), 
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711; 
telephone number: (919) 541-5580; fax number: (919) 541-4991; and email 
address: [email protected]. For questions about the proposed action for 
the Surface Coating of Automobiles and Light-Duty Trucks (ALDT) NESHAP 
and the technical corrections to the NESHAP for Surface Coating of 
Metal Furniture contact Ms. J. Kaye Whitfield, Minerals and 
Manufacturing Group, Sector Policies and Programs Division (D243-04), 
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711; 
telephone number: (919) 541-2509; fax number: (919) 541-4991; and email 
address: [email protected]. For questions about the technical 
corrections to the Printing, Coating, and Dyeing of Fabrics and Other 
Textiles contact Ms. Paula

[[Page 58937]]

Hirtz, Minerals and Manufacturing Group, Sector Policies and Programs 
Division (D243-04), Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 
27711; telephone number: (919) 541-2618; fax number: (919) 541-4991; 
and email address: [email protected]. For specific information 
regarding the risk modeling methodology, contact Mr. Chris Sarsony, 
Health and Environmental Impacts Division (C539-02), Office of Air 
Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711; telephone number: (919) 
541-4843; fax number: (919) 541-0840; and email address: 
[email protected]. For information about the applicability of any 
of these NESHAP to a particular entity, contact Mr. John Cox, Office of 
Enforcement and Compliance Assurance, U.S. Environmental Protection 
Agency, EPA WJC South Building (Mail Code 2227A), 1200 Pennsylvania 
Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: (202) 564-1395; and 
email address: [email protected]. For questions about monitoring and 
testing requirements, contact Mr. Muntasir Ali, Measurement Policy 
Group, Sector Policies and Programs Division (D221-01), Office of Air 
Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711; telephone number: (919) 
541-0833; fax number: (919) 541-4991; and email address: 
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 
    Public hearing. Please contact Ms. Nancy Perry at (919) 541-5628 or 
by email at [email protected] to request a public hearing, to 
register to speak at the public hearing, or to inquire as to whether a 
public hearing will be held.
    Docket. The EPA has established three separate dockets for these 
rulemakings. Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0314 has been established 
for 40 CFR part 63, subpart IIII, Surface Coating of Automobiles and 
Light-Duty Trucks. Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0312 has been 
established for 40 CFR part 63, subpart MMMM, Surface Coating of 
Miscellaneous Metal Parts and Products. EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0313 has been 
established for 40 CFR part 63, subpart PPPP, Surface Coating of 
Plastic Parts and Products. In addition, docket numbers for the 
technical corrections have been established: Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2017-0670 for 40 CFR part 63, subpart NNNN, Surface Coating of Large 
Appliances; Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0669 for 40 CFR part 63, 
subpart RRRR, Surface Coating of Metal Furniture; and Docket ID No. 
EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0668 for 40 CFR part 63, subpart OOOO, Printing, 
Coating, and Dyeing of Fabrics and Other Textiles. All documents in the 
dockets are listed in Regulations.gov. Although listed, some 
information is not publicly available, e.g., Confidential Business 
Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted 
by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is 
not placed on the internet and will be publicly available only in hard 
copy. Publicly available docket materials are available either 
electronically in Regulations.gov or in hard copy at the EPA Docket 
Center, Room 3334, WJC West Building, 1301 Constitution Avenue NW, 
Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 
p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone 
number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone 
number for the EPA Docket Center is (202) 566-1742.
    The dockets related to the technical corrections to the NESHAP for 
Surface Coating of Large Appliances, the NESHAP for Printing, Coating, 
and Dyeing of Fabrics and Other Textiles, and the NESHAP for Surface 
Coating of Metal Furniture are discussed in section II.E of this 
preamble.
    Instructions. Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0314 for 40 CFR part 63, subpart IIII, Surface Coating of 
Automobiles and Light-Duty Trucks, Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0312 
for 40 CFR part 63, subpart MMMM, Surface Coating of Miscellaneous 
Metal Parts and Products, or Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0313 for 40 
CFR part 63, subpart PPPP, Surface Coating of Plastic Parts and 
Products, as applicable to your comments. Direct your comments for the 
technical corrections to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0670 for 40 CFR 
part 63, subpart NNNN, Surface Coating of Large Appliances; Docket ID 
No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0669 for 40 CFR part 63, subpart RRRR, Surface 
Coating of Metal Furniture; and Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0668 for 
40 CFR part 63, subpart OOOO, Printing, Coating, and Dyeing of Fabrics 
and Other Textiles. The EPA's policy is that all comments received will 
be included in the public docket without change and may be made 
available online at https://www.regulations.gov/, including any 
personal information provided, unless the comment includes information 
claimed to be CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted 
by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or 
otherwise protected through https://www.regulations.gov/ or email. This 
type of information should be submitted by mail as discussed below.
    The EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket. 
Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a 
written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment 
and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA 
will generally not consider comments or comment contents located 
outside of the primary submission (i.e., on the Web, cloud, or other 
file sharing system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA 
public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, 
and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.
    The https://www.regulations.gov/ website allows you to submit your 
comment anonymously, which means the EPA will not know your identity or 
contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. 
If you send an email comment directly to the EPA without going through 
https://www.regulations.gov/, your email address will be automatically 
captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the 
public docket and made available on the internet. If you submit an 
electronic comment, the EPA recommends that you include your name and 
other contact information in the body of your comment and with any 
digital storage media you submit. If the EPA cannot read your comment 
due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, 
the EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files 
should not include special characters or any form of encryption and be 
free of any defects or viruses. For additional information about the 
EPA's public docket, visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at https://www.epa.gov/dockets.
    Submitting CBI. Do not submit information containing CBI to the EPA 
through https://www.regulations.gov/ or email. Clearly mark the part or 
all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information on 
any digital storage media that you mail to the EPA, mark the outside of 
the digital storage media as CBI and then identify electronically 
within the digital storage media the specific information that is 
claimed as CBI. In addition to one complete version of the comments 
that includes information claimed as CBI, you must submit a copy of the

[[Page 58938]]

comments that does not contain the information claimed as CBI directly 
to the public docket through the procedures outlined in Instructions 
above. If you submit any digital storage media that does not contain 
CBI, mark the outside of the digital storage media clearly that it does 
not contain CBI. Information not marked as CBI will be included in the 
public docket and the EPA's electronic public docket without prior 
notice. Information marked as CBI will not be disclosed except in 
accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. Send or deliver 
information identified as CBI only to the following address: OAQPS 
Document Control Officer (C404-02), OAQPS, U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711, 
Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0314 for 40 CFR part 63, 
subpart IIII, Surface Coating of Automobiles and Light-Duty Trucks 
(ALDT Docket); Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0312 for 40 CFR part 63, 
subpart MMMM, Surface Coating of Miscellaneous Metal Parts and Products 
(MMPP Docket); and Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0313 for 40 CFR part 
63, subpart PPPP, Surface Coating of Plastic Parts and Products (PPP 
Docket), as applicable.
    Preamble acronyms and abbreviations. We use multiple acronyms and 
terms in this preamble. While this list may not be exhaustive, to ease 
the reading of this preamble and for reference purposes, the EPA 
defines the following terms and acronyms here:

ACA American Coatings Association
AEGL acute exposure guideline level
AERMOD air dispersion model used by the HEM-3 model
ALDT automobile and light-duty truck
BACT best available control technology
CAA Clean Air Act
CalEPA California EPA
CBI Confidential Business Information
CDX Central Data Exchange
CEDRI Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface
CEMS continuous emissions monitoring systems
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
ECHO Enforcement and Compliance History Online
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
EPFP extreme performance fluoropolymer
ERPG emergency response planning guideline
ERT Electronic Reporting Tool
GACT generally available control technology
gal gallon
HAP hazardous air pollutant(s)
HCl hydrochloric acid
HEM-3 Human Exposure Model
HF hydrogen fluoride
HI hazard index
HQ hazard quotient
IBR incorporation by reference
ICAC Institute of Clean Air Companies
IRIS Integrated Risk Information System
kg kilogram
km kilometer
LAER lowest achievable emission rate
lb pound
MACT maximum achievable control technology
MIBK methyl isobutyl ketone
MIR maximum individual risk
MMPP miscellaneous metal parts and products
NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards
NAICS North American Industry Classification System
NEI National Emission Inventory
NESHAP national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants
NSR New Source Review
NTTAA National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
OAQPS Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
OMB Office of Management and Budget
OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration
PB-HAP hazardous air pollutants known to be persistent and bio-
accumulative in the environment
PDF portable document format
POM polycyclic organic matter
PPP plastic parts and products
PRA Paperwork Reduction Act
PTE permanent total enclosure
RACT reasonably available control technology
RBLC RACT/BACT/LAER Clearinghouse
REL reference exposure level
RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act
RfC reference concentration
RfD reference dose
RTO regenerative thermal oxidizer
RTR residual risk and technology review
SAB Science Advisory Board
SSM startup, shutdown, and malfunction
TOSHI target organ-specific hazard index
tpy tons per year
UF uncertainty factor
[micro]g/m\3\ micrograms per cubic meter
UMRA Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
URE unit risk estimate
VCS voluntary consensus standards
VOC volatile organic compounds

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

I. General Information
    A. Does this action apply to me?
    B. Where can I get a copy of this document and other related 
information?
II. Background
    A. What is the statutory authority for this action?
    B. What are the source categories and how do the current NESHAP 
regulate their HAP emissions?
    C. What data collection activities were conducted to support 
this action?
    D. What other relevant background information and data are 
available?
III. Analytical Procedures and Decision-Making
    A. How do we consider risk in our decision-making?
    B. How do we perform the technology review?
    C. How did we estimate post-MACT risks posed by these source 
categories?
IV. Analytical Results and Proposed Decisions
    A. What are the analytical results and proposed decisions for 
the surface coating of automobiles and light-duty trucks source 
category?
    B. What are the analytical results and proposed decisions for 
the MMPP source category?
    C. What are the analytical results and proposed decisions for 
the Surface Coating of Plastic Parts and Products source category?
    D. Proposed Corrections to Earlier Subparts.
V. Summary of Cost, Environmental, and Economic Impacts
    A. What are the affected sources?
    B. What are the air quality impacts?
    C. What are the cost impacts?
    D. What are the economic impacts?
    E. What are the benefits?
VI. Request for Comments
VII. Submitting Data Corrections
VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
    A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and 
Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
    B. Executive Order 13771: Reducing Regulations and Controlling 
Regulatory Costs
    C. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
    D. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
    E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
    F. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
    G. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With 
Indian Tribal Governments
    H. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From 
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
    I. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That 
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
    J. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) and 
1 CFR Part 51
    K. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address 
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income 
Populations

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    Table 1 of this preamble lists the NESHAP and associated regulated 
industrial source categories that are the subject of this proposal. 
Table 1 is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide 
for readers regarding the entities that this proposed action is likely 
to affect. The proposed standards, once promulgated, will be directly 
applicable to the affected sources. Federal, state, local, and tribal 
government entities would not be affected by this proposed action. As

[[Page 58939]]

defined in the Initial List of Categories of Sources Under Section 
112(c)(1) of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 (see 57 FR 31576, 
July 16, 1992) and Documentation for Developing the Initial Source 
Category List, Final Report (see EPA-450/3-91-030, July 1992), the 
Surface Coating of Automobiles and Light-Duty Trucks (ALDT) source 
category includes any facility that is a major source of hazardous air 
pollutants (HAP) and is engaged in the surface coating of new 
automobile or new light-duty truck bodies or body parts for new 
automobiles or new light-duty trucks. We estimate that 43 major source 
facilities engaged in surface coating of automobiles and light-duty 
trucks would be subject to this proposal. The MMPP source category 
includes any facility engaged in the surface coating of miscellaneous 
metal parts and products that is a major source of HAP emissions. 
Miscellaneous metal parts and products include, but are not limited to, 
metal components of the following types of products as well as the 
products themselves: Motor vehicle parts and accessories; bicycles and 
sporting goods; recreational vehicles; extruded aluminum structural 
components; railroad cars; heavy-duty trucks; medical equipment; lawn 
and garden equipment; electronic equipment; magnet wire; steel drums; 
industrial machinery; metal pipes; and numerous other industrial, 
household, and consumer products. We estimate that 368 major source 
facilities engaged in surface coating of miscellaneous metal parts and 
products would be subject to this proposal. The PPP source category 
includes any facility engaged in the surface coating of plastic parts 
or products that is a major source of HAP emissions. Plastic parts and 
products include, but are not limited to, plastic components of the 
following types of products as well as the products themselves: Motor 
vehicle parts and accessories for automobiles, trucks, recreational 
vehicles; sporting and recreational goods; toys; business machines; 
laboratory and medical equipment; and household and other consumer 
products. We estimate that 125 major source facilities engaged in 
plastic parts and products surface coating would be subject to this 
proposal.

   Table 1--NESHAP, Industrial and Government Sources Affected by This
                             Proposed Action
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     Regulated entities
    NESHAP source  category       NAICS code \1\            \2\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Surface Coating of Automobiles  336111, 336112,    Automobile and light-
 and Light-Duty Trucks.          336211.            duty truck assembly
                                                    plants, producers of
                                                    automobile and light-
                                                    duty truck bodies.
Surface Coating of              335312, 336111,    Automobile parts
 Miscellaneous Metal Parts and   336211, 336312,    (engine parts,
 Products.                       33632, 33633,      vehicle parts and
                                 33634, 33637,      accessories, brakes,
                                 336399.            axles, etc.).
                                331316, 331524,    Extruded aluminum,
                                 332321, 332323.    architectural
                                                    components, rod, and
                                                    tubes.
                                33312, 333611,     Heavy equipment
                                 333618.            (tractors, earth
                                                    moving machinery).
                                332312, 332722,    Job shops (making any
                                 332813, 332991,    of the products from
                                 332999, 334119,    the miscellaneous
                                 336413, 339999.    metal parts and
                                                    products segments).
                                33612, 336211....  Large trucks and
                                                    buses.
                                331319, 331422,    Magnet wire.
                                 335929.
                                332311...........  Prefabricated metal
                                                    buildings, carports,
                                                    docks, dwellings,
                                                    greenhouses, panels
                                                    for buildings.
                                33242, 81131,      Metal drums, kegs,
                                 322214, 326199,    pails, shipping
                                 331513, 332439.    containers.
                                331111, 33121,     Metal pipe and
                                 331221, 331511.    foundry (plate,
                                                    tube, rods, nails,
                                                    spikes, etc.).
                                33651, 336611,     Rail transportation
                                 482111.            (brakes, engines,
                                                    freight cars,
                                                    locomotives.
                                3369, 331316,      Recreational vehicles
                                 336991, 336211,    (motorcycles, motor
                                 336112, 336213,    homes, semitrailers,
                                 336214, 336399.    truck trailers).
                                326291, 326299...  Rubber to metal
                                                    products (engine
                                                    mounts, rubberized
                                                    tank tread, harmonic
                                                    balancers.
                                332311, 332312...  Structural steel
                                                    (joists, railway
                                                    bridge sections,
                                                    highway bridge
                                                    sections).
                                336212, 336999,    Miscellaneous
                                 33635, 56121,      transportation
                                 8111. 56211.       related equipment
                                                    and parts.
Surface Coating of Plastic      337214...........  Office furniture,
 Parts and Products.            32614, 32615.....   except wood.
                                                   Plastic foam products
                                                    (e.g., pool floats,
                                                    wrestling mats, life
                                                    jackets).
                                326199...........  Plastic products not
                                                    elsewhere classified
                                                    (e.g., name plates,
                                                    coin holders,
                                                    storage boxes,
                                                    license plate
                                                    housings, cosmetic
                                                    caps, cup holders).
                                333313...........  Office machines.
                                33422............  Radio and television
                                                    broadcasting and
                                                    communications
                                                    equipment (e.g.,
                                                    cellular
                                                    telephones).
                                336211...........  Motor vehicle body
                                                    manufacturing.
                                336399...........  Motor vehicle parts
                                                    and accessories.
                                336212...........  Truck trailer
                                                    manufacturing.
                                336213...........  Motor home
                                                    manufacturing.
                                336214...........  Travel trailer and
                                                    camper
                                                    manufacturing.
                                336999...........  Transportation
                                                    equipment not
                                                    elsewhere classified
                                                    (e.g., snowmobile
                                                    hoods, running
                                                    boards, tractor body
                                                    panels, personal
                                                    watercraft parts).
                                339111, 339112...  Medical equipment and
                                                    supplies.
                                33992............  Sporting and athletic
                                                    goods.
                                33995............  Signs and advertising
                                                    specialties.

[[Page 58940]]

 
                                339999...........  Manufacturing
                                                    industries not
                                                    elsewhere classified
                                                    (e.g., bezels,
                                                    consoles, panels,
                                                    lenses).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ North American Industry Classification System.
\2\ Regulated entities means major source facilities that apply surface
  coatings to these parts or products.

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

    In addition to being available in the dockets for this action, an 
electronic copy of this proposed action is available on the internet. 
Following signature by the EPA Administrator, the EPA will post a copy 
of this proposed action at https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/surface-coating-automobiles-and-light-duty-trucks-national-emission, https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/surface-coating-miscellaneous-metal-parts-and-products-national, and https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/surface-coating-plastic-parts-and-products-national-emission. Following publication in the 
Federal Register, the EPA will post the Federal Register version of the 
proposal and key technical documents at these same websites. 
Information on the overall RTR program is available at https://www3.epa.gov/ttn/atw/rrisk/rtrpg.html.
    A redline version of the regulatory language that incorporates the 
proposed changes in this action are available in the Automobiles and 
Light-Duty Trucks, the Metal Parts and Products, and the Plastic Parts 
and Products Dockets (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0314, Docket ID No. 
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0312, and Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0313, 
respectively).

II. Background

A. What is the statutory authority for this action?

    The statutory authority for this action is provided by sections 112 
and 301 of the CAA, as amended (42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.).\1\ Section 112 
of the CAA establishes a two-stage regulatory process to develop 
standards for emissions of HAP from stationary sources. Generally, the 
first stage involves establishing technology-based standards and the 
second stage involves evaluating those standards that are based on 
maximum achievable control technology (MACT) to determine whether 
additional standards are needed to further address any remaining risk 
associated with HAP emissions. This second stage is commonly referred 
to as the ``residual risk review.'' In addition to the residual risk 
review, the CAA also requires the EPA to review standards set under CAA 
section 112 every 8 years to determine if there are ``developments in 
practices, processes, or control technologies'' that may be appropriate 
to incorporate into the standards. This review is commonly referred to 
as the ``technology review.'' When the two reviews are combined into a 
single rulemaking, it is commonly referred to as the ``risk and 
technology review.'' The discussion that follows identifies the most 
relevant statutory sections and briefly explains the contours of the 
methodology used to implement these statutory requirements. A more 
comprehensive discussion appears in the document titled CAA Section 112 
Risk and Technology Reviews: Statutory Authority and Methodology, in 
the dockets for each subpart in this rulemaking (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0314 for Automobiles and Light-Duty Trucks, Docket ID No. EPA-
HQ-OAR-2019-0312 for Miscellaneous Metal Parts and Products, and Docket 
ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0313 for Plastic Parts and Products).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

[[Page 58941]]

Columbia Circuit (the Court) upheld the EPA's interpretation that CAA 
section 112(f)(2) incorporates the approach established in the Benzene 
NESHAP. See NRDC v. EPA, 529 F.3d 1077, 1083 (D.C. Cir. 2008).
    The approach incorporated into the CAA and used by the EPA to 
evaluate residual risk and to develop standards under CAA section 
112(f)(2) is a two-step approach. In the first step, the EPA determines 
whether risks are acceptable. This determination ``considers all health 
information, including risk estimation uncertainty, and includes a 
presumptive limit on maximum individual lifetime [cancer] risk (MIR) 
\2\ of approximately [1-in-10 thousand] [i.e., 100-in-1 million].'' 54 
FR 38045, September 14, 1989. If risks are unacceptable, the EPA must 
determine the emissions standards necessary to bring risks 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

1. What is the surface coating of automobiles and light-duty trucks 
source category and how does the current NESHAP regulate its HAP 
emissions?
a. Source Category Description
    The NESHAP for the ALDT source category was promulgated on April 
26, 2004 (69 FR 22602), and is codified at 40 CFR part 63, subpart 
IIII. Technical corrections and clarifying amendments were promulgated 
on December 22, 2006 (71 FR 76922) and April 24, 2007 (72 FR 20227). 
The ALDT NESHAP applies to any coating operations which apply topcoats 
to new automobile or new light-duty truck bodies or body parts for new 
automobiles or new light-duty trucks and/or coatings to new other motor 
vehicle bodies or body parts for new other motor vehicles; parts 
intended for use in new automobiles, new light-duty trucks, or new 
other motor vehicles; or aftermarket repair or replacement parts for 
automobiles, light-duty trucks, or other motor vehicles; and the 
affected source is located at a facility that is a major source, is 
located at a major source, or is part of a major source of emissions of 
HAP (40 CFR 63.3081). The ALDT NESHAP (40 CFR 63.3176) defines an 
``automobile'' as ``a motor vehicle designed to carry up to eight 
passengers, excluding vans, sport utility vehicles, and motor vehicles 
designed primarily to transport light loads of property,'' and ``light-
duty truck'' as ``vans, sport utility vehicles, and motor vehicles 
designed primarily to transport light loads of property with gross 
vehicle weight rating of 8,500 lbs [pounds] or less.''
    The ALDT NESHAP defines a ``coating'' as ``a material that is 
applied to a substrate for decorative, protective or functional 
purposes. Such materials include, but are not limited to, paints, 
sealants, caulks, inks, adhesives, primers, deadeners, and maskants. 
Decorative, protective, or functional materials that consist only of 
protective oils for metal, acids, bases, or any combination of these 
substances are not considered coatings for the purposes of this 
subpart.'' (40 CFR 63.3176).
    The ALDT NESHAP does not apply to a surface coating operation that 
is subject to any other NESHAP as of June 25, 2004, except when a 
source chooses to comply with the ALDT NESHAP instead of the MMPP 
NESHAP (40 CFR part 63, subpart MMMM) or the PPP NESHAP (40 CFR part 
63, subpart PPPP). (40 CFR 63.3082(c).)
    Based on our search of the National Emission Inventory (NEI) 
(www.epa.gov/air-emissions-inventories/national-emissions-inventory-nei) and the EPA's Enforcement and Compliance History Online (ECHO) 
database (echo.epa.gov) and a review of active air emissions permits, 
we estimate that 43 facilities are subject to the ALDT NESHAP. A 
complete list of facilities subject to the ALDT NESHAP is available in 
Table 1 of Appendix 10 to the memorandum titled Residual Risk 
Assessment for the Surface Coating of Automobiles and Light-duty Trucks 
Source Category in Support of the 2019 Risk and Technology Review 
Proposed Rule (hereafter referred to as the Automobiles and Light-Duty 
Trucks Risk Assessment Report), in the ALDT Docket (Docket ID No. EPA-
HQ-OAR-2019-0314).
b. HAP Emission Sources
    The primary HAP emitted from ALDT surface coating operations are 
organic HAP and included toluene, xylene, glycol ethers, methyl 
isobutyl ketone (MIBK), ethyl benzene, and methanol. The HAP emissions 
are from coating application and drying and curing ovens in the ALDT 
surface coating operations. Some emissions occur from the cleaning of 
spray booths and equipment. In most cases, HAP emissions from surface 
preparation, storage and handling are relatively small (i.e., not 
quantifiable) for this source category.
    Inorganic (metal) HAP emissions were considered in the development 
of the ALDT NESHAP and the EPA determined that, although very low 
levels of emissions were reported in coatings, no inorganic HAP are 
emitted. Based on data obtained during development of the 2004 proposed 
NESHAP (67 FR 78612, December 24, 2002), some coatings in the ALDT 
source category reported emissions of inorganic HAP that likely were 
not emitted due to coating application techniques used. Instead, the 
2004 proposed NESHAP found that the inorganic HAP components of the 
coatings mostly remained as solids in the dry coating film on the parts 
being coated, were collected by the circulating water under the spray 
booth floor grates, or were deposited on the walls, floor, and grates 
of the spray booths and other equipment in which they are applied. More 
recent data from the 2011 NEI data, used to inform this RTR, show total 
reported source category inorganic HAP emissions of 0.008 tpy from 
antimony, chromium, manganese, and nickel, and no reported emissions of 
inorganic HAP in thinners or cleaning

[[Page 58942]]

materials. (See Appendix 1 to the Automobiles and Light-Duty Trucks 
Risk Assessment Report, in the ALDT Docket). Based on feedback from 
industry and information gleaned from EPA site visits, facilities in 
the ALDT source category employ high-efficiency spray equipment 
(including robotic spraying) to minimize the overall amount of coating 
used, thereby reducing inorganic HAP emissions further. Therefore, we 
conclude that, although inorganic HAP are reported components of 
coatings, no inorganic HAP are emitted.
c. Current NESHAP Requirements for Control of HAP
    The NESHAP specifies numerical limits for the organic HAP emissions 
from both existing sources and new or reconstructed sources. These 
emissions limits are established for each of several process groupings 
at the source including (1) electrodeposition primer, primer-surfacer, 
topcoat, final repair, glass bonding primer, and glass bonding adhesive 
operations plus all coatings and thinners, except for deadener 
materials and for adhesive and sealer materials that are not components 
of glass bonding systems, used in coating operations; (2) primer-
surfacer, topcoat, final repair, glass bonding primer, and glass 
bonding adhesive operation plus all coatings and thinners, except for 
deadener materials and for adhesive and sealer materials that are not 
components of glass bonding systems, used in coating operations; (3) 
adhesives and sealers, other than glass bonding adhesive materials; and 
(4) deadener materials.
    The specific organic HAP emission limits are summarized in Table 2 
of the memorandum titled Technology Review for Surface Coating 
Operations in the Automobiles and Light-Duty Trucks Source Category in 
the ALDT Docket.
    Compliance with the ALDT NESHAP emission limits can be achieved 
using several different options, including a compliant material option, 
an emission rate without add-on controls option (averaging option), and 
an emission rate with add-on controls option. For bake ovens used to 
cure electrodeposition primers, an alternative is to capture the 
emissions and duct them to a control device having a destruction or 
removal efficiency of at least 95 percent. For any coating operation(s) 
on which the facility uses the compliant material option or the 
emission rate without add-on controls option, the facility is not 
required to meet any work practice standards. Facilities that have 
multiple paint lines may choose to group operations from two or more 
paint lines together, or to make a separate grouping of the operations 
from individual paint lines. Operating limits may apply for facilities 
that use an emission capture and control system to reduce emissions.
    If the facility uses the emission rate with add-on controls option, 
they must develop and implement a work practice plan to minimize 
organic HAP emissions from all processes associated with the coating 
operations (i.e., storage; mixing and conveying of coatings; thinners; 
cleaning materials; and waste materials). The plan must specify 
practices and procedures to ensure that a set of minimum work practices 
specified in the NESHAP are implemented. The facility must also comply 
with site-specific operating limits for the emission capture and 
control system.
2. What is the surface coating of miscellaneous metal parts and 
products source category and how does the current NESHAP regulate its 
HAP emissions?
a. Source Category Description
    The MMPP NESHAP was promulgated on January 2, 2004 (69 FR 130), and 
is codified at 40 CFR part 63, subpart MMMM. A technical correction to 
the final rule was published on April 26, 2004 (69 FR 22602) and 
December 22, 2006 (71 FR 76922). The MMPP NESHAP applies to owners or 
operators of metal parts and products surface coating operations at 
facilities that are major sources of HAP.
    Miscellaneous metal parts and products include, but are not limited 
to, metal components of the following types of products as well as the 
products themselves: motor vehicle parts and accessories, bicycles and 
sporting goods, recreational vehicles, extruded aluminum structural 
components, railroad cars, heavy-duty trucks, medical equipment, lawn 
and garden equipment, electronic equipment, magnet wire, steel drums, 
industrial machinery, metal pipes, and numerous other industrial, 
household, and consumer products. The MMPP NESHAP (40 CFR 63. 3881(c)) 
does not apply to the surface coating or coating operations that meet 
the applicability criteria of eleven other surface coating NESHAP, 
e.g., surface coating of metal components of wood furniture (subpart JJ 
of 40 CFR part 63), surface coating of metal components of large 
appliances (subpart NNNN of 40 CFR part 63), and surface coating of 
metal components of automobiles and light-duty trucks (subpart IIII of 
40 CFR part 63).
    Based on our search of the NEI and the EPA's ECHO database and a 
review of active air emission permits, we estimate that 368 facilities 
are subject to the MMPP NESHAP. A list of facilities we identified as 
subject to the MMPP NESHAP is available in Table 1 to Appendix 10 to 
the memorandum titled Residual Risk Assessment for the Surface Coating 
of Miscellaneous Metal Parts and Products Source Category in Support of 
the 2019 Risk and Technology Review Proposed Rule (hereafter referred 
to as the Miscellaneous Metal Parts and Products Risk Assessment 
Report), in the MMPP Docket (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0312).
b. HAP Emission Sources
    The primary HAP emitted from MMPP surface coating operations are 
organic HAP and include xylenes, toluene, glycol ethers, ethyl benzene, 
MIBK, methanol, ethylene glycol, and dimethyl phthalate. The majority 
of organic HAP emissions can be attributed to the application, drying, 
and curing of coatings.
    Inorganic HAP emissions were considered in the development of the 
MMPP NESHAP and the EPA determined that inorganic HAP emissions would 
be very low based on the coating application techniques in place at the 
time of the rule development. Based on information reported in survey 
responses during the development of the proposal for the 2004 NESHAP, 
inorganic HAP, including chromium, cobalt, lead, and manganese 
compounds, are components of some coatings used by this source 
category. Inorganic HAP in the coatings would only have the potential 
to be emitted if they were spray-applied, but the inorganic HAP would 
be either deposited on the part being coated as part of the surface 
coating, on the walls and floors of the spray booth, or captured by the 
spray booth filters (typically either a dry fabric filter or a water-
wash filter system). No inorganic HAP were documented in thinners or 
cleaning materials. Emissions would be further reduced by the use of 
high efficiency spray equipment, often combined with robotic spraying, 
that minimize the amount of coating that is sprayed. For more detailed 
information please see the emissions memorandum in Appendix 1 to the 
Miscellaneous Metal Parts and Products Risk Assessment Report, in the 
MMPP Docket.
    In response to comments on the 2004 proposed NESHAP,\3\ the EPA 
argued

[[Page 58943]]

that given the combination of very low usage of coatings containing 
inorganic HAP in this source category, and the current and expected 
continued use of controls (dry filters and waterwash systems on spray 
booths and high efficiency equipment) to reduce overspray emissions, 
the EPA believed that levels of inorganic HAP emissions did not warrant 
federal regulation because those regulations would not be expected to 
result in additional emissions reduction.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Surface Coating of Miscellaneous Metal Parts and Products, 
Summary of Public Comments and Responses on Proposed Rule. August 
2003. EPA-453/R-03-008; p. 83.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

c. Current NESHAP Requirements for Control of HAP
    The MMPP NESHAP establishes the organic HAP emissions limits for 
new and existing sources. The final rule contains five subcategories: 
(1) General use coating, (2) high performance coating, (3) magnet wire 
coating, (4) rubber-to-metal coating, and (5) extreme performance 
fluoropolymer coating (EPFP).
    Compliance can be demonstrated with using a variety of compliance 
options including, (1) a compliant coatings option, where all coatings 
used have organic HAP contents that individually meet the organic HAP 
emissions limit, and all thinners and cleaning materials contain no 
organic HAP; (2) an emission rate without add-on controls option, where 
the organic HAP emission rate, calculated as a rolling 12-month 
emission rate and determined on a monthly basis, is equal to or less 
than the organic HAP emissions limit; or (3) an emission rate with add-
on controls option, where the organic HAP emission rate, calculated as 
a rolling 12-month emissions rate and determined on a monthly basis, 
taking into account the emissions reduction achieved through the use of 
one or more emissions capture and control devices, is equal to or less 
than the organic HAP emissions limit. A facility using the add-on 
control option must also comply with work practice standards to 
minimize organic HAP emissions from the storage, mixing, and conveying 
of coatings, thinners, cleaning materials, and waste materials 
associated with the coating operation(s) and must also comply with 
operating limits for the emissions capture systems and add-on control 
devices.
    If a facility's surface coating operations meet the applicability 
criteria of more than one of the coating subcategories in the MMPP 
NESHAP, the facility may comply separately with each emissions limit or 
comply using one of the following options:
     If general use coating or magnet wire coating constitute 
90 percent or more of the surface coating activity at the facility 
(i.e., it is the predominant activity), then the facility can comply 
with that one emissions limit for all surface coating at the facility.
     The facility can comply with a facility-specific emissions 
limit calculated on the basis of the applicable emissions limits and 
the amount of coating activity performed in each coating subcategory, 
where activity is measured as the volume of coating solids used.
    The specific organic HAP emission limits for each coating 
subcategory and the operating limits are summarized in Tables 4 and 5 
of the memorandum titled Technology Review for Surface Coating 
Operations in the Miscellaneous Metal Parts and Products Category.
3. What is the surface coating of plastic parts and products source 
category and how does the current NESHAP regulate its HAP emissions?
a. Source Category Description
    The NESHAP for the PPP source category was promulgated on April 19, 
2004 (69 FR 20968), and is codified at 40 CFR part 63, subpart PPPP. 
Technical corrections to the final rule were published on December 22, 
2006 (71 FR 76922) and April 24, 2007 (72 FR 20227). The PPP NESHAP 
applies to owners or operators of PPP surface coating operations at 
facilities that are major sources of HAP. Plastic parts and products 
include, but are not limited to, plastic components of the following 
types of products as well as the products themselves: Motor vehicle 
parts and accessories for automobiles, trucks, recreational vehicles; 
sporting and recreational goods; toys; business machines; laboratory 
and medical equipment; and household and other consumer products. The 
PPP NESHAP (40 CFR 63. 4481(c)) does not apply to the surface coating 
or coating operations of items that meet the applicability criteria of 
eleven other surface coating NESHAP, e.g., surface coating of plastic 
components of wood furniture (subpart JJ of 40 CFR part 63), surface 
coating of plastic components of large appliances (subpart NNNN of 40 
CFR part 63), and surface coating of plastic components of automobiles 
and light-duty trucks (subpart IIII of 40 CFR part 63).
    Based on our search of the NEI and the EPA's ECHO database and a 
review of active air emission permits, we estimate that 125 facilities 
are subject to the PPP NESHAP. A list of facilities we identified as 
subject to the PPP NESHAP is available in Table 1 to Appendix 10 to the 
memorandum titled Residual Risk Assessment for the Surface Coating of 
Plastic Parts and Products Source Category in Support of the 2019 Risk 
and Technology Review Proposed Rule (hereafter referred to as the 
Plastic Parts and Products Risk Assessment Report), in the PPP Docket 
(Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0313).
b. HAP Emission Sources
    The primary HAP emitted from PPP surface coating operations are 
organic HAP and, based on the 2011 NEI, include xylene, toluene, MIBK, 
ethylbenzene, styrene, glycol ethers, and methanol, in order of 
decreasing emissions. These compounds account for about 96 percent of 
the nationwide HAP emissions from this source category, based on an 
analysis of the NEI.
    No inorganic HAP are currently associated with the coatings used in 
this source category, based on the data in the NEI.
c. Current NESHAP Requirements for Control of HAP
    The PPP NESHAP specifies numerical emission limits for existing 
sources and for new and reconstructed sources for organic HAP 
emissions. The final rule contains four subcategories: (1) General use 
coating, (2) thermoplastic olefin coating, (3) automotive lamp coating, 
and (4) assembled on-road vehicle coating.
    Compliance can be demonstrated with a variety of compliance options 
including, (1) a compliant material option, where the HAP content of 
each coating used is less than or equal to the applicable organic HAP 
emissions limit and each thinner, additive, and cleaning material uses 
no organic HAP; (2) an emission rate without add-on controls option, 
where the organic HAP emission rate, calculated as a rolling 12-month 
emission rate and determined on a monthly basis, is equal to or less 
than the organic HAP emissions limit; or (3) an emission rate with add-
on controls option, where the organic HAP emission rate, calculated as 
a rolling 12-month emissions rate and determined on a monthly basis, 
taking into account the emissions reduction achieved through the use of 
one or more emissions capture and control devices, is equal to or less 
than the organic HAP emissions limit. A facility using the add-on 
control option must also comply with work practice standards to 
minimize organic HAP emissions from the storage, mixing, and conveying 
of coatings, thinners, cleaning materials, and waste materials 
associated with the coating operation(s) and must also comply with

[[Page 58944]]

operating limits for the emissions capture systems and add-on control 
devices.
    The specific organic HAP emission limits for each coating 
subcategory are summarized in Table 2 of the memorandum titled 
Technology Review for Surface Coating Operations in the Plastic Parts 
and Products Category.

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

    For the risk modeling portion of these RTRs, the EPA used data from 
the 2011 and 2014 NEI. The NEI is a database that contains information 
about sources that emit criteria air pollutants, their precursors, and 
HAP. The database includes estimates of annual air pollutant emissions 
from point, nonpoint, and mobile sources in the 50 states, the District 
of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands. The EPA collects this 
information and releases an updated version of the NEI database every 3 
years. The NEI includes data necessary for conducting risk modeling, 
including annual HAP emissions estimates from individual emission 
points at facilities and the related emissions release parameters. We 
used NEI emissions and supporting data as the primary data to develop 
the model input files for the risk assessments for each of these three 
source categories. Detailed information on the development of the 
modeling file for the ALDT source category can be found in Appendix 1 
to the Automobiles and Light-Duty Trucks Risk Assessment Report, in the 
ALDT Docket (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0314). Detailed information 
on the development of the modeling file for the MMPP source category 
can be found in Appendix 1 to the Miscellaneous Metal Parts and 
Products Risk Assessment Report, in the MMPP Docket (Docket ID No. EPA-
HQ-OAR-2019-0312). Detailed information on the development of the 
modeling file for the PPP source category can be found in Appendix 1 to 
the Plastic Parts and Products Risk Assessment Report, in the PPP 
Docket (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0313).
    For each risk modeling and technology review portion of these three 
RTRs, we also gathered data from facility construction and operating 
permits regarding emission points, air pollution control devices, and 
process operations. We collected permits and supporting documentation 
from state permitting authorities through state-maintained online 
databases for many, but not all, of the facilities in each source 
category. The facility permits were also used to confirm that the 
facilities were major sources of HAP and were subject to the NESHAP 
that are the subject of these risk assessments. In certain cases, we 
contacted industry associations and facility owners or operators to 
confirm and clarify the sources of emissions that were reported in the 
NEI.
    For the technology review portion of these RTRs, we also used 
information from the EPA's ECHO database as a tool to identify which 
facilities were potentially subject to the NESHAP. The ECHO database 
provides integrated compliance and enforcement information for 
approximately 800,000 regulated facilities nationwide. Using the search 
feature in ECHO, the EPA identified facilities that could potentially 
be subject to each of these three NESHAP. We then reviewed operating 
permits for these facilities, when available, to confirm that they were 
major sources of HAP with emission sources subject to these NESHAP. For 
many sources in the MMPP source category in the rubber-to-metal bonding 
and the high-performance coating subcategories, we also reviewed recent 
semi-annual compliance reports to confirm the compliance option they 
were using and the emission rates they were achieving.
    Also, for the technology reviews, we collected information from the 
reasonably available control technology (RACT), best available control 
technology (BACT), and lowest achievable emission rate (LAER) 
determinations in the EPA's RACT/BACT/LAER Clearinghouse (RBLC).\4\ 
This database contains case-specific information on air pollution 
technologies that have been required to reduce the emissions of air 
pollutants from stationary sources. Under the EPA's New Source Review 
(NSR) program, an NSR permit must be obtained if a facility is planning 
new construction that increases the air emissions of any regulated NSR 
pollutant at or above 100 or 250 tpy (could be a lower threshold 
depending upon nonattainment severity) or a modification that results 
in a significant emissions increase and a significant net emissions 
increase of any regulated NSR pollutant (``significant'' emissions 
increase is defined in the NSR regulations and is pollutant-specific, 
ranging from less than 1 pound (lb) to 100 tpy of the applicable 
regulated NSR pollutant). This central database promotes the sharing of 
information among permitting agencies and aids in case-by-case 
determinations for NSR permits. We examined information contained in 
the RBLC to determine what technologies are currently used for these 
surface coating operations to reduce air emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    Additional information about these data collection activities for 
the technology reviews is contained in the technology review memoranda 
titled Technology Review for Surface Coating Operations in the 
Automobiles and Light-Duty Trucks Category, July 2019 (hereafter 
referred to as the Automobiles and Light-Duty Trucks Technology Review 
Memo), Technology Review for the Surface Coating Miscellaneous Metal 
Parts and Products Source Category, July 2019 (hereafter referred to as 
the Miscellaneous Metal Parts and Products Technology Review Memo), and 
Technology Review for Surface Coating Operations in the Plastic Parts 
and Products Category, July 2019 (hereafter referred to as the Plastic 
Parts and Products Technology Review Memo), available in the respective 
ALDT, MMPP, and PPP Dockets.

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

    As part of the technology review for the ALDT, the MMPP, and the 
PPP NESHAP source categories, we reviewed information available in the 
American Coatings Association's (ACA) Industry Market Analysis, 9th 
Edition (2014--2019).\5\ The ACA Industry Market Analysis provided 
information on trends in coatings technology that can affect emissions 
from the ALDT, the MMPP, and the PPP source categories. Additional 
details regarding our review of these information sources are contained 
in the Automobiles and Light-Duty Trucks Technology Review Memo, 
Miscellaneous Metal Parts and Products Technology Review Memo, and the 
Plastic Parts and Products Technology Review Memo, available in the 
respective ALDT, MMPP, and PPP Dockets.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

III. Analytical Procedures and Decision-Making

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

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

    As discussed in section II.A of this preamble and in the Benzene 
NESHAP, in evaluating and developing standards under CAA section 
112(f)(2), we apply a two-step approach to determine

[[Page 58945]]

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

    \6\ The MIR is defined as the cancer risk associated with a 
lifetime of exposure at the highest concentration of HAP where 
people are likely to live. The HQ is the ratio of the potential 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 risks. 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 MIR less than the 
presumptively acceptable level is unacceptable in the light of other 
health risk factors.'' Id. at 38045. In other words, risks that include 
an MIR above 100-in-1 million may be determined to be acceptable, and 
risks with an MIR below that level may be determined to be 
unacceptable, depending on all of the available health information. 
Similarly, with regard to the ample margin of safety analysis, the EPA 
stated in the Benzene NESHAP that: ``EPA believes the relative weight 
of the many factors that can be considered in selecting an ample margin 
of safety can only be determined for each specific source category. 
This occurs mainly because technological and economic factors (along 
with the health-related factors) vary from source category to source 
category.'' Id. at 38061. We also consider the uncertainties associated 
with the various risk analyses, as discussed earlier in this preamble, 
in our determinations of acceptability and ample margin of safety.
    The EPA notes that it has not considered certain health information 
to date in making residual risk determinations. At this time, we do not 
attempt to quantify those HAP risks that may be associated with 
emissions from other facilities that do not include the source 
categories under review, mobile source emissions, natural source 
emissions, persistent environmental pollution, or atmospheric 
transformation in the vicinity of the sources in the categories.
    The EPA understands the potential importance of considering an 
individual's total exposure to HAP in addition to considering exposure 
to HAP emissions from the source category and facility. We recognize 
that such consideration may be particularly important when assessing 
noncancer risks, 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 increased risk of adverse noncancer health effects. In May 
2010, the Science Advisory Board (SAB) advised the EPA ``that RTR 
assessments will be most useful to decision makers and communities if 
results are presented in the broader context of aggregate and 
cumulative risks, including background concentrations and contributions 
from other sources in the area.'' \7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Recommendations of the SAB Risk and Technology Review 
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 is incorporating 
cumulative risk analyses into its RTR risk assessments, including those 
reflected in this proposal. The Agency is (1) conducting facility-wide 
assessments, which include source category emission points, as well as 
other emission points within the facilities; (2) combining exposures 
from multiple sources in the same category that could affect the same 
individuals; and (3) for some persistent and bioaccumulative 
pollutants, analyzing the ingestion route of exposure. In addition, the 
RTR risk assessments have always considered aggregate cancer risk from 
all carcinogens and aggregate noncancer HQs from all noncarcinogens 
affecting the same target organ system.
    Although we are interested in placing source category and facility-
wide HAP risks in the context of total HAP risks 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

[[Page 58946]]

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 reviews focus 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 NESHAPs (i.e., the 2004 ALDT NESHAP; the 2004 MMPP NESHAP; and the 
2004 PPP NESHAP), we review a variety of data sources in our 
investigation of potential practices, processes, or controls that may 
have not been considered for each of the three source categories during 
development of the NESHAP. Among the sources we reviewed were the 
NESHAP for various industries that were promulgated after the MACT 
standards being reviewed in this action (e.g., NESHAP for Paint 
Stripping and Miscellaneous Surface Coating Operations at Area Sources 
(40 CFR part 63, subpart HHHHHH)). We also reviewed the results of 
other technology reviews for other surface coating source categories 
since the promulgation of the NESHAPs (e.g., the technology reviews 
conducted for the Shipbuilding and Ship Repair (Surface Coating) NESHAP 
(40 CFR part 63, subpart II) and the Wood Furniture Manufacturing 
Operations NESHAP (40 CFR part 63, subpart JJ)). We reviewed the 
regulatory requirements and/or technical analyses associated with these 
regulatory actions to identify any practices, processes, and control 
technologies considered in these efforts that could be applied to 
emission sources in the ALDT, the MMPP, and the PPP source categories, 
as well as the costs, non-air impacts, and energy implications 
associated with the use of these technologies. Finally, we reviewed 
information from other sources, such as state and/or local permitting 
agency databases and industry-specific market analyses and trade 
journals, to research advancements in add-on controls and lower HAP 
technology for coatings and solvents. For a more detailed discussion of 
our methods for performing these technology reviews, refer to the 
Automobiles and Light-Duty Trucks Technology Review Memo, the 
Miscellaneous Metal Parts and Products Technology Review Memo and the 
Plastic Parts and Products Technology Review Memo, available in the 
respective ALDT, MMPP, and PPP Dockets.

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

    In this section, we provide a complete description of the types of 
analyses that we generally perform during the risk assessment process. 
In some cases, we do not perform a specific analysis because it is not 
relevant. For example, in the absence of emissions of HAP known to be 
persistent and bioaccumulative in the environment (PB-HAP), we would 
not perform a multipathway exposure assessment. Where we do not perform 
an analysis, we state that we do not and provide the reason. While we 
present all of our risk assessment methods, we only present risk 
assessment results for the analyses actually conducted (see the 
presentation of results in sections IV.A.1, IV.B.1, and IV.C.1 of this 
preamble).
    The EPA conducted risk assessments that provide estimates of the 
MIR for cancer posed by the HAP emissions from each source in each 
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 
assessments also provide estimates of the distribution of cancer risks 
within the exposed populations, cancer incidence, and an evaluation of 
the potential for adverse environmental effects. The seven sections 
that follow this paragraph describe how we estimated emissions and 
conducted the risk assessments. The ALDT, MMPP, and PPP Dockets contain 
the respective Automobiles and Light-Duty Trucks Risk Assessment 
Report, Miscellaneous Metal Parts and Products Risk Assessment Report 
and the Plastic Parts and Products Risk Assessment Report, which 
provide more information on the risk assessment inputs and models. The 
methods used to assess risks (as described in the seven primary steps 
below) are consistent with those peer-reviewed by a panel of the EPA's 
SAB in 2009 \8\ and described in the SAB review report issued in 2010. 
They are also consistent with the key recommendations contained in that 
report.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ U.S. EPA SAB. 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-09-0006. https://www3.epa.gov/airtoxics/rrisk/rtrpg.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. How did we estimate actual emissions and identify the emissions 
release characteristics?
    The actual emissions and the emission release characteristics for 
each facility were obtained primarily from either the 2011 NEI or the 
2014 NEI. Most data were obtained from the 2011 NEI, unless the 2014 
NEI included HAP data for emission units or processes for which the 
2011 NEI included only volatile organic compounds (VOC) or particulate 
matter. In some cases, the industry association or the specific 
facilities were contacted to confirm emissions that appeared to be 
outliers, that were otherwise inconsistent with our understanding of 
the industry, or that were associated with high risk values in our 
initial risk screening analyses. When appropriate, emission values and 
release characteristics were revised based on these facility contacts, 
and these changes were documented. Additional information on the 
development of the modeling file for each source category, including 
the development of the actual emissions estimates and emissions release 
characteristics, can be found in Appendix 1 to the Automobiles and

[[Page 58947]]

Light-Duty Trucks Risk Assessment Report, in the ALDT Docket; in 
Appendix 1 to the Miscellaneous Metal Parts and Products Risk 
Assessment Report, in the MMPP Docket; and Appendix 1 to the Plastic 
Parts and Products Risk Assessment Report, in the PPP Docket.
2. How did we estimate MACT-allowable emissions?
    The available emissions data in the RTR emissions dataset include 
estimates of the mass of HAP emitted during a specified annual time 
period. These ``actual'' emission levels are often lower than the 
emission levels allowed under the requirements of the current MACT 
standards. The emissions level allowed to be emitted under the MACT 
standards is referred to as the ``MACT-allowable'' emissions level. We 
discussed the use of both MACT-allowable and actual emissions in the 
final Coke Oven Batteries RTR (70 FR 19998-19999, April 15, 2005) and 
in the proposed and final Hazardous Organic NESHAP RTRs (71 FR 34428, 
June 14, 2006, and 71 FR 76609, December 21, 2006, respectively). In 
those actions, we noted that assessing the risks at the MACT-allowable 
level is inherently reasonable since these risks reflect the maximum 
level facilities could emit and still comply with national emission 
standards. We also explained that it is reasonable to consider actual 
emissions, where such data are available, in both steps of the risk 
analysis, in accordance with the Benzene NESHAP approach. (54 FR 38044, 
September 14, 1989.)
    For the ALDT, MMPP, and PPP source categories, the EPA calculated 
allowable emissions by developing source category-specific multipliers 
of 1.1 for Automobiles and Light-duty Trucks and 1.2 for both 
Miscellaneous Metal Parts and Plastic Parts and Products. These 
multipliers were applied to the current emissions for each category to 
estimate the allowable emissions. The multipliers were based on 
information obtained from the facility operating permits and industry 
information.
    For details on how the EPA estimated the MACT allowable emissions 
for the ALDT source category, please see Appendix 1 to the Automobiles 
and Light-Duty Trucks Risk Assessment Report, in the ALDT Docket 
(Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0314). For details on how the EPA 
calculated the MACT allowable emissions for the MMPP source category, 
please see Appendix 1 to the Miscellaneous Metal Parts and Products 
Risk Assessment Report, in the MMPP Docket (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0312). For details on how the EPA calculated the MACT allowable 
emissions for the PPP source category, please see Appendix 1 to the 
Plastic Parts and Products Risk Assessment Report, in the PPP Docket 
(Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0313).
3. How do we conduct dispersion modeling, determine inhalation 
exposures, and estimate individual and population inhalation risks?
    Both long-term and short-term inhalation exposure concentrations 
and health risks from the source categories addressed in this proposal 
were estimated using the Human Exposure Model (HEM-3).\9\ The HEM-3 
performs three primary risk assessment activities: (1) Conducting 
dispersion modeling to estimate the concentrations of HAP in ambient 
air, (2) estimating long-term and short-term inhalation exposures to 
individuals residing within 50 kilometers (km) of the modeled sources, 
and (3) estimating individual and population-level inhalation risks 
using the exposure estimates and quantitative dose-response 
information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

b. Risk From Chronic Exposure to HAP
    In developing the risk assessment for chronic exposures, we use the 
estimated annual average ambient air concentrations of each HAP emitted 
by each source in the source categories. The HAP air concentrations at 
each nearby census block centroid located within 50 km of the facility 
are a surrogate for the chronic inhalation exposure concentration for 
all the people who reside in that census block. A distance of 50 km is 
consistent with both the analysis supporting the 1989 Benzene NESHAP 
(54 FR 38044, September 14, 1989) and the limitation of Gaussian 
dispersion modules, 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, for a 70-year period) 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 ([micro]g/m\3\)) by its unit risk estimate (URE). The URE 
is an upper bound estimate of an individual's probability 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 \12\ emitted

[[Page 58948]]

by the modeled facility. We estimate cancer risk at every census block 
within 50 km of every facility in the source category. The MIR is the 
highest individual lifetime cancer risk estimated for any of those 
census blocks. In addition to calculating the MIR, we estimate the 
distribution of individual cancer risks for the source category by 
summing the number of individuals within 50 km of the sources whose 
estimated risk falls within a specified risk range. We also estimate 
annual cancer incidence by multiplying the estimated lifetime cancer 
risk at each census block by the number of people residing in that 
block, summing results for all of the census blocks, and then dividing 
this result by a 70-year lifetime.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    \13\ 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,\14\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 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 to account for 
variability. This is documented in the Automobiles and Light-Duty 
Trucks Risk Assessment Report, the Miscellaneous Metal Parts and 
Products Risk Assessment Report, and the Plastic Parts and Products 
Risk Assessment Report and in Appendix 5 of the report: Technical 
Support Document for Acute Risk Screening Assessment. These 
documents are available in the ALDT Docket, the MMPP Docket, and the 
PPP Docket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To characterize the potential health risks associated with 
estimated acute inhalation exposures to a HAP, we generally use 
multiple acute dose-response values, including acute RELs, acute 
exposure guideline levels (AEGLs), and emergency response planning 
guidelines (ERPG) for 1-hour exposure durations, if available, to 
calculate acute HQs. The acute HQ is calculated by dividing the 
estimated acute exposure 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.'' \15\ 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.\16\ They are 
guideline levels for

[[Page 58949]]

``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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 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.
    \16\ 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.'' \17\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ ERPGS Procedures and Responsibilities. March 2014. American 
Industrial Hygiene Association. Available at: https://www.aiha.org/get-involved/AIHAGuidelineFoundation/EmergencyResponsePlanningGuidelines/Documents/ERPG%20Committee%20Standard%20Operating%20Procedures%20%20-%20March%202014%20Revision%20%28Updated%2010-2-2014%29.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    An acute REL for 1-hour exposure durations is typically lower than 
its corresponding AEGL-1 and ERPG-1. Even though their definitions are 
slightly different, AEGL-1s are often the same as the corresponding 
ERPG-1s, and AEGL-2s are often equal to ERPG-2s. The maximum HQs from 
our acute inhalation screening risk assessment typically result when we 
use the acute REL for a HAP. In cases where the maximum acute HQ 
exceeds 1, we also report the HQ based on the next highest acute dose-
response value (usually the AEGL-1 and/or the ERPG-1).
    For these source categories, we did not have short-term emissions 
data; therefore, we developed source category-specific factors based on 
information about each industry. We request comment on our assumptions 
regarding hour-to-hour variation in emissions and our methods of 
calculating the multiplier for estimating the peak 1-hour emissions for 
each source category and any additional information that could help 
refine our approach.
    The ALDT process is a continuous (non-batch) coating application 
and curing process which results in consistent emission rates. The 
sources in this category dip and spray-apply coatings onto the surface 
of the vehicle. The sources employ the use of various compliance 
options, which include the use of compliant coatings, averaging among 
coatings to meet the emission limits, and the use of add-on controls by 
facilities that cannot use the first two options. We expect that the 
hourly variations in emissions from these processes during routine 
operations to be minimal. Thus, applying the default multiplier of 10 
to estimate the worst-case hourly emission rate is not reasonable for 
this category. We expect that minimal variations in emissions occur due 
to variations in the organic HAP content of the coatings. We calculated 
acute emissions by developing a source category-specific multiplier of 
1.2 that was applied to the actual annual emissions, which were then 
divided by the total number of hours in a year (8,760 hours). A further 
discussion of why this factor was chosen can be found in Appendix 1 to 
the Automobiles and Light-Duty Trucks Risk Assessment Report in the 
ALDT Docket.
    Similarly, for the MMPP source category, we expect to see minimal 
hour-to-hour variation in emissions during routine operations because 
coating operations dip or spray-apply coating onto the surface of metal 
parts and products in a continuous coating process. Thus, the default 
multiplier of 10 to estimate the worst-case hourly emission rate is not 
reasonable for this category. We expect that minimal variation in 
emissions occur due to variations in the organic HAP content of the 
coatings from batch to batch. We calculated acute emissions by 
developing a source category-specific multiplier of 1.2 that was 
applied to the actual annual emissions, which were then divided by the 
total number of hours in a year (8,760 hours). A further discussion of 
why this factor was chosen can be found in Appendix 1 to the 
Miscellaneous Metal Parts and Products Risk Assessment Report in the 
MMPP Docket.
    For the PPP source category, we expect to see minimal hour-to-hour 
variation in emissions during routine operations because coating 
operations spray-apply coating onto the surface of plastic parts and 
products in a continuous coating process. Thus, the default multiplier 
of 10 to estimate the worst-case hourly emission rate is not reasonable 
for this category. We expect that minimal variation in emissions occur 
due to variations in the organic HAP content of the coatings from batch 
to batch. We calculated acute emissions by developing a source 
category-specific multiplier of 1.2 that was applied to the actual 
annual emissions, which were then divided by the total number of hours 
in a year (8,760 hours). A further discussion of why this factor was 
chosen can be found in Appendix 1 to the Plastic Parts and Products 
Risk Assessment Report in the PPP Docket.
    In our acute inhalation screening risk assessment, acute impacts 
are deemed negligible for HAP where 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 the three source categories in this action, the acute 
data refinements consisted of plotting the HEM-3 polar grid results for 
each HAP with an acute HQ value greater than 1 on aerial photographs of 
the facilities. We then assessed whether the highest acute HQs were 
off-site and at locations that may be accessible to the public (e.g., 
roadways and public buildings). These refinements are discussed more 
fully in the Automobiles and Light-Duty Trucks, Miscellaneous Metal 
Parts and Products, and Plastic Parts and Products Risk Assessment 
Reports, available in the respective ALDT, MMPP, and PPP Dockets.

[[Page 58950]]

4. How do we conduct the multipathway exposure and risk screening 
assessment?
    The EPA conducts a tiered screening assessment examining the 
potential for significant human health risks due to exposures via 
routes other than inhalation (i.e., ingestion). We first determine 
whether any sources in the source categories emitted any HAP known to 
be persistent and bioaccumulative in the invironment, as identified in 
the EPA's Air Toxics Risk Assessment Library (see Volume 1, Appendix D, 
at https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2013-08/documents/volume_1_reflibrary.pdf).
    For the ALDT source category, we identified emissions of lead. 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 (0.15 [micro]g/m\3\).\18\ Values below the level of 
the primary (health-based) lead NAAQS are considered to have a low 
potential for multipathway risk. For additional discussion of the 
multipathway screening results for this source category see section 
IV.A of this preamble and the Automobiles and Light-Duty Trucks Risk 
Assessment Report in the ALDT Docket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ 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 the MMPP source category, we identified emissions of arsenic, 
cadmium, 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. In a Tier 1 screening assessment, 
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 use previously 
developed screening threshold emission rates for several PB-HAP that 
are based on a hypothetical upper-end screening exposure scenario 
developed for use in conjunction with the EPA's Total Risk Integrated 
Methodology.Fate, Transport, and Ecological Exposure (TRIM.FaTE) model. 
The PB-HAP with screening threshold emission rates are arsenic 
compounds, cadmium compounds, chlorinated dibenzodioxins and furans, 
mercury compounds, and polycyclic organic matter (POM). Based on the 
EPA estimates of toxicity and bioaccumulation potential, the pollutants 
above represent a conservative list for inclusion in multipathway risk 
assessments for RTR rules. (See Volume 1, Appendix D at https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/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 (ingestion rates are decoupled into separate upper-bound 
ingestion rates for the fisher, farmer, and gardener scenarios). Since, 
the PB-HAP emissions did not exceed the Tier 1 multipathway screening 
value of 1, the Tier 2 multipathway screen was not conducted.
    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.\19\ Values below the level of the primary 
(health-based) lead NAAQS are considered to have a low potential for 
multipathway risk.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ 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 additional discussion of the multipathway screening results for 
this source category see section IV.B of this preamble and the 
Miscellaneous Metal Parts and Products Risk Assessment Report in the 
MMPP Docket.
    For the PPP source category, we did not identify emissions of any 
PB-HAP. Therefore, further evaluation of multipathway risk was not 
conducted for the PPP source category.
5. How do we conduct the environmental risk screening assessment?
a. Adverse Environmental Effects, Environmental HAP, and Ecological 
Benchmarks
    The EPA conducts a screening assessment to examine the potential 
for adverse environmental effects 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, polycyclic organic matter 
(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, were included due to their

[[Page 58951]]

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 Automobiles and Light-
Duty Trucks Risk Assessment Report, the Miscellaneous Metal Parts and 
Products Risk Assessment Report, and the Plastic Parts and Products 
Risk Assessment Report, in the respective ALDT, MMPP and PPP Dockets.
b. Environmental Risk Screening Methodology
    For the environmental risk screening assessment, the EPA first 
determined whether any facilities in the ALDT, MMPP, and PPP source 
categories emitted any of the environmental HAP. For the ALDT source 
category, we identified emissions of lead, HCl and HF. For the MMPP 
source category, we identified emissions of arsenic, cadmium, lead and 
HCl. For the PPP source category, we did not identify emissions of any 
environmental HAP.
    Because the environmental HAP evaluated are emitted by at least one 
facility in the ALDT source category and the MMPP source category, we 
proceeded to the second step of the evaluation for each of these source 
categories.
c. PB-HAP Methodology
    The environmental screening assessment includes six PB-HAP, arsenic 
compounds, cadmium compounds, dioxins/furans, POM, mercury (both 
inorganic mercury and methyl mercury), and lead compounds. With the 
exception of lead, the environmental risk screening assessment for PB-
HAP consists of three tiers. The first tier of the environmental risk 
screening assessment uses the same health-protective conceptual model 
that is used for the Tier 1 human health screening assessment. 
TRIM.FaTE model simulations were used to back-calculate Tier 1 
screening threshold emission rates. The screening threshold emission 
rates represent the emission rate in tons of pollutant per year that 
results in media concentrations at the facility that equal the relevant 
ecological benchmark. To assess emissions from each facility in the 
category, the reported emission rate for each PB-HAP was compared to 
the Tier 1 screening threshold emission rate for that PB-HAP for each 
assessment endpoint and effect level. If emissions from a facility do 
not exceed the Tier 1 screening threshold emission rate, the facility 
``passes'' the screening assessment, and, therefore, is not evaluated 
further under the screening approach. If emissions from a facility 
exceed the Tier 1 screening threshold emission rate, we evaluate the 
facility further in Tier 2.
    In Tier 2 of the environmental screening assessment, the screening 
threshold emission rates are adjusted to account for local meteorology 
and the actual location of lakes in the vicinity of facilities that did 
not pass the Tier 1 screening assessment. For soils, we evaluate the 
average soil concentration for all soil parcels within a 7.5-km radius 
for each facility and PB-HAP. For the water, sediment, and fish tissue 
concentrations, the highest value for each facility for each pollutant 
is used. If emission concentrations from a facility do not exceed the 
Tier 2 screening threshold emission rate, the facility ``passes'' the 
screening assessment and typically is not evaluated further. If 
emissions from a facility exceed the Tier 2 screening threshold 
emission rate, we evaluate the facility further in Tier 3.
    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 HCl and HF. 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 potential adverse 
environmental effects (as defined in section 112(a)(7) of the CAA) from 
emissions of HCl and HF, we evaluate the following metrics: The size of 
the modeled area around each facility that exceeds the ecological 
benchmark for each acid gas, in units of acres and squared kilometers; 
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

[[Page 58952]]

Automobiles and Light-Duty Trucks Risk Assessment Report, the 
Miscellaneous Metal Parts and Products Risk Assessment Report, and the 
Plastic Parts and Products Risk Assessment Report, in the ALDT Docket, 
the MMPP Docket, and the PPP Docket, respectively.
6. How did 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 each of these three source categories, we conducted the facility-
wide assessment using a dataset compiled from the 2014 NEI. The source 
category records of that NEI dataset were removed, evaluated, and 
updated as described in section II.C of this preamble: ``What data 
collection activities were conducted to support this action?'' Once a 
quality assured source category dataset was available, it was placed 
back with the remaining records from the NEI for that facility. The 
facility-wide file was then used to analyze risks due to the inhalation 
of HAP that are emitted ``facility-wide'' for the populations residing 
within 50 km of each facility, consistent with the methods used for the 
source category analysis described above. For these facility-wide risk 
analyses, the modeled source category risks were compared to the 
facility-wide risks to determine the portion of the facility-wide risks 
that could be attributed to the source categories addressed in this 
proposal. We also specifically examined the facility that was 
associated with the highest estimate of risk and determined the 
percentage of that risk attributable to the source category of 
interest. The Automobiles and Light-Duty Trucks Risk Assessment Report, 
Miscellaneous Metal Parts and Products Risk Assessment Report, and 
Plastic Parts and Products Risk Assessment Report, available in the 
respective dockets for this action, provide the methodology and results 
of the facility-wide analyses, including all facility-wide risks and 
the percentage of source category contribution to facility-wide risks.
7. How did we consider uncertainties in risk assessment?
    Uncertainty and the potential for bias are inherent in all risk 
assessments, including those performed for this proposal. Although 
uncertainty exists, we believe that our approach, which used 
conservative tools and assumptions, ensures that our decisions are 
health and environmentally protective. A brief discussion of the 
uncertainties in the RTR emissions datasets, dispersion modeling, 
inhalation exposure estimates, and dose-response relationships follows 
below. Also included are those uncertainties specific to our acute 
screening assessments, multipathway screening assessments, and our 
environmental risk screening assessments. A more thorough discussion of 
these uncertainties is included in the Automobiles and Light-Duty 
Trucks Risk Assessment Report, Miscellaneous Metal Parts and Products 
Risk Assessment Report, and Plastic Parts and Products Risk Assessment 
Report, available in the respective dockets for this action. If a 
multipathway site-specific assessment was performed for any of these 
source categories, a full discussion of the uncertainties associated 
with that assessment can be found in Appendix 11 of that document, 
Site-Specific Human Health Multipathway Residual Risk Assessment 
Report.
a. Uncertainties in the RTR Emissions Datasets
    Although the development of the RTR emissions datasets involved 
quality assurance/quality control processes, the accuracy of emissions 
values will vary depending on the source of the data, the degree to 
which data are incomplete or missing, the degree to which assumptions 
made to complete the datasets are accurate, errors in emission 
estimates, and other factors. The emission estimates considered in this 
analysis generally are annual totals for certain years, and they do not 
reflect short-term fluctuations during the course of a year or 
variations from year to year. The estimates of peak hourly emission 
rates for the acute effects screening assessment were based on an 
emission adjustment factor applied to the average annual hourly 
emission rates, which are intended to account for emission fluctuations 
due to normal facility operations.
b. Uncertainties in Dispersion Modeling
    We recognize there is uncertainty in ambient concentration 
estimates associated with any model, including the EPA's recommended 
regulatory dispersion model, AERMOD. In using a model to estimate 
ambient pollutant concentrations, the user chooses certain options to 
apply. For RTR assessments, we select some model options that have the 
potential to overestimate ambient air concentrations (e.g., not 
including plume depletion or pollutant transformation). We select other 
model options that have the potential to underestimate ambient impacts 
(e.g., not including building downwash). Other options that we select 
have the potential to either under- or overestimate ambient levels 
(e.g., meteorology and receptor locations). On balance, considering the 
directional nature of the uncertainties commonly present in ambient 
concentrations estimated by dispersion models, the approach we apply in 
the RTR assessments should yield unbiased estimates of ambient HAP 
concentrations. We also note that the selection of meteorology dataset 
location could have an impact on the risk estimates. As we continue to 
update and expand our library of meteorological station data used in 
our risk assessments, we expect to reduce this variability.
c. Uncertainties in Inhalation Exposure Assessment
    Although every effort is made to identify all of the relevant 
facilities and emission points, as well as to develop accurate 
estimates of the annual emission rates for all relevant HAP, the 
uncertainties in our emission inventory likely dominate the 
uncertainties in the exposure assessment. Some uncertainties in our 
exposure assessment include human mobility, using the centroid of each 
census block, assuming lifetime exposure, and assuming only outdoor 
exposures. For most of these factors, there is neither an under nor 
overestimate when looking at the maximum individual risk or the 
incidence, but the shape of the distribution of risks may be affected. 
With respect to outdoor exposures, actual exposures may not be as high 
if people spend time indoors, especially for very reactive pollutants 
or larger particles. For all factors, we reduce uncertainty when 
possible. For example, with respect to census-block centroids, we 
analyze large blocks using aerial imagery and adjust locations of the 
block centroids to better represent the population in the blocks. We 
also add additional receptor locations where the population of a block 
is not well represented by a single location.
d. Uncertainties in Dose-Response Relationships
    There are uncertainties inherent in the development of the dose-
response values used in our risk assessments for cancer effects from 
chronic exposures and noncancer effects from both chronic and acute 
exposures. Some

[[Page 58953]]

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.\20\ 
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.\21\ 
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,\22\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ IRIS glossary (https://ofmpub.epa.gov/sor_internet/registry/termreg/searchandretrieve/glossariesandkeywordlists/search.do?details=&glossaryName=IRIS%20Glossary).
    \21\ 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.
    \22\ 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 these source categories 
are lacking dose-response assessments. Accordingly, these pollutants 
cannot be included in the quantitative risk assessment, which could 
result in quantitative estimates understating HAP risk. To help to 
alleviate this potential underestimate, where we conclude similarity 
with a HAP for which a dose-response value is available, we use that 
value as a surrogate for the assessment of the HAP for which no value 
is available. To the extent use of surrogates indicates appreciable 
risk, we may identify a need to increase priority for an IRIS 
assessment for that substance. We additionally note that, generally 
speaking, HAP of greatest concern due to environmental exposures and 
hazard are those for which dose-response assessments have been 
performed, reducing the likelihood of understating risk. Further, HAP 
not included in the quantitative assessment are assessed qualitatively 
and considered in the risk characterization that informs the risk 
management decisions, including consideration of HAP reductions 
achieved by various control options.
    For a group of compounds that are unspeciated (e.g., glycol 
ethers), we conservatively use the most protective dose-response value 
of an individual compound in that group to estimate risk. Similarly, 
for an individual compound in a group (e.g., ethylene glycol diethyl 
ether) that does not have a specified dose-response value, we also 
apply the most protective dose-response value from the other compounds 
in the group to estimate risk.
e. Uncertainties in Acute Inhalation Screening Assessments
    In addition to the uncertainties highlighted above, there are 
several factors specific to the acute exposure assessment that the EPA 
conducts as part of the risk review under section 112 of the CAA. The 
accuracy of an acute inhalation exposure assessment depends on the 
simultaneous occurrence of independent factors that may vary greatly, 
such as hourly emissions rates, meteorology, and the presence of 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
    The ALDT source category emits PB-HAP (lead) and environmental HAP 
(lead, HF and HCl); therefore, further evaluation of multipathway risk 
and an environmental risk screening was conducted. The MMPP source 
category emits PB-HAP (arsenic, cadmium, and lead) and environmental 
HAP (arsenic, cadmium, lead, HF, and HCl); therefore, an environmental 
risk screening was conducted for this source category. The PPP source 
category in this action does not emit any PB-HAP or environmental HAP; 
therefore, further evaluation of multipathway risk and an environmental 
risk screening was not conducted for this source category.
    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.

[[Page 58954]]

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.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ In the context of this discussion, the term ``uncertainty'' 
as it pertains to exposure and risk encompasses both variability in 
the range of expected inputs and screening results due to existing 
spatial, temporal, and other factors, as well as uncertainty in 
being able to accurately estimate the true result.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Model uncertainty concerns whether the model adequately represents 
the actual processes (e.g., movement and accumulation) that might occur 
in the environment. For example, does the model adequately describe the 
movement of a pollutant through the soil? This type of uncertainty is 
difficult to quantify. However, based on feedback received from 
previous the EPA SAB reviews and other reviews, we are confident that 
the models used in the screening assessments are appropriate and state-
of-the-art for the multipathway and environmental screening risk 
assessments conducted in support of RTR.
    Input uncertainty is concerned with how accurately the models have 
been configured and parameterized for the assessment at hand. For Tier 
1 of the multipathway and environmental 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.
    For the environmental screening assessment for acid gases, we 
employ a single-tiered approach. We use the modeled air concentrations 
and compare those with ecological benchmarks.
    For all tiers of the multipathway and environmental screening 
assessments, our approach to addressing model input uncertainty is 
generally cautious. We choose model inputs from the upper end of the 
range of possible values for the influential parameters used in the 
models, and we assume that the exposed individual exhibits ingestion 
behavior that would lead to a high total exposure. This approach 
reduces the likelihood of not identifying high risks for adverse 
impacts.
    Despite the uncertainties, when individual pollutants or facilities 
do not exceed screening threshold emission rates (i.e., screen out), we 
are confident that the potential for adverse multipathway impacts on 
human health is very low. On the other hand, when individual pollutants 
or facilities do exceed screening threshold emission rates, it does not 
mean that impacts are significant, only that we cannot rule out that 
possibility and that a refined assessment for the site might be 
necessary to obtain a more accurate risk characterization for the 
source category.
    The EPA evaluates the following HAP in the multipathway and/or 
environmental risk screening assessments, where applicable: Arsenic, 
cadmium, dioxins/furans, lead, mercury (both inorganic and methyl 
mercury), POM, HCl, and HF. These HAP represent pollutants that can 
cause adverse impacts either through direct exposure to HAP in the air 
or through exposure to HAP that are deposited from the air onto soils 
and surface waters and then through the environment into the food web. 
These HAP represent those HAP for which we can conduct a meaningful 
multipathway or environmental screening risk assessment. For other HAP 
not included in our screening assessments, the model has not been 
parameterized such that it can be used for that purpose. In some cases, 
depending on the HAP, we may not have appropriate multipathway models 
that allow us to predict the concentration of that pollutant. The EPA 
acknowledges that other HAP beyond these that we are evaluating may 
have the potential to cause adverse effects and, therefore, the EPA may 
evaluate other relevant HAP in the future, as modeling science and 
resources allow.

IV. Analytical Results and Proposed Decisions

A. What are the analytical results and proposed decisions for the 
surface coating of automobiles and light-duty trucks source category?

1. What are the results of the risk assessment and analyses?
    As described in section III of this preamble, for the ALDT source 
category, we conducted a risk assessment for all HAP emitted. We 
present results of the risk assessment briefly below and in more detail 
in the Automobiles and Light-Duty Trucks Risk Assessment Report in the 
ALDT Docket (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0314).
a. Chronic Inhalation Risk Assessment Results
    Table 2 of this preamble provides a summary of the results of the 
inhalation risk assessment for the source category.

                    Table 2--Surface Coating of Automobiles and Light-Duty Trucks Source Category Inhalation Risk Assessment Results
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    Maximum individual     Estimated population      Estimated annual         Maximum chronic        Maximum screening
                                     cancer risk (in 1     at increased risk of      cancer incidence       noncancer TOSHI \1\   acute noncancer HQ \2\
                                         million)             cancer >=1-in-1        (cases per year)    -----------------------------------------------
                                 ------------------------         million        ------------------------
         Risk assessment                                 ------------------------                          Based on    Based on
                                   Based on    Based on    Based on    Based on    Based on    Based on     actual     allowable      Based on actual
                                    actual     allowable    actual     allowable    actual     allowable   emissions   emissions         emissions
                                   emissions   emissions   emissions   emissions   emissions   emissions
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source Category.................          10          10      15,000      19,000        0.01        0.01         0.3         0.3  HQREL = 1.
Whole Facility..................          10  ..........      48,000  ..........        0.02  ..........         0.3
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The target organ specific hazard index (TOSHI) is the sum of the chronic noncancer HQs for substances that affect the same target organ or organ
  system.
\2\ The maximum estimated acute exposure concentration was divided by available short-term threshold values to develop HQ values.


[[Page 58955]]

    The results of the inhalation risk modeling using actual emissions 
data, as shown in Table 2 of this preamble, indicate that the maximum 
individual cancer risk based on actual emissions (lifetime) could be up 
to 10-in-1 million (driven by naphthalene and ethyl benzene from 
miscellaneous industrial processes--other/not classified), the maximum 
chronic noncancer TOSHI value based on actual emissions could be up to 
0.3 (driven by hexamethylene-1,6-diisocyanate from a painting topcoat 
process), and the maximum screening acute noncancer HQ value (off-
facility site) could be up to 1 (driven by formaldehyde). The total 
estimated annual cancer incidence (national) from these facilities 
based on actual emission levels is 0.01 excess cancer cases per year or 
1 case in every 100 years.
b. Screening Level Acute Risk Assessment Results
    Table 2 of this preamble shows the acute risk results for the ALDT 
source category. The screening analysis for acute impacts was based on 
an industry specific multiplier of 1.2, to estimate the peak emission 
rates from the average rates. For more detailed acute risk results, 
refer to the Automobiles and Light-Duty Trucks Risk Assessment Report, 
in the ALDT Docket.
c. Multipathway Risk Screening Results
    The emissions data for the ALDT source category indicate that one 
PB-HAP is emitted by sources within this source category: Lead. In 
evaluating the potential for multipathway effects from emissions of 
lead, we compared modeled annual lead concentrations to the NAAQS for 
lead (0.15 [micro]g/m3, arithmetic mean concentration over a 3-month 
period). The highest annual average lead concentration of 1.5 x 
10^-5 [micro]g/m\3\ is below the NAAQS for lead, indicating a 
low potential for multipathway impacts of concern due to lead even 
assuming a shorter averaging period is. Therefore, we do not expect any 
human health multipathway risks as a result of emissions from this 
source category.
d. Environmental Risk Screening Results
    The emissions data for the ALDT source category indicate that three 
environmental HAP are emitted by sources within this source category: 
Lead, HCl and HF. Therefore, we conducted a screening-level evaluation 
of the potential adverse environmental effects associated with 
emissions of lead, HCl, and HF for the ALDT source category. In 
evaluating the potential for adverse environmental effects from 
emissions of lead, we compared modeled annual lead concentrations to 
the secondary NAAQS for lead (0.15 [micro]g/m\3\, arithmetic mean 
concentration over a 3-month period). The highest annual average lead 
concentration of 1.5 x 10^-5 [micro]g/m\3\ is below the 
secondary NAAQS for lead, indicating a low potential for adverse 
environmental impacts due to lead even assuming a shorter averaging 
period is analyzed. For both HCl and HF, each individual concentration 
(i.e., each off-site data point in the modeling domain) was below the 
ecological benchmarks for all facilities. Therefore, we do not expect 
an adverse environmental effect as a result of HAP emissions from this 
source category.
e. Facility-Wide Risk Results
    Fifteen facilities have a facility-wide cancer MIR greater than or 
equal to 1-in-1 million. The maximum facility-wide cancer MIR is 10-in-
1 million, driven by naphthalene and ethyl benzene from miscellaneous 
industrial processes--other/not classified. The total estimated cancer 
incidence from the whole facility is 0.02 excess cancer cases per year, 
or one excess case in every 50 years. Approximately 48,000 people were 
estimated to have cancer risks above 1-in-1 million from exposure to 
HAP emitted from both MACT and non-MACT sources at 15 of the 43 
facilities in this source category. The maximum facility-wide TOSHI for 
the source category is estimated to be 0.3, mainly driven by emissions 
of hexamethylene-1,6-diisocyanate from a painting topcoat process.
f. What demographic groups might benefit from this regulation?
    To examine the potential for any environmental justice issues that 
might be associated with the source category, we performed a 
demographic analysis, which is an assessment of risks to individual 
demographic groups of the populations living within 5 km and within 50 
km of the facilities. In the analysis, we evaluated the distribution of 
HAP-related cancer and noncancer risks from the ALDT source category 
across different demographic groups within the populations living near 
facilities.\24\
    The results of the demographic analysis are summarized in Table 3 
of this preamble. These results, for various demographic groups, are 
based on the estimated risks from actual emissions levels for the 
population living within 50 km of the facilities.

 Table 3--Surface Coating of Automobiles and Light-Duty Trucks Source Category Demographic Risk Analysis Results
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                          Population with
                                                                         cancer risk at or     Population with
                                                                            above 1-in-1      chronic noncancer
                                                          Nationwide       million due to     HI above 1 due to
                                                                         surface coating of  surface coating  of
                                                                          automobiles and      automobiles  and
                                                                         light-duty trucks    light-duty  trucks
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Population......................................     317,746,049               15,000                    0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          White and Minority by Percent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
White.................................................              62                   60                    0
Minority..............................................              38                   40                    0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Minority Detail by Percent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
African American......................................              12                   10                    0
Native American.......................................             0.8                  0.2                    0
Hispanic or Latino....................................              18                   27                    0

[[Page 58956]]

 
Other and Multiracial.................................               7                    3                    0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                Income by Percent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Below the Poverty Level...............................              14                   19                    0
Above the Poverty Level...............................              86                   81                    0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              Education by Percent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Over 25 Without High a School Diploma.................              14                   14                    0
Over 25 With a High School Diploma....................              86                   86                    0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       Linguistically Isolated by Percent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Linguistically Isolated...............................               6                    3                    0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The results of the ALDT source category demographic analysis 
indicate that emissions from the source category expose approximately 
15,000 people to a cancer risk at or above 1-in-1 million and no one to 
a chronic noncancer HI greater than 1. The percent of minorities is 
similar nationally (38 percent) and for the category population with 
cancer risk greater than or equal to 1-in-1 million (40 percent). 
However, the category population with cancer risk greater than or equal 
to 1-in-1 million has a greater percentage of Hispanic (27 percent) as 
compared to nationally (18 percent).
    The methodology and the results of the demographic analysis are 
presented in a technical report titled Risk and Technology Review--
Analysis of Demographic Factors for Populations Living Near Automobile 
and Light-Duty Truck Surface Coating Source Category Operations, March 
2019 (hereafter referred to as the Automobiles and Light-Duty Trucks 
Demographic Analysis Report) in the ALDT Docket.
2. What are our proposed decisions regarding risk acceptability, ample 
margin of safety, and adverse environmental effects?
a. Risk Acceptability
    As noted in section III.A of this preamble, we weigh all health 
risk factors in our risk acceptability determination, including the 
cancer MIR, the number of persons in various cancer and noncancer risk 
ranges, cancer incidence, the maximum noncancer TOSHI, the maximum 
acute noncancer HQ, the extent of noncancer risks, the distribution of 
cancer and noncancer risks in the exposed population, and risk 
estimation uncertainties (54 FR 38044, September 14, 1989).
    For the ALDT source category, the risk analysis indicates that the 
cancer risks to the individual most exposed could be up to 10-in-1 
million due to actual emissions or based on allowable emissions. These 
risks are considerably less than 100-in-1 million, which is the 
presumptive upper limit of acceptable risk. The risk analysis also 
shows very low cancer incidence (0.01 cases per year for actual and 
allowable emissions), and we did not identify a potential for adverse 
chronic noncancer health effects. The acute noncancer risks are low at 
an HQ of 1 (based on the REL) for formaldehyde. Therefore, we find 
there is little potential concern of acute noncancer health impacts 
from actual emissions. In addition, the risk assessment indicates no 
significant potential for multipathway health effects.
    Considering all of the health risk information and factors 
discussed above, including the uncertainties discussed in section 
III.C.7 of this preamble, we propose to find that the risks from the 
ALDT source category are acceptable.
b. Ample Margin of Safety Analysis
    Although we are proposing that the risks from the ALDT source 
category are acceptable, risk estimates for approximately 15,000 
individuals in the exposed population are above 1-in-1 million at the 
actual emissions level and 19,000 individuals at the allowable 
emissions level. Consequently, we further considered whether the MACT 
standards for the ALDT source category provide an ample margin of 
safety to protect public health. In this ample margin of safety 
analysis, we investigated available emissions control options that 
might reduce the risk from the source category. We considered this 
information along with all of the health risks and other health 
information considered in our determination of risk acceptability.
    As described in section III.B of this preamble, our technology 
review focused on identifying developments in practices, processes, and 
control technologies for the ALDT source category, and the EPA reviewed 
various information sources regarding emission sources that are 
currently regulated by the ALDT NESHAP. Based on our review, we did not 
identify any cost-effective measures to further reduce HAP. Therefore, 
considering all of the available health information along with the 
absence of additional measures for reducing HAP, we are proposing that 
additional emissions controls for this source category are not 
necessary and that the current standards provide an ample margin of 
safety.
c. Environmental Effects
    The emissions data for the ALDT source category indicate that three 
environmental HAP are emitted by sources within this source category: 
Lead, HCl, and HF. The screening-level evaluation of the potential for 
adverse environmental effects from emissions of lead indicated that the 
secondary

[[Page 58957]]

NAAQS for lead would not be exceeded by any facility. The screening-
level evaluation of the potential for adverse environmental effects 
associated with emissions of HCl and HF from the ALDT source category 
indicated that each individual concentration (i.e., each off-site data 
point in the modeling domain) was below the ecological benchmarks for 
all facilities. In addition, we are unaware of any adverse 
environmental effects caused by HAP emitted by this source category. 
Therefore, we do not expect there to be an adverse environmental effect 
as a result of HAP emissions from this source category and we are 
proposing that it is not necessary to set a more stringent standard to 
prevent, taking into consideration costs, energy, safety, and other 
relevant factors, an adverse environmental effect.
3. What are the results and proposed decisions based on our technology 
review?
    As described in section III.B of this preamble, our technology 
review focused on identifying developments in practices, processes, and 
control technologies for the ALDT source category. The EPA reviewed 
various information sources regarding emission sources that are 
currently regulated by the ALDT NESHAP to support the technology 
review. The information sources included the following: The RBLC; state 
regulations; facility operating permits; regulatory actions, including 
technology reviews, promulgated for other surface coating NESHAP 
subsequent to the ALDT NESHAP; site visits; discussions with individual 
ALDT surface coating facilities; and industry information. The primary 
emission sources for the technology review included the following: The 
coating operations; all storage containers and mixing vessels in which 
coatings, thinners, and cleaning materials are stored or mixed; all 
manual and automated equipment and containers used for conveying 
coatings, thinners, and cleaning materials; and all storage containers 
and all manual and automated equipment and containers used for 
conveying waste materials generated by a coating operation.
    Based on our review, we did not identify any add-on control 
technologies, process equipment, work practices or procedures that were 
not previously considered during development of the 2004 ALDT NESHAP, 
and we did not identify any new or improved add-on control technologies 
that would result in additional emission reductions. A brief summary of 
the EPA's findings in conducting the technology review of ALDT surface 
coating operations follows. For a detailed discussion of the EPA's 
findings, refer to the memorandum, Technology Review for Surface 
Coating Operations in the Automobiles and Light-Duty Trucks Source 
Category, in the ALDT Docket.
    During 2004 MACT development for the ALDT NESHAP, numerical 
emission limits were determined for new and existing major sources 
within the four combinations of coating operations, for a total of 
eight HAP emissions limits. The emission limits were based on industry 
survey responses and the industry's use of low- or no-HAP coatings and 
thinners, high efficiency coatings spray equipment (including robotic 
spraying), and add-on capture and control technologies. Alternately, 
the NESHAP provides sources with the option of limiting HAP emissions 
with capture and add-on control to achieve an overall control 
efficiency of 95-percent. During development of that rulemaking, we 
identified the beyond-the-floor option to require the use of capture 
systems and add-on control devices for all ALDT surface coating 
operations. This option was rejected because we determined the 
additional emission reductions achieved using the beyond-the-floor 
option did not warrant the costs each affected source would incur or 
the incremental cost per ton of HAP reduced (67 FR 78622, December 24, 
2002).
    For this technology review, we used the EPA's NEI and the ECHO 
databases to identify facilities that are currently subject to the ALDT 
NESHAP. We also consulted Regional and state regulations and operating 
permits. California has existing surface coating rules for VOC from 
vehicle assembly plants within two air quality management districts 
(AQMD): Bay Area AQMD and South Coast AQMD. No state VOC rules for ALDT 
surface coating operations were identified that had VOC limits that 
would translate into lower HAP content limits. The VOC content limits 
in state rules (e.g., BAAQMD Rule 8-13 and SCAQMD Rule 1115) are an 
order of magnitude higher than the HAP content limits in the ALDT 
NESHAP. Because the HAP are only a small fraction of the VOC in these 
coatings, complying with these state VOC standards would not limit HAP 
emissions to levels that are more stringent than the levels required.
    Our search of the RBLC database for improvements in ALDT coating 
technologies provided results for 22 facilities with permit dates of 
2000 or later. Facilities reported the use of VOC and HAP content 
limits, electrodeposition primers, regenerative thermal oxidizers 
(RTOs), catalytic oxidation, and thermal oxidation. All of these 
control technologies were in use by the ALDT surface coating industry 
during development of the ALDT NESHAP and already were considered in 
the development of the ALDT NESHAP. Therefore, we concluded that the 
results of the search did not result in any improvements in add-on 
control technology or other equipment.
    We reviewed other surface coating NESHAP promulgated after the ALDT 
NESHAP to determine whether any requirements exceed the ALDT MACT level 
of control or included technologies that were not considered during the 
development of the original ALDT NESHAP. These NESHAP include Paint 
Stripping and Miscellaneous Surface Coating Operations at Area Sources 
(40 CFR part 63, subpart HHHHHH), and Nine Metal Fabrication and 
Finishing Area Source Categories (40 CFR part 63, subpart XXXXXX). We 
also reviewed the results of the technology reviews for the following 
NESHAP: Printing and Publishing (40 CFR part 63, subpart KK), 
Shipbuilding and Ship Repair (40 CFR part 63, subpart II), Wood 
Furniture Manufacturing (40 CFR part 63, subpart JJ), and Aerospace 
Manufacturing and Rework Facilities (40 CFR part 63, subpart GG).
    Technology reviews for these NESHAP identified permanent total 
enclosures (PTE) and/or RTOs as improvements in add-on control 
technology. The original ALDT NESHAP includes a compliance option 
involving the use of a PTE and an add-on control device. Because these 
measures were considered in the development of the original ALDT NESHAP 
and reflected in the MACT level of control, we concluded that these 
measures do not represent an improvement in control technology under 
CAA section 112(d)(6).
    The control technology assessment conducted for the Paint Stripping 
and Miscellaneous Surface Coating NESHAP and Nine Metal Fabrication and 
Finishing NESHAP confined all coating operations to a spray booth 
fitted with high-efficiency filters, use of high-transfer efficiency 
spray guns, and training and certification of spray equipment operator 
to optimize transfer efficiency for facilities that spray apply 
coatings containing certain inorganic HAP. The technology controls for 
inorganic HAP adopted in subparts HHHHHH and XXXXXX, spray booths 
fitted with overspray filters and the use of high efficiency spray 
equipment, were already considered in the development of the original 
ALDT NESHAP, and, therefore, do not

[[Page 58958]]

constitute a development for the purpose of the technology review.
    The technology review conducted for the Wood Furniture NESHAP 
identified the use of more efficient spray guns as a technology review 
development and revised the requirements to prohibit the use of 
conventional spray guns. Air-assisted airless spraying was added as a 
more efficient coating application technology. The original ALDT NESHAP 
is based on the use of high-efficiency application technology, such as 
airless and electrostatic spray equipment. This equipment increases 
coating transfer efficiency, minimizes emissions by reducing the amount 
of coating sprayed and still achieves a given film thickness with 
exceptional finish. The format of the ALDT emission limits, in mass of 
HAP per mass of coating solids applied to the part, accounts for the 
transfer efficiency of the application equipment and is based on high-
efficiency methods.
    The technology review conducted for the Printing and Publishing 
NESHAP identified the use of a PTE in the form of coating spray booths 
and curing tunnels. These PTEs are commonly used in ALDT surface 
coating operations to maintain a clean environment for applying the 
coatings, and for capturing and removing coating overspray and solvent 
vapors from the coating area. Therefore, the use of a PTE, as 
identified in the Printing and Publishing NESHAP technology review, 
does not represent a development in control technology with respect to 
ALDT surface coating operations.
    In conclusion, we found no improvements in add-on control 
technology or other equipment during review of the RBLC, the state 
rules, and subsequent NESHAP that were not already identified and 
considered during the ALDT NESHAP development.
    Alternatives to conventional solvent-borne coatings were identified 
and considered during MACT development but were not considered to be 
suitable for all ALDT coating applications. These alternative coatings 
include higher solids coatings, waterborne coatings, low-energy 
electron beam ultraviolet (UV) cured coatings, and powder coating. 
Waterborne and higher solids coatings with lower HAP and VOC content 
were considered in the development of the proposed and final standards 
and are already reflected in the HAP emission limitations in the final 
rule. Industry trends and advances in coating formulation, as 
documented in the ACA Industry Market Analysis, showed that powder 
coated finishes would be difficult to repair and would likely require 
refinishing the entire car in case of damage. Further, the ACA analysis 
stated that no progress had been made in overcoming technical hurdles 
that would make UV-cured coatings applicable to main vehicle body parts 
(e.g., shadowing of certain areas from UV rays, high energy demands, 
residual UV photo-initiators in the coating film). Therefore, the EPA 
did not identify any developments in coating technology, other process 
changes, or pollution prevention alternatives that would represent a 
development relative to the coating technologies on which the final 
rule is based.
    Finally, no improvements in work practices or operational 
procedures were identified for the ALDT source category that were not 
previously identified and considered during MACT development. The 
current MACT standards require that, if a facility uses add-on controls 
to comply with the emission limitations, the facility must develop and 
implement a work practice plan to minimize organic HAP emissions from 
the storage, mixing, and conveying of coatings, thinners, and cleaning 
materials used in, and waste materials generated by, those coating 
operations. If a facility is not using add-on controls and is using 
either the compliant material option or the emission rate without add-
on controls option, the facility does not need to comply with work 
practice standards. Under the emission rate option, HAP emitted from 
spills or from containers would be counted against the facility in the 
compliance calculations, so facilities must already minimize these 
losses to maintain compliance.
    Based on these findings, we conclude that there have not been any 
developments in add-on control technology or other equipment not 
identified and considered during MACT development, nor any improvements 
in add-on controls, nor any significant changes in the cost (including 
cost effectiveness) of the add-on controls. Therefore, we are proposing 
no revisions to the ALDT NESHAP pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6). For 
further discussion of the technology review results, refer to the 
Automobiles and Light-Duty Trucks Technology Review Memo, in the ALDT 
Docket.
4. What other actions are we proposing for the ALDT source category?
    We are proposing to require electronic submittal of notifications, 
semiannual reports, and compliance reports (which include performance 
test reports) for ALDT surface coating facilities. In addition, we are 
proposing revisions to the SSM provisions of the MACT rule in order to 
ensure that they are consistent with the Court decision in Sierra Club 
v. EPA, 551 F. 3d 1019 (D.C. Cir. 2008), which vacated two provisions 
that exempted source owners and operators from the requirement to 
comply with otherwise applicable CAA section 112(d) emission standards 
during periods of SSM. We are proposing to require periodic emissions 
testing of add-on control devices. We also propose other changes, 
including updating references to equivalent test methods, making 
technical and editorial revisions, and incorporation by reference (IBR) 
of alternative test methods. Our analyses and proposed changes related 
to these issues are discussed in the sections below.
a. Electronic Reporting Requirements
    The EPA is proposing that owners and operators of ALDT surface 
coating facilities submit electronic copies of initial notifications 
required in 40 CFR 63.9(b) and 63.3110(b), notifications of compliance 
status required in 40 CFR 63.9(h) and 63.3110(c), performance test 
reports required in 40 CFR 63.3120(b), and semiannual reports required 
in 40 CFR 63.3120(a), through the EPA's Central Data Exchange (CDX) 
using the Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface (CEDRI). 
For further information regarding the electronic data submission 
process, please refer to the memorandum titled Electronic Reporting for 
New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) and National Emission Standards 
for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) Rules, in the ALDT Docket. 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 \25\ 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. No specific form is 
proposed at this time for the initial notifications required in 40 CFR 
63.9(b) and notification of compliance status in 40 CFR 63.9(h). Until 
the EPA has completed electronic forms for these notifications, the 
notifications will be required to be submitted via CEDRI in PDF. After 
development of the final forms, we will notify sources about their 
availability via the CEDRI website and the CHIEF Listserv. For 
semiannual reports required in 40 CFR 63.3120(a)

[[Page 58959]]

the proposed rule requires that owners and operators use the 
appropriate spreadsheet template to submit information to CEDRI. A 
draft version of the proposed templates for these reports is included 
in the docket for this rulemaking.\26\ The EPA specifically requests 
comment on the content, layout, and overall design of the templates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ https://www.epa.gov/electronic-reporting-air-emissions/electronic-reporting-tool-ert.
    \26\ See Electronic Reporting Template for Surface Coating of 
Automobiles and Light-Duty Trucks Subpart IIII Semiannual Reports, 
in docket ID NO. EPA-HQ-OAR-0314.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 63.9(b), 
notifications of compliance status required in 40 CFR 63.9(h), and 
semiannual reports required in 40 CFR 63.3120(a). 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 
63.3120(g). 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 \27\ to 
implement Executive Order 13563 and is in keeping with the EPA's 
agency-wide policy \28\ developed in response to the White House's 
Digital Government Strategy.\29\ 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-OAR-2019-0314.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ EPA's Final Plan for Periodic Retrospective Reviews, August 
2011. Available at: https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=EPA-HQ-OA-2011-0156-0154.
    \28\ 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.
    \29\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. SSM Requirements
(1.) Proposed Elimination of the SSM Exemption
    In its 2008 decision in Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F.3d 1019 (D.C. 
Cir. 2008), the Court vacated portions of two provisions in the EPA's 
CAA section 112 regulations governing the emissions of HAP during 
periods of SSM. Specifically, the Court vacated the SSM exemption 
contained in 40 CFR 63.6(f)(1) and 40 CFR 63.6(h)(1), holding that 
under section 302(k) of the CAA, emissions standards or limitations 
must be continuous in nature and that the SSM exemption violates the 
CAA's requirement that some CAA section 112 standards apply 
continuously.
    We are proposing the elimination of the SSM exemption in this rule. 
Consistent with Sierra Club v. EPA, we are proposing standards in this 
rule that apply at all times. We are also proposing several revisions 
to Table 2 to subpart IIII of 40 CFR part 63 (Applicability of General 
Provisions to Subpart IIII, hereafter referred to as the ``General 
Provisions table to subpart IIII''), as explained in more detail below 
in section IV.A.4.b.2 of this preamble. For example, we are proposing 
to eliminate the incorporation of the General Provisions' requirement 
that the source develop an SSM plan. Further, we are proposing to 
eliminate and revise certain recordkeeping and reporting requirements 
related to the SSM exemption as further described below. The EPA has 
attempted to ensure that the provisions we are proposing to eliminate 
are inappropriate, unnecessary, or redundant in the absence of the SSM 
exemption. We are specifically seeking comment on whether we have 
successfully done so.
    In proposing these rule amendments, the EPA has taken into account 
startup and shutdown periods and, for the reasons explained below, has 
not proposed alternate standards for those periods. Startups and 
shutdowns are part of normal operations for the ALDT source category. 
As currently specified in 40 CFR 63.3100(b), all coating operation(s) 
must be in compliance with the operating limits for emission capture 
systems and add-on control devices required by 40 CFR 63.3093 ``at all 
times except during periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction.'' 
Therefore, we will be removing the exemption for periods of startup, 
and shutdown, as well as for malfunctions. Also, as currently specified 
in 40 CFR 63.3100(a), you must be in compliance ``at all times'' with 
the emission limitations in 40 CFR 63.3090 and 63.3091, and as 
specified in 40 CFR 63.3100(c), you must be in compliance with the work 
practice standards in 40 CFR 63.3094 ``at all times.'' During startup 
and shutdown periods, in order for a facility (using add-on controls to 
meet the standards) to meet the emission and operating standards, the 
control device for a coating operation needs to be turned on and 
operating at specified levels before the facility begins coating 
operations, and the control equipment needs to continue to be operated 
until after the facility ceases coating operations. In some cases, the 
facility needs to run thermal oxidizers on supplemental fuel before VOC 
levels are sufficient for the combustion to be (nearly) self-
sustaining. Note that we are also proposing new related language in 40 
CFR 63.3100(d) to require that the owner or operator operate and 
maintain the coating operation, including pollution control equipment, 
at all times to minimize emissions. See section IV.A.4.b.2 of this 
preamble for further discussion of these proposed revisions.
    Periods of startup, normal operations, and shutdown are all 
predictable and routine aspects of a source's operations. Malfunctions, 
in contrast, are neither

[[Page 58960]]

predictable nor routine. Instead they are, by definition, sudden, 
infrequent and not reasonably preventable failures of emissions 
control, process, or monitoring equipment. (40 CFR 63.2) (definition of 
malfunction). The EPA interprets CAA section 112 as not requiring 
emissions that occur during periods of malfunction to be factored into 
development of CAA section 112 standards and this reading has been 
upheld as reasonable by the Court in U.S. Sugar Corp. v. EPA, 830 F.3d 
579, 606-610 (2016). Under CAA section 112, emissions standards for new 
sources must be no less stringent than the level ``achieved'' by the 
best controlled similar source and for existing sources generally must 
be no less stringent than the average emission limitation ``achieved'' 
by the best performing 12 percent of sources in the category. There is 
nothing in CAA section 112 that directs the Agency to consider 
malfunctions in determining the level ``achieved'' by the best 
performing sources when setting emission standards. As the Court has 
recognized, the phrase ``average emissions limitation achieved by the 
best performing 12 percent of'' sources ``says nothing about how the 
performance of the best units is to be calculated.'' Nat'l Ass'n of 
Clean Water Agencies v. EPA, 734 F.3d 1115, 1141 (D.C. Cir. 2013). 
While the EPA accounts for variability in setting emissions standards, 
nothing in CAA section 112 requires the Agency to consider malfunctions 
as part of that analysis. The EPA is not required to treat a 
malfunction in the same manner as the type of variation in performance 
that occurs during routine operations of a source. A malfunction is a 
failure of the source to perform in a ``normal or usual manner'' and no 
statutory language compels the EPA to consider such events in setting 
CAA section 112 standards.
    As the Court recognized in U.S. Sugar Corp, accounting for 
malfunctions in setting standards would be difficult, if not 
impossible, given the myriad different types of malfunctions that can 
occur across all sources in the category and given the difficulties 
associated with predicting or accounting for the frequency, degree, and 
duration of various malfunctions that might occur. Id. at 608 (``the 
EPA would have to conceive of a standard that could apply equally to 
the wide range of possible boiler malfunctions, ranging from an 
explosion to minor mechanical defects. Any possible standard is likely 
to be hopelessly generic to govern such a wide array of 
circumstances.'') As such, the performance of units that are 
malfunctioning is not ``reasonably'' foreseeable. See e.g., Sierra Club 
v. EPA, 167 F.3d 658, 662 (D.C. Cir. 1999) (``The EPA typically has 
wide latitude in determining the extent of data-gathering necessary to 
solve a problem. We generally defer to an agency's decision to proceed 
on the basis of imperfect scientific information, rather than to 
'invest the resources to conduct the perfect study' ''). See also, 
Weyerhaeuser v. Costle, 590 F.2d 1011, 1058 (D.C. Cir. 1978) (``In the 
nature of things, no general limit, individual permit, or even any 
upset provision can anticipate all upset situations. After a certain 
point, the transgression of regulatory limits caused by `uncontrollable 
acts of third parties,' such as strikes, sabotage, operator 
intoxication or insanity, and a variety of other eventualities, must be 
a matter for the administrative exercise of case-by-case enforcement 
discretion, not for specification in advance by regulation''). In 
addition, emissions during a malfunction event can be significantly 
higher than emissions at any other time of source operation. For 
example, if an air pollution control device with 99-percent removal 
goes off-line as a result of a malfunction (as might happen if, for 
example, the bags in a baghouse catch fire) and the emission unit is a 
steady state type unit that would take days to shut down, the source 
would go from 99-percent control to zero control until the control 
device was repaired. The source's emissions during the malfunction 
would be 100 times higher than during normal operations. As such, the 
emissions over a 4-day malfunction period would exceed the annual 
emissions of the source during normal operations. As this example 
illustrates, accounting for malfunctions could lead to standards that 
are not reflective of (and significantly less stringent than) levels 
that are achieved by a well-performing non-malfunctioning source. It is 
reasonable to interpret CAA section 112 to avoid such a result. The 
EPA's approach to malfunctions is consistent with CAA section 112 and 
is a reasonable interpretation of the statute.
    Although no statutory language compels the EPA to set standards for 
malfunctions, the EPA has the discretion to do so where feasible. For 
example, in the Petroleum Refinery Sector Risk and Technology Review, 
the EPA established a work practice standard for unique types of 
malfunctions that result in releases from pressure relief devices or 
emergency flaring events because we had information to determine that 
such work practices reflected the level of control that applies to the 
best performing sources (80 FR 75178, 75211-14, December 1, 2015). The 
EPA will consider whether circumstances warrant setting standards for a 
particular type of malfunction and, if so, whether the EPA has 
sufficient information to identify the relevant best performing sources 
and establish a standard for such malfunctions. We also encourage 
commenters to provide any such information.
    It is unlikely that a malfunction would result in a violation of 
the standards during ALDT surface coatings operations for facilities 
complying without the use of add-on controls (i.e., using low-HAP 
coatings and thinning materials). Facilities using low-HAP coatings and 
thinning materials have demonstrated that the coatings and thinners 
used in the coating operations are less than or equal to the applicable 
emission limit calculated on a monthly basis.
    A malfunction event is more likely for ALDT surface coating 
facilities that use add-on controls as a compliance option. For this 
option, in addition to demonstrating compliance with the numerical 
emission rate limits for coatings and thinners used (calculated on a 
monthly basis), facilities must also demonstrate that their emission 
capture systems and add-on control devices meet the operating limits 
established by the ALDT NESHAP. Control device operating limits are 
listed in Table 4 of the ALDT NESHAP and are specific to the device, 
and most are based on maintaining an average temperature over a 3-hour 
block period, which must not fall below the temperature limit 
established during the facility's initial performance test.
    All facilities must also comply with work practice standards to 
minimize organic HAP emissions from the storage, mixing, and conveying 
of coatings, thinners, and cleaning materials used in, and waste 
materials generated by, the coating operation(s), but it is unlikely 
that a malfunction would result in a violation of the work practice 
standards.
    We currently have no information to suggest that it is feasible or 
necessary to establish any type of standard for malfunctions associated 
with the ALDT source category. We encourage commenters to provide any 
such information, if available.
    In the event that a source fails to comply with the applicable CAA 
section 112(d) standards as a result of a malfunction event, the EPA 
will determine an appropriate response based on, among other things, 
the good

[[Page 58961]]

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 will 
also consider whether the source's failure to comply with the CAA 
section 112(d) standard was, in fact, sudden, infrequent, not 
reasonably preventable, and was not instead caused, in part, by poor 
maintenance or careless operation. 40 CFR 63.2 (definition of 
malfunction).
    If the EPA determines in a particular case that an enforcement 
action against a source for violation of an emission standard is 
warranted, the source can raise any and all defenses in that 
enforcement action and the federal district court will determine what, 
if any, relief is appropriate. The same is true for citizen enforcement 
actions. Similarly, the presiding officer in an administrative 
proceeding can consider any defense raised and determine whether 
administrative penalties are appropriate.
    In summary, the EPA interpretation of the CAA and, in particular, 
CAA section 112 is reasonable and encourages practices that will avoid 
malfunctions. Administrative and judicial procedures for addressing 
exceedances of the standards fully recognize that violations may occur 
despite good faith efforts to comply and can accommodate those 
situations. U.S. Sugar Corp. v. EPA, 830 F.3d 579, 606-610 (2016).
(2.) Proposed Revisions to the General Provisions Applicability Table
    40 CFR 63.3100(d) General duty. We are proposing to revise the 
General Provisions table to subpart IIII (Table 2) entry for 40 CFR 
63.6(e)(1)(i) by changing the ``yes'' in column 3 to a ``no.'' Section 
63.6(e)(1)(i) describes the general duty to minimize emissions. Some of 
the language in that section is no longer necessary or appropriate in 
light of the elimination of the SSM exemption. We are proposing instead 
to add general duty regulatory text at 40 CFR 63.3100(d) 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 63.3100(d) does not include 
that language from 40 CFR 63.6(e)(1)(i).
    We are also proposing to revise the General Provisions table to 
subpart IIII (Table 2) entry for 40 CFR 63.6(e)(1)(ii) by changing the 
``yes'' in column 3 to a ``no.'' Section 63.6(e)(1)(ii) imposes 
requirements that are not necessary with the elimination of the SSM 
exemption or are redundant with the general duty requirement being 
added at 40 CFR 63.3100(d).
    SSM plan. We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table 
to subpart IIII (Table 2) entry for 40 CFR 63.6(e)(3) by changing the 
``yes'' in column 3 to a ``no.'' Generally, these paragraphs require 
development of an SSM plan and specify SSM recordkeeping and reporting 
requirements related to the SSM plan. We are also proposing to remove 
from 40 CFR part 63, subpart IIII, the current provisions requiring the 
SSM plan at 40 CFR 63.3100(f). 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.
    Compliance with standards. We are proposing to revise the General 
Provisions table to subpart IIII (Table 2) entry for 40 CFR 63.6(f)(1) 
by changing the ``yes'' in column 3 to a ``no.'' The current language 
of 40 CFR 63.6(f)(1) exempts sources from non-opacity standards during 
periods of SSM. As discussed above, the Court in Sierra Club vacated 
the exemptions contained in this provision and held that the CAA 
requires that some CAA section 112 standards apply continuously. 
Consistent with Sierra Club, the EPA is proposing to revise the 
standards in this rule to apply at all times.
    We are also proposing to remove rule text in 40 CFR 63.3161(j) 
clarifying that, in calculating emissions to demonstrate compliance, 
deviation periods must include deviations during an SSM period. Since 
the EPA is removing the SSM exemption, this clarifying text is no 
longer needed.
    40 CFR 63.3163 Performance testing. We are proposing to revise the 
General Provisions table to subpart IIII (Table 2) entry for 40 CFR 
63.7(e)(1) by changing the ``yes'' in column 3 to a ``no.'' Section 
63.7(e)(1) describes performance testing requirements. The EPA is 
instead proposing to add a performance testing requirement at 40 CFR 
63.3163 and 40 CFR 63.3164. 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 in 40 CFR 63.3164 will also not 
allow performance testing during startup or shutdown. As in 40 CFR 
63.7(e)(1), performance tests conducted under this subpart should not 
be conducted during malfunctions because conditions during malfunctions 
are often not representative of normal operating conditions. Section 
63.7(e) requires that the owner or operator maintain records of the 
process information necessary to document operating conditions during 
the test and include in such records an explanation to support that 
such conditions represent normal operation. The EPA is proposing to add 
language to 40 CFR 63.3164 clarifying that the owner or operator must 
make such records available to the Administrator upon request.
    Monitoring. We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table 
to subpart IIII (Table 2) entry for 40 CFR 63.8(c)(1) by changing the 
``yes'' in column 3 to a ``no.'' The cross-references to the general 
duty and SSM plan requirements in 40 CFR 63.8(c)(1) are not necessary 
in light of other requirements of 40 CFR 63.8 that require good air 
pollution control practices (40 CFR 63.8(c)(1)) and that set out the 
requirements of a quality control program for monitoring equipment (40 
CFR 63.8(d)). Further, we have determined that 40 CFR 63.8(c)(1)(ii) is 
redundant to the current monitoring requirement in 40 CFR 63.3168(a)(4) 
(i.e., ``have available necessary parts for routine repairs of the 
monitoring equipment,'' except 40 CFR 63.8(c)(1)(ii) specifies ``have 
readily available.''). We are proposing to revise 40 CFR 63.3168(a)(4) 
to specify ``readily available.''
    40 CFR 63.3512 Recordkeeping. We are proposing to revise the 
General Provisions table to subpart IIII (Table 2) entry for 40 CFR 
63.10(b)(2)(i) by changing the ``yes'' in column 3 to a ``no.'' Section 
63.10(b)(2)(i) describes the recordkeeping requirements during startup 
and shutdown. These recording provisions are no longer necessary 
because the EPA is proposing that recordkeeping and reporting 
applicable to normal operations will apply to startup and shutdown. In 
the absence of special provisions applicable to startup and shutdown, 
such as a startup and shutdown plan, there is no reason to

[[Page 58962]]

retain additional recordkeeping for startup and shutdown periods.
    We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table to subpart 
IIII (Table 2) entry for 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(ii) by changing the ``yes'' 
in column 3 to a ``no.'' Section 63.10(b)(2)(ii) describes the 
recordkeeping requirements during a malfunction, requiring a record of 
``the occurrence and duration of each malfunction.'' A similar record 
is already required in 40 CFR 63.3130(g), which requires a record of 
``the date, time, and duration of each deviation,'' which the EPA is 
retaining. The regulatory text in 40 CFR 63.3130(g) differs from the 
General Provisions in that the General Provisions requires the creation 
and retention of a record of the occurrence and duration of each 
malfunction of process, air pollution control, and monitoring 
equipment; whereas 40 CFR 63.3130(g) applies to any failure to meet an 
applicable standard and is requiring that the source record the date, 
time, and duration of the failure rather than the ``occurrence.'' For 
this reason, the EPA is proposing to add to 40 CFR 63.3130(g) a 
requirement that sources also keep records that include a list of the 
affected source or equipment and actions taken to minimize emissions, 
an estimate of the quantity of each regulated pollutant emitted over 
the emission limit for which the source failed to meet the standard, 
and a description of the method used to estimate the emissions. 
Examples of such methods would include product-loss calculations, mass 
balance calculations, measurements when available, or engineering 
judgment based on known process parameters (e.g., coating HAP content 
and application rates and control device efficiencies). The EPA is 
proposing to require that sources keep records of this information to 
ensure that there is adequate information to allow the EPA to determine 
the severity of any failure to meet a standard, and to provide data 
that may document how the source met the general duty to minimize 
emissions when the source has failed to meet an applicable standard.
    We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table to subpart 
IIII (Table 2) entry for 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(iv)-(v) by changing the 
``yes'' in column 3 to a ``no.'' When applicable, the provision 
requires sources to record actions taken during SSM events when actions 
were inconsistent with their SSM plan. The requirement in 40 CFR 
63.10(b)(2)(iv) is no longer appropriate because SSM plans will no 
longer be required. The requirement previously applicable under 40 CFR 
63.10(b)(2)(iv)(B) to record actions to minimize emissions and record 
corrective actions is now applicable by reference to 40 CFR 
63.3130(g)(4). When applicable, the provision in 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(v) 
requires sources to record actions taken during SSM events to show that 
actions taken were consistent with their SSM plan. The requirement is 
no longer appropriate because SSM plans will no longer be required.
    We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table to subpart 
IIII (Table 2) entry for 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(vi) by changing the ``yes'' 
in column 3 to a ``no.'' The provision requires sources to maintain 
records during continuous monitoring system (CMS) malfunctions. Section 
63.3130(g) covers records of periods of deviation from the standard, 
including instances where a CMS is inoperative or out-of-control. 
Additional recordkeeping requirements for continuous parameter 
monitoring systems (CPMS) are also specified in 40 CFR 63.3168.
    We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table to subpart 
IIII (Table 2) entry for 40 CFR 63.10(c)(15) by changing the ``yes'' in 
column 3 to a ``no.'' When applicable, the provision allows an owner or 
operator to use the affected source's SSM plan or records kept to 
satisfy the recordkeeping requirements of the SSM plan, specified in 40 
CFR 63.6(e), to also satisfy the requirements of 40 CFR 63.10(c)(10) 
through (12). The EPA is proposing to eliminate this requirement 
because SSM plans would no longer be required, and, therefore, 40 CFR 
63.10(c)(15) no longer serves any useful purpose for affected units.
    We are proposing to remove the requirement in 40 CFR 63.3130(g) 
that deviation records specify whether deviations from a standard 
occurred during a period of SSM. This revision is being proposed due to 
the proposed removal of the SSM exemption and because, as discussed 
above in this section, we are proposing that deviation records must 
specify the cause of each deviation, which could include a malfunction 
period as a cause. We are also proposing to remove the requirement to 
report the SSM records in 40 CFR 63.6(e)(3)(iii) through (v) by 
deleting 40 CFR 63.3130(h).
    40 CFR 63.3120 Reporting. We are proposing to revise the General 
Provisions table to subpart IIII (Table 2) entry for 40 CFR 63.10(d)(5) 
by changing the ``yes'' in column 3 to a ``no.'' Section 63.10(d)(5) 
describes the reporting requirements for startups, shutdowns, and 
malfunctions. To replace the General Provisions reporting requirement, 
the EPA is proposing to add reporting requirements to 40 CFR 
63.3120(a)(5) through (a)(9). The replacement language differs from the 
General Provisions requirement in that it eliminates periodic SSM 
reports as a stand-alone report. We are proposing language that 
requires sources that fail to meet an applicable standard at any time 
to report the information concerning such events in the semi-annual 
compliance report already required under this rule. Subpart IIII of 40 
CFR part 63 currently requires reporting of the date, time period, and 
cause of each deviation. We are clarifying in the rule that, if the 
cause of a deviation from the standard is unknown, this should be 
specified in the report. We are also proposing to change ``date and 
time period'' to ``date, time, and duration'' (see proposed revisions 
to 40 CFR 63.3130(a)(6)(vii), (viii), and (xiii); 40 CFR 
63.3130(a)(7)(i); 40 CFR 63.3130(a)(8)(v), (vi), and (vii); and 40 CFR 
63.3130(a)(i)) to use terminology consistent with the recordkeeping 
section. Further, we are proposing that the report must also contain 
the number of deviations from the standard, and a list of the affected 
source or equipment. For deviation reports addressing deviations from 
an applicable emission limit in 40 CFR 63.3090, 63.3091, or 63.3092, or 
an operating limit in Table 1 to 40 CFR part 63, subpart IIII, we are 
proposing that the report also include an estimate of the quantity of 
each regulated pollutant emitted over any emission limit for which the 
source failed to meet the standard, and a description of the method 
used to estimate the emissions. For deviation reports addressing 
deviations from work practice standards (40 CFR 63.3120(a)(6)(xiii)), 
we are retaining the current requirement (including reporting actions 
taken to correct the deviation), except that we are revising the rule 
language to reference the new general duty requirement in 40 CFR 
63.3100(d), we are clarifying that the description of the deviation 
must include a list of the affected sources or equipment and the cause 
of the deviation, we are clarifying that ``time period'' includes the 
``time and duration,'' and we are requiring that the report include the 
number of deviations from the work practice standards in the reporting 
period.
    Regarding the proposed new requirement discussed above to estimate 
the quantity of each regulated pollutant emitted over any emission 
limit for which the source failed to meet the standard, and a 
description of the method used to estimate the emissions, examples of 
such methods would

[[Page 58963]]

include product-loss calculations, mass balance calculations, 
measurements when available, or engineering judgment based on known 
process parameters (e.g., coating HAP content and application rates and 
control device efficiencies). The EPA is proposing this requirement to 
ensure that there is adequate information to determine compliance, to 
allow the EPA to determine the severity of the failure to meet an 
applicable standard, and to provide data that may document how the 
source met the general duty to minimize emissions during a failure to 
meet an applicable standard.
    We will no longer require owners or operators to determine whether 
actions taken to correct a malfunction are consistent with an SSM plan, 
because plans would no longer be required. The proposed amendments, 
therefore, eliminate 40 CFR 63.3120(c) that requires reporting of 
whether the source deviated from its SSM plan, including required 
actions to communicate with the Administrator, and the cross-reference 
to 40 CFR 63.10(d)(5)(ii) that contains the description of the 
previously required SSM report format and submittal schedule from this 
section. These specifications are no longer necessary because the 
events will be reported in otherwise required reports with similar 
format and submittal requirements.
    Section 63.10(d)(5)(ii) describes an immediate report for startups, 
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.
    We are proposing to remove the requirements in 40 CFR 
63.3120(a)(6)(viii) that deviation reports must specify whether 
deviation from an operating limit occurred during a period of SSM. We 
are also proposing to remove the requirements in 40 CFR 
63.3120(a)(6)(x) to break down the total duration of deviations into 
the startup and shutdown categories. As discussed above in this 
section, we are proposing to require reporting of the cause of each 
deviation. Further, the startup and shutdown categories no longer apply 
because these periods are proposed to be considered normal operation, 
as discussed in section IV.A.4.b.1 of this preamble.
c. Technical Amendments to the ALDT NESHAP
    We propose to amend 40 CFR 63.3166(b) to add the option of 
conducting EPA Method 18 of appendix A-6 to 40 CFR part 60, 
``Measurement of Gaseous Organic Compound Emissions by Gas 
Chromatography,'' to measure and then subtract methane emissions from 
measured total gaseous organic mass emissions as carbon. Facilities 
using add-on controls as a compliance option can use either EPA Method 
25 or EPA Method 25A to measure control device destruction efficiency. 
Unlike EPA Method 25, EPA Method 25A does not exclude methane from the 
measurement of organic emissions. Because exhaust streams from coating 
operations may contain methane from natural gas combustion, we are 
proposing to allow facilities the option to measure methane using EPA 
Method 18 and to subtract the methane from the emissions as part of 
their compliance calculations.
    We propose to revise the format of references to test methods in 40 
CFR part 60. The current reference in 40 CFR 63.3166(a) and (b) to EPA 
Methods 1, 1A, 2, 2A, 2C, 2D, 2F, 2G, 3, 3A, 3B, 4, 25, and 25A specify 
that each method is in ``appendix A'' of part 60. Appendix A of 40 CFR 
part 60 has been divided into appendices A-1 through A-8. We propose to 
revise each reference to appendix A to indicate which of the eight 
sections of appendix A applies to the method.
    We propose to amend 40 CFR 63.3151(a)(1)(i) and (a)(4), and 40 CFR 
63.3171(e)(3), which describe how to determine the mass fraction of 
organic HAP in each material used, to remove references to Occupational 
Safety and Health Administration (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 5 to 40 CFR part 63, subpart IIII) 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 5 to 40 CFR 
part 63, subpart IIII 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),\30\ 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ See https://www.epa.gov/fera/dose-response-assessment-assessing-health-risks-associated-exposure-hazardous-air-pollutants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We propose to revise the monitoring provisions for thermal and 
catalytic oxidizers to clarify that a thermocouple is part of the gas 
temperature monitoring device referred to in 40 CFR 63.3168(c)(3).
    We propose to add a new paragraph 40 CFR 63.3130(p) and to revise 
40 CFR 63.3131(a) to allow that any records required to be maintained 
by 40 CFR part 63, subpart IIII this part that are submitted 
electronically via the EPA's CEDRI may be maintained in electronic 
format. We also propose to add clarification that this ability to 
maintain electronic copies does not affect the requirement for 
facilities to make records, data, and reports available upon request to 
a delegated air agency or the EPA as part of an on-site compliance 
evaluation.
d. Ongoing Emissions Compliance Demonstrations Requirement
    As part of an ongoing effort to improve compliance with various 
federal air emission regulations, the EPA reviewed the compliance 
demonstration requirements in the ALDT NESHAP. Currently, if a source 
owner or operator chooses to comply with the standards using add-on 
controls, the results of an initial performance test are used to 
determine compliance; however, the rule does not require on-going 
periodic performance testing for these emission capture systems and 
add-on controls. We are proposing periodic testing of add-on control 
devices, in addition to the one-time initial emissions and capture 
efficiency testing and ongoing parametric monitoring to ensure ongoing 
compliance with the standards.
    Although ongoing monitoring of operating parameters is required by 
the NESHAP, as the control device ages over time, the destruction 
efficiency of

[[Page 58964]]

the control device can be compromised due to various factors. The EPA 
published several documents that identify potential control device 
operational problems that could decrease control device efficiency.\31\ 
These factors are discussed in more detail in the memorandum titled 
Proposed Periodic Testing Requirement dated February 1, 2019, included 
in the ALDT Docket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ See Control Techniques for Volatile Organic Compound 
Emissions from Stationary Sources, EPA/453/R-92-018, December 1992, 
Control Technologies for Emissions from Stationary Sources, EPA/625/
6-91/014, June 1991, and Survey of Control for Low Concentration 
Organic Vapor Gas Streams, EPA-456/R-95-003, May 1995. These 
documents can be found in the Automobiles and Light-Duty Trucks, 
Miscellaneous Metal Parts, and Plastic Parts and Products Dockets 
for this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Institute of Clean Air Companies (ICAC), an industry trade 
group currently representing 50 emission control device equipment 
manufacturers, corroborated the fact that control equipment degrades 
over time in their comments on proposed revisions to the NESHAP General 
Provisions (72 FR 69, January 3, 2007). ICAC stated that ongoing 
maintenance and checks of control devices are necessary in order to 
ensure emissions control technology remains effective.\32\ ICAC 
identified both thermal and catalytic oxidizers as effective add-on 
control devices for VOC reduction and destruction. Thermal oxidizers, 
in which ``. . . organic compounds are converted into carbon dioxide 
and water . . .'' allow ``. . . for the destruction of VOCs and HAP up 
to levels greater than 99-percent . . . '' once ``. . . [t]he oxidation 
reaction . . .'' begins, typically ``. . . in the 1,450 degrees 
Fahrenheit range.'' That temperature may need to be elevated, depending 
on the organic compound to be destroyed. Along with that destruction, 
``. . . extreme heat, the corrosive nature of chemical-laden air, 
exposure to weather, and the wear and tear of non-stop use . . .'' 
affect thermal oxidizers such that ``. . . left unchecked, the 
corrosive nature of the gases treated will create equipment downtime, 
loss of operational efficiency, and eventually failure of the thermal 
oxidizer.'' While catalytic oxidizers operate at lower operating 
temperatures--typically 440 to 750 degrees Fahrenheit--than thermal 
oxidizers, catalytic oxidizers also provide VOC reduction and 
destruction. In general, the catalyst ``. . . needs to be checked 
periodically to verify the activity of the catalyst . . .'' because 
that ``. . . activity or overall ability of the catalyst to convert 
target emissions to other by-products will naturally diminish over 
time.'' ICAC also mentions chemical poisoning (deactivation of the 
catalyst by certain compounds) or masking of the catalyst bed, which 
may occur due to changes in manufacturing processes, as means of 
catalyst degradation. Finally, ICAC identifies electrical and 
mechanical component maintenance as important, for if such components 
are not operating properly, ``. . . the combustion temperature in the . 
. . oxidizer could drop below the required levels and hazardous air 
pollutant (HAP) destruction may not be achieved . . .'' ICAC closes by 
noting ``. . . it costs more money to operate an oxidizer at peak 
performance, and if not maintained, performance will deteriorate 
yielding less destruction of HAP.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ See Docket Item No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2004-0094-0173, available at 
https://www.regulations.gov. A copy of the ICAC's comments on the 
proposed revisions to the General Provisions is also included in the 
Automobiles and Light-Duty Trucks, Miscellaneous Metal Parts, and 
Plastic Parts and Products Dockets for this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    State websites also provide on-line CAA violations and enforcement 
actions which include performance issues associated with control 
devices. A recent search resulted in identification of sources in Ohio 
and Massachusetts that did not achieve compliance even though they 
maintained the thermal oxidizer operating temperatures established 
during previous performance tests, which further corroborates with the 
ICAC comments and conclusions regarding control device degradation.
    Based on the need for vigilance in maintaining equipment to stem 
degradation, we are proposing periodic testing of add-on control 
devices once every 5 years, in addition to the one-time initial 
emissions and capture efficiency testing and ongoing temperature 
measurement to ensure ongoing compliance with the standards.
    In this action, we are proposing to require periodic performance 
testing of add-on control devices on a regular frequency (e.g., every 5 
years) to ensure the equipment continues to operate properly for 
facilities using the emission rate with add-on controls compliance 
option. We estimate that 18 ALDT surface coating existing sources are 
already required to perform such testing every 5 years synchronized 
with 40 CFR part 70 air operating permit renewals and for five 
facilities this would be a new requirement. This proposed periodic 
testing requirement includes an exception to the general requirement 
for periodic testing for facilities using the catalytic oxidizer 
control option at 40 CFR 63.3167(b) and following the catalyst 
maintenance procedures in 40 CFR 63.3167(b)(6). This exception is due 
to the catalyst maintenance procedures that already require annual 
testing of the catalyst and other maintenance procedures that provide 
ongoing demonstrations that the control system is operating properly 
and may, thus, be considered comparable to conducting a performance 
test.
    The proposed periodic performance testing requirement allows an 
exception from periodic testing for facilities using instruments to 
continuously measure emissions. Such continuous emissions monitoring 
systems (CEMS) would show actual emissions. The use of CEMS to 
demonstrate compliance would obviate the need for periodic oxidizer 
testing. Moreover, installation and operation of a CEMS with a 
timesharing component, such that values from more than one oxidizer 
exhaust could be tabulated in a recurring frequency, could prove less 
expensive (estimated to have an annual cost below $15,000) than ongoing 
oxidizer testing.
    This proposed requirement does not require periodic testing or CEMS 
monitoring of facilities using the compliant materials option or the 
emission-rate without add-on controls compliance option because these 
two compliance options do not use any add-on controls or control 
efficiency measurements in the compliance calculations.
    The proposed periodic performance testing requirement requires 
facilities complying with the standards using emission capture systems 
and add-on controls and which are not already on a 5-year testing 
schedule conduct the first of the periodic performance tests within 3 
years of the effective date of the revised standards. Afterward, they 
would conduct periodic testing before they renew their operating 
permits, but no longer than 5 years following the previous performance 
test. Additionally, facilities that have already tested as a condition 
of their permit within the last 2 years before the effective date would 
be permitted to maintain their current 5-year schedule and not be 
required to move up the date of the next test to the 3-year date 
specified above. This proposed requirement would require periodic air 
emissions testing to measure organic HAP destruction or removal 
efficiency at the inlet and outlet of the add-on control device, or 
measurement of the control device outlet concentration of organic HAP. 
The emissions would be measured as total gaseous organic mass emissions 
as carbon using either EPA Method 25 or 25A of appendix A-7 to 40 CFR 
part 60, which are the methods currently

[[Page 58965]]

required for the initial compliance demonstration.
    We estimate that the cost associated with this proposed 
requirement, which includes a control device emissions destruction or 
removal efficiency test using EPA Method 25 or 25A, would be 
approximately $19,000 per control device. The cost estimate is included 
in the memorandum titled Estimated Costs/Impacts 40 CFR Part 63 
Subparts IIII, MMMM and PPPP Monitoring Review Revisions, in the ALDT 
Docket. We have estimated that five facilities subject to the ALDT 
NESHAP and using the add-on control option for compliance are not 
currently required to conduct periodic testing as a condition of their 
permit renewal. Periodic performance tests ensure that any control 
systems used to comply with the NESHAP in the future would be properly 
maintained over time, thereby reducing the potential for acute 
emissions episodes and non-compliance.
e. IBR of Alternative Test Methods Under 1 CFR Part 51
    The EPA is proposing new and updated test methods for the ALDT 
NESHAP that include IBR. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, 
the EPA is proposing to incorporate by reference the following 
voluntary consensus standards (VCS) into 40 CFR 63.14:
     ASTM Method D1475-13, Standard Test Method for Density of 
Liquid Coatings, Inks, and Related Products, proposed to be IBR 
approved for 40 CFR 63.3151(b), 63.3941(b) and (c), 63.3951(c), 
63.4551(c);
     ASTM D2111-10 (2015), Standard Test Methods for Specific 
Gravity of Halogenated Organic Solvents and Their Admixtures, proposed 
to be IBR approved for 40 CFR 63.3951(c), 63.4551(c);
     ASTM Method D2369-10 (2015), Test Method for Volatile 
Content of Coatings, proposed to be IBR approved for 40 CFR 
63.3151(a)(2), 63.3961(j), 63.4541(a), 63.4561(j);
     ASTM Method D2697-03 (2014), Standard Test Method for 
Volume Nonvolatile Matter in Clear or Pigmented Coatings, proposed to 
be IBR approved for 40 CFR 63.3161(f)(1), 63.3941(b);
     ASTM D5066-91 (Reapproved 2017), Standard Test Method for 
Determination of the Transfer Efficiency Under Production Conditions 
for Spray Application of Automotive Paints-Weight Basis, proposed to be 
IBR approved for 40 CFR 63.3161(g);
     ASTM Method D5965-02 (2013), Standard Test Methods for 
Specific Gravity of Coating Powders, proposed to be ICR approved for 40 
CFR 63.3151(b), 63.3951(c);
     ASTM Method D6093-97 (2016), Standard Test Method for 
Percent Volume Nonvolatile Matter in Clear or Pigmented Coatings Using 
Helium Gas Pycnometer, proposed to be IBR approved for 40 CFR 
63.3161(f)(1), 63.3941(b);
    ASTM D6266-00a (Reapproved 2017), Test Method for Determining the 
Amount of Volatile Organic Compound (VOC) Released from Waterborne 
Automotive Coatings and Available for Removal in a VOC Control Device 
(Abatement), proposed to be IBR approved for 40 CFR 63.3165(e); and
    EPA-450/3-88-018, Protocol for Determining Daily Volatile Organic 
Compound Emission Rate of Automobile and Light-Duty Truck Topcoat 
Operations, proposed to be IBR approved for 40 CFR 63.3161(f), 
63.3165(e).
    Older versions of ASTM methods D2697, D5965, and D6093 were 
incorporated by reference when the ALDT NESHAP was originally 
promulgated (69 FR 22602, April 26, 2004). We are proposing to replace 
the older versions of these methods and ASTM Method D1475 with updated 
versions, which requires IBR revisions. The updated version of the 
method replaces the older version in the same paragraph of the rule 
text. We are also proposing the addition of ASTM Method D2369 to the 
ALDT NESHAP for the first time by incorporating this method by 
reference in this rulemaking. Refer to section VIII.J of this preamble 
for further discussion of these VCS.
5. What compliance dates are we proposing?
    The EPA is proposing that affected sources must comply with all of 
the amendments, with the exception of the proposed electronic format 
for submitting semiannual compliance reports, no later than 181 days 
after the effective date of the final rule. All affected facilities 
would have to continue to meet the current requirements of 40 CFR part 
63, subpart IIII until the applicable compliance date of the amended 
rule. The final action is not expected to be a ``major rule'' as 
defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2), so the effective date of the final rule 
will be the promulgation date as specified in CAA section 112(d)(10).
    For existing sources, we are proposing one change that would impact 
ongoing compliance requirements for 40 CFR part 63, subpart IIII. As 
discussed elsewhere in this preamble, we are proposing to add a 
requirement that notifications, performance test results, and 
semiannual compliance reports be submitted electronically. We are 
proposing that the semiannual compliance report be submitted 
electronically using a new template, which is available for review and 
comment as part of this action. We are also proposing to change the 
requirements for SSM by removing the exemption from the requirements to 
meet the standard during SSM periods and by removing the requirement to 
develop and implement an SSM plan. Our experience with similar 
industries that are required to convert reporting mechanisms to install 
necessary hardware and software, become familiar with the process of 
submitting performance test results electronically through the EPA's 
CEDRI, test these new electronic submission capabilities, and reliably 
employ electronic reporting shows that a time period of a minimum of 90 
days, and, more typically, 180 days, is generally necessary to 
successfully accomplish these revisions. Our experience with similar 
industries further shows that this sort of regulated facility generally 
requires a time period of 180 days to read and understand the amended 
rule requirements; to evaluate their operations to ensure that they can 
meet the standards during periods of startup and shutdown as defined in 
the rule and make any necessary adjustments; and to update their 
operation, maintenance, and monitoring plan to reflect the revised 
requirements. The EPA recognizes the confusion that multiple different 
compliance dates for individual requirements would create and the 
additional burden such an assortment of dates would impose. From our 
assessment of the 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 181 days of the 
regulation's effective date.
    We solicit comment on these proposed compliance periods, and we 
specifically request submission of information from sources in this 
source category regarding specific actions that would need to be 
undertaken to comply with the proposed amended requirements and the 
time needed to make the adjustments for compliance with any of the 
revised requirements. We note that information provided may result in 
changes to the proposed compliance dates.

[[Page 58966]]

B. What are the analytical results and proposed decisions for the MMPP 
source category?

1. What are the results of the risk assessment and analyses?
    As described above in section III of this preamble, for the MMPP 
source category, we conducted a risk assessment for all HAP emitted. We 
present results of the risk assessment briefly below and in more detail 
in the Miscellaneous Metal Parts and Products Risk Assessment Report in 
the MMPP Docket (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0312).
a. Chronic Inhalation Risk Assessment Results
    Table 4 below provides a summary of the results of the inhalation 
risk assessment for the source category.

                  Table 4--Surface Coating of Miscellaneous Metal Parts and Products Source Category Inhalation Risk Assessment Results
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    Maximum individual     Estimated population      Estimated annual         Maximum chronic        Maximum screening
                                     cancer risk (in 1     at increased risk of      cancer incidence       noncancer TOSHI \1\   acute noncancer HQ \2\
                                         million)             cancer >=1-in-1        (cases per year)    -----------------------------------------------
                                 ------------------------         Million        ------------------------
         Risk assessment                                 ------------------------                          Based on    Based on
                                   Based on    Based on    Based on    Based on    Based on    Based on     actual     allowable      Based on actual
                                    actual     allowable    actual     allowable    actual     allowable   emissions   emissions         emissions
                                   emissions   emissions   emissions   emissions   emissions   emissions
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source category.................          20          30      18,000      24,000       0.008        0.01         0.8           1  HQREL = 4
Whole facility..................         100  ..........     370,000  ..........        0.04  ..........           1  ..........  ......................
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The TOSHI is the sum of the chronic noncancer HQ for substances that affect the same target organ or organ system.
\2\ The maximum estimated acute exposure concentration was divided by available short-term threshold values to develop HQ values.

    The results of the inhalation risk modeling using actual emissions 
data, as shown in Table 4 above, indicate that the maximum individual 
cancer risk based on actual emissions (lifetime) could be up to 20-in-1 
million (driven by naphthalene and ethyl benzene from coating 
operations), the maximum chronic noncancer TOSHI value based on actual 
emissions could be up to 0.8 (driven by antimony from coating 
operations), and the maximum screening acute noncancer HQ value (off-
facility site) could be up to 4 (driven by glycol ethers). The total 
estimated annual cancer incidence (national) from these facilities 
based on actual emission levels is 0.008 excess cancer cases per year 
or 1 case in every 125 years.
b. Screening Level Acute Risk Assessment Results
    Table 4 of this preamble also shows the acute risk results for the 
MMPP source category. The screening analysis for acute impacts was 
based on an industry-specific multiplier of 1.2, to estimate the peak 
emission rates from the average emission rates. For more detailed acute 
risk results refer to the Miscellaneous Metal Parts and Products Risk 
Assessment Report, in the MMPP Docket.
c. Multipathway Risk Screening Results
    The emissions data for the MMPP source category indicate that three 
PB-HAP are emitted by sources within this source category: Arsenic, 
cadmium, and lead. Of the 368 facilities in the source category, two 
facilities reported emissions of carcinogenic PB-HAP (arsenic) and two 
facilities reported emissions of non-carcinogenic PB-HAP (cadmium). The 
PB-HAP emissions from these facilities did not exceed the Tier 1 
multipathway screening value of 1 for cancer or noncancer.
    In evaluating the potential for multipathway effects from emissions 
of lead, we compared modeled annual lead concentrations to the NAAQS 
for lead (0.15 [micro]g/m\3\, arithmetic mean concentration over a 3-
month period). The highest annual average lead concentration of 0.059 
[micro]g/m\3\ is below the NAAQS level for lead, indicating a low 
potential for multipathway impacts of concern due to lead even assuming 
a shorter averaging period is analyzed.
d. Environmental Risk Screening Results
    The emissions data for the MMPP source category indicate that four 
environmental HAP are emitted by sources within this source category: 
Arsenic, cadmium, lead and HCl. Therefore, we conducted a screening-
level evaluation of the potential adverse environmental effects 
associated with emissions of arsenic, cadmium, lead, and HCl for the 
MMPP source category. In the Tier 1 screening analysis for PB-HAP 
(other than lead which was evaluated differently), arsenic and cadmium 
had no exceedances of any of the ecological benchmarks evaluated.
    In evaluating the potential for adverse environmental effects from 
emissions of lead, we compared modeled annual lead concentrations to 
the secondary NAAQS for lead (0.15 [micro]g/m\3\, arithmetic mean 
concentration over a 3-month period). The highest annual average lead 
concentration of 0.059 [micro]g/m\3\ is below the secondary NAAQS for 
lead, indicating a low potential for adverse environmental impacts due 
to lead even assuming a shorter averaging period is analyzed. For HCl, 
each individual concentration (i.e., each off-site data point in the 
modeling domain) was below the ecological benchmarks for all 
facilities. Therefore, we do not expect an adverse environmental effect 
as a result of HAP emissions from this source category.
e. Facility-Wide Risk Results
    One hundred and one facilities have a facility-wide cancer MIR 
greater than or equal to 1-in-1 million. The maximum facility-wide 
cancer MIR is 100-in-1 million, driven by nickel emissions from 
welding. The total estimated cancer incidence from the whole facility 
is 0.01 excess cancer cases per year, or one excess case in every 100 
years. Approximately 370,000 people were estimated to have cancer risks 
above 1-in-1 million from exposure to HAP emitted from both MACT and 
non-MACT sources of the 368 facilities in this source category. The 
maximum facility-wide TOSHI for the source category is estimated to be 
1, driven by emissions of cobalt from a gel coating operation.
f. What demographic groups might benefit from this regulation?
    To examine the potential for any environmental justice issues that 
might be associated with the source category, we performed a 
demographic analysis, which is an assessment of risks to individual 
demographic groups of the populations living within 5 km and within 50 
km of the facilities. In the analysis, we evaluated the distribution of 
HAP-related cancer and noncancer risks from the MMPP source category 
across different demographic groups

[[Page 58967]]

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

  Table 5--Surface Coating of Miscellaneous Metal Parts and Products Source Category Demographic Risk Analysis
                                                     Results
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                          Population with
                                                                         cancer risk at or     Population with
                                                                            above 1-in-1      chronic noncancer
                                                        Nationwide         million due to     HI above 1 due to
                                                                         surface coating of   surface coating of
                                                                        miscellaneous metal  miscellaneous metal
                                                                         parts and products   parts and products
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Population.................................          317,746,049               18,000                    0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          White and Minority by Percent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
White............................................                   62                   75                    0
Minority.........................................                   38                   25                    0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Minority Detail by Percent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
African American.................................                   12                   12                    0
Native American..................................                  0.8                  0.6                    0
Hispanic or Latino...............................                   18                    9                    0
Other and Multiracial............................                    7                    3                    0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                Income by Percent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Below the Poverty Level..........................                   14                   20                    0
Above the Poverty Level..........................                   86                   80                    0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              Education by Percent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Over 25 Without High a School Diploma............                   14                   18                    0
Over 25 With a High School Diploma...............                   86                   82                    0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       Linguistically Isolated by Percent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Linguistically Isolated..........................                    6                    3                    0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The results of the MMPP source category demographic analysis 
indicate that emissions from the source category expose approximately 
18,000 people to a cancer risk at or above 1-in-1 million and no one is 
exposed to a chronic noncancer HI greater than 1. The percentages of 
the at-risk population in the following specific demographic groups are 
higher than their respective nationwide percentages: ``White,'' ``Below 
the Poverty Level,'' and ``Over 25 and without a high school diploma.''
    The methodology and the results of the demographic analysis are 
presented in a technical report, Risk and Technology Review--Analysis 
of Demographic Factors for Populations Living Near Surface Coating of 
Miscellaneous Metal Parts and Products Source Category, May 2019 
(hereafter referred to as the Miscellaneous Metal Parts and Products 
Demographic Analysis Report), available in the MMPP Docket.
2. What are our proposed decisions regarding risk acceptability, ample 
margin of safety, and adverse environmental effects?
a. Risk Acceptability
    As noted in section III.A of this preamble, we weigh all health 
risk factors in our risk acceptability determination, including the 
cancer MIR, the number of persons in various cancer and noncancer risk 
ranges, cancer incidence, the maximum noncancer TOSHI, the maximum 
acute noncancer HQ, the extent of noncancer risks, the distribution of 
cancer and noncancer risks in the exposed population, and risk 
estimation uncertainties (54 FR 38044, September 14, 1989).
    For the MMPP source category, the risk analysis indicates that the 
cancer risks to the individual most exposed could be up to 20-in-1 
million due to actual emissions and up to 30-in-1 million due to 
allowable emissions. These risks are considerably less than 100-in-1 
million, which is the presumptive upper limit of acceptable risk. The 
risk analysis also shows very low cancer incidence (0.008 cases per 
year for actual emissions and 0.01 cases per year for allowable 
emissions), and we did not identify potential for adverse chronic 
noncancer health effects.
    The acute screening analysis results in a maximum acute noncancer 
HQ of 4 at one facility based on use of the acute REL for ethylene 
glycol monomethyl ether as a surrogate for unspeciated glycol ethers. 
Since there is not a specified acute dose-response value for 
unspeciated glycol ethers, we applied the most protective dose-response 
value from the other glycol ether compounds, the acute REL for ethylene 
glycol monomethyl ether, to estimate risk. Given that ethylene glycol 
monomethyl ether is more toxic than other glycol ethers, the use of 
this surrogate is a health-protective choice in the EPA's risk 
assessment.
    For acute screening analyses, to better characterize the potential 
health risks

[[Page 58968]]

associated with estimated worst-case acute exposures to HAP, we examine 
a wider range of available acute health metrics than we do for our 
chronic risk assessments. This is in acknowledgement that there are 
generally more data gaps and uncertainties in acute reference values 
than there are in chronic reference values. By definition, the acute 
REL represents a health-protective level of exposure, with effects not 
anticipated below those levels, even for repeated exposures; however, 
the level of exposure that would cause health effects is not 
specifically known. As the exposure concentration increases above the 
acute REL, the potential for effects increases. Therefore, when an REL 
is exceeded and an AEGL-1 or ERPG-1 level is available (i.e., levels at 
which mild, reversible effects are anticipated in the general 
population for a single exposure), we typically use them as an 
additional comparative measure, as they provide an upper bound for 
exposure levels above which exposed individuals could experience 
effects. However, for glycol ethers, there are no AEGL or ERPG values.
    Additional uncertainties in the acute exposure assessment that the 
EPA conducts as part of the risk review under section 112 of the CAA 
include several factors. The accuracy of an acute inhalation exposure 
assessment depends on the simultaneous occurrence of independent 
factors that may vary greatly, such as hourly emission rates, 
meteorology, and the presence of a person. In the acute screening 
assessment that we conduct under the RTR program, we include the 
conservative (health-protective) assumptions that peak emissions from 
each emission point in 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 exposure. 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. Thus, as discussed in the document titled Residual Risk 
Assessment for the Surface Coating of Miscellaneous Metal Parts and 
Products Source Category in Support of the Risk and Technology Review 
2019 Proposed Rule, in the docket for this action, by assuming the co-
occurrence of independent factors for the acute screening assessment, 
the results are intentionally biased high and are, thus, health-
protective. We conclude that adverse effects from acute exposure to 
emissions of glycol ethers from this source category are not 
anticipated.
    Considering all of the health risk information and factors 
discussed above, including the uncertainties discussed in section 
III.C.7 of this preamble, we propose that the risks from the MMPP 
source category are acceptable.
b. Ample Margin of Safety Analysis
    Although we are proposing that the risks from the MMPP source 
category are acceptable, risk estimates for approximately 18,000 
individuals in the exposed population are above 1-in-1 million at the 
actual emissions level and 24,000 individuals in the exposed population 
are above 1-in-1 million at the allowable emissions level. 
Consequently, we further considered whether the MACT standards for the 
MMPP source category provide an ample margin of safety to protect 
public health. In this ample margin of safety analysis, we investigated 
available emissions control options that might reduce the risk from the 
source category. We considered this information along with all of the 
health risks and other health information considered in our 
determination of risk acceptability.
    As described in section III.B of this preamble, our technology 
review focused on identifying developments in practices, processes, and 
control technologies for the MMPP source category, and we reviewed 
various information sources regarding emission sources that are 
currently regulated by the MMPP NESHAP.
    Based on our review (described in section IV.B.3 of this preamble), 
we identified and evaluated the use of add-on control technologies for 
the rubber-to-metal bonding and high- performance subcategories.
    For the rubber-to-metal bonding subcategory, we evaluated the 
option of lowering the existing source limit to an emission limit of 10 
lb HAP/gallon (gal) solids. Two facilities may need to install thermal 
oxidizers, if alternative low-HAP coatings or other compliance options 
are not available. The thermal oxidizers would require a total capital 
investment of $2 million (combined) for the two facilities, and total 
annual costs of $410,000 (combined). Estimated emission reductions from 
the two facilities would be 43 tpy of HAP, and the estimated cost 
effectiveness would $9,500 per ton of HAP reduced.
    For the high-performance subcategory, we evaluated lowering both 
the existing and new source limits to the general use subcategory 
existing source limit of 2.6 lb HAP/gal solids. One facility in the 
high-performance coating subcategory may need to install a thermal 
oxidizer if alternative low-HAP coatings or other compliance options 
are not available. The cost of installing a thermal oxidizer at this 
one facility would require a total capital investment of $2.3 million, 
and total annual costs of $620,000. The estimated emission reduction at 
this one facility would be 53 tpy of HAP, and the estimated cost 
effectiveness would be $11,700 per ton of HAP reduced.
    We have determined that the added costs and cost effectiveness for 
these two coating subcategories ($9,500 per ton of HAP reduced for the 
rubber-to-metal coating subcategory and $11,700 per ton for the high 
performance subcategory) are not justified. We think these costs are 
unreasonable particularly because the risks are already low, and the 
risks would not be reduced in a meaningful manner by the control of 
these subcategories. We are proposing that additional emissions 
controls for this source category are not necessary to provide an ample 
margin of safety.
c. Environmental Effects
    The emissions data for the MMPP source category indicate that four 
environmental HAP are emitted by sources within this source category: 
Arsenic, cadmium, lead, and HCl. In the Tier 1 screening analysis for 
PB-HAP (other than lead which was evaluated differently), arsenic and 
cadmium had no exceedances of any of the ecological benchmarks 
evaluated. For lead, we did not estimate any exceedances of the 
secondary lead NAAQS. The screening-level evaluation of the potential 
for adverse environmental effects associated with emissions of HCl from 
the MMPP source category indicated that each individual concentration 
(i.e., each off-site data point in the modeling domain) was below the 
ecological benchmarks for all facilities. In addition, we are unaware 
of any adverse environmental effects caused by HAP emitted by this 
source category.
    Therefore, we do not expect there to be an adverse environmental 
effect as a result of HAP emissions from this source category and we 
are proposing that it is not necessary to set a more stringent standard 
to prevent, taking into consideration costs, energy, safety, and other 
relevant factors, an adverse environmental effect.

[[Page 58969]]

3. What are the results and proposed decisions based on our technology 
review?
    As described in section III.B of this preamble, our technology 
review focused on identifying developments in practices, processes, and 
control technologies for the MMPP source category. The EPA reviewed 
various information sources regarding emission sources that are 
currently regulated by the MMPP NESHAP to support the technology 
review. The information sources include the following: The RBLC; 
publicly available state air permit databases and facility operating 
permits compliance reports; regulatory actions, including technology 
reviews promulgated for other surface coating NESHAP subsequent to the 
promulgation of the MMPP NESHAP; state regulations; site visits; and 
industry information.
    Based on our review, we identified and evaluated the use of add-on 
control technologies for two coating subcategories that had not been 
previously considered during development of the MMPP NESHAP. This 
analysis is described in detail in the following paragraphs. Aside from 
this, we did not identify any new or improved process equipment, work 
practices, or procedures that would further reduce emissions. For a 
detailed discussion of the EPA's findings, refer to the Miscellaneous 
Metal Parts and Products Technology Review Memo, in the MMPP Docket.
    During the development of the 2004 MMPP NESHAP, numerical emission 
limits were determined for new and existing major sources within five 
coating subcategories for a total of 10 HAP emissions limits. The MACT 
emission limits were based on different data sources, depending on the 
coating subcategory. In the general use coating subcategory and the 
high- performance coating subcategory, the MACT emission limits were 
based on the most stringent state VOC limits and HAP-to-VOC ratios to 
convert the VOC limits to HAP limits. For the general use coating 
subcategory, the HAP-to-VOC ratio was developed from industry survey 
data. For the high-performance coating subcategory, the HAP-to-VOC 
ratio was developed from industry information. For rubber-to-metal 
coating, the MACT emission limits were based on survey data on the HAP 
content of the coatings. For magnet wire coating, the MACT emission 
limits were based on survey data and also accounted for the fact that 
magnet wire coating uses an oven to cure the coatings that is fueled by 
coating solvent vapors, reducing overall emissions. For the EPFP 
coating subcategory, the MACT emission limits were based on data 
received in public comments on the proposed NESHAP.
    With the exception of the emission limits for the magnet wire 
coating subcategory, none of the emission limits for new or existing 
sources in the other subcategories accounted for the use of add-on 
controls, and the documentation of the MACT analysis did not identify 
facilities that were using add-on controls.
    The EPA investigated the use of emissions capture systems and add-
on controls but found that the costs would be prohibitive for the 
incremental emissions reductions achieved. The EPA estimated that it 
would be technically feasible for capture systems and add-on controls 
could reduce emissions by at least 95 percent, but the cost for 
facilities in this source category could be as much as $1 million. The 
EPA concluded that without information on the benefits that would be 
achieved by further reducing emissions beyond the floor, the additional 
emissions reductions did not warrant the cost of add-on controls.\33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ 67 FR 52792-52793, August 13, 2002.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A search of the RBLC database for the MMPP surface coating category 
provided 42 entries representing 23 facilities with permit dates of 
2000 or later. Entries in the RBLC documented facilities subject to VOC 
content and HAP content limits. Emission control strategies identified 
in the RBLC included using electrodeposition coatings, using high 
efficiency and robotic spray guns, and using add-on controls, including 
catalytic oxidizers, RTOs, and adsorbers. The RBLC review did not 
identify any facilities subject to HAP limits more stringent than those 
in 40 CFR part 63, subpart MMMM.
    We reviewed other surface coating NESHAP promulgated subsequent to 
the MMPP NESHAP to determine whether any requirements exceed the MMPP 
MACT level of control or include technologies that were not considered 
during the development of the original MMPP NESHAP. These NESHAP 
include Paint Stripping and Miscellaneous Surface Coating Operations at 
Area Sources (40 CFR part 63, subpart HHHHHH), and Nine Metal 
Fabrication and Finishing Area Source Categories (40 CFR part 63, 
subpart XXXXXX). We also reviewed the results of the technology reviews 
for other surface coating NESHAP promulgated after the MMPP NESHAP. 
These technology reviews include the NESHAP for Printing and Publishing 
(40 CFR part 63, subpart KK), Shipbuilding and Ship Repair (40 CFR part 
63, subpart II), Wood Furniture Manufacturing (40 CFR part 63, subpart 
JJ), and Aerospace Manufacturing and Rework Facilities (40 CFR part 63, 
subpart GG). The review of these more recently promulgated NESHAP and 
the technology reviews of other NESHAP did not identify any control 
technologies that were not already considered during the development of 
40 CFR part 63, subpart MMMM, with the exception of some applications 
of add-on controls, which are discussed in more detail below in this 
section.
    Using the EPA's NEI and the ECHO databases, we identified 368 major 
source facilities that are currently subject to the MMPP NESHAP. The 
EPA also collected operating permits for over 100 of these facilities. 
Based on these permits, we identified a number of facilities that were 
in the rubber-to-metal coating and high-performance coating 
subcategories that were using add-on controls to reduce air emissions. 
We identified six facilities in the high-performance coating 
subcategory and four of these facilities use a thermal oxidizer to 
reduce emissions. We identified 15 facilities in the rubber to metal 
coating subcategory and nine of these use a thermal oxidizer to reduce 
emissions. Based on these findings, we identified the use of a thermal 
oxidizer as a potential development for these two subcategories because 
the MACT emission limits were based on only the HAP content of the 
coatings and not on the use of an add-on control, such as a thermal 
oxidizer.
    We further evaluated the add-on controls as a technology 
development by collecting semi-annual compliance reports or inspection 
reports for all six facilities in the high-performance subcategory and 
the 15 facilities in the rubber to metal coating subcategory to confirm 
that the facilities were subject to these subcategory emission limits 
and to determine the actual emission rate these facilities were 
achieving. For several facilities, we determined that the facilities 
were using the add-on controls for complying with limits on VOC 
emissions, but were not accounting for the add-on controls in 
demonstrating compliance with the HAP limits in 40 CFR part 63, subpart 
MMMM.
    The current existing source emission limit for the rubber-to-metal 
subcategory is 37.7 lb HAP/gal solids, and the new source limit is 6.8 
lb HAP/gal solids. The EPA evaluated the option of lowering the 
existing source limit to an emission limit of 10 lb HAP/gal solids. We 
chose this level because several smaller facilities could meet this 
limit without having to install controls, based

[[Page 58970]]

on their semi-annual compliance reports.
    Eight of the 15 facilities in the rubber-to-metal subcategory have 
emission rates below 10 lb HAP/gal solids through use of a thermal 
oxidizer. One facility does not have a thermal oxidizer but can meet 
the 10 lb HAP/gal solids limit through the emissions averaging between 
the general use and rubber-to-metal subcategories allowed in 40 CFR 
63.3890(c)(2) of the current NESHAP. Four rubber-to-metal facilities do 
not have a thermal oxidizer but their current emission rate is less 
than 10 lb/gal solids.
    For the remaining two facilities, installing thermal oxidizers, if 
alternative low-HAP coatings or other compliance options are not 
available, would require a total capital investment of $2 million 
(combined) for the two facilities, and total annual costs of $410,000 
(combined). Estimated emission reductions from the two facilities would 
be 43 tpy of HAP, and the estimated cost effectiveness would be $9,500 
per ton of HAP reduced. The estimated emission reductions are based on 
the reported HAP emissions for these two facilities in the NEI and 
their semi-annual compliance reports and assumes a 95-percent emission 
reduction from thermal oxidation. These costs and emission reductions 
for the rubber-to-metal subcategory are documented in detail in the 
Miscellaneous Metal Parts and Products Technology Review Memo, in the 
MMPP Docket.
    The current existing and new source emission limits for the high-
performance subcategory are both 27.5 lb HAP/gal solids. The EPA 
evaluated the option of lowering both the existing and new source 
limits to the general use subcategory existing source limit of 2.6 lb 
HAP/gal solids. Five of the six facilities in the high-performance 
subcategory could comply with the general use subcategory limit of 2.6 
lb HAP/gal solids for their high-performance coatings operations.
    One facility in the high-performance coating subcategory may need 
to install a thermal oxidizer if alternative low-HAP coatings or other 
compliance options are not available. The cost of installing a thermal 
oxidizer at this one facility would require a total capital investment 
of $2.3 million, and total annual costs of $620,000. The estimated 
emission reduction this one facility would be 53 tpy of HAP, and the 
estimated cost effectiveness would be $11,700 per ton of HAP reduced. 
The estimated emission reduction is based on the reported HAP emissions 
for this facility's semi-annual compliance report and assumes a 95-
percent emission reduction from thermal oxidation. These costs and 
emission reductions for the high performance subcategory are documented 
in detail in the Miscellaneous Metal Parts and Products Technology 
Review Memo, in the MMPP Docket.
    However, the EPA has determined that the added costs and cost 
effectiveness for these two coating subcategories ($9,500 per ton of 
HAP reduced for the rubber-to-metal coating subcategory and $11,700 per 
ton for the high-performance subcategory) are not justified. Therefore, 
we are proposing no revisions to the MMPP NESHAP pursuant to CAA 
section 112(d)(6). For further discussion of the technology review 
results, refer to the Miscellaneous Metal Parts and Products Technology 
Review Memo, in the MMPP Docket.
4. What other actions are we proposing for the Surface Coating of MMPP 
source category?
    We are proposing to require electronic submittal of notifications 
(initial and compliance status), semiannual reports, and performance 
test reports for MMPP surface coating facilities. In addition, we are 
proposing revisions to the SSM provisions of the MACT rule in order to 
ensure that they are consistent with the Court decision in Sierra Club 
v. EPA, 551 F. 3d 1019 (D.C. Cir. 2008), which vacated two provisions 
that exempted sources from the requirement to comply with otherwise 
applicable CAA section 112(d) emission standards during periods of SSM. 
We are proposing to require periodic emissions testing of add-on 
control devices. We also are proposing to add optional EPA Method 18, 
to IBR an alternative test method, and to make various technical and 
editorial changes. Our analyses and proposed changes related to these 
issues are discussed in the sections below.
a. Electronic Reporting Requirements
    The EPA is proposing that owners and operators of MMPP surface 
coating facilities submit electronic copies of initial notifications 
required in 40 CFR 63.9(b) and 63.3910(b), notifications of compliance 
status required in 40 CFR 63.9(h) and 63.3910(c), performance test 
reports required in 40 CFR 63.3920(b), and semiannual reports required 
in 40 CFR 63.3920(a) through the EPA's CDX, using the CEDRI. A 
description of the EPA's CDX and the EPA's proposed rationale and 
details on the addition of these electronic reporting requirements for 
the MMPP source category is the same as for the ALDT source category, 
as discussed in section IV.A.4.a of this preamble. No specific form is 
proposed at this time for the initial notifications required in 40 CFR 
63.9(b) and notification of compliance status in 40 CFR 63.9(h). Until 
the EPA has completed electronic forms for these notifications, the 
notifications will be required to be submitted via CEDRI in PDF. After 
development of the final forms, we will notify sources about their 
availability via the CEDRI website and the CHIEF Listserv. For 
semiannual reports required in 40 CFR 63.3920(a), the proposed rule 
requires that owners or operators use the appropriate spreadsheet 
template to submit information to CEDRI. A draft version of the 
proposed template for this report is included in the docket for this 
rulemaking.\34\ The EPA specifically requests comment on the content, 
layout, and overall design of the template.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ See Electronic Reporting Template for Surface Coating of 
Miscellaneous Metal Parts and Products Subpart MMMM Semiannual 
Reports, in docket ID NO. EPA-HQ-OAR-0312.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regarding submittal of performance test reports via the EPA's ERT, 
as discussed in section IV.A.4.a of this preamble for the ALDT NESHAP, 
the proposal to submit performance test data electronically to the EPA 
applies only if the EPA has developed an electronic reporting form for 
the test method as listed on the EPA's ERT website. For the MMPP 
NESHAP, all of the EPA test methods listed under 40 CFR part 63, 
subpart MMMM, are currently supported by the ERT, except for EPA Method 
18 (an optional test method proposed in this action), which appears in 
the proposed text for 40 CFR 63.3966. As mentioned above in section 
IV.A.4.a of this preamble, the rule proposes that should an owner or 
operator choose to use EPA Method 18, then its results would be 
submitted in PDF using the attachment module of the ERT.
    Also, as discussed in section IV.A.4.a of this preamble for the 
ALDT NESHAP, we are proposing to provide facilities with the ability to 
seek extensions for submitting electronic reports for circumstances 
beyond the control of the facility. In proposed 40 CFR 63.3920(g), we 
address the situation for facilities subject to the MMPP NESHAP where 
an extension may be warranted due to outages of the EPA's CDX or CEDRI, 
which may prevent access to the system and submittal of the required 
reports. In proposed 40 CFR 63.3920(h), we address the situation for 
facilities subject to the MMPP NESHAP where an extension may be 
warranted due to a force majeure event, which is defined as an event 
that will be or has been caused

[[Page 58971]]

by circumstances beyond the control of the affected facility, its 
contractors, or any entity controlled by the affected facility that 
prevents compliance with the requirement to submit a report 
electronically as required by this rule. 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 to implement 
Executive Order 13563 and is in keeping with the EPA's Agency-wide 
policy developed in response to the White House's Digital Government 
Strategy. For more information on the benefits of electronic reporting, 
see the memorandum titled 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-2019-0312.
b. SSM Requirements
(1.) Proposed Elimination of the SSM Exemption
    The EPA is proposing to eliminate the SSM exemption in the MMPP 
NESHAP. The EPA's proposed rationale for the elimination of the SSM 
exemption for the MMPP source category is the same as for the ALDT 
source category, which is discussed in section IV.A.4.b.1 of this 
preamble. We are also proposing several revisions to Table 2 to Subpart 
MMMM of 40 CFR part 63 (Applicability of General Provisions to Subpart 
MMMM of Part 63, hereafter referred to as the ``General Provisions 
table to subpart MMMM'') as is explained in more detail below in 
section IV.B.4.b.2 of this preamble. For example, we are proposing to 
eliminate the incorporation of the General Provisions' requirement that 
the source develop an SSM plan. We are also proposing to eliminate and 
revise certain recordkeeping and reporting requirements related to the 
SSM exemption as further described below. The EPA has attempted to 
ensure that the provisions we are proposing to eliminate are 
inappropriate, unnecessary, or redundant in the absence of the SSM 
exemption. We are specifically seeking comment on the specific proposed 
deletions and revisions and also whether additional provisions should 
be revised to achieve the stated goal.
    In proposing these rule amendments, the EPA has taken into account 
startup and shutdown periods and, for the same reasons explained in 
section IV.A.4.b.1 of this preamble for the ALDT source category, has 
not proposed alternate standards for those periods in the MMPP NESHAP. 
Startups and shutdowns are part of normal operations for the MMPP 
source category. As currently specified in 40 CFR 63.3892(b), any 
coating operation(s) for which you use the emission rate with add-on 
controls option must meet the applicable operating limits in Table 1 to 
40 CFR part 63, subpart MMMM ``at all times,'' except for solvent 
recovery systems for which you conduct liquid-liquid material balances 
according to 40 CFR 63.3961(j). (Solvent recovery systems for which you 
conduct a liquid-liquid material balance require a monthly calculation 
of the solvent recovery device's collection and recovery efficiency for 
volatile organic matter.)
    Also, as currently specified in 40 CFR 63.3900(a)(2), any coating 
operation(s) for which you use the emission rate with add-on controls 
option must be in compliance ``at all times'' with the applicable 
emission limit in 40 CFR 63.3890. During startup and shutdown periods, 
in order for a facility (using add-on controls to meet the standards) 
to meet the emission and operating standards, the control device for a 
coating operation needs to be turned on and operating at specified 
levels before the facility begins coating operations, and the control 
equipment needs to continue to be operated until after the facility 
ceases coating operations. In some cases, the facility needs to run 
thermal oxidizers on supplemental fuel before VOC levels are sufficient 
for the combustion to be (nearly) self-sustaining. Note that we are 
also proposing new related language in 40 CFR 63.3900(b) to require 
that the owner or operator operate and maintain the coating operation, 
including pollution control equipment, at all times to minimize 
emissions. See section IV.A.4.b.2 of this preamble for further 
discussion of this proposed revision.
    Although no statutory language compels the EPA to set standards for 
malfunctions, the EPA has the discretion to do so where feasible, as 
discussed previously in section IV.A.4.b.1 of this preamble for the 
ALDT source category.
    It is unlikely that a malfunction would result in a violation of 
the standards during MMPP surface coatings operations for facilities 
using the compliant material option or the emission rate without add-on 
controls option. Facilities using these options have demonstrated that 
the organic HAP contents of the coating materials do not exceed the 
emission limits in 40 CFR 63.3890(a) or (b), either on a coating-by-
coating basis or by using averaging among coatings.
    A malfunction event is more likely for MMPP coating facilities that 
use the emission rate with add-on controls option. For this option, 
facilities must demonstrate that the average emission rate does not 
exceed the emission limits in 40 CFR 63.3890(a) or (b), and the 
facility is complying with the control device operating limits listed 
in Table 1 to 40 CFR part 63, subpart MMMM of the MMPP NESHAP. The 
operating limits are specific to the type of control device and 
established by the facility during its initial performance test.
    In the unlikely event that a source fails to comply with the 
applicable CAA section 112(d) standards as a result of a malfunction 
event, the EPA would determine an appropriate response based on, among 
other things, the good faith efforts of the source to minimize 
emissions during malfunction periods, including preventative and 
corrective actions, as well as root cause analyses to ascertain and 
rectify excess emissions. Refer to section IV.A.4.b.1 of this preamble 
for further discussion of the EPA's actions in response to a source 
failing to comply with the applicable CAA section 112(d) standards as a 
result of a malfunction event for the ALDT source category, which 
applies to this source category.
(2.) Proposed Revisions to the General Provisions Applicability Table
    40 CFR 63.3900(b) General duty. We are proposing to revise the 
General Provisions table to subpart MMMM (Table 2) entry for 40 CFR 
63.6(e)(1)(i) by changing the ``yes'' in column 3 to a ``no.'' Section 
63.6(e)(1)(i) describes the general duty to minimize emissions. Some of 
the language in that section is

[[Page 58972]]

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 63.3900(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 63.3900(b) does not include that language from 40 
CFR 63.6(e)(1).
    We are also proposing to revise the General Provisions table to 
subpart MMMM (Table 2) entry for 40 CFR 63.6(e)(1)(ii) by changing the 
``yes'' in column 3 to a ``no.'' Section 63.6(e)(1)(ii) imposes 
requirements that are not necessary with the elimination of the SSM 
exemption or are redundant with the general duty requirement being 
added at 40 CFR 63.3900(b).
    SSM plan. We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table 
to subpart MMMM (Table 2) entry for 40 CFR 63.6(e)(3) by changing the 
``yes'' in column 3 to a ``no.'' Generally, these paragraphs require 
development of an SSM plan and specify SSM recordkeeping and reporting 
requirements related to the SSM plan. We are also proposing to remove 
from 40 CFR part 63, subpart SSSS, the current provisions requiring the 
SSM plan in 40 CFR 63.5180(f) and requiring reporting related to the 
SSM plan in 40 CFR 63.5180(f)(1). As noted, the EPA is proposing to 
remove the SSM exemptions. Therefore, affected units will be subject to 
an emission standard during such events. The applicability of a 
standard during such events will ensure that sources have ample 
incentive to plan for and achieve compliance, and, thus, the SSM plan 
requirements are no longer necessary.
    Compliance with standards. We are proposing to revise the General 
Provisions table to subpart MMMM (Table 2) entry for 40 CFR 63.6(f)(1) 
by changing the ``yes'' in column 3 to a ``no.'' The current language 
of 40 CFR 63.6(f)(1) exempts sources from non-opacity standards during 
periods of SSM. As discussed above, the Court in Sierra Club vacated 
the exemptions contained in this provision and held that the CAA 
requires that some CAA section 112 standards apply continuously. 
Consistent with Sierra Club, the EPA is proposing to revise standards 
in this rule to apply at all times.
    40 CFR 63.3964 Performance testing. We are proposing to revise the 
General Provisions table to subpart MMMM (Table 2) entry for 40 CFR 
63.7(e)(1) by changing the ``yes'' in column 3 to a ``no.'' Section 
63.7(e)(1) describes performance testing requirements. The EPA is 
instead proposing to add a performance testing requirement at 40 CFR 
63.3964(a)(1). The performance testing requirements we are proposing to 
add differ from the General Provisions performance testing provisions 
in several respects. The regulatory text does not include the language 
in 40 CFR 63.7(e)(1) that restated the SSM exemption and language that 
precluded startup and shutdown periods from being considered 
``representative'' for purposes of performance testing. Also, the 
proposed performance testing provisions will not allow performance 
testing during startup or shutdown. As in 40 CFR 63.7(e)(1), 
performance tests conducted under this subpart should not be conducted 
during malfunctions because conditions during malfunctions are often 
not representative of normal operating conditions. Section 63.7(e) 
requires that the owner or operator maintain records of the process 
information necessary to document operating conditions during the test 
and include in such records an explanation to support that such 
conditions represent normal operation. The EPA is proposing to add 
language to 40 CFR 63.3964(a)(1) clarifying that the owner or operator 
must make such records available to the Administrator upon request.
    Monitoring. We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table 
to subpart MMMM (Table 2) entry for 40 CFR 63.8(c)(1) by changing the 
``yes'' in column 3 to a ``no.'' The cross-references to the general 
duty and SSM plan requirements in those subparagraphs are not necessary 
in light of other requirements of 40 CFR 63.8 that require good air 
pollution control practices (40 CFR 63.8(c)(1)) and that set out the 
requirements of a quality control program for monitoring equipment (40 
CFR 63.8(d)). Further, we are proposing to revise 40 CFR 63.3968(a) to 
add a requirement to maintain the monitoring equipment at all times in 
accordance with 40 CFR 63.3900(b) and keep the necessary parts readily 
available for routine repairs of the monitoring equipment, consistent 
with the requirements in 40 CFR 63.8(c)(1)(ii). The reference to 40 CFR 
63.8(c)(1)(ii) is no longer needed since it is redundant to the 
requirement in 40 CFR 63.3968(a).
    We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table to subpart 
MMMM (Table 2) entry for 40 CFR 63.8(c)(6) by changing the ``yes'' in 
column 3 to a ``no.'' The reference to 40 CFR 63.8(c)(6) is no longer 
needed since it is redundant to the requirement in 40 CFR 63.5170 that 
specifies the requirements for monitoring systems for capture systems 
and add-on control devices at sources using these to comply.
    We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table to subpart 
MMMM (Table 2) entry for 40 CFR 63.8(c)(8) by changing the ``yes'' in 
column 3 to a ``no.'' The reference to 40 CFR 63.8(c)(8) is no longer 
needed since it is redundant to the requirements in 40 CFR 63.3920(a) 
that requires reporting of CPMS out-of-control periods.
    We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table to subpart 
MMMM (Table 2) entry for 40 CFR 63.8(d)-(e) by changing the ``yes'' in 
column 3 to a ``no.'' The requirements for quality control program and 
performance evaluation of CMS are not required under 40 CFR part 63, 
subpart MMMM.
    We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table to subpart 
MMMM (Table 2) entry for 40 CFR 63.8(g) by changing the ``yes'' in 
column 3 to a ``no.'' The reference to 40 CFR 63.8(g) is no longer 
needed since it is redundant to the requirement in 40 CFR 63.3967 and 
63.3968 that specify monitoring data reduction.
    40 CFR 63.5190 Recordkeeping. We are proposing to revise the 
General Provisions table to subpart MMMM (Table 2) entry for 40 CFR 
63.10(b)(2)(i) by changing the ``yes'' in column 3 to a ``no.'' Section 
63.10(b)(2)(i) describes the recordkeeping requirements during startup 
and shutdown. These recording provisions are no longer necessary 
because the EPA is proposing that recordkeeping and reporting 
applicable to normal operations will apply to startup and shutdown. In 
the absence of special provisions applicable to startup and shutdown, 
such as a startup and shutdown plan, there is no reason to retain 
additional recordkeeping for startup and shutdown periods.
    We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table to subpart 
MMMM (Table 2) entry for 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(ii) by changing the ``yes'' 
in column 3 to a ``no.'' Section 63.10(b)(2)(ii) describes the 
recordkeeping requirements during a malfunction, requiring a record of 
``the occurrence and duration of each malfunction.'' A similar record 
is already required in 40 CFR 63.3930(j), which requires a record of 
``the date,

[[Page 58973]]

time, and duration of each deviation,'' which the EPA is retaining. The 
regulatory text in 40 CFR 63.3930(j) differs from the General 
Provisions in that the General Provisions requires the creation and 
retention of a record of the occurrence and duration of each 
malfunction of process, air pollution control, and monitoring 
equipment; whereas 40 CFR 63.3930(j) applies to any failure to meet an 
applicable standard and is requiring that the source record the date, 
time, and duration of the failure rather than the ``occurrence.'' The 
EPA is also proposing to add to 40 CFR 63.3930(j) a requirement that 
sources also keep records that include a list of the affected source or 
equipment and actions taken to minimize emissions, an estimate of the 
quantity of each regulated pollutant emitted over the emission limit 
for which the source failed to meet the standard, and a description of 
the method used to estimate the emissions. Examples of such methods 
would include product-loss calculations, mass balance calculations, 
measurements when available, or engineering judgment based on known 
process parameters (e.g., coating HAP content and application rates and 
control device efficiencies). The EPA proposes to require that sources 
keep records of this information to ensure that there is adequate 
information to allow the EPA to determine the severity of any failure 
to meet a standard, and to provide data that may document how the 
source met the general duty to minimize emissions when the source has 
failed to meet an applicable standard.
    We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table to subpart 
MMMM (Table 2) entry for 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(iv) by changing the ``yes'' 
in column 3 to a ``no.'' When applicable, the provision requires 
sources to record actions taken during SSM events when actions were 
inconsistent with their SSM plan. The requirement is no longer 
appropriate because SSM plans will no longer be required. The 
requirement previously applicable under 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(iv)(B) to 
record actions to minimize emissions and record corrective actions is 
now applicable by reference to 40 CFR 63.3930(j)(4).
    We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table to subpart 
MMMM (Table 2) entry for 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(v) by changing the ``yes'' 
in column 3 to a ``no.'' When applicable, the provision requires 
sources to record actions taken during SSM events to show that actions 
taken were consistent with their SSM plan. The requirement is no longer 
appropriate because SSM plans will no longer be required.
    We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table to subpart 
MMMM (Table 2) entry for 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(x)-(xiii) by changing the 
``yes'' in column 3 to a ``no.'' When applicable, the provision 
requires sources to record actions taken during SSM events to show that 
actions taken were consistent with their SSM plan. The requirement is 
no longer appropriate because SSM plans will no longer be required.
    40 CFR 63.3920 Reporting. We are proposing to revise the General 
Provisions table to subpart MMMM (Table 2) entry for 40 CFR 63.10(d)(5) 
by changing the ``yes'' in column 3 to a ``no.'' Section 63.10(d)(5) 
describes the reporting requirements for startups, shutdowns, and 
malfunctions. To replace the General Provisions reporting requirement, 
the EPA is proposing to add reporting requirements to 40 CFR 
63.3920(a). The replacement language differs from the General 
Provisions requirement in that it eliminates periodic SSM reports as a 
stand-alone report. We are proposing language that requires sources 
that fail to meet an applicable standard at any time to report the 
information concerning such events in the semi-annual compliance report 
already required under this rule. Subpart MMMM of 40 CFR part 63 
currently requires reporting of the date, time period, and cause of 
each deviation. We are clarifying in the rule that, if the cause of a 
deviation from a standard is unknown, this should be specified in the 
report. We are also proposing to change ``date and time period'' or 
``date and time'' to ``date, time, and duration'' (see proposed 
revisions to 40 CFR 63.3920(a)(7)). Further, we are proposing that the 
report must also contain the number of deviations from the standard and 
a list of the affected sources or equipment. For deviation reports 
addressing deviations from an applicable emission limit in 40 CFR 
63.3890 or operating limit in Table 1 to 40 CFR part 63, subpart MMMM, 
we are proposing that the report also include an estimate of the 
quantity of each regulated pollutant emitted over any emission limit 
for which the source failed to meet the standard, and a description of 
the method used to estimate the emissions.
(3.) Other SSM Changes
    Regarding the proposed new requirement discussed above to estimate 
the quantity of each regulated pollutant emitted over any emission 
limit for which the source failed to meet the standard, and a 
description of the method used to estimate the emissions, examples of 
such methods would include product-loss calculations, mass balance 
calculations, measurements when available, or engineering judgment 
based on known process parameters (e.g., coating HAP content and 
application rates and control device efficiencies). The EPA is 
proposing this requirement to ensure that there is adequate information 
to determine compliance, to allow the EPA to determine the severity of 
the failure to meet an applicable standard, and to provide data that 
may document how the source met the general duty to minimize emissions 
during a failure to meet an applicable standard.
    We will no longer require owners or operators to determine whether 
actions taken to correct a malfunction are consistent with an SSM plan, 
because plans would no longer be required. The proposed amendments, 
therefore, eliminate 40 CFR 63.3920(c) that requires reporting of 
whether the source deviated from its SSM plan, including required 
actions to communicate with the Administrator, and the cross-reference 
to 40 CFR 63.10(d)(5) that contains the description of the previously 
required SSM report format and submittal schedule from this section. 
These specifications are no longer necessary because the events will be 
reported in otherwise required reports with similar format and 
submittal requirements.
    We are proposing to remove the requirements in 40 CFR 63.3920(a)(7) 
that deviation reports must specify whether a deviation from an 
operating limit occurred during a period of SSM. We are also proposing 
to remove the requirements in 40 CFR 63. 3920(a)(7) to break down the 
total duration of deviations into the startup and shutdown categories. 
As discussed above in this section, we are proposing to require 
reporting of the cause of each deviation. Further, the startup and 
shutdown categories no longer apply because these periods are proposed 
to be considered normal operation, as discussed in section IV.A.4.b.1 
of this preamble for the ALDT source category, which also applies to 
this source category.
c. Technical Amendments to the MMPP NESHAP
    We propose to amend 40 CFR 63.3966(b) to add the option of 
conducting EPA Method 18 of appendix A to 40 CFR part 60, ``Measurement 
of Gaseous Organic Compound Emissions by Gas Chromatography,'' to 
measure and then subtract methane emissions from measured total gaseous 
organic mass emissions as carbon. Facilities using the emission rate 
with add-on

[[Page 58974]]

control compliance option can use either EPA Method 25 or EPA Method 
25A to measure control device destruction efficiency. Unlike EPA Method 
25, Method 25A does not exclude methane from the measurement of organic 
emissions. Because exhaust streams from coating operations may contain 
methane from natural gas combustion, we are proposing to allow 
facilities the option to measure methane using EPA Method 18 and to 
subtract the methane from the emissions as part of their compliance 
calculations. We also propose to revise the format of references to 
test methods in 40 CFR part 60. The current references in 40 CFR 
63.5160(d)(1) to EPA Methods 1, 1A, 2, 2A, 2C, 2D, 2F, 2G, 3, 3A, 3B, 
4, 25, and 25A specify that each method is in ``appendix A'' of 40 CFR 
part 60. Appendix A of 40 CFR part 60 has been divided into appendices 
A-1 through A-8. We propose to revise each reference to appendix A to 
indicate which of the eight sections of appendix A applies to the 
method.
    We propose to amend 40 CFR 63.3941(a)(1)(i) and (a)(4), which 
describe how to demonstrate compliance with the emission limitations 
using the compliant material option, and the definition of ``non-HAP 
coating'' in 40 CFR 63.3981 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 
0.1percent or greater by mass. We propose to remove this reference 
because 29 CFR 1910.1200(d)(4) has been amended and no longer readily 
defines which compounds are carcinogens. We propose to replace these 
references to OSHA-defined carcinogens at 29 CFR 1910.1200(d)(4) with a 
list (in proposed new Table 5 to 40 CFR part 63, subpart MMMM) 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 5 to 40 CFR 
part 63, subpart MMMM 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),\35\ 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ See https://www.epa.gov/fera/dose-response-assessment-assessing-health-risks-associated-exposure-hazardous-air-pollutants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Current 40 CFR 63.3931 specifies how records must be maintained. We 
propose to add clarification to this provision at 40 CFR 63.3931(a) 
that specifies the allowance to retain electronic records applies to 
all records that were submitted as reports electronically via the EPA's 
CEDRI. We also propose to add text to the same provision clarifying 
that this ability to maintain electronic copies does not affect the 
requirement for facilities to make records, data, and reports available 
upon request to a delegated air agency or the EPA as part of an on-site 
compliance evaluation.
d. Ongoing Emissions Compliance Demonstrations
    As part of an ongoing effort to improve compliance with various 
federal air emission regulations, the EPA reviewed the compliance 
demonstration requirements in the MMPP NESHAP. Currently, if a source 
owner or operator chooses to comply with the standards using add-on 
controls, the results of an initial performance test are used to 
determine compliance; however, the rule does not require on-going 
periodic performance testing for these emission capture systems and 
add-on controls. In this action, we are proposing to require periodic 
testing of add-on control devices, in addition to the one-time initial 
emissions and capture efficiency testing, and ongoing temperature 
measurement, to ensure ongoing compliance with the standards.
    As described more fully in section IV.A.4.d of this preamble for 
the ALDT source category, the EPA documented potential operational 
problems associated with control devices in several publications; \36\ 
the ICAC, in their comments on a separate rulemaking on the proposed 
revisions related to the NESHAP General Provisions (72 FR 69, January 
3, 2007), commented that ongoing maintenance and checks of control 
devices are necessary in order to ensure emissions control technology, 
including both thermal and catalytic oxidizers, remains effective; \37\ 
and state websites list CAA enforcement information that further 
corroborates the potential problems identified by the EPA and ICAC 
comments and conclusions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ See Control Techniques for Volatile Organic Compound 
Emissions from Stationary Sources, EPA/453/R-92-018, December 1992, 
Control Technologies for Emissions from Stationary Sources, EPA/625/
6-91/014, June 1991, and Survey of Control for Low Concentration 
Organic Vapor Gas Streams, EPA-456/R-95-003, May 1995. These 
documents can be found in the ALDT, MMPP, and PPP Dockets for this 
action.
    \37\ See Docket Item No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2004-0094-0173, available at 
https://www.regulations.gov/. A copy of the ICAC's comments on the 
proposed revisions to the General Provisions is also included in the 
ALDT, MMPP, and PPP Dockets for this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Given the need for vigilance in maintaining equipment to stem 
degradation, the EPA is proposing to require periodic testing of add-on 
control devices, in addition to the one-time initial emissions and 
capture efficiency testing and ongoing temperature measurement, to 
ensure ongoing compliance with the MMPP NESHAP.
    In this action, the EPA is proposing to require periodic 
performance testing of add-on control devices on a regular frequency 
(e.g., every 5 years) to ensure the equipment continues to operate 
properly for facilities using the emission rate with add-on controls 
compliance option. We note that the majority of state operating permits 
for existing MMPP surface coating sources already require such testing 
every 5 years synchronized with 40 CFR part 70 air operating permit 
renewals. This proposed periodic testing requirement includes an 
exception to the general requirement for periodic testing for 
facilities using the catalytic oxidizer control option at 40 CFR 
63.3967(b) and following the catalyst maintenance procedures in 40 CFR 
63.3967(b)(4). This exception is due to the catalyst maintenance 
procedures that already require annual testing of the catalyst and 
other maintenance procedures that provide ongoing demonstrations that 
the control system is operating properly and may, thus, be considered 
comparable to conducting a performance test.
    The proposed periodic performance testing requirement allows an 
exception from periodic testing for facilities using instruments to 
continuously measure emissions. Such CEMS would show actual emissions. 
The use of CEMS to demonstrate compliance would obviate the need for 
periodic oxidizer testing. Moreover, installation and operation of a 
CEMS with a timesharing component, such that values from more than one 
oxidizer exhaust could be tabulated in a recurring frequency, could 
prove less expensive (estimated to have an annual cost below $15,000) 
than ongoing oxidizer testing.

[[Page 58975]]

    This proposed requirement would not require periodic testing or 
CEMS monitoring of facilities using the ``as purchased'' or ``as 
applied'' compliant coatings options because these compliance options 
do not use any add-on controls or control efficiency measurements in 
the compliance calculations.
    The proposed periodic performance testing requirement would require 
that facilities complying with the standards using emission capture 
systems and add-on controls and which are not already on a 5-year 
testing schedule to conduct the first of the periodic performance tests 
within 3 years of the effective date of the revised standards. 
Afterward, they would conduct the periodic testing before they renew 
their operating permits, but no longer than 5 years following the 
previous performance test. Additionally, facilities that have already 
tested as a condition of their permit within the last 2 years before 
the effective date would be permitted to maintain their current 5-year 
schedule and not be required to move up the date of the next test to 
the 3-year date specified above. This proposed requirement would 
require periodic air emissions testing to measure organic HAP 
destruction or removal efficiency at the inlet and outlet of the add-on 
control device, or measurement of the control device outlet 
concentration of organic HAP. The emissions would be measured as total 
gaseous organic mass emissions as carbon using either EPA Method 25 or 
25A of appendix A-7 to 40 CFR part 60, which are the methods currently 
required for the initial compliance demonstration.
    We estimate that the cost to perform a control device emissions 
destruction or removal efficiency test using EPA Method 25 or 25A would 
be approximately $19,000 per control device. The cost estimate is 
included in the memorandum titled Draft Costs/Impacts of the 40 CFR 
part 63 Subparts IIII, MMMM, and PPPP Monitoring Review Revisions, in 
the MMPP Docket. We have reviewed the operating permits for facilities 
subject to the several other surface coating NESHAP, and we found that 
affected sources currently using emission capture systems and add-on 
controls are often, but not always, required to conduct periodic 
control device performance tests as a condition of their 40 CFR part 70 
operating permits. We estimate that seven MMPP surface coating 
facilities currently are not required to conduct periodic testing of 
their control devices as a condition of their permit renewal. Periodic 
performance tests ensure that all control systems used to comply with 
the NESHAP would be properly maintained over time, thereby reducing the 
potential for acute emissions episodes and non-compliance.
    We are requesting comment on adding periodic testing of add-on 
control devices to the MMPP NESHAP and on the suggested 5-year schedule 
for the periodic testing.
e. IBR of Alternative Test Methods Under 1 CFR Part 51
    The EPA is proposing new and updated test methods for the MMPP 
NESHAP that include IBR. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, 
the EPA is proposing to add the following optional EPA methods and 
incorporate by reference the VCS described in the amendments to 40 CFR 
63.14:
     EPA Method 18 of appendix A to 40 CFR part 60, Measurement 
of Gaseous Organic Compound Emissions by Gas Chromatography, proposed 
to be IBR approved for 40 CFR 63.3966(b)(4);
     ASTM Method D1475-13, Standard Test Method for Density of 
Liquid Coatings, Inks, and Related Products, proposed to be IBR 
approved for 40 CFR 63.3941(b)(4), 63.3941(c), and 63.3951(c);
     ASTM Method D2111-10 (2015), Standard Test Methods for 
Specific Gravity of Halogenated Organic Solvents and Their Admixtures, 
proposed to be IBR approved for 40 CFR 63.3951(c);
     ASTM Method D2369-10 (2015), Test Method for Volatile 
Content of Coatings, proposed to be IBR approved for 40 CFR 
63.3961(j)(3);
     ASTM Method D2697-03 (2014), Standard Test Method for 
Volume Nonvolatile Matter in Clear or Pigmented Coatings, proposed to 
be IBR approved for 40 CFR 63.3941(b)(1);
     ASTM Method D5965-02 (2013), Standard Test Methods for 
Specific Gravity of Coating Powders, proposed to be IBR approved for 40 
CFR 3951(c); and
     ASTM Method D6093-97 (2016), Standard Test Method for 
Percent Volume Nonvolatile Matter in Clear or Pigmented Coatings Using 
Helium Gas Pycnometer, proposed to be IBR approved for 40 CFR 
63.3941(b)(1).
    Older versions of ASTM methods D1475, D2697, D5965, and D6093 were 
incorporated by reference when the MMPP NESHAP was originally 
promulgated (69 FR 130, January 2, 2004). We are proposing to replace 
the older versions of these methods with updated versions, which 
requires IBR revisions. The updated version of the method replaces the 
older version in the same paragraph of the rule text. We are also 
proposing the addition of EPA Method 18 and incorporating by reference 
ASTM methods D2111 and D2369 to the MMPP NESHAP for the first time in 
this rulemaking. Refer to section VIII.J of this preamble for further 
discussion of these VCS.
5. What compliance dates are we proposing?
    The EPA is proposing that affected sources must comply with all of 
the amendments, with the exception of the proposed electronic format 
for submitting semiannual compliance reports, no later than 181 days 
after the effective date of the final rule. All affected facilities 
would have to continue to meet the current requirements of 40 CFR part 
63, subpart MMMM 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 
MMMM. As discussed elsewhere in this preamble, we are proposing to add 
a requirement that notifications, performance test results, and 
semiannual compliance reports be submitted electronically. We are 
proposing that the semiannual compliance report be submitted 
electronically using a new template, which is available for review and 
comment as part of this action. We are also proposing to change the 
requirements for SSM by removing the exemption from the requirements to 
meet the standard during SSM periods and by removing the requirement to 
develop and implement an SSM plan. Our experience with similar 
industries that are required to convert reporting mechanisms to install 
necessary hardware and software, become familiar with the process of 
submitting performance test results electronically through the EPA's 
CEDRI, test these new electronic submission capabilities, and reliably 
employ electronic reporting shows that a time period of a minimum of 90 
days, and, more typically, 180 days is generally necessary to 
successfully accomplish these revisions. Our experience with similar 
industries further shows that this sort of regulated facility generally 
requires a time period of 180 days to read and understand the amended 
rule requirements; to evaluate their operations to ensure that they can 
meet the standards during periods of startup and shutdown as defined in 
the rule and make any necessary

[[Page 58976]]

adjustments; and to update their operation, maintenance, and monitoring 
plan to reflect the revised requirements. The EPA recognizes the 
confusion that multiple different compliance dates for individual 
requirements would create and the additional burden such an assortment 
of dates would impose. From our assessment of the 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 181 days of the regulation's effective date.
    We solicit comment on these proposed compliance periods, and we 
specifically request submission of information from sources in this 
source category regarding specific actions that would need to be 
undertaken to comply with the proposed amended requirements and the 
time needed to make the adjustments for compliance with any of the 
revised requirements. We note that information provided may result in 
changes to the proposed compliance dates.
C. What are the analytical results and proposed decisions for the 
surface coating of plastic parts and products source category?
1. What are the results of the risk assessment and analyses?
    As described above in section III of this preamble, for the PPP 
source category, we conducted a risk assessment for all HAP emitted. We 
present results of the risk assessment briefly below and in more detail 
in the Surface Coating of Plastic Parts and Products Risk Assessment 
Report, in the PPP Docket (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0313).
a. Chronic Inhalation Risk Assessment Results
    Table 6 of this preamble provides a summary of the results of the 
inhalation risk assessment for the source category.

                        Table 6--Surface Coating of Plastic Parts and Products Source Category Inhalation Risk Assessment Results
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    Maximum individual     Estimated population      Estimated annual         Maximum chronic        Maximum screening
                                     cancer risk (in 1     at increased risk of      cancer incidence      noncancer  TOSHI \1\   acute noncancer HQ \2\
                                         million)             cancer >=1-in-1        (cases per year)    -----------------------------------------------
                                 ------------------------         million        ------------------------
         Risk assessment                                 ------------------------                          Based on    Based on
                                   Based on    Based on    Based on    Based on    Based on    Based on     actual     allowable      Based on actual
                                    actual     allowable    actual     allowable    actual     allowable   emissions   emissions         emissions
                                   emissions   emissions   emissions   emissions   emissions   emissions
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source Category.................          10          10         600         700       0.001       0.001           1           1  HQREL = 4.
Whole Facility..................          70  ..........      29,000  ..........       0.006  ..........           1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The TOSHI is the sum of the chronic noncancer HQ for substances that affect the same target organ or organ system.
\2\ The maximum estimated acute exposure concentration was divided by available short-term threshold values to develop HQ values.

    The results of the inhalation risk modeling using actual emissions 
data, as shown in Table 6 of this preamble, indicate that the maximum 
individual cancer risk based on actual emissions (lifetime) could be up 
to 10-in-1 million (driven by ethyl benzene, naphthalene, and 
formaldehyde from coating operations), the maximum chronic noncancer 
TOSHI value based on actual emissions could be up to 1 (driven by 
hexamethylene-1,6-diisocyanate from coating operations), and the 
maximum screening acute noncancer HQ value (off-facility site) could be 
up to 4 (driven by glycol ethers). The total estimated annual cancer 
incidence (national) from these facilities based on actual emission 
levels is 0.001 excess cancer cases per year or 1 case in every 1,000 
years.
b. Screening Level Acute Risk Assessment Results
    Table 6 of this preamble also shows the acute risk results for the 
PPP source category. The screening analysis for acute impacts was based 
on an industry-specific multiplier of 1.2, to estimate the peak 
emission rates from the average emission rates. For more detailed acute 
risk results refer to the Surface Coating of Plastic Parts and Products 
Risk Assessment Report, in the PPP Docket.
c. Multipathway Risk Screening Results
    There are no PB-HAP emitted by facilities in the PPP source 
category. Therefore, we do not expect any human health multipathway 
risks as a result of emissions from this source category.
d. Environmental Risk Screening Results
    The emissions data for the PPP source category indicate that no 
environmental HAP are emitted by sources within this source category. 
Therefore, we do not expect an adverse environmental effect as a result 
of HAP emissions from this source category.
e. Facility-Wide Risk Results
    Twenty-two facilities have a facility-wide cancer MIR greater than 
or equal to 1-in-1 million. The maximum facility-wide cancer MIR is 70-
in-1 million, driven by nickel and formaldehyde from a co-located 
boiler. The total estimated cancer incidence from the whole facility is 
0.006 excess cancer cases per year, or one excess case in every 200 
years. Approximately 29,000 people were estimated to have cancer risks 
above 1-in-1 million from exposure to HAP emitted from both MACT and 
non-MACT sources of the 125 facilities in this source category. The 
maximum facility-wide TOSHI for the source category is estimated to be 
1, driven by emissions of nickel and formaldehyde from a co-located 
boiler.
f. What demographic groups might benefit from this regulation?
    To examine the potential for any environmental justice issues that 
might be associated with the source category, we performed a 
demographic analysis, which is an assessment of risks to individual 
demographic groups of the populations living within 5 km and within 50 
km of the facilities. In the analysis, we evaluated the distribution of 
HAP-related cancer and noncancer risks from the PPP source category 
across different demographic groups within the populations living near 
facilities.\38\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ Demographic groups included in the analysis are: White, 
African American, Native American, other races and multiracial, 
Hispanic or Latino, children 17 years of age and under, adults 18 to 
64 years of age, adults 65 years of age and over, adults without a 
high school diploma, people living below the poverty level, people 
living above the poverty level, and linguistically isolated people.

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

[[Page 58977]]

    The results of the demographic analysis are summarized in Table 7 
of this preamble. These results, for various demographic groups, are 
based on the estimated risks from actual emissions levels for the 
population living within 50 km of the facilities.

    Table 7--Surface Coating of Plastic Parts and Products Source Category Demographic Risk Analysis Results
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                          Population with
                                                                         cancer risk at or     Population with
                                                                            above 1-in-1      chronic noncancer
                                                          Nationwide       million due to     HI above 1 due to
                                                                         surface coating of   surface coating of
                                                                         plastic parts and    plastic parts and
                                                                              products             products
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Population......................................     317,746,049                  500                    0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          White and Minority by Percent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
White.................................................              62                   92                    0
Minority..............................................              38                    8                    0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Minority Detail by Percent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
African American......................................              12                    4                    0
Native American.......................................             0.8                  0.1                    0
Hispanic or Latino....................................              18                    3                    0
Other and Multiracial.................................               7                    1                    0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                Income by Percent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Below the Poverty Level...............................              14                   19                    0
Above the Poverty Level...............................              86                   81                    0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              Education by Percent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Over 25 Without High a School Diploma.................              14                   14                    0
Over 25 With a High School Diploma....................              86                   86                    0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       Linguistically Isolated by Percent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Linguistically Isolated...............................               6                    0                    0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The results of the PPP source category demographic analysis 
indicate that emissions from the source category expose approximately 
500 people to a cancer risk at or above 1-in-1 million and no one is 
exposed to a chronic noncancer HI greater than 1. The percentages of 
the at-risk population in the following specific demographic groups are 
higher than their respective nationwide percentages: ``White,'' and 
``Below the Poverty Level.''
    The methodology and the results of the demographic analysis are 
presented in a technical report, Risk and Technology Review--Analysis 
of Demographic Factors for Populations Living Near Surface Coating of 
Plastic Parts and Products Source Category Operations, April 2019 
(hereafter referred to as the Plastic Parts and Products Demographic 
Analysis Report), available in the PPP Docket.
2. What are our proposed decisions regarding risk acceptability, ample 
margin of safety, and adverse environmental effects?
a. Risk Acceptability
    As noted in section III.A of this preamble, we weigh all health 
risk factors in our risk acceptability determination, including the 
cancer MIR, the number of persons in various cancer and noncancer risk 
ranges, cancer incidence, the maximum noncancer TOSHI, the maximum 
acute noncancer HQ, the extent of noncancer risks, the distribution of 
cancer and noncancer risks in the exposed population, and risk 
estimation uncertainties (54 FR 38044, September 14, 1989).
    For the PPP source category, the risk analysis indicates that the 
cancer risks to the individual most exposed could be up to 10-in-1 
million due to actual emissions and allowable emissions. These risks 
are considerably less than 100-in-1 million, which is the presumptive 
upper limit of acceptable risk. The risk analysis also shows very low 
cancer incidence (0.001 cases per year for actual and allowable 
emissions), and we did not identify any potential for adverse chronic 
noncancer health effects.
    The acute screening analysis results in a maximum acute noncancer 
HQ of 4 at one facility based on use of the acute REL for ethylene 
glycol monomethyl ether as a surrogate for unspeciated glycol ethers. 
Since there is not a specified acute dose-response value for 
unspeciated glycol ethers, we applied the most protective dose-response 
value from the other glycol ether compounds, the acute REL for ethylene 
glycol monomethyl ether, to estimate risk. Given that ethylene glycol 
monomethyl ether is more toxic than other glycol ethers, the use of 
this surrogate is a health-protective choice in the EPA's risk 
assessment.
    For acute screening analyses, to better characterize the potential 
health risks associated with estimated worst-case acute exposures to 
HAP, we examine a wider range of available acute health metrics than we 
do for our chronic risk assessments. This is in

[[Page 58978]]

acknowledgement that there are generally more data gaps and 
uncertainties in acute reference values than there are in chronic 
reference values. By definition, the acute REL represents a health-
protective level of exposure, with effects not anticipated below those 
levels, even for repeated exposures; however, the level of exposure 
that would cause health effects is not specifically known. As the 
exposure concentration increases above the acute REL, the potential for 
effects increases. Therefore, when an REL is exceeded and an AEGL-1 or 
ERPG-1 level is available (i.e., levels at which mild, reversible 
effects are anticipated in the general population for a single 
exposure), we typically use them as an additional comparative measure, 
as they provide an upper bound for exposure levels above which exposed 
individuals could experience effects. However, for glycol ethers, there 
are no AEGL or ERPG values.
    Additional uncertainties in the acute exposure assessment that the 
EPA conducts as part of the risk review under section 112 of the CAA 
include several factors. The accuracy of an acute inhalation exposure 
assessment depends on the simultaneous occurrence of independent 
factors that may vary greatly, such as hourly emission rates, 
meteorology, and the presence of a person. In the acute screening 
assessment that we conduct under the RTR program, we include the 
conservative (health-protective) assumptions that peak emissions from 
each emission point in 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 exposure. 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. Thus, as discussed in the document titled Residual Risk 
Assessment for the Surface Coating of Plastic Parts and Products Source 
Category in Support of the Risk and Technology Review 2019 Proposed 
Rule, in the PPP docket for this action, by assuming the co-occurrence 
of independent factors for the acute screening assessment, the results 
are intentionally biased high and are, thus, health-protective. We 
conclude that adverse effects from acute exposure to emissions of 
glycol ethers from this source category are not anticipated.
    Considering all of the health risk information and factors 
discussed above, including the uncertainties discussed in section 
III.C.7 of this preamble, we propose that the risks from the PPP source 
category are acceptable.
b. Ample Margin of Safety Analysis
    Although we are proposing that the risks from the PPP source 
category are acceptable, risk estimates for approximately 500 
individuals in the exposed population are above 1-in-1 million at the 
actual emissions level and 700 individuals in the exposed population 
are above 1-in-1 million at the allowable emissions level. 
Consequently, we further considered whether the MACT standards for the 
PPP source category provide an ample margin of safety to protect public 
health. In this ample margin of safety analysis, we investigated 
available emissions control options that might reduce the risk from the 
source category. We considered this information along with all of the 
health risks and other health information considered in our 
determination of risk acceptability.
    As described in section III.B of this preamble, our technology 
review focused on identifying developments in practices, processes, and 
control technologies for the PPP source category, and we reviewed 
various information sources regarding emission sources that are 
currently regulated by the PPP NESHAP. Based on our review, we did not 
identify any cost-effective measures to further reduce HAP. Therefore, 
considering all of the available health information along with the 
absence of additional measures for reducing HAP, we are proposing that 
additional emissions controls for this source category are not 
necessary and that the current standards provide an ample margin of 
safety.
c. Environmental Effects
    The emissions data for the PPP source category indicate that no 
environmental HAP are emitted by sources within this source category. 
In addition, we are unaware of any adverse environmental effects caused 
by HAP emitted by this source category. Therefore, we do not expect 
there to be an adverse environmental effect as a result of HAP 
emissions from this source category and we are proposing that it is not 
necessary to set a more stringent standard to prevent, taking into 
consideration costs, energy, safety, and other relevant factors, an 
adverse environmental effect.
3. What are the results and proposed decisions based on our technology 
review?
    As described in section III.B of this preamble, our technology 
review focused on identifying developments in practices, processes, and 
control technologies for the PPP source category. The EPA reviewed 
various information sources regarding emission sources that are 
currently regulated by the PPP NESHAP to support the technology review. 
The information sources included the following: the RBLC; publicly 
available state air permit databases; regulatory actions, including 
technology reviews promulgated for other surface coating NESHAP 
subsequent to the PPP NESHAP; state regulations; facility operating 
permits; site visits; and industry information.
    Based on our review, we did not identify any add-on control 
technologies, process equipment, work practices, or procedures that had 
not been previously considered during development of the PPP NESHAP, 
and we did not identify any new or improved add-on control technologies 
that would result in additional emission reductions. A brief summary of 
the EPA's findings in conducting the technology review of plastic part 
surface coating operations follows. For a detailed discussion of the 
EPA's findings, refer to the Plastic Parts and Products Technology 
Review Memo, in the PPP Docket.
    During the development of the 2004 PPP NESHAP, numerical emission 
limits were determined for new and existing major sources within four 
coating subcategories for a total of eight HAP emissions limits. The 
emission limits were based on industry survey responses and the 
industry's use of low- or no-HAP coatings and thinners and add-on 
capture and control technologies.
    Using the EPA's NEI and the ECHO databases, we identified 125 major 
source facilities that are currently subject to the PPP NESHAP. A 
search of the RBLC database for improvements in plastic parts and 
product coating technologies provided 20 facilities with permit dates 
of 2000 or later. The results of the RBLC search included facilities 
subject to VOC and HAP content limits, and using high volume/low 
pressure spray guns, robotic electrostatic application, thermal 
oxidizers, catalytic oxidizers, and adsorbers. All of these control 
technologies were in use by the plastic parts and product coating 
industry during development of the PPP NESHAP and were already 
considered in the development of the PPP NESHAP.

[[Page 58979]]

Therefore, we concluded that the results of the RBLC search are 
consistent with current PPP NESHAP requirements and did not identify 
any improvements in add-on control technology or processes and work 
practices that are not already reflected in the rule.
    We also collected permit information from about 45 major source 
surface coating facilities subject to the PPP NESHAP. (Many of these 
facilities were also subject to 40 CFR part 63, subparts IIII or MMMM.) 
The review of these permits did not identify a facility subject to HAP 
limits more stringent than those in the PPP NESHAP and did not identify 
any control technologies or work practices that were not already 
considered in the development of the NESHAP.
    We reviewed other surface coating NESHAP promulgated subsequent to 
the PPP NESHAP to determine whether any requirements exceed the PPP 
MACT level of control or include technologies that were not considered 
during the development of the original PPP NESHAP. These NESHAP include 
Paint Stripping and Miscellaneous Surface Coating Operations at Area 
Sources (40 CFR part 63, subpart HHHHHH), and Nine Metal Fabrication 
and Finishing Area Source Categories (40 CFR part 63, subpart XXXXXX). 
We also reviewed the results of the technology reviews for other 
surface coating NESHAP promulgated after the PPP NESHAP. These 
technology reviews include the NESHAP for Printing and Publishing (40 
CFR part 63, subpart KK), Shipbuilding and Ship Repair (40 CFR part 63, 
subpart II), Wood Furniture Manufacturing (40 CFR part 63, subpart JJ), 
and Aerospace Manufacturing and Rework Facilities (40 CFR part 63, 
subpart GG). The review of these more recently promulgated NESHAP and 
the technology reviews of other NESHAP did not identify any control 
technologies that were not already considered during the development of 
the 2004 PPP NESHAP.
    The developments considered in these other technology reviews 
included the use of emission capture systems and thermal oxidizers to 
reduce emissions. Because the PPP NESHAP already includes a compliance 
option involving the use of a PTE and an add-on control device, and 
because these measures were considered in the development of the PPP 
NESHAP, we concluded that these measures do not represent a development 
in control technology under CAA section 112(d)(6). We also identified 
and considered alternatives to conventional solvent borne coatings 
during MACT development (e.g., waterborne coatings, low-HAP/high-solids 
coatings, low energy radiation cured coating) and the presence of 
facilities using these coatings is reflected in the current MACT 
standards. We found no other improvements in add-on control technology 
or other equipment during review of the RBLC, the state operating 
permits, and subsequent NESHAP that were not already identified and 
considered during development of the PPP NESHAP.
    Finally, we identified no developments in work practices or 
procedures for the PPP source category that were not previously 
identified and considered during MACT development.
    Based on these findings, we conclude that there have not been any 
developments in add-on control technology or other equipment not 
identified and considered during MACT development, nor any improvements 
in add-on controls, nor any significant changes in the cost (including 
cost effectiveness) of the add-on controls. Therefore, we are proposing 
no revisions to the PPP NESHAP pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6). For 
further discussion of the technology review results, refer to the 
Plastic Parts and Products Technology Review Memo, in the PPP Docket.
4. What other actions are we proposing for the surface coating of 
plastic parts and products source category?
    We are proposing to require electronic submittal of notifications 
(initial and compliance status), semiannual reports, and performance 
test reports for PPP surface coating facilities. In addition, we are 
proposing revisions to the SSM provisions of the MACT rule in order to 
ensure that they are consistent with the Court decision in Sierra Club 
v. EPA, 551 F. 3d 1019 (D.C. Cir. 2008), which vacated two provisions 
that exempted sources from the requirement to comply with otherwise 
applicable CAA section 112(d) emission standards during periods of SSM. 
We are proposing to require periodic emissions testing of add-on 
control devices. We also are proposing to add optional EPA Method 18, 
to IBR an alternative test method, and to make various technical and 
editorial changes. Our analyses and proposed changes related to these 
issues are discussed in the sections below.
a. Electronic Reporting Requirements
    The EPA is proposing that owners and operators of PPP surface 
coating facilities submit electronic copies of initial notifications 
required in 40 CFR 63.9(b) and 63.4510(b), notifications of compliance 
status required in 40 CFR 63.9(h) and 63.4510(c), performance test 
reports required in 40 CFR 63.4520(b), and semiannual reports required 
in 40 CFR 63.4520(a) through the EPA's CDX, using the CEDRI. A 
description of the EPA's CDX and the EPA's proposed rationale and 
details on the addition of these electronic reporting requirements for 
the PPP source category is the same as for the ALDT source category, as 
discussed in section IV.A.4.a of this preamble. No specific form is 
proposed at this time for the initial notifications required in 40 CFR 
63.9(b) and notifications of compliance status in 40 CFR 63.9(h). Until 
the EPA has completed electronic forms for these notifications, the 
notifications will be required to be submitted via CEDRI in PDF. After 
development of the final forms, we will notify sources about their 
availability via the CEDRI website and the CHIEF Listserv. For 
semiannual reports required in 40 CFR 63.4520(a), the proposed rule 
requires that owners or operators use the appropriate spreadsheet 
template to submit information to CEDRI. A draft version of the 
proposed template for this report is included in the docket for this 
rulemaking.\39\ The EPA specifically requests comment on the content, 
layout, and overall design of the template.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ See Electronic Reporting Template for Surface Coating of 
Plastic Parts and Products Subpart PPPP Semiannual Reports, in 
Docket ID NO. EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0313.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regarding submittal of performance test reports via the EPA's ERT, 
as discussed in section IV.A.4.a of this preamble for the ALDT NESHAP, 
the proposal to submit performance test data electronically to the EPA 
applies only if the EPA has developed an electronic reporting form for 
the test method as listed on the EPA's ERT website. For the PPP NESHAP, 
all of the EPA test methods listed under 40 CFR part 63, subpart PPPP, 
are currently supported by the ERT, except for EPA Method 18 (an 
optional test method proposed in this action), which appears in the 
proposed text for 40 CFR 63.4566. As mentioned above in section 
IV.A.4.a of this preamble, the rule proposes that should an owner or 
operator choose to use EPA Method 18, then its results would be 
submitted in PDF using the attachment module of the ERT.
    Also, as discussed in section IV.A.4.a of this preamble for the 
ALDT NESHAP, we are proposing to provide facilities with the ability to 
seek extensions for submitting electronic reports for circumstances 
beyond the control of the facility. In proposed 40 CFR 63.4520(g), we 
address the situation for facilities subject to the PPP NESHAP where an

[[Page 58980]]

extension may be warranted due to outages of the EPA's CDX or CEDRI, 
which may prevent access to the system and submittal of the required 
reports. In proposed 40 CFR 63.4520(h), we address the situation for 
facilities subject to the PPP NESHAP where an extension may be 
warranted due to a force majeure event, which is defined as an event 
that will be or has been caused by circumstances beyond the control of 
the affected facility, its contractors, or any entity controlled by the 
affected facility that prevents compliance with the requirement to 
submit a report electronically as required by this rule. Examples of 
such events are acts of nature, acts of war and 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 to implement 
Executive Order 13563 and is in keeping with the EPA's Agency-wide 
policy developed in response to the White House's Digital Government 
Strategy. For more information on the benefits of electronic reporting, 
see the memorandum titled 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-2019-0313.
b. SSM Requirements
(1.) Proposed Elimination of the SSM Exemption
    The EPA is proposing to eliminate the SSM exemption in the PPP 
NESHAP. The EPA's proposed rationale for the elimination of the SSM 
exemption for the PPP source category is the same as for the ALDT 
source category, which is discussed in section IV.A.4.b.1 of this 
preamble. We are also proposing several revisions to Table 2 to subpart 
PPPP of 40 CFR part 63 (Applicability of General Provisions to Subpart 
PPPP of Part 63, hereafter referred to as the ``General Provisions 
table to subpart PPPP'') as is explained in more detail below in 
section IV.C.4.b.2 of this preamble. For example, we are proposing to 
eliminate the incorporation of the General Provisions' requirement that 
the source develop an SSM plan. Further, we are proposing to eliminate 
and revise certain recordkeeping and reporting requirements related to 
the SSM exemption as further described below. The EPA has attempted to 
ensure that the provisions we are proposing to eliminate are 
inappropriate, unnecessary, or redundant in the absence of the SSM 
exemption. We are specifically seeking comment on the specific proposed 
deletions and revisions and also whether additional provisions should 
be revised to achieve the stated goal.
    In proposing these rule amendments, the EPA has taken into account 
startup and shutdown periods and, for the same reasons explained in 
section IV.A.4.b.1 of this preamble for the ALDT source category, has 
not proposed alternate standards for those periods in the PPP NESHAP. 
Startups and shutdowns are part of normal operations for the PPP source 
category. As currently specified in 40 CFR 63.4500(a), any coating 
operation(s) for which you use the emission rate with add-on controls 
option must meet the applicable operating limits in Table 1 to 40 CFR 
part 63, subpart PPPP ``at all times,'' except for solvent recovery 
systems for which you conduct liquid-liquid material balances according 
to 40 CFR 63.4561(j). (Solvent recovery systems for which you conduct a 
liquid-liquid material balance require a monthly calculation of the 
solvent recovery device's collection and recovery efficiency for 
volatile organic matter.)
    Also, as currently specified in 40 CFR 63.4500(a)(2), any coating 
operation(s) for which you use the emission rate with add-on controls 
option must be in compliance ``at all times'' with the applicable 
emission limit in 40 CFR 63.4490. During startup and shutdown periods, 
in order for a facility (using add-on controls to meet the standards) 
to meet the emission and operating standards, the control device for a 
coating operation needs to be turned on and operating at specified 
levels before the facility begins coating operations, and the control 
equipment needs to continue to be operated until after the facility 
ceases coating operations. In some cases, the facility needs to run 
thermal oxidizers on supplemental fuel before VOC levels are sufficient 
for the combustion to be (nearly) self-sustaining. Note that we are 
also proposing new related language in 40 CFR 63.4500(b) to require 
that the owner or operator operate and maintain the coating operation, 
including pollution control equipment, at all times to minimize 
emissions. See section IV.A.4.b.2 of this preamble for further 
discussion of this proposed revision.
    Although no statutory language compels the EPA to set standards for 
malfunctions, the EPA has the discretion to do so where feasible, as 
discussed previously in section IV.A.4.b.1 of this preamble for the 
ALDT source category.
    It is unlikely that a malfunction would result in a violation of 
the standards during PPP surface coatings operations for facilities 
using the compliant material option or the emission rate without add-on 
controls option. Facilities using these options have demonstrated that 
the organic HAP contents of the coating materials do not exceed the 
emission limits in 40 CFR 63.4490(a) or (b), either on a coating-by-
coating basis or by using averaging among coatings.
    A malfunction event is more likely for PPP coating facilities that 
use the emission rate with add-on controls option. For this option, 
facilities must demonstrate that the average emission rate does not 
exceed the emission limits in 40 CFR 63.4490(a) or (b), and the 
facility is complying with the control device operating limits listed 
in Table 1 to 40 CFR part 63, subpart PPPP of the PPP NESHAP. The 
operating limits are specific to the type of control device and 
established by the facility during its initial performance test.
    In the unlikely event that a source fails to comply with the 
applicable CAA section 112(d) standards as a result of a malfunction 
event, the EPA would determine an appropriate response based on, among 
other things, the good faith efforts of the source to minimize 
emissions during malfunction periods, including preventative and 
corrective actions, as well as root cause analyses to ascertain and 
rectify excess emissions. Refer to section IV.A.4.b.1 of this preamble 
for further discussion of the EPA's actions in response to a source 
failing to comply with the applicable CAA section 112(d) standards as a 
result of a malfunction event for the ALDT source category, which 
applies to this source category.

[[Page 58981]]

(2.) Proposed Revisions to the General Provisions Applicability Table
    40 CFR 63.4500(b) General duty. We are proposing to revise the 
General Provisions table to subpart PPPP (Table 2) entry for 40 CFR 
63.6(e)(1)(i) by changing the ``yes'' in column 3 to a ``no.'' Section 
63.6(e)(1)(i) describes the general duty to minimize emissions. Some of 
the language in that section is no longer necessary or appropriate in 
light of the elimination of the SSM exemption. We are proposing instead 
to add general duty regulatory text at 40 CFR 63.4500(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 63.4500(b) does not include 
that language from 40 CFR 63.6(e)(1).
    We are also proposing to revise the General Provisions table to 
subpart PPPP (Table 2) entry for 40 CFR 63.6(e)(1)(ii) by changing the 
``yes'' in column 3 to a ``no.'' Section 63.6(e)(1)(ii) imposes 
requirements that are not necessary with the elimination of the SSM 
exemption or are redundant with the general duty requirement being 
added at 40 CFR 63.4500(b).
    SSM plan. We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table 
to subpart PPPP (Table 2) entry for 40 CFR 63.6(e)(3) by changing the 
``yes'' in column 3 to a ``no.'' Generally, these paragraphs require 
development of an SSM plan and specify SSM recordkeeping and reporting 
requirements related to the SSM plan. We are also proposing to remove 
from 40 CFR part 63, subpart PPPP, the current provisions requiring the 
SSM plan in 40 CFR 63.4500(c) and requiring reporting related to the 
SSM plan in 40 CFR 63.4520(c). As noted, the EPA is proposing to remove 
the SSM exemptions. Therefore, affected units will be subject to an 
emission standard during such events. The applicability of a standard 
during such events will ensure that sources have ample incentive to 
plan for and achieve compliance, and, thus, the SSM plan requirements 
are no longer necessary.
    Compliance with standards. We are proposing to revise the General 
Provisions table to subpart PPPP (Table 2) entry for 40 CFR 63.6(f)(1) 
by changing the ``yes'' in column 3 to a ``no.'' The current language 
of 40 CFR 63.6(f)(1) exempts sources from non-opacity standards during 
periods of SSM. As discussed above, the Court in Sierra Club vacated 
the exemptions contained in this provision and held that the CAA 
requires that some CAA section 112 standards apply continuously. 
Consistent with Sierra Club, the EPA is proposing to revise standards 
in this rule to apply at all times.
    40 CFR 63.4564 Performance testing. We are proposing to revise the 
General Provisions table to subpart PPPP (Table 2) entry for 40 CFR 
63.7(e)(1) by changing the ``yes'' in column 3 to a ``no.'' Section 
63.7(e)(1) describes performance testing requirements. The EPA is 
instead proposing to add a performance testing requirement at 40 CFR 
63.4564(a)(1). The performance testing requirements we are proposing to 
add differ from the General Provisions performance testing provisions 
in several respects. The regulatory text does not include the language 
in 40 CFR 63.7(e)(1) that restated the SSM exemption and language that 
precluded startup and shutdown periods from being considered 
``representative'' for purposes of performance testing. Also, the 
proposed performance testing provisions will not allow performance 
testing during startup or shutdown. As in 40 CFR 63.7(e)(1), 
performance tests conducted under this subpart should not be conducted 
during malfunctions because conditions during malfunctions are often 
not representative of normal operating conditions. Section 63.7(e) 
requires that the owner or operator maintain records of the process 
information necessary to document operating conditions during the test 
and include in such records an explanation to support that such 
conditions represent normal operation. The EPA is proposing to add 
language clarifying that the owner or operator must make such records 
available to the Administrator upon request.
    Monitoring. We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table 
to subpart PPPP (Table 2) entry for 40 CFR 63.8(a)(4) by changing the 
``yes'' in column 3 to a ``no.'' Section 63.8(a)(4) describes 
additional monitoring requirements for control devices. Subpart PPPP of 
40 CFR part 63 does not have monitoring requirements for flares.
    We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table to subpart 
PPPP (Table 2) entry for 40 CFR 63.8(c)(1) by changing the ``yes'' in 
column 3 to a ``no.'' The cross-references to the general duty and SSM 
plan requirements in those subparagraphs are not necessary in light of 
other requirements of 40 CFR 63.8 that require good air pollution 
control practices (40 CFR 63.8(c)(1)) and that set out the requirements 
of a quality control program for monitoring equipment (40 CFR 63.8(d)). 
Further, we are proposing to revise 40 CFR 63.4568(a) to add a 
requirement to maintain the monitoring equipment at all times in 
accordance with 40 CFR 63.4500(b) and keep the necessary parts readily 
available for routine repairs of the monitoring equipment, consistent 
with the requirements in 40 CFR 63.8(c)(1)(ii). The reference to 40 CFR 
63.8(c)(1)(ii) is no longer needed since it is redundant to the 
requirement in 40 CFR 63.4568(a).
    40 CFR 63.4530 Recordkeeping. We are proposing to revise the 
General Provisions table to subpart PPPP (Table 2) entry for 40 CFR 
63.10(b)(2)(i) by changing the ``yes'' in column 3 to a ``no.'' Section 
63.10(b)(2)(i) describes the recordkeeping requirements during startup 
and shutdown. These recording provisions are no longer necessary 
because the EPA is proposing that recordkeeping and reporting 
applicable to normal operations will apply to startup and shutdown. In 
the absence of special provisions applicable to startup and shutdown, 
such as a startup and shutdown plan, there is no reason to retain 
additional recordkeeping for startup and shutdown periods.
    We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table to subpart 
PPPP (Table 2) entry for 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(ii) by changing the ``yes'' 
in column 3 to a ``no.'' Section 63.10(b)(2)(ii) describes the 
recordkeeping requirements during a malfunction, requiring a record of 
``the occurrence and duration of each malfunction.'' A similar record 
is already required in 40 CFR 63.4530(h), which requires a record of 
``the date, time, and duration of each deviation,'' which the EPA is 
retaining. The regulatory text in 40 CFR 63.4530(h) differs from the 
General Provisions in that the General Provisions requires the creation 
and retention of a record of the occurrence and duration of each 
malfunction of process, air pollution control, and monitoring 
equipment; whereas 40 CFR 63.4530(h) applies to any failure to meet an 
applicable standard and is requiring that the source record the date, 
time, and duration of the failure rather than the ``occurrence.'' The 
EPA is also proposing to add to 40 CFR 63.4530(h) a requirement that 
sources also keep records that include a list of the affected source or 
equipment and actions taken to minimize emissions, an estimate of the 
quantity of

[[Page 58982]]

each regulated pollutant emitted over the emission limit for which the 
source failed to meet the standard, and a description of the method 
used to estimate the emissions. Examples of such methods would include 
product-loss calculations, mass balance calculations, measurements when 
available, or engineering judgment based on known process parameters 
(e.g., coating HAP content and application rates and control device 
efficiencies). The EPA proposes to require that sources keep records of 
this information to ensure that there is adequate information to allow 
the EPA to determine the severity of any failure to meet a standard, 
and to provide data that may document how the source met the general 
duty to minimize emissions when the source has failed to meet an 
applicable standard.
    We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table to subpart 
PPPP (Table 2) entry for 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(iv) by changing the ``yes'' 
in column 3 to a ``no.'' When applicable, the provision requires 
sources to record actions taken during SSM events when actions were 
inconsistent with their SSM plan. The requirement is no longer 
appropriate because SSM plans will no longer be required. The 
requirement previously applicable under 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(iv)(B) to 
record actions to minimize emissions and record corrective actions is 
now applicable by reference to 40 CFR 63.4530(h)(4).
    We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table to subpart 
PPPP (Table 2) entry for 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(v) by changing the ``yes'' 
in column 3 to a ``no.'' When applicable, the provision requires 
sources to record actions taken during SSM events to show that actions 
taken were consistent with their SSM plan. The requirement is no longer 
appropriate because SSM plans will no longer be required.
    We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table to subpart 
PPPP (Table 2) entry for 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(x)-(xiii) by changing the 
``yes'' in column 3 to a ``no.'' When applicable, the provision 
requires sources to record actions taken during SSM events to show that 
actions taken were consistent with their SSM plan. The requirement is 
no longer appropriate because SSM plans will no longer be required.
    40 CFR 63.4520 Reporting. We are proposing to revise the General 
Provisions table to subpart PPPP (Table 2) entry for 40 CFR 63.10(d)(5) 
by changing the ``yes'' in column 3 to a ``no.'' Section 63.10(d)(5) 
describes the reporting requirements for startups, shutdowns, and 
malfunctions. To replace the General Provisions reporting requirement, 
the EPA is proposing to add reporting requirements to 40 CFR 
63.4520(a)(7). The replacement language differs from the General 
Provisions requirement in that it eliminates periodic SSM reports as a 
stand-alone report. We are proposing language that requires sources 
that fail to meet an applicable standard at any time to report the 
information concerning such events in the semi-annual compliance report 
already required under this rule. Subpart PPPP of 40 CFR part 63 
currently requires reporting of the date, time period, and cause of 
each deviation. We are clarifying in the rule that, if the cause of a 
deviation from a standard is unknown, this should be specified in the 
report. We are also proposing to change ``date and time period'' or 
``date and time'' to ``date, time, and duration'' (see proposed 
revisions to 40 CFR 63.4520(a)(7)(vi), 63.4520(a)(7)(viii), and 
63.4520(a)(7)(xiii)). Further, we are proposing that the report must 
also contain the number of deviations from the standard and a list of 
the affected sources or equipment. For deviation reports addressing 
deviations from an applicable emission limit in 40 CFR 63.4490 or 
operating limit in Table 1 to 40 CFR part 63, subpart PPPP, we are 
proposing that the report also include an estimate of the quantity of 
each regulated pollutant emitted over any emission limit for which the 
source failed to meet the standard, and a description of the method 
used to estimate the emissions.
    Regarding the proposed new requirement discussed above to estimate 
the quantity of each regulated pollutant emitted over any emission 
limit for which the source failed to meet the standard, and a 
description of the method used to estimate the emissions, examples of 
such methods would include product-loss calculations, mass balance 
calculations, measurements when available, or engineering judgment 
based on known process parameters (e.g., coating HAP content and 
application rates and control device efficiencies). The EPA is 
proposing this requirement to ensure that there is adequate information 
to determine compliance, to allow the EPA to determine the severity of 
the failure to meet an applicable standard, and to provide data that 
may document how the source met the general duty to minimize emissions 
during a failure to meet an applicable standard.
    We will no longer require owners or operators to determine whether 
actions taken to correct a malfunction are consistent with an SSM plan, 
because plans would no longer be required. The proposed amendments, 
therefore, eliminate 40 CFR 63.4520(c) that requires reporting of 
whether the source deviated from its SSM plan, including required 
actions to communicate with the Administrator, and the cross-reference 
to 40 CFR 63.10(d)(5) that contains the description of the previously 
required SSM report format and submittal schedule from this section. 
These specifications are no longer necessary because the events will be 
reported in otherwise required reports with similar format and 
submittal requirements.
    We are proposing to remove the requirements in 40 CFR 
63.4520(a)(7)(viii) that deviation reports must specify whether a 
deviation from an operating limit occurred during a period of SSM. We 
are also proposing to remove the requirements in 40 CFR 
63.4520(a)(7)(viii) to break down the total duration of deviations into 
the startup and shutdown categories. As discussed above in this 
section, we are proposing to require reporting of the cause of each 
deviation. Further, the startup and shutdown categories no longer apply 
because these periods are proposed to be considered normal operation, 
as discussed in section IV.A.4.b.1 of this preamble for the ALDT source 
category, which also applies to this source category.
c. Technical Amendments to the Plastic Parts and Products NESHAP
    We propose to amend 40 CFR 63.4566(b)(4) to add the option of 
conducting EPA Method 18 of appendix A to 40 CFR part 60, ``Measurement 
of Gaseous Organic Compound Emissions by Gas Chromatography,'' to 
measure and then subtract methane emissions from measured total gaseous 
organic mass emissions as carbon. Facilities using the emission rate 
with add-on control compliance option can use either EPA Method 25 or 
EPA Method 25A to measure control device destruction efficiency. Unlike 
EPA Method 25, EPA Method 25A does not exclude methane from the 
measurement of organic emissions. Because exhaust streams from coating 
operations may contain methane from natural gas combustion, we are 
proposing to allow facilities the option to measure methane using EPA 
Method 18 and to subtract the methane from the emissions as part of 
their compliance calculations. We also propose to revise the format of 
references to test methods in 40 CFR part 60. The current references in 
40 CFR 63.4566(a) to EPA Methods 1, 1A, 2, 2A, 2C, 2D, 2F, 2G, 3, 3A, 
3B, 4, 25, and 25A specify that each method is in

[[Page 58983]]

``appendix A'' of 40 CFR part 60. Appendix A of 40 CFR part 60 has been 
divided into appendices A-1 through A-8. We propose to revise each 
reference to appendix A to indicate which of the eight sections of 
appendix A applies to the method.
    We propose to amend 40 CFR 63.4541(a)(1)(i) and 63.4541(a)(4), 
which describe how to demonstrate compliance with the emission 
limitations using the compliant material option, and the definition of 
``non-HAP coating'' in 40 CFR 63.4581, to remove references to OSHA-
defined carcinogens as specified in 29 CFR 1910.1200(d)(4). The 
reference to OSHA-defined carcinogens as specified in 29 CFR 
1910.1200(d)(4) is intended to specify which compounds must be included 
in calculating total organic HAP content of a coating material if they 
are present at 0.1 percent or greater by mass. We propose to remove 
this reference because 29 CFR 1910.1200(d)(4) has been amended and no 
longer readily defines which compounds are carcinogens. We propose to 
replace these references to OSHA-defined carcinogens at 29 CFR 
1910.1200(d)(4) with a list (in proposed new Table 5 to 40 CFR part 63, 
subpart PPPP) 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 5 to 40 CFR 
part 63, subpart PPPP 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),\40\ 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \40\ See https://www.epa.gov/fera/dose-response-assessment-assessing-health-risks-associated-exposure-hazardous-air-pollutants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Current 40 CFR 63.4530 specifies records that must be maintained. 
We propose to add clarification to this provision at 40 CFR 63.4530(a) 
that specifies the allowance to retain electronic records applies to 
all records that were submitted as reports electronically via the EPA's 
CEDRI. We also propose to add text to the same provision clarifying 
that this ability to maintain electronic copies does not affect the 
requirement for facilities to make records, data, and reports available 
upon request to a delegated air agency or the EPA as part of an on-site 
compliance evaluation.
    We propose to clarify and harmonize the general requirement in 40 
CFR 63.4500(b) with the reporting requirement in 40 CFR 63.4520(a)(5), 
63.4520(a)(6), and 63.4520(a)(7), and the recordkeeping requirement in 
40 CFR 63.4530(h)(4).
d. Ongoing Emissions Compliance Demonstrations
    As part of an ongoing effort to improve compliance with various 
federal air emission regulations, the EPA reviewed the compliance 
demonstration requirements in the PPP NESHAP. Currently, if a source 
owner or operator chooses to comply with the standards using add-on 
controls, the results of an initial performance test are used to 
determine compliance; however, the rule does not require on-going 
periodic performance testing for these emission capture systems and 
add-on controls. In this action, we are proposing to require periodic 
testing of add-on control devices, in addition to the one-time initial 
emissions and capture efficiency testing, and ongoing temperature 
measurement, to ensure ongoing compliance with the standards.
    As described more fully in section IV.A.4.d of this preamble for 
the ALDT source category, the EPA documented potential operational 
problems associated with control devices in several publications; \41\ 
the ICAC, in their comments on a separate rulemaking on the proposed 
revisions related to the NESHAP General Provisions (72 FR 69, January 
3, 2007), commented that ongoing maintenance and checks of control 
devices are necessary in order to ensure emissions control technology, 
including both thermal and catalytic oxidizers, remains effective; \42\ 
and state websites list CAA enforcement information that further 
corroborates the potential problems identified by the EPA and ICAC 
comments and conclusions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \41\ See Control Techniques for Volatile Organic Compound 
Emissions from Stationary Sources, EPA/453/R-92-018, December 1992, 
Control Technologies for Emissions from Stationary Sources, EPA/625/
6-91/014, June 1991, and Survey of Control for Low Concentration 
Organic Vapor Gas Streams, EPA-456/R-95-003, May 1995. These 
documents can be found in the Automobiles and Light-Duty Trucks, 
Miscellaneous Metal Parts, and Plastic Parts and Products Dockets 
for this action.
    \42\ See Docket Item No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2004-0094-0173, available at 
www.regulations.gov. A copy of the ICAC's comments on the proposed 
revisions to the General Provisions is also included in the 
Automobiles and Light-Duty Trucks, Miscellaneous Metal Parts, and 
Plastic Parts and Products Dockets for this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Given the need for vigilance in maintaining equipment to stem 
degradation, the EPA is proposing to require periodic testing of add-on 
control devices, in addition to the one-time initial emissions and 
capture efficiency testing and ongoing temperature measurement, to 
ensure ongoing compliance with the PPP NESHAP.
    In this action, the EPA is requiring periodic performance testing 
of add-on control devices on a regular frequency (e.g., every 5 years) 
to ensure the equipment continues to operate properly for facilities 
using the emission rate with add-on controls compliance option. We note 
that about half of the state operating permits for existing plastic 
parts coating sources already require such testing every 5 years 
synchronized with 40 CFR part 70 air operating permit renewals. This 
proposed periodic testing requirement includes an exception to the 
general requirement for periodic testing for facilities using the 
catalytic oxidizer control option at 40 CFR 63.4567(b) and following 
the catalyst maintenance procedures in 40 CFR 63.4567(b)(4). This 
exception is due to the catalyst maintenance procedures that already 
require annual testing of the catalyst and other maintenance procedures 
that provide ongoing demonstrations that the control system is 
operating properly and may, thus, be considered comparable to 
conducting a performance test.
    The proposed periodic performance testing requirement allows an 
exception from periodic testing for facilities using instruments to 
continuously measure emissions. Such CEMS would show actual emissions. 
The use of CEMS to demonstrate compliance would obviate the need for 
periodic oxidizer testing. Moreover, installation and operation of a 
CEMS with a timesharing component, such that values from more than one 
oxidizer exhaust could be tabulated in a recurring frequency, could 
prove less expensive (estimated to have an annual cost below $15,000) 
than ongoing oxidizer testing.
    This proposed requirement would not require periodic testing or 
CEMS monitoring of facilities using the compliant material or the 
emission rate without add-on controls options because these compliance 
options do not use any add-on controls or control efficiency 
measurements in the compliance calculations.
    The proposed periodic performance testing requirement would require 
that facilities complying with the standards using emission capture 
systems and

[[Page 58984]]

add-on controls and which are not already on a 5-year testing schedule 
to conduct the first of the periodic performance tests within 3 years 
of the effective date of the revised standards. Afterward, they would 
conduct the periodic testing before they renew their operating permits, 
but no longer than 5 years following the previous performance test. 
Additionally, facilities that have already tested as a condition of 
their permit within the last 2 years before the effective date would be 
permitted to maintain their current 5-year schedule and not be required 
to move up the date of the next test to the 3-year date specified 
above. This proposed requirement would require periodic air emissions 
testing to measure organic HAP destruction or removal efficiency at the 
inlet and outlet of the add-on control device. The emissions would be 
measured as total gaseous organic mass emissions as carbon using either 
EPA Method 25 or 25A of appendix A-7 to 40 CFR part 60, which are the 
methods currently required for the initial compliance demonstration.
    We estimate that the cost to perform a control device emissions 
destruction or removal efficiency test using EPA Method 25 or 25A would 
be approximately $19,000 per control device. The cost estimate is 
included in the memorandum titled Draft Costs/Impacts of the 40 CFR 
part 63 Subparts IIII, MMMM and PPPP Monitoring Review Revisions, in 
the ALDT, MMPP, and PPP Dockets. We have reviewed the operating permits 
for facilities subject to the several other surface coating NESHAP, and 
we found that affected sources currently using emission capture systems 
and add-on controls are often, but not always, required to conduct 
periodic control device performance tests as a condition of their 40 
CFR part 70 operating permits. We estimate that three PPP surface 
coating facilities currently are not required to conduct periodic 
testing of their control devices as a condition of their permit 
renewal. Periodic performance tests ensure that all control systems 
used to comply with the NESHAP would be properly maintained over time, 
thereby reducing the potential for acute emissions episodes and non-
compliance.
    We are requesting comment on adding periodic testing of add-on 
control devices to the PPP NESHAP and on the suggested 5-year schedule 
for the periodic testing.
e. IBR of Alternative Test Methods Under 1 CFR Part 51
    The EPA is proposing new and updated test methods for the PPP 
NESHAP that include IBR. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, 
the EPA is proposing to add the following optional EPA method and 
incorporate by reference the VCS described in the amendments to 40 CFR 
63.14:
     EPA Method 18 of appendix A to 40 CFR part 60, Measurement 
of Gaseous Organic Compound Emissions by Gas Chromatography, proposed 
for 40 CFR 63.4566(b)(4);
     ASTM Method D1475-13, Standard Test Method for Density of 
Liquid Coatings, Inks, and Related Products, proposed to be IBR 
approved for 40 CFR 63.4551(c);
     ASTM Method D2111-10 (2015), Standard Test Methods for 
Specific Gravity of Halogenated Organic Solvents and Their Admixtures, 
proposed to be IBR approved for 40 CFR 63.4551(c); and
     ASTM Method D2369-10 (2015), Test Method for Volatile 
Content of Coatings, proposed to be IBR approved for 40 CFR 
63.4541(a)(2) and 634561(j)(3).
    An older version of ASTM Method D1475 was incorporated by reference 
when the PPP NESHAP was originally promulgated (69 FR 20968, April 19, 
2004). We are proposing to replace the older version of this method 
with an updated version, which requires IBR revisions. The updated 
version of the method replaces the older version in the same paragraph 
of the rule text. We are also proposing the addition of EPA Method 18 
and incorporating by reference ASTM Methods D2111 and D2369 to the PPP 
NESHAP for the first time in this rulemaking. Refer to section VIII.J 
of this preamble for further discussion of these VCS.
5. What compliance dates are we proposing?
    The EPA is proposing that affected sources must comply with all of 
the amendments, with the exception of the proposed electronic format 
for submitting semiannual compliance reports, no later than 181 days 
after the effective date of the final rule. All affected facilities 
would have to continue to meet the current requirements of 40 CFR part 
63, subpart PPPP 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 
PPPP. As discussed elsewhere in this preamble, we are proposing to add 
a requirement that notifications, performance test results, and 
semiannual compliance reports be submitted electronically. We are 
proposing that the semiannual compliance report be submitted 
electronically using a new template, which is available for review and 
comment as part of this action. We are also proposing to change the 
requirements for SSM by removing the exemption from the requirements to 
meet the standard during SSM periods and by removing the requirement to 
develop and implement an SSM plan. Our experience with similar 
industries that are required to convert reporting mechanisms to install 
necessary hardware and software, become familiar with the process of 
submitting performance test results electronically through the EPA's 
CEDRI, test these new electronic submission capabilities, and reliably 
employ electronic reporting shows that a time period of a minimum of 90 
days, and, more typically, 180 days is generally necessary to 
successfully accomplish these revisions. Our experience with similar 
industries further shows that this sort of regulated facility generally 
requires a time period of 180 days to read and understand the amended 
rule requirements; to evaluate their operations to ensure that they can 
meet the standards during periods of startup and shutdown as defined in 
the rule and make any necessary adjustments; and to update their 
operation, maintenance, and monitoring plan to reflect the revised 
requirements. The EPA recognizes the confusion that multiple different 
compliance dates for individual requirements would create and the 
additional burden such an assortment of dates would impose. From our 
assessment of the 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 181 days of the 
regulation's effective date.
    We solicit comment on these proposed compliance periods, and we 
specifically request submission of information from sources in this 
source category regarding specific actions that would need to be 
undertaken to comply with the proposed amended requirements and the 
time needed to

[[Page 58985]]

make the adjustments for compliance with any of the revised 
requirements. We note that information provided may result in changes 
to the proposed compliance dates.

D. Proposed Corrections to Earlier Subparts

    We are proposing the following corrections to three subparts that 
were amended in a final rule notice published in the Federal Register 
on March 15, 2019 (84 FR 9590). The proposed corrections are to the 
NESHAP for Surface Coating of Large Appliances (40 CFR part 63, subpart 
NNNN); the NESHAP for Printing, Coating, and Dyeing of Fabrics and 
Other Textiles (40 CFR part 63, subpart OOOO); and the NESHAP for 
Surface Coating of Metal Furniture (40 CFR part 63, subpart RRRR). Note 
that these proposed corrections are not published in the amendatory 
rule text in the Federal Register (see 84 FR 9590) and are discussed 
below.
    We are proposing to correct 40 CFR 63.4168 of subpart NNNN. The 
original instructions to 40 CFR 63.4168 in the final rule were, 
``Section 63.4168 is amended by revising paragraphs (a)(4) and (5) and 
(c)(2) and (3) to read as follows . . .'' (84 FR 9618). The 
instructions should have said, ``Section 63.4168 is amended by revising 
paragraphs (a)(4) and (5) and (c)(2) and the introductory text of 
(c)(3) to read as follows . . .'' As a result, the subparagraphs 40 CFR 
63.4168(c)(3)(i) through (iii), which were not intended to be affected 
by this action, were deleted in the CFR. We are proposing to insert 
these paragraphs back into the CFR. Please submit any comments on this 
proposed correction to the docket for the Surface Coating of Large 
Appliances (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0670).
    We are proposing to correct 40 CFR 63.4371 of subpart OOOO. The 
instructions in the final rule were to revise the definition of 
``Deviation,'' but the amendatory text contained revised definitions of 
``Deviation'' and ``No organic HAP.'' The current definition of ``No 
organic HAP'' in the CFR contains a reference that is no longer 
accurate. The instruction to revise the definition of ``No organic 
HAP'' was inadvertently deleted; and, the new definition was not 
inserted. We are proposing to insert this new definition as indicated 
in the amendatory language in the final rule (84 FR 9631, March 15, 
2019). Please submit any comments on this proposed correction to the 
docket for the Printing, Coating, and Dyeing of Fabrics and Other 
Textiles (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0668).
    We are proposing to correct 40 CFR 63.4965 of subpart RRRR. The 
original instructions to 40 CFR 63.4965 in the final rule were, 
``Section 63.4965 is amended by revising paragraphs (a)(1) through (4) 
and paragraph (b) to read as follows . . .'' (84 FR 9641). The 
instructions should have said, ``Section 63.4965 is amended by revising 
paragraphs (a)(1) through (4) and the introductory text of paragraph 
(b) to read as follows . . .'' As a result, the subparagraphs 40 CFR 
63.4965(b)(1) through (3), which were not intended to be affected by 
this action, were deleted in the CFR. We are proposing to insert these 
paragraphs back into the CFR. Please submit any comments on this 
proposed correction to the docket for the Surface Coating of Metal 
Furniture (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0669).

V. Summary of Cost, Environmental, and Economic Impacts

A. What are the affected sources?

    Currently, we estimate 43 major source facilities are subject to 
the ALDT NESHAP and operating in the United States. The affected source 
under the NESHAP is the collection of all coating operations; all 
storage containers and mixing vessels in which coatings, thinners, and 
cleaning materials are stored or mixed; all manual and automated 
equipment and containers used for conveying coatings, thinners, and 
cleaning materials; and all storage containers and all manual and 
automated equipment and containers used for conveying waste materials 
generated by a coating operation. A coating operation is defined as the 
equipment used to apply coating to a substrate (coating application) 
and to dry or cure the coating after application. A single coating 
operation always includes at least the point at which a coating is 
applied and all subsequent points in the affected source where organic 
HAP emissions from that coating occur. There may be multiple coating 
operations in an affected source. Coating application with hand-held 
nonrefillable aerosol containers, touchup bottles, touchup markers, 
marking pens, or pinstriping equipment is not a coating operation for 
the purposes of this subpart. The application of temporary materials 
such as protective oils and ``travel waxes'' that are designed to be 
removed from the vehicle before it is delivered to a retail purchaser 
is not a coating operation for the purposes of 40 CFR part 63, subpart 
IIII.
    Currently, we estimate 368 major source facilities are subject to 
the MMPP NESHAP and operating in the United States. The affected source 
under the NESHAP is the collection of all coating operations; all 
storage containers and mixing vessels in which coatings, thinners, and 
cleaning materials are stored or mixed; all manual and automated 
equipment and containers used for conveying coatings, thinners, and 
cleaning materials; and all storage containers and all manual and 
automated equipment and containers used for conveying waste materials 
generated by a coating operation. A coating operation is defined as the 
equipment used to apply cleaning materials to a substrate to prepare it 
for coating application (surface preparation) or to remove dried 
coating; to apply coating to a substrate (coating application) and to 
dry or cure the coating after application; or to clean coating 
operation equipment (equipment cleaning). A single coating operation 
may include any combination of these types of equipment, but always 
includes at least the point at which a given quantity of coating or 
cleaning material is applied to a given part and all subsequent points 
in the affected source where organic HAP are emitted from the specific 
quantity of coating or cleaning material on the specific part. There 
may be multiple coating operations in an affected source. Coating 
application with handheld, non-refillable aerosol containers, touch-up 
markers, or marking pens is not a coating operation for the purposes of 
40 CFR part 63, subpart MMMM.
    Currently, we estimate 125 major source facilities are subject to 
the PPP NESHAP and operating in the United States. The affected source 
under the NESHAP is the collection of coating operations; all storage 
containers and mixing vessels in which coatings, thinners, and cleaning 
materials are stored or mixed; all manual and automated equipment and 
containers used for conveying coatings, thinners, and cleaning 
materials; and all storage containers and all manual and automated 
equipment and containers used for conveying waste materials generated 
by a coating operation. A coating operation is defined as the equipment 
used to apply cleaning materials to a substrate to prepare it for 
coating application (surface preparation) or to remove dried coating; 
to apply coating to a substrate (coating application) and to dry or 
cure the coating after application; or to clean coating operation 
equipment (equipment cleaning). A single coating operation may include 
any combination of these types of equipment, but always

[[Page 58986]]

includes at least the point at which a given quantity of coating or 
cleaning material is applied to a given part and all subsequent points 
in the affected source where organic HAP are emitted from the specific 
quantity of coating or cleaning material on the specific part. There 
may be multiple coating operations in an affected source. Coating 
application with handheld, non-refillable aerosol containers, touch-up 
markers, or marking pens is not a coating operation for the purposes of 
40 CFR part 63, subpart PPPP.

B. What are the air quality impacts?

    At the current level of control, estimated emissions of volatile 
organic HAP from the 43 facilities in the ALDT source category are 
approximately 1,700 tpy. Current estimated emissions of volatile 
organic HAP from the 368 facilities in the MMPP source category are 
approximately 2,700 tpy. Current estimated emissions of volatile 
organic HAP from the 125 facilities in the PPP source category are 
approximately 760 tpy.
    The proposed amendments require that all major sources in the ALDT, 
MMPP, and PPP source categories comply with the relevant emission 
standards at all times, including periods of SSM. We were unable to 
quantify the emissions that occur during periods of SSM or the specific 
emissions reductions that would occur as a result of this action. 
However, eliminating the SSM exemption has the potential to reduce 
emissions by requiring facilities to meet the applicable standard 
during SSM periods.
    Indirect or secondary air emissions impacts are impacts that would 
result from the increased electricity usage associated with the 
operation of control devices (e.g., increased secondary emissions of 
criteria pollutants from power plants). Energy impacts consist of the 
electricity and steam needed to operate control devices and other 
equipment. The proposed amendments would have no effect on the energy 
needs of the affected facilities in any of the three source categories 
and would, therefore, have no indirect or secondary air emissions 
impacts.

C. What are the cost impacts?

    We estimate that each facility in these three source categories 
will experience costs as a result of these proposed amendments that are 
estimated as part of the reporting and recordkeeping costs. Each 
facility will experience costs to read and understand the rule 
amendments. Costs associated with elimination of the SSM exemption were 
estimated as part of the reporting and recordkeeping costs and include 
time for re-evaluating previously developed SSM record systems. Costs 
associated with the requirement to electronically submit notifications 
and semi-annual compliance reports using CEDRI were estimated as part 
of the reporting and recordkeeping costs and include time for becoming 
familiar with CEDRI and the reporting template for semi-annual 
compliance reports. The recordkeeping and reporting costs are presented 
in section V.III.C of this preamble.
    We are also proposing a requirement for performance testing no less 
frequently than every 5 years for sources in each source category using 
the add-on controls compliance options. We estimate that five major 
source facilities subject to the ALDT NESHAP would incur costs to 
conduct periodic testing because they are currently using the emission 
rate with add-on controls compliance option. This total does not 
include facilities in the source category that have add-on controls and 
are currently required to perform periodic performance testing as a 
condition of their state operating permit. The cost for a facility to 
conduct a destruction or removal efficiency performance test using EPA 
Method 25 or 25A is estimated to be about $19,000, and the total cost 
for all five facilities subject to the ALDT NESHAP in a single year 
would be $95,000. Similarly, we estimate that seven major source 
facilities subject to the MMPP NESHAP would incur costs to conduct 
periodic testing because they are currently using the emission rate 
with add-on controls compliance option, at a total cost in a single 
year of $133,000. Finally, we estimate that three major source 
facilities subject to the PPP NESHAP, at a cost in a single year of 
$57,000. For further information on the potential costs, see the 
memorandum titled Draft Costs/Impacts of the 40 CFR Part 63 Subparts 
IIII, MMMM, and PPPP Monitoring Review Revisions, June 2019, in the 
ALDT, MMPP, and PPP Dockets.

D. What are the economic impacts?

    The economic impact analysis is designed to inform decision makers 
about the potential economic consequences of a regulatory action. For 
the current proposals, the EPA estimated the cost of becoming familiar 
with the rule and re-evaluating previously developed SSM record systems 
and performing periodic emissions testing at certain facilities with 
add-on controls that are not already required to perform testing. To 
assess the maximum potential impact, the largest cost expected to be 
experienced in any one year is compared to the total sales for the 
ultimate owner of the affected facilities to estimate the total burden 
for each facility.
    For the proposed revisions to the ALDT NESHAP, the total cost is 
estimated to be approximately $110,000 for the 43 affected entities in 
the first year of the rule, and an additional $120,000 in testing and 
reporting costs for five facilities in the third year of the rule and 
every 5 years thereafter. The 43 affected facilities are owned by 14 
different parent companies, and the total costs associated with the 
proposed requirements range from 0.000002 to 0.0056 percent of annual 
sales revenue per ultimate owner. These costs are not expected to 
result in a significant market impact, regardless of whether they are 
passed on to the purchaser or absorbed by the firms.
    For the proposed revisions to the MMPP NESHAP, the total cost is 
estimated to be approximately $960,000 for the 368 affected entities in 
the first year of the rule, and an additional $170,000 in testing and 
reporting costs for seven facilities in the third year of the rule and 
every 5 years thereafter. The 368 affected facilities are owned by 265 
different parent companies, and the total costs associated with the 
proposed requirements range from 0.000002 to 0.25 percent of annual 
sales revenue per ultimate owner. These costs are not expected to 
result in a significant market impact, regardless of whether they are 
passed on to the purchaser or absorbed by the firms.
    For the proposed revisions to the PPP NESHAP, the total cost is 
estimated to be approximately $330,000 for the 125 affected entities in 
the first year of the rule, and an additional $74,000 in testing and 
reporting costs for three facilities in the third year of the rule and 
every 5 years thereafter. The 125 affected facilities are owned by 94 
different parent companies, and the total costs associated with the 
proposed requirements range from 0.000008 to 0.22 percent of annual 
sales revenue per ultimate owner. These costs are not expected to 
result in a significant market impact, regardless of whether they are 
passed on to the purchaser or absorbed by the firms.
    The EPA also prepared a small business screening assessment to 
determine whether any of the identified affected entities are small 
entities, as defined by the U.S. Small Business Administration. One of 
the facilities potentially affected by the proposed revisions to the 
ALDT NESHAP is a small entity. However, the annualized costs associated 
with the proposed requirement is 0.0056 percent of annual

[[Page 58987]]

sales revenue for the owner of that facility. Of the facilities 
potentially affected by the proposed revisions to the MMPP NESHAP, 110 
are small entities. However, the annualized costs associated with the 
proposed requirements for the 103 ultimate owners of these 110 affected 
small entities range from 0.001 to 0.25 percent of annual sales 
revenues per ultimate owner. Of the facilities potentially affected by 
the proposed revisions to the PPP NESHAP, 35 are small entities. 
However, the annualized costs associated with the proposed requirements 
for the 35 ultimate owners of these 35 affected small entities range 
from 0.0009 to 0.22 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?

    As stated above in section V.B. of this preamble, we were unable to 
quantify the specific emissions reductions associated with eliminating 
the SSM exemption, although this proposed change has the potential to 
reduce emissions of volatile organic HAP.
    Because these proposed amendments are not considered economically 
significant, as defined by Executive Order 12866, we did not monetize 
the benefits of reducing these emissions. This does not mean that there 
are no benefits associated with the potential reduction in volatile 
organic HAP from this rule.

VI. Request for Comments

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

VII. Submitting Data Corrections

    The site-specific emissions profiles used in the source category 
risk and demographic analyses and instructions are available for 
download on the RTR website at https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/surface-coating-automobiles-and-light-duty-trucks-national-emission, for the ALDT NESHAP; https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/surface-coating-miscellaneous-metal-parts-and-products-national for the MMPP NESHAP; and https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/surface-coating-plastic-parts-and-products-national-emission for the PPP NESHAP. The data files include 
detailed information for each HAP emissions release point for the 
facilities in these source categories.
    If you believe that the data are not representative or are 
inaccurate, please identify the data in question, provide your reason 
for concern, and provide any ``improved'' data that you have, if 
available. When you submit data, you must provide documentation of the 
basis for the revised values to support your suggested changes. To 
submit comments on the data downloaded from the RTR website, complete 
the following steps:
    1. Within this downloaded file, enter suggested revisions to the 
data fields appropriate for that information.
    2. Fill in the commenter information fields for each suggested 
revision (i.e., commenter name, commenter organization, commenter email 
address, commenter phone number, and revision comments).
    3. Gather documentation for any suggested emissions revisions 
(e.g., performance test reports, material balance calculations).
    4. Send the entire downloaded file with suggested revisions in 
Microsoft[supreg] Access format and all accompanying documentation to 
the ALDT, MMPP, or PPP Docket, as applicable (through the method 
described in the ADDRESSES section of this preamble).
    5. If you are providing comments on a single facility or multiple 
facilities, you need only submit one file for all facilities. The file 
should contain all suggested changes for all sources at that facility 
(or facilities). We request that all data revision comments be 
submitted in the form of updated Microsoft[supreg] Excel files that are 
generated by the Microsoft[supreg] Access file. These files are 
provided on the RTR website at https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/surface-coating-automobiles-and-light-duty-trucks-national-emission, for the ALDT NESHAP; https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/surface-coating-miscellaneous-metal-parts-and-products-national for the MMPP NESHAP; and https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/surface-coating-plastic-parts-and-products-national-emission for the PPP NESHAP.

VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

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

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

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

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

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

C. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

    The information collection activities in this proposal have been 
submitted for approval to OMB under the PRA, as discussed for each 
source category covered by this proposal in sections VIII.C.1 through 
3.
1. Surface Coating of Automobiles and Light-Duty Trucks
    The Information Collection Request (ICR) document that the EPA 
prepared has been assigned EPA ICR number 2045.07. You can find a copy 
of the ICR in the ALDT Docket (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0314), and 
it is briefly summarized here.
    As part of the RTR for the ALDT NESHAP, the EPA is not proposing to 
revise the emission limit requirements. The EPA is proposing to revise 
the SSM provisions of the rule and proposing the use of electronic data 
reporting for future performance test data submittals, notifications, 
and reports. This information is being collected to assure compliance 
with 40 CFR part 63, subpart IIII.
    Respondents/affected entities: Facilities performing surface 
coating of automobiles and light-duty trucks.
    Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (40 CFR part 63, 
subpart IIII).
    Estimated number of respondents: In the 3 years after the 
amendments are final, approximately 43 respondents per year would be 
subject to the NESHAP and no additional respondents are expected to 
become subject to the NESHAP during that period.
    Frequency of response: The total number of responses in year 1 is 
129 and in year 3 is 15. Year 2 would have no responses.
    Total estimated burden: The average annual burden to the ALDT 
surface

[[Page 58988]]

coating facilities over the 3 years if the amendments are finalized is 
estimated to be 410 hours (per year). The average annual burden to the 
Agency over the 3 years after the amendments are final is estimated to 
be 19 hours (per year). Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).
    Total estimated cost: The average annual cost to the ALDT surface 
coating facilities is $47,000 in labor costs and in the first 3 years 
after the amendments are final. The average annual capital and 
operation and maintenance (O&M) costs is $32,000. The total average 
annual Agency cost over the first 3 years after the amendments are 
final is estimated to be $910.
2. Surface Coating of Miscellaneous Metal Parts and Products
    The ICR document that the EPA prepared has been assigned EPA ICR 
number 2056.07. You can find a copy of the ICR in the MMPP Docket 
(Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0312), and it is briefly summarized 
here.
    As part of the RTR for the MMPP NESHAP, the EPA is not proposing to 
revise the emission limit requirements. The EPA is proposing to revise 
the SSM provisions of the rule and proposing the use of electronic data 
reporting for future performance test data submittals, notifications, 
and reports. This information is being collected to assure compliance 
with 40 CFR part 63, subpart MMMM.
    Respondents/affected entities: Facilities performing surface 
coating of miscellaneous metal parts and products.
    Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (40 CFR part 63, 
subpart MMMM).
    Estimated number of respondents: In the 3 years after the 
amendments are final, approximately 368 respondents per year will be 
subject to the NESHAP and no additional respondents are expected to 
become subject to the NESHAP during that period.
    Frequency of response: The total number of responses in year 1 is 
1,104 and in year 3 is 14. Year 2 would have no responses.
    Total estimated burden: The average annual burden to the MMPP 
surface coating facilities over the 3 years if the amendments are 
finalized is estimated to be 2,934 hours (per year). The average annual 
burden to the Agency over the 3 years after the amendments are final is 
estimated to be 27 hours (per year) for the Agency. Burden is defined 
at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).
    Total estimated cost: The average annual cost to the MMPP surface 
coating facilities is $334,000 in labor costs in the first 3 years 
after the amendments are final. The average annual capital and O&M cost 
is $44,000. The average annual Agency cost over the first 3 years after 
the amendments are final is estimated to be $1,300.
3. Surface Coating of Plastic Parts and Products
    The ICR document that the EPA prepared has been assigned EPA ICR 
number 2044.07. You can find a copy of the ICR in the PPP Docket 
(Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0313), and it is briefly summarized 
here.
    As part of the RTR for the PPP NESHAP, the EPA is not proposing to 
revise the emission limit requirements. The EPA is proposing to revise 
the SSM provisions of the rule and proposing the use of electronic data 
reporting for future performance test data submittals, notifications, 
and reports. This information is being collected to assure compliance 
with 40 CFR part 63, subpart PPPP.
    Respondents/affected entities: Facilities performing surface 
coating of plastic parts and products.
    Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (40 CFR part 63, 
subpart PPPP).
    Estimated number of respondents: In the 3 years after the 
amendments are final, approximately 125 respondents per year will be 
subject to the NESHAP and no additional respondents are expected to 
become subject to the NESHAP during that period.
    Frequency of response: The total number of responses in year 1 is 
375 and in year 3 is 9. Year 2 would have no responses.
    Total estimated burden: The average annual burden to the PPP 
surface coating facilities over the 3 years if the amendments are 
finalized is estimated to be 1,007 hours (per year). The average annual 
burden to the Agency over the 3 years after the amendments are final is 
estimated to be 18 hours (per year) for the Agency. Burden is defined 
at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).
    Total estimated cost: The average annual cost to the PPP surface 
coating facilities is $115,000 in labor costs in the first 3 years 
after the amendments are final. The average annual capital and O&M cost 
is $19,000. The average annual Agency cost over the first 3 years after 
the amendments are final is estimated to be $870.
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required 
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a 
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for the 
EPA's regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9.
    Submit your comments on the Agency's need for this information, the 
accuracy of the provided burden estimates and any suggested methods for 
minimizing respondent burden to the EPA using the dockets identified at 
the beginning of this rule. You may also send your ICR-related comments 
to OMB's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs via email to 
[email protected], Attention: Desk Officer for the EPA. Since 
OMB is required to make a decision concerning the ICR between 30 and 60 
days after receipt, OMB must receive comments no later than December 2, 
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 
economic impact associated with the proposed requirements in this 
action for the affected small entities is described in section V.D. 
above.

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

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

F. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

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

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

    This action does not have tribal implications as specified in 
Executive Order 13175. No tribal facilities are known to be engaged in 
any of the industries that would be affected by this action (ALDT 
surface coating, MMPP surface coating, and PPP surface coating). Thus, 
Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.

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

    This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is 
not economically significant as defined in Executive Order 12866, and 
because the EPA does not believe the environmental

[[Page 58989]]

health or safety risks addressed by this action present a 
disproportionate risk to children. This action's health and risk 
assessments are contained in sections III.A and C, IV.A.1 and 2, IV.B.1 
and 2, and IV.C.1 and 2 of this preamble and are further documented in 
the Automobiles and Light-Duty Trucks Risk Assessment Report, in the 
ALDT Docket, Miscellaneous Metal Parts and Products Risk Assessment 
Report, in the MMPP Docket and the Plastic Parts and Products Risk 
Assessment Report, in the PPP Docket.

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

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

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

    This rulemaking involves technical standards. We are proposing to 
amend the ALDT NESHAP, the MMPP NESHAP, and the PPP NESHAP in this 
action to provide owners and operators with the option of using two new 
methods. We are proposing to add EPA Method 18 of appendix A to 40 CFR 
part 60, ``Measurement of Gaseous Organic Compound Emissions by Gas 
Chromatography'' to measure and subtract methane emissions from 
measured total gaseous organic mass emissions as carbon. We are also 
proposing to amend each of these NESHAP to incorporate by reference 
ASTM Method D2369-10 (2015), ``Test Method for Volatile Content of 
Coatings'' into these three NESHAP as an alternative to EPA Method 24 
for the determination of the volatile matter content in surface 
coatings. ASTM Method D2369-10 (2015) is a test method that allows for 
more accurate results for multi-component chemical resistant coatings.
    We are proposing to amend the MMPP NESHAP and the PPP NESHAP to 
incorporate by reference ASTM Method D2111-10 (2015), ``Standard Test 
Methods for Specific Gravity of Halogenated Organic Solvents and Their 
Admixtures,'' as an alternative to ASTM Method D1475-13. ASTM Method 
D2111-10 (2015) is a test method that allows measurement of specific 
gravity at different temperatures that are chosen by the analyst.
    We are proposing to amend all three NESHAP to update ASTM Method 
D1475-98, ``Standard Test Method for Density of Liquid Coatings, Inks, 
and Related Products,'' by incorporating by reference ASTM Method 
D1475-13. This test method covers the measurement of the density of 
paints, inks, varnishes, lacquers, and components thereof, other than 
pigments, when in fluid form.
    We are proposing to amend the ALDT NESHAP and the MMPP NESHAP to 
update ASTM Method D2697-86 (1998), ``Standard Test Method for Volume 
Nonvolatile Matter in Clear or Pigmented Coatings,'' by incorporating 
by reference ASTM Method D2697-03 (2014), which is the updated version 
of the previously approved method, and to update ASTM Method D6093-97 
(2003), ``Standard Test Method for Percent Volume Nonvolatile Matter in 
Clear or Pigmented Coatings Using Helium Gas Pycnometer,'' by 
incorporating by reference ASTM Method D6093-97 (2016), which is the 
updated version of the previously approved method. ASTM Method D2697-03 
(2014) is a test method that can be used to determine the volume of 
nonvolatile matter in clear and pigmented coatings and ASTM Method 
D6093-97 (2016) is a test method that can be used to determine the 
percent volume of nonvolatile matter in clear and pigmented coatings.
    We are proposing to amend the ALDT NESHAP to update ASTM D5066-91, 
``Standard Test Method for Determination of the Transfer Efficiency 
Under Production Conditions for Spray Application of Automotive Paints-
Weight Basis,'' by incorporating by reference ASTM D5066-91 (Reapproved 
2017). This test method covers procedures for determination of the 
transfer efficiency (using a weight method) under production conditions 
for in-plant spray application of automotive paints as outlined in 
Section 18 of EPA 450/3-88-018.
    We are proposing to amend the ALDT NESHAP and the MMPP NESHAP to 
update ASTM Method D5965, ``Standard Test Methods for Specific Gravity 
of Coating Powders,'' by incorporating by reference ASTM Method D5965-
02 (2013). These test methods cover three procedures for determining 
the specific gravity (see definition) of coating powders, i.e., Test 
Method A--For Testing Coating Powders, Excluding Metallics; Test Method 
B--For Tests Requiring Greater Precision than Test Method A, Including 
Metallics, Using Helium Pycnometry; and Test Method C--For Theoretical 
Calculation Based on Raw Material.
    We are proposing to amend the ALDT NESHAP to update ASTM D6266-00a, 
``Test Method for Determining the Amount of Volatile Organic Compound 
(VOC) Released from Waterborne Automotive Coatings and Available for 
Removal in a VOC Control Device (Abatement),'' by incorporating by 
reference ASTM D6266-00a (Reapproved 2017). This test method describes 
the determination of the amount of VOC released from applied waterborne 
automotive coatings that is available for delivery to a VOC control 
device. The determination is accomplished by measuring the weight loss 
of a freshly coated test panel subject to evaporation or drying and by 
analysis of the VOC or water content in the coating.
    The ASTM standards are available from the American Society for 
Testing and Materials (ASTM), 100 Barr Harbor Drive, Post Office Box 
C700, West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959. See https://www.astm.org/.
    The EPA is proposing to amend the ALDT NESHAP to incorporate by 
reference EPA-450/3-88-018 ``Protocol for Determining Daily Volatile 
Organic Compound Emission Rate of Automobile and Light Duty Truck 
Topcoat Operations'' for use in Sec. Sec.  63.3161(f), 63.3165(e). This 
protocol determines the daily VOC emission rate (pounds of VOC per 
gallon of coating solids deposited) for a complete automobile and 
light-duty truck topcoat operation and is available in the ALDT Docket. 
The protocol is designed for uses in cases where topcoat emission limit 
is stated in units of pounds of VOC per gallon of solids deposited, 
compliance is demonstrated each day, and entire topcoat operation is 
treated as a single entity. The protocol uses the number of square feet 
coated on each vehicle in each booth with each coating as the basis for 
the daily weighting of individual transfer efficiency and bake oven 
exhaust control values. The method is intended to apply to primary 
coatings for new ALDT bodies, body parts for new ALDT, and other parts 
that are coated along with these bodies or body parts. It can also be 
downloaded from EPA's website at the National Service Center for 
Environmental Publications, just access the following website at 
https://nepis.epa.gov and search either the title or document number. 
The EPA is not proposing ASTM Method D1963-85 (1996), ``Standard Test 
Method for Specific Gravity of Drying Oils, Varnishes, Resins, and 
Related Materials at 25/25 C,'' as an alternative for the determination 
of the specific gravity because ASTM has withdrawn the method without 
replacement. The EPA is also not proposing California Air Resources 
Board Method 310, ``Determination of Volatile Organic

[[Page 58990]]

Compounds in Consumer Products and Reactive Organic Compounds in 
Aerosol Coating Products,'' as an alternative to EPA Method 24 because 
the EPA has approved the method only for consumer products and aerosol 
coatings, which do not apply to the rulemakings or source categories 
addressed in this action.
    ASTM D5087-02 was previously approved for incorporation by 
reference into Sec.  63.3165(e).
    Although we identified another 14 VCS for ALDT, MMPP, and PPP as 
being possible alternatives for methods included in these rules, we are 
not proposing to add these VCS in these rulemakings. See the memoranda 
titled Voluntary Consensus Standard Results for Surface Coating of 
Automobiles and Light-duty Trucks, June 2019, Voluntary Consensus 
Standard Results for Surface Coating of Miscellaneous Metal Parts and 
Products, June 2019, and Voluntary Consensus Standard Results for 
Surface Coating of Plastic Parts and Products, June 2019, in the ALDT 
Docket, MMPP Docket, and the PPP Docket, respectively, for the reasons 
for these determinations.
    Under 40 CFR 63.7(f) and 40 CFR 63.8(f) of subpart A of the General 
Provisions, a source may apply to the EPA for permission to use 
alternative test methods or alternative monitoring requirements in 
place of any required testing methods, performance specifications, or 
procedures in the final rule or any amendments.
    The EPA welcomes comments on this aspect of the proposed rulemaking 
and, specifically, invites the public to identify potentially 
applicable VCS and to explain why such standards should be used in this 
regulation.

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

    The EPA believes that this action does not have disproportionately 
high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority 
populations, low-income populations, and/or indigenous peoples, as 
specified in Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    The documentation for this decision is contained in sections IV.A.1 
and 2, sections IV.B.1 and 2, and IV.C.1 and 2 of this preamble and the 
technical reports titled Risk and Technology Review--Analysis of 
Demographic Factors for Populations Living Near Surface Coating of 
Automobiles and Light-Duty Trucks Source Category Operations, March 
2019, Risk and Technology Review--Analysis of Demographic Factors for 
Populations Living Near Surface Coating of Miscellaneous Metal Parts 
and Products Source Category Operations, May 2019, and Risk and 
Technology Review--Analysis of Demographic Factors for Populations 
Living Near Surface Coating of Plastic Parts and Products Source 
Category Operations, April 2019, available in the ALDT Docket, MMPP 
Docket, and the PPP Docket, respectively.
    As discussed in sections IV.A.1, IV.B.1, and IV.C.1 of this 
preamble, we performed a demographic analysis for each source category, 
which is an assessment of risks to individual demographic groups, of 
the population close to the facilities (within 50 km and within 5 km). 
In this analysis, we evaluated the distribution of HAP-related cancer 
risks and noncancer hazards from the ALDT, MMPP, and PPP source 
categories across different social, demographic, and economic groups 
within the populations living near operations identified as having the 
highest risks.
    The results of the ALDT source category demographic analysis 
indicate that approximately 15,000 people are exposed to a cancer risk 
at or above 1-in-1 million and no one is exposed to a chronic noncancer 
HI greater than 1. The overall percent of the population that is 
minorities is similar nationally (38 percent) and for the category 
population with cancer risk greater than or equal to 1-in-1 million (40 
percent). However, the category population with cancer risk greater 
than or equal to 1-in-1 million has a greater percent Hispanic 
population (27 percent) as compared to the national percent Hispanic 
population (18 percent).
    The proximity results (irrespective of risk) indicate that the 
overall percentage of the population that is minority is higher (48 
percent) within 5 km of ALDT facilities than the nationwide percentage 
(38 percent). This is driven by a higher percentage of ``African 
American'' (27 percent) within 5 km of facilities in this category than 
the nationwide percentage (12 percent).
    The results of the MMPP source category demographic analysis 
indicate that approximately 18,000 people are exposed to a cancer risk 
at or above 1-in-1 million and no one is exposed to a chronic noncancer 
HI greater than 1. The percentages of the at-risk population in the 
following specific demographic groups are higher than their respective 
nationwide percentages: ``White,'' ``Below the Poverty Level,'' and 
``Over 25 and Without a High School Diploma.''
    The proximity results (irrespective of risk) indicate that the 
overall percentage of the population that is minority is higher (45 
percent) within 5 km of MMPP facilities than the nationwide percentage 
(38 percent). This is driven by a higher percentage of ``African 
American'' (18 percent) within 5 km of facilities in this category than 
the nationwide percentage (12 percent).
    The results of the PPP source category demographic analysis 
indicate that approximately 500 people are exposed to a cancer risk at 
or above 1-in-1 million and no one is exposed to a chronic noncancer HI 
greater than 1. The percentages of the at-risk population in the 
following specific demographic groups are higher than their respective 
nationwide percentages: ``White'' and ``Below the Poverty Level.''
    The proximity results (irrespective of risk) indicate that the 
population percentages for all demographic categories located within 5 
km of PPP facilities are very similar to their respective nationwide 
percentages.
    We do not expect this proposal to achieve significant reductions in 
HAP emissions. The EPA anticipates that this action does not have 
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental 
effects on minority populations, low-income populations, and/or 
indigenous peoples, as specified in Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, 
February 16, 1994) because it does not significantly affect the level 
of protection provided to human health or the environment. The 
documentation for this decision is contained in section IV of this 
preamble and the technical reports titled Risk and Technology Review--
Analysis of Demographic Factors for Populations Living Near Surface 
Coating of Automobiles and Light-Duty Trucks Category Operations, June 
2019, Risk and Technology Review--Analysis of Demographic Factors for 
Populations Living Near Surface Coating of Miscellaneous Metal Parts 
and Products Source Category Operations, June 2019, and Risk and 
Technology Review--Analysis of Demographic Factors for Populations 
Living Near Surface Coating of Plastic Parts and Products Source 
Category Operations, June 2019, which are available in the ALDT Docket, 
MMPP Docket, and the PPP Docket, respectively.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Appendix A, 
Hazardous substances, Incorporation by reference, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements, Surface coating of automobiles and light-
duty trucks, Surface coating of miscellaneous metal

[[Page 58991]]

parts and products, Surface coating of plastic parts and products.

     Dated: August 16, 2019.
Andrew R. Wheeler,
Administrator.

    For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Environmental 
Protection Agency proposes to amend part 63 of title 40, chapter I, of 
the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:

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

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

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

Subpart A--General Provisions

0
2. Section 63.14 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraphs (h)(12), (13), (21), (26), (29), (30), (66), 
(76), (78), (79), and (81);
0
b. Redesignating paragraphs (n)(1) through (24) as paragraphs (n)(2) 
through (25); and
0
c. Adding new paragraph (n)(1).
    The revisions and addition read as follows:


Sec.  63.14  Incorporations by reference

* * * * *
    (h) * * *
    (12) ASTM D1475-98 (Reapproved 2003), ``Standard Test Method for 
Density of Liquid Coatings, Inks, and Related Products,'' IBR approved 
for Sec.  63.4141(b) and (c).
    (13) ASTM D1475-13, Standard Test Method for Density of Liquid 
Coatings, Inks, and Related Products, approved November 1, 2013, IBR 
approved for Sec. Sec.  63.3151(b), 63.3941(b) and (c), 63.3951(c), 
63.4141(b) and (c), 63.4551(c), 63.4741(b) and (c), 63.4751(c), and 
63.4941(b) and (c).
* * * * *
    (21) 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.  
63.3951(c), 63.4141(b) and (c), 63.4551(c), and 63.4741(a).
* * * * *
    (26) ASTM D2369-10 (Reapproved 2015)\e\, Standard Test Method for 
Volatile Content of Coatings, approved June 1, 2015, IBR approved for 
Sec. Sec.  63.3151(a), 63.3961(j), 63.4141(a) and (b), 63.4161(h), 
63.4321(e), 63.4341(e), 63.4351(d), 63.4541(a), 63.4561(j), 63.4741(a), 
63.4941(a) and (b), and 63.4961(j).
* * * * *
    (29) ASTM D2697-86 (Reapproved 1998), Standard Test Method for 
Volume Nonvolatile Matter in Clear or Pigmented Coatings, IBR approved 
for Sec. Sec.  63.3521(b), 63.4141(b), 63.4741(b), 63.4941(b), and 
63.5160(c).
    (30) ASTM D2697-03 (Reapproved 2014), Standard Test Method for 
Volume Nonvolatile Matter in Clear or Pigmented Coatings, approved July 
1, 2014, IBR approved for Sec. Sec.  63.3161(f), 63.3941(b), 
63.4141(b), 63.4741(a) and (b), and 63.4941(b).
* * * * *
    (66) ASTM D5066-91 (Reapproved 2017), Standard Test Method for 
Determination of the Transfer Efficiency Under Production Conditions 
for Spray Application of Automotive Paints-Weight Basis, IBR approved 
for Sec.  63.3161(g).
* * * * *
    (76) ASTM D5965-02 (2013), Standard Test Methods for Specific 
Gravity of Coating Powders, IBR approved for Sec. Sec.  63.3151(b) and 
63.3951(c).
* * * * *
    (78) ASTM D6093-97 (Reapproved 2003), Standard Test Method for 
Percent Volume Nonvolatile Matter in Clear or Pigmented Coatings Using 
a Helium Gas Pycnometer, IBR approved for Sec. Sec.  63.3521 and 
63.5160(c).
    (79) ASTM D6093-97 (Reapproved 2016), Standard Test Method for 
Percent Volume Nonvolatile Matter in Clear or Pigmented Coatings Using 
a Helium Gas Pycnometer, Approved December 1, 2016, IBR approved for 
Sec. Sec.  63.3161(f), 63.3941(b), 63.4141(b), 63.4741(a) and (b), and 
63.4941(b).
* * * * *
    (81) ASTM D6266-00a (Reapproved 2017), Test Method for Determining 
the Amount of Volatile Organic Compound (VOC) Released from Waterborne 
Automotive Coatings and Available for Removal in a VOC Control Device 
(Abatement), IBR approved for Sec.  63.3165(e).
* * * * *
    (n) * * *
    (1) EPA-450/3-88-018, Protocol for Determining Daily Volatile 
Organic Compound Emission Rate of Automobile and Light-Duty Truck 
Topcoat Operations, IBR approved for Sec. Sec.  63.3161(f) and 
63.3165(e)
* * * * *

Subpart IIII--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air 
Pollutants: Surface Coating of Automobiles and Light-Duty Trucks

0
3. Section 63.3092 is amended by revising paragraph (a)(2) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  63.3092  How must I control emissions from my electrodeposition 
primer system if I want to comply with the combined primer-surfacer, 
topcoat, final repair, glass bonding primer, and glass bonding adhesive 
emission limit?

* * * * *
    (a) * * *
    (2) 0.10 percent by weight of any organic HAP in Table 5 of this 
subpart.
* * * * *
0
4. Section 63.3093 is amended by revising paragraph (b) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  63.3093  What operating limits must I meet?

* * * * *
    (b) Except as provided in paragraph (d) of this section, for any 
controlled coating operation(s), you must meet the operating limits 
specified in Table 1 to this subpart. These operating limits apply to 
the emission capture and add-on control systems on the coating 
operation(s) for which you use this option, and you must establish the 
operating limits during performance tests according to the requirements 
in Sec.  63.3167. You must meet the operating limits at all times after 
you establish them.
* * * * *
0
5. Section 63.3100 is amended by revising paragraphs (b), (d), and (f) 
to read as follows:


Sec.  63.3100  What are my general requirements for complying with this 
subpart?

* * * * *
    (b) Before [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule 
in the Federal Register], the coating operations must be in compliance 
with the operating limits for emission capture systems and add-on 
control devices required by Sec.  63.3093 at all times except during 
periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction. On and after [date 181 
days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register], 
the coating operations must be in compliance with the operating limits 
for emission capture systems and add-on control devices required by 
Sec.  63.3093 at all times.
* * * * *
    (d) Before [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule 
in the Federal Register], you must always operate and maintain your 
affected source including all air pollution control and monitoring

[[Page 58992]]

equipment you use for purposes of complying with this subpart according 
to the provisions in Sec.  63.6(e)(1)(i). On and after [date 181 days 
after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register], at 
all times, the owner or operator must operate and maintain any affected 
source, including associated air pollution control equipment and 
monitoring equipment, in a manner consistent with safety and good air 
pollution control practices for minimizing emissions. The general duty 
to minimize emissions does not require the owner or operator to make 
any further efforts to reduce emissions if levels required by the 
applicable standard have been achieved. Determination of whether a 
source is operating in compliance with operation and maintenance 
requirements will be based on information available to the 
Administrator that may include, but is not limited to, monitoring 
results, review of operation and maintenance procedures, review of 
operation and maintenance records, and inspection of the affected 
source.
* * * * *
    (f) Before [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule 
in the Federal Register], if your affected source uses emission capture 
systems and add-on control devices, you must develop a written startup, 
shutdown, and malfunction plan (SSMP) according to the provisions in 
Sec.  63.6(e)(3). The SSMP must address startup, shutdown, and 
corrective actions in the event of a malfunction of the emission 
capture system or the add-on control devices. On and after [date 181 
days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register], 
the SSMP is not required.
0
6. Section 63.3120 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraphs (a)(4), (a)(5) introductory text, (a)(5)(iv), 
(a)(6) introductory text, (a)(6)(iii), (a)(6)(vi) through (viii), 
(a)(6)(x), and (a)(6)(xiii) and (xiv);
0
b. Adding paragraphs (a)(5)(v) and (a)(6)(xv);
0
c. Revising paragraphs (a)(7) introductory text and (a)(7)(i) and 
(iii);
0
d. Adding paragraph (a)(7)(iv);
0
e. Revising paragraphs (a)(8) introductory text, (a)(8)(ii), (a)(8)(v) 
through (vii), (a)(8)(ix), (a)(8)(xii), (a)(9) introductory text, 
(a)(9)(i) and (ii), and (c) introductory text; and
0
f. Adding paragraphs (d) through (h).
    The revisions and additions read as follows:


Sec.  63.3120  What reports must I submit?

    (a) * * *
    (4) No deviations. If there were no deviations from the emission 
limits, operating limits, or work practices in Sec. Sec.  63.3090, 
63.3091, 63.3092, 63.3093, and 63.3094 that apply to you, the 
semiannual compliance report must include a statement that there were 
no deviations from the applicable emission limitations during the 
reporting period. If you used control devices to comply with the 
emission limits, and there were no periods during which the CPMS were 
out of control as specified in Sec.  63.8(c)(7), the semiannual 
compliance report must include a statement that there were no periods 
during which the CPMS were out of control during the reporting period.
    (5) Deviations: Adhesive, sealer, and deadener. Before [date 181 
days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register], 
if there was a deviation from the applicable emission limits in Sec.  
63.3090(c) and (d) or Sec.  63.3091(c) and (d), the semiannual 
compliance report must contain the information in paragraphs (a)(5)(i) 
through (iv) of this section. On and after [date 181 days after date of 
publication of final rule in the Federal Register], if there was a 
deviation from the applicable emission limits in Sec.  63.3090(c) and 
(d) or Sec.  63.3091(c) and (d), the semiannual compliance report must 
contain the information in paragraphs (a)(5)(i) through (v) of this 
section.
* * * * *
    (iv) The reason for the deviation (including unknown cause, if 
applicable).
    (v) On and after [date 181 days after date of publication of final 
rule in the Federal Register], the number of deviations and, for each 
deviation, a list of the affected source or equipment, an estimate of 
the quantity of each regulated pollutant emitted over the applicable 
emission limit in Sec.  63.3090(c) and (d) or Sec.  63.3091(c) and (d), 
and a description of the method used to estimate the emissions.
    (6) Deviations: Combined electrodeposition primer, primer-surfacer, 
topcoat, final repair, glass bonding primer and glass bonding adhesive, 
or combined primer-surfacer, topcoat, final repair, glass bonding 
primer, and glass bonding adhesive plus all coatings and thinners, 
except for deadener materials and for adhesive and sealer materials 
that are not components of glass bonding systems, used in coating 
operations added to the affected source pursuant to Sec.  63.3082(c). 
Before [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the 
Federal Register], if there was a deviation from the applicable 
emission limits in Sec.  63.3090(a) or (b) or Sec.  63.3091(a) or (b) 
or the applicable operating limit(s) in Table 1 to this subpart, the 
semiannual compliance report must contain the information in paragraphs 
(a)(6)(i) through (xiv) of this section. On and after [date 181 days 
after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register], if 
there was a deviation from the applicable emission limits in Sec.  
63.3090(a) or (b) or Sec.  63.3091(a) or (b) or the applicable 
operating limit(s) in Table 1 to this subpart, the semiannual 
compliance report must contain the information in paragraphs (a)(6)(i) 
through (xv) of this section.
* * * * *
    (iii) The date and time that each malfunction of the capture system 
or add-on control devices used to control emissions from these 
operations started and stopped.
* * * * *
    (vi) Before [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule 
in the Federal Register], the date and time that each CPMS was 
inoperative, except for zero (low-level) and high-level checks. On and 
after [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the 
Federal Register], for each instance that the CPMS was inoperative, 
except for zero (low-level) and high-level checks, the date, time, and 
duration that the CPMS was inoperative; the cause (including unknown 
cause) for the CPMS being inoperative; and descriptions of corrective 
actions taken.
    (vii) Before [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule 
in the Federal Register], the date and time period that each CPMS was 
out of control, including the information in Sec.  63.8(c)(8). On and 
after [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the 
Federal Register], for each instance that the CPMS was out of control, 
as specified in Sec.  63.8(c)(7), the date, time, and duration that the 
CPMS was out-of-control; the cause (including unknown cause) for the 
CPMS being out-of-control; and descriptions of corrective actions 
taken.
    (viii) Before [date 181 days after date of publication of final 
rule in the Federal Register], The date and time period of each 
deviation from an operating limit in Table 1 to this subpart; date and 
time period of each bypass of an add-on control device; and whether 
each deviation occurred during a period of startup, shutdown, or 
malfunction or during another period. On and after [date 181 days after 
date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register], the date, 
time, and duration of each deviation from an operating limit in Table 1 
to this subpart; and the date,

[[Page 58993]]

time, and duration of each bypass of an add-on control device.
* * * * *
    (x) Before [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule 
in the Federal Register], a breakdown of the total duration of the 
deviations from each operating limit in Table 1 to this subpart and 
bypasses of each add-on control device during the semiannual reporting 
period into those that were due to startup, shutdown, control equipment 
problems, process problems, other known causes, and other unknown 
causes. On and after [date 181 days after date of publication of final 
rule in the Federal Register], a breakdown of the total duration of the 
deviations from each operating limit in Table 1 to this subpart and 
bypasses of each add-on control device during the semiannual reporting 
period into those that were due to control equipment problems, process 
problems, other known causes, and other unknown causes.
* * * * *
    (xiii) Before [date 181 days after date of publication of final 
rule in the Federal Register], for each deviation from the work 
practice standards a description of the deviation, the date and time 
period of the deviation, and the actions you took to correct the 
deviation. On and after [date 181 days after date of publication of 
final rule in the Federal Register], for deviations from the work 
practice standards, the number of deviations, and, for each deviation, 
the information in paragraphs (a)(6)(xiii)(A) and (B) of this section.
    (A) A description of the deviation, the date, time, and duration of 
the deviation; and the actions you took to minimize emissions in 
accordance with Sec.  63.3100(d).
    (B) A list of the affected sources or equipment for which a 
deviation occurred, the cause of the deviation (including unknown 
cause, if applicable), and any corrective actions taken to return the 
affected unit to its normal or usual manner of operation.
    (xiv) Before [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule 
in the Federal Register], a statement of the cause of each deviation. 
On and after [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in 
the Federal Register], for deviations from an emission limitation in 
Sec.  63.3090(a) or (b) or Sec.  63.3091(a) or (b) or operating limit 
in Table 1 of this subpart, a statement of the cause of each deviation 
(including unknown cause, if applicable).
    (xv) On and after [date 181 days after date of publication of final 
rule in the Federal Register], for each deviation from an emission 
limitation in Sec.  63.3090(a) or (b), or Sec.  63.3091(a) or (b), or 
operating limit in Table 1 to this subpart, a list of the affected 
sources or equipment for which a deviation occurred, an estimate of the 
quantity of each regulated pollutant emitted over any emission limit in 
Sec.  63.3090(a) or (b) or Sec.  63.3091(a) or (b), and a description 
of the method used to estimate the emissions.
    (7) Deviations: Separate electrodeposition primer organic HAP 
content limit. Before [date 181 days after date of publication of final 
rule in the Federal Register], if you used the separate 
electrodeposition primer organic HAP content limits in Sec.  
63.3092(a), and there was a deviation from these limits, the semiannual 
compliance report must contain the information in paragraphs (a)(7)(i) 
through (iii) of this section. On and after [date 181 days after date 
of publication of final rule in the Federal Register], if you used the 
separate electrodeposition primer organic HAP content limits in Sec.  
63.3092(a), and there was a deviation from these limits, the semiannual 
compliance report must contain the information in paragraphs (a)(7)(i) 
through (iv) of this section.
    (i) Identification of each material used that deviated from the 
emission limit, and the date, time, and duration each was used.
* * * * *
    (iii) A statement of the cause of each deviation (including unknown 
case, if applicable).
    (iv) On and after [date 181 days after date of publication of final 
rule in the Federal Register], the number of deviations, a list of the 
affected source or equipment, an estimate of the quantity of each 
regulated pollutant emitted over any emission limit in Sec.  
63.3092(a), and a description of the method used to estimate the 
emissions.
    (8) Deviations: Separate electrodeposition primer bake oven capture 
and control limitations. Before [date 181 days after date of 
publication of final rule in the Federal Register], if you used the 
separate electrodeposition primer bake oven capture and control 
limitations in Sec.  63.3092(b), and there was a deviation from the 
limitations in Sec.  63.3092(b) or the applicable operating limit in 
Table 1 to this subpart, the semiannual compliance report must contain 
the information in paragraphs (a)(8)(i) through (xii) of this section. 
On and after [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in 
the Federal Register], if you used the separate electrodeposition 
primer bake oven capture and control limitations in Sec.  63.3092(b), 
and there was a deviation from the limitations in Sec.  63.3092(b) or 
the applicable operating limit in Table 1 to this subpart, the 
semiannual compliance report must contain the information in paragraphs 
(a)(8)(i) through (xiv) of this section.
* * * * *
    (ii) The date and time that each malfunction of the capture systems 
or control devices used to control emissions from the electrodeposition 
primer bake oven started and stopped.
* * * * *
    (v) Before [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule 
in the Federal Register], the date and time that each CPMS was 
inoperative, except for zero (low-level) and high-level checks. On and 
after [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the 
Federal Register], for each instance that the CPMS was inoperative, 
except for zero (low-level) and high-level checks, the date, time, and 
duration that the CPMS was inoperative; the cause (including unknown 
cause) for the CPMS being inoperative; and descriptions of corrective 
actions taken.
    (vi) Before [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule 
in the Federal Register], the date, time, and duration that each CPMS 
was out of control, including the information in Sec.  63.8(c)(8). On 
and after [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the 
Federal Register], for each instance that the CPMS was out of control, 
as specified in Sec.  63.8(c)(7), the date, time, and duration that the 
CPMS was out-of-control; the cause (including unknown cause) for the 
CPMS being out-of-control; and descriptions of corrective actions 
taken.
    (vii) Before [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule 
in the Federal Register], the date and time period of each deviation 
from an operating limit in Table 1 to this subpart; date and time 
period of each bypass of an add-on control device; and whether each 
deviation occurred during a period of startup, shutdown, or malfunction 
or during another period. On and after [date 181 days after date of 
publication of final rule in the Federal Register], the date, time, and 
duration of each deviation from an operating limit in Table 1 to this 
subpart; and the date, time, and duration of each bypass of an add-on 
control device.
* * * * *
    (ix) Before [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule 
in the Federal Register], a breakdown of the total duration of the 
deviations from each operating limit in Table 1 to this subpart and 
bypasses of each add-on control device during the semiannual reporting

[[Page 58994]]

period into those that were due to startup, shutdown, control equipment 
problems, process problems, other known causes, and other unknown 
causes. On and after [date 181 days after date of publication of final 
rule in the Federal Register], a breakdown of the total duration of the 
deviations from each operating limit in Table 1 to this subpart and 
bypasses of each add-on control device during the semiannual reporting 
period into those that were due to control equipment problems, process 
problems, other known causes, and other unknown causes.
* * * * *
    (xii) A statement of the cause of each deviation (including unknown 
cause, if applicable).
    (9) Deviations: Work practice plans. Before [date 181 days after 
date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register], if there 
was a deviation from an applicable work practice plan developed in 
accordance with Sec.  63.3094(b) or (c), the semiannual compliance 
report must contain the information in paragraphs (a)(9)(i) through 
(iii) of this section. On and after [date 181 days after date of 
publication of final rule in the Federal Register], if there were 
deviations from an applicable work practice plan developed in 
accordance with Sec.  63.3094(b) or (c), the semiannual compliance 
report must contain the number of deviations, and, for each deviation, 
the information in paragraphs (a)(9)(i) through (iii) of this section.
    (i) Before [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule 
in the Federal Register], the time period during which each deviation 
occurred. On and after [date 181 days after date of publication of 
final rule in the Federal Register], the date, time, and duration of 
the deviation.
    (ii) Before [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule 
in the Federal Register], the nature of each deviation. On and after 
[date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal 
Register], the nature of the deviation, including a list of the 
affected sources or equipment for which the deviation occurred, and the 
cause of the deviation (including unknown cause, if applicable).
* * * * *
    (c) Startup, shutdown, and malfunction reports. Before [date 181 
days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register], 
if you used add-on control devices and you had a startup, shutdown, or 
malfunction during the semiannual reporting period, you must submit the 
reports specified in paragraphs (c)(1) and (2) of this section. On and 
after [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the 
Federal Register], the reports specified in paragraphs (c)(1) and (2) 
of this section are not required.
* * * * *
    (d) On and after [date 181 days after date of publication of final 
rule in the Federal Register], you must submit the results of the 
performance test required in paragraph (b) of this section following 
the procedure specified in paragraphs (d)(1) through (3) of this 
section.
    (1) For data collected using test methods supported by the EPA's 
Electronic Reporting Tool (ERT) as listed on the EPA's ERT website 
(https://www.epa.gov/electronic-reporting-air-emissions/electronic-reporting-tool-ert) at the time of the test, you must submit the 
results of the performance test to the EPA via the Compliance and 
Emissions Data Reporting Interface (CEDRI). (CEDRI can be accessed 
through the EPA's Central Data Exchange (CDX) (https://cdx.epa.gov/)). 
Performance test data must be submitted in a file format generated 
through the use of the EPA's ERT or an alternate electronic file format 
consistent with the extensible markup language (XML) schema listed on 
the EPA's ERT website.
    (2) For data collected using test methods that are not supported by 
the EPA's ERT as listed on the EPA's ERT website at the time of the 
test, you must submit the results of the performance test to the 
Administrator at the appropriate address listed in Sec.  63.13, unless 
the Administrator agrees to or specifies an alternate reporting method.
    (3) If you claim that some of the performance test information 
being submitted under paragraph (c)(1) of this section is confidential 
business information (CBI), you must submit a complete file generated 
through the use of the EPA's ERT or an alternate electronic file 
consistent with the XML schema listed on the EPA's ERT website, 
including information claimed to be CBI, on a compact disc, flash 
drive, or other commonly used electronic storage medium to the EPA. The 
electronic medium must be clearly marked as CBI and mailed to U.S. EPA/
OAPQS/CORE CBI Office, Attention: Group Leader, Measurement Policy 
Group, MD C404-02, 4930 Old Page Rd., Durham, NC 27703. The same ERT or 
alternate file with the CBI omitted must be submitted to the EPA via 
the EPA's CDX as described in paragraph (c)(1) of this section.
    (e) On and after [date 181 days after date of publication of final 
rule in the Federal Register], the owner or operator shall submit the 
initial notifications required in Sec.  63.9(b) and the notification of 
compliance status required in Sec.  63.9(h) and Sec.  63.3110(c) to the 
EPA via the CEDRI. (CEDRI can be accessed through the EPA's CDX 
(https://cdx.epa.gov/)). The owner or operator must upload to CEDRI an 
electronic copy of each applicable notification in portable document 
format (PDF). The applicable notification must be submitted by the 
deadline specified in this subpart, regardless of the method in which 
the reports are submitted. Owners or operators who claim that some of 
the information required to be submitted via CEDRI is CBI shall submit 
a complete report generated using the appropriate form in CEDRI or an 
alternate electronic file consistent with the extensible markup 
language (XML) schema listed on the EPA's CEDRI website, including 
information claimed to be CBI, on a compact disc, flash drive, or other 
commonly used electronic storage medium to the EPA. The electronic 
medium shall be clearly marked as CBI and mailed to U.S. EPA/OAQPS/CORE 
CBI Office, Attention: Group Leader, Measurement Policy Group, MD C404-
02, 4930 Old Page Rd., Durham, NC 27703. The same file with the CBI 
omitted shall be submitted to the EPA via the EPA's CDX as described 
earlier in this paragraph.
    (f) On and after [date 181 days after date of publication of final 
rule in the Federal Register], or once the reporting template has been 
available on the CEDRI website for 1 year, whichever date is later, the 
owner or operator shall submit the semiannual compliance report 
required in paragraph (a) of this section to the EPA via the CEDRI. The 
CEDRI interface can be accessed through the EPA's CDX (https://cdx.epa.gov/). The owner or operator must use the appropriate 
electronic template on the CEDRI Web for this subpart or an alternate 
electronic file format consistent with the XML schema listed on the 
CEDRI website (https://www.epa.gov/electronic-reporting-air-emissions/compliance-and-emissions-data-reporting-interface-cedri). If the 
reporting form for the semiannual compliance report specific to this 
subpart is not available in CEDRI at the time that the report is due, 
you must submit the report to the Administrator at the appropriate 
addresses listed in Sec.  63.13. Once the form has been available in 
CEDRI for 1 year, you must begin submitting all subsequent reports via 
CEDRI. The reports must be submitted by the deadlines specified in this 
subpart, regardless of the method in

[[Page 58995]]

which the reports are submitted. Owners or operators who claim that 
some of the information required to be submitted via CEDRI is CBI shall 
submit a complete report generated using the appropriate form in CEDRI 
or an alternate electronic file consistent with the XML schema listed 
on the EPA's CEDRI website, including information claimed to be CBI, on 
a compact disc, flash drive, or other commonly used electronic storage 
medium to the EPA. The electronic medium shall be clearly marked as CBI 
and mailed to U.S. EPA/OAQPS/CORE CBI Office, Attention: Group Leader, 
Measurement Policy Group, MD C404-02, 4930 Old Page Rd., Durham, NC 
27703. The same file with the CBI omitted shall be submitted to the EPA 
via the EPA's CDX as described earlier in this paragraph.
    (g) If you are required to electronically submit a report through 
the CEDRI in the EPA's CDX, and due to a planned or actual outage of 
either the EPA's CEDRI or CDX systems within the period of time 
beginning 5 business days prior to the date that the submission is due, 
you will be or are precluded from accessing CEDRI or CDX and submitting 
a required report within the time prescribed, you may assert a claim of 
EPA system outage for failure to timely comply with the reporting 
requirement. You must submit notification to the Administrator in 
writing as soon as possible following the date you first knew, or 
through due diligence should have known, that the event may cause or 
caused a delay in reporting. You must provide to the Administrator a 
written description identifying the date, time and length of the 
outage; a rationale for attributing the delay in reporting beyond the 
regulatory deadline to the EPA system outage; describe the measures 
taken or to be taken to minimize the delay in reporting; and identify a 
date by which you propose to report, or if you have already met the 
reporting requirement at the time of the notification, the date you 
reported. In any circumstance, the report must be submitted 
electronically as soon as possible after the outage is resolved. The 
decision to accept the claim of EPA system outage and allow an 
extension to the reporting deadline is solely within the discretion of 
the Administrator.
    (h) If you are required to electronically submit a report through 
CEDRI in the EPA's CDX and a force majeure event is about to occur, 
occurs, or has occurred or there are lingering effects from such an 
event within the period of time beginning 5 business days prior to the 
date the submission is due, the owner or operator may assert a claim of 
force majeure for failure to timely comply with the reporting 
requirement. For the purposes of this section, a force majeure event is 
defined as an event that will be or has been caused by circumstances 
beyond the control of the affected facility, its contractors, or any 
entity controlled by the affected facility that prevents you from 
complying with the requirement to submit a report electronically within 
the time period prescribed. Examples of such events are acts of nature 
(e.g., hurricanes, earthquakes, or floods), acts of war or terrorism, 
or equipment failure or safety hazard beyond the control of the 
affected facility (e.g., large scale power outage). If you intend to 
assert a claim of force majeure, you must submit notification to the 
Administrator in writing as soon as possible following the date you 
first knew, or through due diligence should have known, that the event 
may cause or caused a delay in reporting. You must provide to the 
Administrator a written description of the force majeure event and a 
rationale for attributing the delay in reporting beyond the regulatory 
deadline to the force majeure event; describe the measures taken or to 
be taken to minimize the delay in reporting; and identify a date by 
which you propose to report, or if you have already met the reporting 
requirement at the time of the notification, the date you reported. In 
any circumstance, the reporting must occur as soon as possible after 
the force majeure event occurs. The decision to accept the claim of 
force majeure and allow an extension to the reporting deadline is 
solely within the discretion of the Administrator.
0
7. Section 63.3130 is amended by revising paragraphs (g) and (h) and 
adding paragraph (p) to read as follows:


Sec.  63.3130  What records must I keep?

* * * * *
    (g) Before [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule 
in the Federal Register], a record of the date, time, and duration of 
each deviation, and for each deviation, a record of whether the 
deviation occurred during a period of startup, shutdown, or 
malfunction. On and after [date 181 days after date of publication of 
final rule in the Federal Register], for each deviation from an 
emission limitation, operating limit, or work practice plan reported 
under Sec.  63.3120(a)(5) through (9), a record of the information 
specified in paragraphs (g)(1) through (4) of this section, as 
applicable.
    (1) The date, time, and duration of the deviation, and for each 
deviation, the information as reported under Sec.  63.3120(a)(5) 
through (9).
    (2) A list of the affected sources or equipment for which the 
deviation occurred and the cause of the deviation, as reported under 
Sec.  63.3120(a)(5) through (9).
    (3) An estimate of the quantity of each regulated pollutant emitted 
over any applicable emission limit in Sec.  63.3090 (a) through (d) or 
63.3091(a) through (d) or any applicable operating limit in Table 1 to 
this subpart, and a description of the method used to calculate the 
estimate, as reported under Sec.  63.3120(a)(5) through (9).
    (4) A record of actions taken to minimize emissions in accordance 
with Sec.  63.3100(d) and any corrective actions taken to return the 
affected unit to its normal or usual manner of operation.
    (h) Before [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule 
in the Federal Register], the records required by Sec.  63.6(e)(3)(iii) 
through (v) related to startup, shutdown, and malfunction. On and after 
[date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal 
Register], the provisions of this paragraph no longer apply.
* * * * *
    (p) On and after [date 181 days after date of publication of final 
rule in the Federal Register], any records required to be maintained by 
this subpart that are submitted electronically via the EPA's CEDRI may 
be maintained in electronic format. This ability to maintain electronic 
copies does not affect the requirement for facilities to make records, 
data, and reports available upon request to a delegated air agency or 
the EPA as part of an on-site compliance evaluation.
0
8. Section 63.3131 is amended by revising paragraph (a) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  63.3131  In what form and for how long must I keep my records?

    (a) Your records must be in a form suitable and readily available 
for expeditious review according to Sec.  63.10(b)(1). Where 
appropriate, the records may be maintained as electronic spreadsheets 
or as a database. On and after [date 181 days after date of publication 
of final rule in the Federal Register], any records required to be 
maintained by this subpart that are submitted electronically via the 
EPA's CEDRI may be maintained in electronic format. This ability to 
maintain electronic copies does not affect the requirement for 
facilities to make records, data, and reports available upon request to 
a delegated air agency or the EPA as part of an on-site compliance 
evaluation.
* * * * *

[[Page 58996]]

0
9. Section 63.3151 is amended by revising paragraphs (a)(1)(i), (a)(2) 
and (4), and (b) to read as follows.


Sec.  63.3151  How do I demonstrate initial compliance with the 
emission limitations?

* * * * *
    (a) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (i) Count each organic HAP in Table 5 to this subpart that is 
present at 0.1 percent by mass or more and at 1.0 percent by mass or 
more for other compounds. For example, if toluene (not listed in Table 
5 to this subpart) is measured to be 0.5 percent of the material by 
mass, you do not have to count it. Express the mass fraction of each 
organic HAP you count as a value truncated to four places after the 
decimal point (e.g., 0.3791).
* * * * *
    (2) EPA Method 24 (appendix A-7 to 40 CFR part 60). For coatings, 
you may use EPA Method 24 to determine the mass fraction of nonaqueous 
volatile matter and use that value as a substitute for mass fraction of 
organic HAP. As an alternative to using EPA Method 24, you may use ASTM 
D2369-10 (2015)\e\ (incorporated by reference, see Sec.  63.14).
* * * * *
    (4) Information from the supplier or manufacturer of the material. 
You may rely on information other than that generated by the test 
methods specified in paragraphs (a)(1) through (3) of this section, 
such as manufacturer's formulation data, if it represents each organic 
HAP in Table 5 to this subpart that is present at 0.1 percent by mass 
or more and at 1.0 percent by mass or more for other compounds. For 
example, if toluene (not listed in Table 5 of this subpart) is 0.5 
percent of the material by mass, you do not have to count it. If there 
is a disagreement between such information and results of a test 
conducted according to paragraphs (a)(1) through (3) of this section, 
then the test method results will take precedence, unless after 
consultation, the facility demonstrates to the satisfaction of the 
enforcement authority that the facility's data are correct.
* * * * *
    (b) Determine the density of each material used. Determine the 
density of each material used during the compliance period from test 
results using ASTM D1475-13 (incorporated by reference, see Sec.  
63.14) or for powder coatings, test method A or test method B of ASTM 
D5965-02 (2013) (incorporated by reference, see Sec.  63.14), or 
information from the supplier or manufacturer of the material. If there 
is disagreement between ASTM D1475-13 test results or ASTM D5965-02 
(2013), test method A or test method B test results and the supplier's 
or manufacturer's information, the test results will take precedence 
unless after consultation, the facility demonstrates to the 
satisfaction of the enforcement authority that the facility's data are 
correct.
* * * * *
0
10. Section 63.3160 is amended by revising the section heading and 
paragraph (b)(1) to read as follows:


Sec.  63.3160  By what date must I conduct initial performance tests 
and other initial compliance demonstrations?

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (1) All emission capture systems, add-on control devices, and CPMS 
must be installed and operating no later than the applicable compliance 
date specified in Sec.  63.3083. You must conduct an initial 
performance test of each capture system and add-on control device 
according to the procedures in Sec. Sec.  63.3164 through 63.3166 and 
establish the operating limits required by Sec.  63.3093 no later than 
the compliance date specified in Sec.  63.3083.
* * * * *
0
11. Section 63.3161 is amended by revising paragraphs (a), (f)(1), (g), 
and (k)(3) to read as follows:


Sec.  63.3161  How do I demonstrate initial compliance?

    (a) You must meet all of the requirements of this section to 
demonstrate initial compliance. To demonstrate initial compliance, the 
organic HAP emissions from the combined electrodeposition primer, 
primer-surfacer, topcoat, final repair, glass bonding primer, and glass 
bonding adhesive operations plus all coatings and thinners, except for 
deadener materials and for adhesive and sealer materials that are not 
components of glass bonding systems, used in coating operations added 
to the affected source pursuant to Sec.  63.3082(c) must meet the 
applicable emission limitation in Sec.  63.3090(a) or Sec.  63.3091(a) 
and the applicable operating limits and work practice standards in 
Sec. Sec.  63.3093 and 63.3094.
* * * * *
    (f) * * *
    (1) ASTM Method D2697-03 (2014) or ASTM Method D6093-97 (2016). You 
may use ASTM D2697-03 (Reapproved 2014) (incorporated by reference, see 
Sec.  63.14), or ASTM D6093-97 (Reapproved 2016) (incorporated by 
reference, see Sec.  63.14), to determine the volume fraction of 
coating solids for each coating. Divide the nonvolatile volume percent 
obtained with the methods by 100 to calculate volume fraction of 
coating solids.
* * * * *
    (g) Determine the transfer efficiency for each coating. You must 
determine the transfer efficiency for each primer-surfacer and topcoat 
coating, and for all coatings, except for deadener and for adhesive and 
sealer that are not components of glass bonding systems, used in 
coating operations added to the affected source pursuant to Sec.  
63.3082(c) using ASTM D5066-91 (Reapproved 2017) (incorporated by 
reference, see Sec.  63.14), or the guidelines presented in ``Protocol 
for Determining Daily Volatile Organic Compound Emission Rate of 
Automobile and Light-Duty Truck Topcoat Operations,'' EPA-450/3-88-018. 
You may conduct transfer efficiency testing on representative coatings 
and for representative spray booths as described in ``Protocol for 
Determining Daily Volatile Organic Compound Emission Rate of Automobile 
and Light-Duty Truck Topcoat Operations,'' EPA-450/3-88-018. You may 
assume 100 percent transfer efficiency for electrodeposition primer 
coatings, glass bonding primers, and glass bonding adhesives. For final 
repair coatings, you may assume 40 percent transfer efficiency for air 
atomized spray and 55 percent transfer efficiency for electrostatic 
spray and high volume, low pressure spray. For blackout, chip resistant 
edge primer, interior color, in-line repair, lower body anti-chip 
coatings, or underbody anti-chip coatings, you may assume 40 percent 
transfer efficiency for air atomized spray, 55 percent transfer 
efficiency for electrostatic spray and high volume-low pressure spray, 
and 80 percent transfer efficiency for airless spray.
* * * * *
    (k) * * *
    (3) Determine the mass fraction of volatile organic matter for each 
coating and thinner used in the coating operation controlled by the 
solvent recovery system during the month, kg volatile organic matter 
per kg coating. You may determine the volatile organic matter mass 
fraction using EPA Method 24 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-7, or an EPA 
approved alternative method, or you may use information provided by the 
manufacturer or supplier of the coating. In the event of any 
inconsistency between information provided by the manufacturer or 
supplier and the results of EPA Method 24 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix 
A-7, or an approved alternative method, the test method results will 
govern unless after

[[Page 58997]]

consultation, the facility demonstrates to the satisfaction of the 
enforcement authority that the facility's data are correct.
* * * * *
0
12. Section 63.3163 is amended by revising the section heading and 
paragraph (c) introductory text, adding paragraph (c)(3), and revising 
paragraphs (f) and (h) to read as follows:


Sec.  63.3163  How do I conduct periodic performance tests and 
demonstrate continuous compliance with the emission limitations?

* * * * *
    (c) You must demonstrate continuous compliance with each operating 
limit required by Sec.  63.3093 that applies to you, as specified in 
Table 1 to this subpart, and you must conduct performance tests as 
specified in paragraph (c)(3) of this section.
* * * * *
    (3) Except for solvent recovery systems for which you conduct 
liquid-liquid material balances according to Sec.  63.3161(k) for 
controlled coating operations, you must conduct periodic performance 
tests and establish the operating limits required by Sec.  63.3093 
within 5 years following the previous performance test. You must 
conduct the first periodic performance test before [date 3 years after 
date of publications of final rule in the Federal Register], unless you 
are already required to complete periodic performance tests as a 
requirement of renewing your facility's operating permit under 40 CFR 
part 70 or 40 CFR part 71 and have conducted a performance test on or 
after [date 2 years before date of publications of final rule in the 
Federal Register]. Thereafter you must conduct a performance test no 
later than 5 years following the previous performance test. Operating 
limits must be confirmed or reestablished during each performance test. 
For any control device for which you are using the catalytic oxidizer 
control option at Sec.  63.3167(b) and following the catalyst 
maintenance procedures in Sec.  63.3167(b)(6), you are not required to 
conduct periodic control device performance testing as specified by 
this paragraph. For any control device for which instruments are used 
to continuously measure organic compound emissions, you are not 
required to conduct periodic control device performance testing as 
specified by this paragraph.
* * * * *
    (f) If there were no deviations from the emission limitations, 
submit a statement as part of the semiannual compliance report that you 
were in compliance with the emission limitations during the reporting 
period because the organic HAP emission rate for each compliance period 
was less than or equal to the applicable emission limit in Sec.  
63.3090(a) or Sec.  63.3091(a), Sec.  63.3090(b) or Sec.  63.3091(b), 
or Sec.  63.3092(a) or Sec.  63.3092(b), you achieved the operating 
limits required by Sec.  63.3093, and you achieved the work practice 
standards required by Sec.  63.3094 during each compliance period.
* * * * *
    (h) Before [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule 
in the Federal Register], consistent with Sec. Sec.  63.6(e) and 
63.7(e)(1), deviations that occur during a period of startup, shutdown, 
or malfunction of the emission capture system, add-on control device, 
or coating operation that may affect emission capture or control device 
efficiency are not violations if you demonstrate to the Administrator's 
satisfaction that you were operating in accordance with Sec.  
63.6(e)(1). The Administrator will determine whether deviations that 
occur during a period you identify as a startup, shutdown, or 
malfunction are violations according to the provisions in Sec.  
63.6(e). On and after [date 181 days after date of publication of final 
rule in the Federal Register], the provisions of this paragraph no 
longer apply.
* * * * *
0
13. Section 63.3164 is amended by revising paragraphs (a) introductory 
text and (a)(1) to read as follows:


Sec.  63.3164  What are the general requirements for performance tests?

    (a) You must conduct each applicable performance test required by 
Sec. Sec.  63.3160, 63.3163, and 63.3171 according to the requirements 
in Sec.  63.7(e)(1) and under the conditions in this section unless you 
obtain a waiver of the performance test according to the provisions in 
Sec.  63.7(h).
    (1) Representative coating operation operating conditions. You must 
conduct the performance test under representative operating conditions 
for the coating operation. Before [date 181 days after date of 
publication of final rule in the Federal Register], operations during 
periods of startup, shutdown, or malfunction, and during periods of 
nonoperation do not constitute representative conditions. You must 
record the process information that is necessary to document operating 
conditions during the test and explain why the conditions represent 
normal operation. On and after [date 181 days after date of publication 
of final rule in the Federal Register], operations during periods of 
startup, shutdown, or nonoperation do not constitute representative 
conditions for purposes of conducting a performance test. The owner or 
operator may not conduct performance tests during periods of 
malfunction. You must record the process information that is necessary 
to document operating conditions during the test and explain why the 
conditions represent normal operation. Upon request, you must make 
available to the Administrator such records as may be necessary to 
determine the conditions of performance tests.
* * * * *
0
14. Section 63.3165 is amended by revising the introductory text and 
paragraphs (e) introductory text, the definition of 
``Wvocc,i'' in Equation 6 of paragraph (e)(2), the 
definition of ``Wvocc,i'' in Equation 7 of paragraph (e)(3), 
and the definition of ``Ws,i'' in Equation 8 of paragraph 
(e)(4) to read as follows:


Sec.  63.3165  How do I determine the emission capture system 
efficiency?

    You must use the procedures and test methods in this section to 
determine capture efficiency as part of the performance test required 
by Sec.  63.3160 and Sec.  63.3163. For purposes of this subpart, a 
spray booth air seal is not considered a natural draft opening in a PTE 
or a temporary total enclosure provided you demonstrate that the 
direction of air movement across the interface between the spray booth 
air seal and the spray booth is into the spray booth. For purposes of 
this subpart, a bake oven air seal is not considered a natural draft 
opening in a PTE or a temporary total enclosure provided you 
demonstrate that the direction of air movement across the interface 
between the bake oven air seal and the bake oven is into the bake oven. 
You may use lightweight strips of fabric or paper, or smoke tubes to 
make such demonstrations as part of showing that your capture system is 
a PTE or conducting a capture efficiency test using a temporary total 
enclosure. You cannot count air flowing from a spray booth air seal 
into a spray booth as air flowing through a natural draft opening into 
a PTE or into a temporary total enclosure unless you elect to treat 
that spray booth air seal as a natural draft opening. You cannot count 
air flowing from a bake oven air seal into a bake oven as air flowing 
through a natural draft opening into a PTE or into a temporary total 
enclosure unless you elect to treat that bake oven air seal as a 
natural draft opening.
* * * * *
    (e) Panel testing to determine the capture efficiency of flash-off 
or bake oven emissions. You may conduct panel

[[Page 58998]]

testing to determine the capture efficiency of flash-off or bake oven 
emissions using ASTM D5087-02 (incorporated by reference, see Sec.  
63.14), ASTM D6266-00a (Reapproved 2017) (incorporated by reference, 
see Sec.  63.14), or the guidelines presented in ``Protocol for 
Determining Daily Volatile Organic Compound Emission Rate of Automobile 
and Light-Duty Truck Topcoat Operations,'' EPA-450/3-88-018 . You may 
conduct panel testing on representative coatings as described in 
``Protocol for Determining Daily Volatile Organic Compound Emission 
Rate of Automobile and Light-Duty Truck Topcoat Operations,'' EPA-450/
3-88-018. The results of these panel testing procedures are in units of 
mass of VOC per volume of coating solids deposited and must be 
converted to a percent value for use in this subpart. If you panel test 
representative coatings, then you may convert the panel test result for 
each representative coating either to a unique percent capture 
efficiency for each coating grouped with that representative coating by 
using coating specific values for the volume of coating solids 
deposited per volume of coating used, mass of VOC per volume of 
coating, volume fraction solids, transfer efficiency, density and mass 
fraction VOC in Equations 4 through 6 of this section; or to a 
composite percent capture efficiency for the group of coatings by using 
composite values for the group of coatings for the volume of coating 
solids deposited per volume of coating used and for the mass of VOC per 
volume of coating, and average values for the group of coatings for 
volume fraction solids, transfer efficiency, density and mass fraction 
VOC in Equations 4 through 6 of this section. If you panel test each 
coating, then you must convert the panel test result for each coating 
to a unique percent capture efficiency for that coating by using 
coating specific values for the volume of coating solids deposited per 
volume of coating used, mass of VOC per volume of coating, volume 
fraction solids, transfer efficiency, density, and mass fraction VOC in 
Equations 4 through 6 of this section. Panel test results expressed in 
units of mass of VOC per volume of coating solids deposited must be 
converted to percent capture efficiency using Equation 4 of this 
section. An alternative for using panel test results expressed in units 
of mass of VOC per mass of coating solids deposited is presented in 
paragraph (e)(3) of this section.
* * * * *
    (2) * * *

    Wvocc,i = Mass fraction of VOC in coating, i, or 
average mass fraction of VOC for the group of coatings, including 
coating, i, kg VOC per kg coating, determined by EPA Method 24 
(appendix A-7 to 40 CFR part 60) or the guidelines for combining 
analytical VOC content and formulation solvent content presented in 
Section 9 of ``Protocol for Determining Daily Volatile Organic 
Compound Emission Rate of Automobile and Light-Duty Truck Topcoat 
Operations,'' EPA-450/3-88-018 (Docket ID No. OAR-2002-0093 and 
Docket ID No. A-2001-22).

    (3) * * *

    Wvocc,i = Mass fraction of VOC in coating, i, or 
average mass fraction of VOC for the group of coatings, including 
coating, i, kg VOC per kg coating, determined by EPA Method 24 
(appendix A-7 to 40 CFR part 60) or the guidelines for combining 
analytical VOC content and formulation solvent content presented in 
Section 9 of ``Protocol for Determining Daily Volatile Organic 
Compound Emission Rate of Automobile and Light-Duty Truck Topcoat 
Operations,'' EPA-450/3-88-018 (Docket ID No. OAR-2002-0093 and 
Docket ID No. A-2001-22).

    (4) * * *

    Ws, i = Mass fraction of coating solids for coating, 
i, or average mass fraction of coating solids for the group of 
coatings including coating, i, kg coating solids per kg coating, 
determined by EPA Method 24 (appendix A-7 to 40 CFR part 60) or the 
guidelines for combining analytical VOC content and formulation 
solvent content presented in ``Protocol for Determining Daily 
Volatile Organic Compound Emission Rate of Automobile and Light-Duty 
Truck Topcoat Operations,'' EPA-450/3-88-018 (Docket ID No. OAR-
2002-0093 and Docket ID No. A-2001-22).

* * * * *
0
15. Section 63.3166 is amended by revising the introductory text and 
paragraphs (a)(1) through (4) and (b) introductory text, and adding 
paragraph (b)(4) to read as follows:


Sec.  63.3166  How do I determine the add-on control device emission 
destruction or removal efficiency?

    You must use the procedures and test methods in this section to 
determine the add-on control device emission destruction or removal 
efficiency as part of the performance test required by Sec. Sec.  
63.3160, 63.3163, or 63.3171. You must conduct three test runs as 
specified in Sec.  63.7(e)(3), and each test run must last at least 1 
hour.
    (a) * * *
    (1) Use EPA Method 1 or 1A of appendix A-1 to 40 CFR part 60, as 
appropriate, to select sampling sites and velocity traverse points.
    (2) Use EPA Method 2, 2A, 2C, 2D, or 2F of appendix A-1, or 2G of 
appendix A-2 to 40 CFR part 60, as appropriate, to measure gas 
volumetric flow rate.
    (3) Use EPA Method 3, 3A, or 3B of appendix A-2 to 40 CFR part 60, 
as appropriate, for gas analysis to determine dry molecular weight. The 
ANSI/ASME PTC 19.10-1981, ``Flue and Exhaust Gas Analyses [Part 10, 
Instruments and Apparatus]'' (incorporated by reference, see Sec.  
63.14), may be used as an alternative to EPA Method 3B.
    (4) Use EPA Method 4 of appendix A-3 to 40 CFR part 60 to determine 
stack gas moisture.
* * * * *
    (b) Measure total gaseous organic mass emissions as carbon at the 
inlet and outlet of the add-on control device simultaneously, using 
either EPA Method 25 or 25A of appendix A-7 to 40 CFR part 60, as 
specified in paragraphs (b)(1) through (4) of this section. You must 
use the same method for both the inlet and outlet measurements.
* * * * *
    (4) You may use EPA Method 18 of appendix A-6 to 40 CFR part 60 to 
subtract methane emissions from measured total gaseous organic mass 
emissions as carbon.
* * * * *
0
16. Section 63.3167 is amended by revising the section heading, 
introductory text, and paragraph (f)(1) to read as follows:


Sec.  63.3167  How do I establish the add-on control device operating 
limits during performance tests?

    During the performance tests required by Sec. Sec.  63.3160, 
63.3163, and 63.3171 (and described in Sec. Sec.  63.3164 and 63.3166), 
you must establish the operating limits required by Sec.  63.3093 
according to this section, unless you have received approval for 
alternative monitoring and operating limits under Sec.  63.8(f) as 
specified in Sec.  63.3093.
* * * * *
    (f) * * *
    (1) During the capture efficiency determination required by 
Sec. Sec.  63.3160 and 63.3163 and described in Sec. Sec.  63.3164 and 
63.3165, you must monitor and record either the gas volumetric flow 
rate or the duct static pressure for each separate capture device in 
your emission capture system at least once every 15 minutes during each 
of the three test runs at a point in the duct between the capture 
device and the add-on control device inlet.
* * * * *
0
17. Section 63.3168 is amended by revising paragraphs (a)(4) through 
(7) and (c)(3) introductory text to read as follows:

[[Page 58999]]

Sec.  63.3168  What are the requirements for continuous parameter 
monitoring system installation, operation, and maintenance?

    (a) * * *
    (4) You must maintain the CPMS at all times in accordance with 
Sec.  63.3100(d) and have readily available necessary parts for routine 
repairs of the monitoring equipment.
    (5) Before [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule 
in the Federal Register], you must operate the CPMS and collect 
emission capture system and add-on control device parameter data at all 
times that a controlled coating operation is operating, except during 
monitoring malfunctions, associated repairs, and required quality 
assurance or control activities (including, if applicable, calibration 
checks and required zero and span adjustments). On and after [date 181 
days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register], 
you must operate the CPMS and collect emission capture system and add-
on control device parameter data at all times that a controlled coating 
operation is operating in accordance with Sec.  63.3100(d).
    (6) Before [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule 
in the Federal Register], you must not use emission capture system or 
add-on control device parameter data recorded during monitoring 
malfunctions, associated repairs, out-of-control periods, or required 
quality assurance or control activities when calculating data averages. 
You must use all the data collected during all other periods in 
calculating the data averages for determining compliance with the 
emission capture system and add-on control device operating limits. On 
and after [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the 
Federal Register], startups and shutdowns are normal operation for this 
source category. Emissions from these activities are to be included 
when determining if the standards specified in Sec. Sec.  63.3090, 
63.3091, 63.3092, 63.4292, and 63.4293 are being attained. You must not 
use emission capture system or add-on control device parameter data 
recorded during monitoring malfunctions, associated repairs, out-of-
control periods, or required quality assurance or control activities 
when calculating data averages. You must use all the data collected 
during all other periods in calculating the data averages for 
determining compliance with the emission capture system and add-on 
control device operating limits.
    (7) A monitoring malfunction is any sudden, infrequent, not 
reasonably preventable failure of the CPMS to provide valid data. 
Monitoring failures that are caused in part by poor maintenance or 
careless operation are not malfunctions. Before [date 181 days after 
date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register], any period 
for which the monitoring system is out of control and data are not 
available for required calculations is a deviation from the monitoring 
requirements. On and after [date 181 days after date of publication of 
final rule in the Federal Register], except for periods of required 
quality assurance or control activities, any period during which the 
CPMS fails to operate and record data continuously as required by 
paragraph (a)(1) of this section, or generates data that cannot be 
included in calculating averages as specified in paragraph (a)(7) of 
this section constitutes a deviation from the monitoring requirements.
* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (3) For all thermal oxidizers and catalytic oxidizers, you must 
meet the requirements in paragraphs (a)(1) through (6) and (c)(3)(i) 
through (vii) of this section for each gas temperature monitoring 
device. For the purposes of this paragraph (c)(3), a thermocouple is 
part of the temperature sensor.
* * * * *
0
18. Section 63.3171 is amended by revising paragraphs (a) and (e)(3) to 
read as follows:


Sec.  63.3171  How do I demonstrate initial compliance?

    (a) You must meet all of the requirements of this section to 
demonstrate initial compliance. To demonstrate initial compliance, the 
organic HAP emissions from the combined primer-surfacer, topcoat, final 
repair, glass bonding primer, and glass bonding adhesive operations 
plus all coatings and thinners, except for deadener materials and for 
adhesive and sealer materials that are not components of glass bonding 
systems, used in coating operations added to the affected source 
pursuant to Sec.  63.3082(c) must meet the applicable emission 
limitation in Sec.  63.3090(b) or Sec.  63.3091(b); the organic HAP 
emissions from the electrodeposition primer operation must meet the 
applicable emissions limitations in Sec.  63.3092(a) or (b); and you 
must meet the applicable operating limits and work practice standards 
in Sec. Sec.  63.3093 and 63.3094.
* * * * *
    (e) * * *
    (3) Information from the supplier or manufacturer of the material. 
You may rely on information other than that generated by the test 
methods specified in paragraphs (e)(1) and (2) of this section, such as 
manufacturer's formulation data, if it represents each organic HAP in 
Table 5 to this subpart that is present at 0.1 percent by mass, and at 
1.0 percent by mass or more for other compounds. If there is a 
disagreement between such information and results of a test conducted 
according to paragraph (e)(1) or (2) of this section, then the test 
method results will take precedence unless after consultation, the 
facility demonstrates to the satisfaction of the enforcement authority 
that the facility's data are correct.
* * * * *
0
19. Section 63.3176 is amended by revising the definition of 
``Deviation'' to read as follows:


Sec.  63.3176  What definitions apply to this subpart?

* * * * *
    Deviation means:
    (1) Before [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule 
in the Federal Register], any instance in which an affected source 
subject to this subpart or an owner or operator of such a source:
    (i) Fails to meet any requirement or obligation established by this 
subpart including but not limited to any emission limit, operating 
limit, or work practice standard;
    (ii) Fails to meet any term or condition that is adopted to 
implement an applicable requirement in this subpart and that is 
included in the operating permit for any affected source required to 
obtain such a permit; or
    (iii) Fails to meet any emission limit or operating limit or work 
practice standard in this subpart during startup, shutdown, or 
malfunction, regardless of whether or not such failure is permitted by 
this subpart; and
    (2) On and after [date 181 days after date of publication of final 
rule in the Federal Register], any instance in which an affected source 
subject to this subpart or an owner or operator of such a source:
    (i) Fails to meet any requirement or obligation established by this 
subpart including but not limited to any emission limit, operating 
limit, or work practice standard; or
    (ii) Fails to meet any term or condition that is adopted to 
implement an applicable requirement in this subpart and that is 
included in the operating permit for any affected source required to 
obtain such a permit.
* * * * *
0
20. Table 2 to subpart IIII of part 63 is revised to read as follows:

[[Page 59000]]



       Table 2 to Subpart IIII of Part 63--Applicability of General Provisions to Subpart IIII of Part 63
      You must comply with the applicable General Provisions requirements according to the following table:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 Applicable to subpart
               Citation                        Subject                    IIII                 Explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec.   63.1(a)(1)-(12)...............  General Applicability..  Yes....................
Sec.   63.1(b)(1)-(3)................  Initial Applicability    Yes....................  Applicability to
                                        Determination.                                    subpart IIII is also
                                                                                          specified in Sec.
                                                                                          63.3081.
Sec.   63.1(c)(1)....................  Applicability After      Yes....................
                                        Standard Established.
Sec.   63.1(c)(2)....................  Applicability of Permit  No.....................  Area sources are not
                                        Program for Area                                  subject to subpart
                                        Sources.                                          IIII.
Sec.   63.1(c)(5)....................  Extensions and           Yes....................
                                        Notifications.
Sec.   63.1(e).......................  Applicability of Permit  Yes....................
                                        Program Before
                                        Relevant Standard is
                                        Set.
Sec.   63.2..........................  Definitions............  Yes....................  Additional definitions
                                                                                          are specified in Sec.
                                                                                           63.3176.
Sec.   63.3..........................  Units and Abbreviations  Yes....................
Sec.   63.4(a)(1)-(2)................  Prohibited Activities..  Yes....................
Sec.   63.4(b)-(c)...................  Circumvention/           Yes....................
                                        Fragmentation.
Sec.   63.5(a).......................  Preconstruction Review   Yes....................
                                        Applicability.
Sec.   63.5(b)(1), (3), (4), (6).....  Requirements for         Yes....................
                                        Existing, Newly
                                        Constructed, and
                                        Reconstructed Sources.
Sec.   63.5(d)(1)(i)-(ii)(F),          Application for          Yes....................
 (d)(1)(ii)(H), (d)(1)(ii)(J),          Approval of
 (d)(1)(iii), (d)(2)-(4).               Construction/
                                        Reconstruction.
Sec.   63.5(e).......................  Approval of              Yes....................
                                        Construction/
                                        Reconstruction.
Sec.   63.5(f).......................  Approval of              Yes....................
                                        Construction/
                                        Reconstruction Based
                                        on Prior State Review.
Sec.   63.6(a).......................  Compliance With          Yes....................
                                        Standards and
                                        Maintenance
                                        Requirements--Applicab
                                        ility.
Sec.   63.6(b)(1)-(5), (b)(7)........  Compliance Dates for     Yes....................  Section 63.3083
                                        New and Reconstructed                             specifies the
                                        Sources.                                          compliance dates.
Sec.   63.6(c)(1), (2), (5)..........  Compliance Dates for     Yes....................  Section 63.3083
                                        Existing Sources.                                 specifies the
                                                                                          compliance dates.
Sec.   63.6(e)(1)(i)-(ii)............  Operation and            Yes before [date 181     See Sec.   63.3100(d)
                                        Maintenance.             days after date of       for general duty
                                                                 publication of final     requirement.
                                                                 rule in the Federal
                                                                 Register]. No on and
                                                                 after [date 181 days
                                                                 after date of
                                                                 publication of final
                                                                 rule in the Federal
                                                                 Register].
Sec.   63.6(e)(1)(iii)...............  Operation and            Yes....................  .......................
                                        Maintenance.
Sec.   63.6(e)(3)(i), (e)(3)(iii)-     SSMP...................  Yes before [date 181     .......................
 (ix).                                                           days after date of
                                                                 publication of final
                                                                 rule in the Federal
                                                                 Register]. No on and
                                                                 after [date 181 days
                                                                 after date of
                                                                 publication of final
                                                                 rule in the Federal
                                                                 Register].
Sec.   63.6(f)(1)....................  Compliance Except        Yes before [date 181
                                        During Startup,          days after date of
                                        Shutdown, and            publication of final
                                        Malfunction.             rule in the Federal
                                                                 Register]. No on and
                                                                 after [date 181 days
                                                                 after date of
                                                                 publication of final
                                                                 rule in the Federal
                                                                 Register].
Sec.   63.6(f)(2)-(3)................  Methods for Determining  Yes....................
                                        Compliance.
Sec.   63.6(g).......................  Use of an Alternative    Yes....................
                                        Standard.
Sec.   63.6(h).......................  Compliance With Opacity/ No.....................  Subpart IIII does not
                                        Visible Emission                                  establish opacity
                                        Standards.                                        standards and does not
                                                                                          require continuous
                                                                                          opacity monitoring
                                                                                          systems (COMS).
Sec.   63.6(i)(1)-(14)...............  Extension of Compliance  Yes....................
63.6(j)..............................  Presidential Compliance  Yes....................
                                        Exemption.
Sec.   63.7(a)(1)....................  Performance Test         Yes....................  Applies to all affected
                                        Requirements--Applicab                            sources. Additional
                                        ility.                                            requirements for
                                                                                          performance testing
                                                                                          are specified in Sec.
                                                                                          Sec.   63.3164 and
                                                                                          63.3166.

[[Page 59001]]

 
Sec.   63.7(a)(2) except (a)(2)(i)-    Performance Test         Yes....................  Applies only to
 (viii).                                Requirements--Dates.                              performance tests for
                                                                                          capture system and
                                                                                          control device
                                                                                          efficiency at sources
                                                                                          using these to comply
                                                                                          with the standards.
                                                                                          Section 63.3160
                                                                                          specifies the schedule
                                                                                          for performance test
                                                                                          requirements that are
                                                                                          earlier than those
                                                                                          specified in Sec.
                                                                                          63.7(a)(2).
Sec.   63.7(a)(3)-(4)................  Performance Tests        Yes....................
                                        Required By the
                                        Administrator, Force
                                        Majeure.
Sec.   63.7(b)-(d)...................  Performance Test         Yes....................  Applies only to
                                        Requirements--Notifica                            performance tests for
                                        tion, Quality                                     capture system and add-
                                        Assurance, Facilities                             on control device
                                        Necessary for Safe                                efficiency at sources
                                        Testing Conditions                                using these to comply
                                        During Test.                                      with the standards.
Sec.   63.7(e)(1)....................  Conduct of performance   Yes before [date 181     See Sec.   63.3164.
                                        tests.                   days after date of
                                                                 publication of final
                                                                 rule in the Federal
                                                                 Register]. No on and
                                                                 after [date 181 days
                                                                 after date of
                                                                 publication of final
                                                                 rule in the Federal
                                                                 Register].
Sec.   63.7(e)(2)-(4)................  Conduct of performance   Yes....................
                                        tests.
Sec.   63.7(f).......................  Performance Test         Yes....................  Applies to all test
                                        Requirements--Use of                              methods except those
                                        Alternative Test                                  used to determine
                                        Method.                                           capture system
                                                                                          efficiency.
Sec.   63.7(g)-(h)...................  Performance Test         Yes....................  Applies only to
                                        Requirements--Data                                performance tests for
                                        Analysis,                                         capture system and add-
                                        Recordkeeping,                                    on control device
                                        Reporting, Waiver of                              efficiency at sources
                                        Test.                                             using these to comply
                                                                                          with the standards.
Sec.   63.8(a)(1)-(2)................  Monitoring               Yes....................  Applies only to
                                        Requirements--Applicab                            monitoring of capture
                                        ility.                                            system and add-on
                                                                                          control device
                                                                                          efficiency at sources
                                                                                          using these to comply
                                                                                          with the standards.
                                                                                          Additional
                                                                                          requirements for
                                                                                          monitoring are
                                                                                          specified in Sec.
                                                                                          63.3168.
Sec.   63.8(a)(4)....................  Additional Monitoring    No.....................  Subpart IIII does not
                                        Requirements.                                     have monitoring
                                                                                          requirements for
                                                                                          flares.
Sec.   63.8(b).......................  Conduct of Monitoring..  Yes....................
Sec.   63.8(c)(1)....................  Continuous Monitoring    Yes before [date 181     Section 63.3168
                                        Systems (CMS)            days after date of       specifies the
                                        Operation and            publication of final     requirements for the
                                        Maintenance.             rule in the Federal      operation of CMS for
                                                                 Register]. No on and     capture systems and
                                                                 after [date 181 days     add-on control devices
                                                                 after date of            at sources using these
                                                                 publication of final     to comply.
                                                                 rule in the Federal
                                                                 Register].
63.8(c)(2)-(3).......................  CMS Operation and        Yes....................  Applies only to
                                        Maintenance.                                      monitoring of capture
                                                                                          system and add-on
                                                                                          control device
                                                                                          efficiency at sources
                                                                                          using these to comply
                                                                                          with the standards.
                                                                                          Additional
                                                                                          requirements for CMS
                                                                                          operations and
                                                                                          maintenance are
                                                                                          specified in Sec.
                                                                                          63.3168.
Sec.   63.8(c)(4)....................  CMS....................  No.....................  Section 63.3168
                                                                                          specifies the
                                                                                          requirements for the
                                                                                          operation of CMS for
                                                                                          capture systems and
                                                                                          add-on control devices
                                                                                          at sources using these
                                                                                          to comply with the
                                                                                          standards.
Sec.   63.89(c)(5)...................  COMS...................  No.....................  Subpart IIII does not
                                                                                          have opacity or
                                                                                          visible emission
                                                                                          standards.

[[Page 59002]]

 
Sec.   63.8(c)(6)....................  CMS Requirements.......  No.....................  Section 63.3168
                                                                                          specifies the
                                                                                          requirements for
                                                                                          monitoring systems for
                                                                                          capture systems and
                                                                                          add-on control devices
                                                                                          at sources using these
                                                                                          to comply with the
                                                                                          standards.
Sec.   63.8(c)(7)....................  CMS Out-of-Control       Yes....................
                                        Periods.
Sec.   63.8(c)(8)....................  CMS Out-of-Control       No.....................  Section 63.3120
                                        Periods Reporting.                                requires reporting of
                                                                                          CMS out-of-control
                                                                                          periods.
Sec.   63.8(d)-(e)...................  Quality Control Program  No.....................  Subpart IIII does not
                                        and CMS Performance                               require the use of
                                        Evaluation.                                       continuous emissions
                                                                                          monitoring systems
                                                                                          (CEMS).
Sec.   63.8(f)(1)-(5)................  Use of an Alternative    Yes....................
                                        Monitoring Method.
Sec.   63.8(f)(6)....................  Alternative to Relative  No.....................  Subpart IIII does not
                                        Accuracy Test.                                    require the use of
                                                                                          CEMS.
Sec.   63.8(g).......................  Data Reduction.........  No.....................  Sections 63.3167 and
                                                                                          63.3168 specify
                                                                                          monitoring data
                                                                                          reduction.
Sec.   63.9(a).......................  Notification             Yes....................
                                        Requirements.
Sec.   63.9(b)(1)-(2)................  Initial Notifications..  Yes....................
Sec.   63.9(b)(4)(i), (b)(4)(v),       Application for          Yes....................
 (b)(5).                                Approval of
                                        Construction or
                                        Reconstruction.
Sec.   63.9(c).......................  Request for Extension    Yes....................
                                        of Compliance.
Sec.   63.9(d).......................  Special Compliance       Yes....................
                                        Requirement
                                        Notification.
Sec.   63.9(e).......................  Notification of          Yes....................  Applies only to capture
                                        Performance Test.                                 system and add-on
                                                                                          control device
                                                                                          performance tests at
                                                                                          sources using these to
                                                                                          comply with the
                                                                                          standards.
Sec.   63.9(f).......................  Notification of Visible  No.....................  Subpart IIII does not
                                        Emissions/Opacity Test.                           have opacity or
                                                                                          visible emission
                                                                                          standards.
Sec.   63.9(g).......................  Additional               No.....................  Subpart IIII does not
                                        Notifications When                                require the use of
                                        Using CMS.                                        CEMS.
Sec.   63.9(h)(1)-(3)................  Notification of          Yes....................  Section 63.3110
                                        Compliance Status.                                specifies the dates
                                                                                          for submitting the
                                                                                          notification of
                                                                                          compliance status.
Sec.   63.9(h)(5)-(6)................  Clarifications.........  Yes....................
Sec.   63.9(i).......................  Adjustment of Submittal  Yes....................
                                        Deadlines.
Sec.   63.9(j).......................  Change in Previous       Yes....................
                                        Information.
Sec.   63.10(a)......................  Recordkeeping/           Yes....................
                                        Reporting--Applicabili
                                        ty and General
                                        Information.
Sec.   63.10(b)(1)...................  General Recordkeeping    Yes....................  Additional requirements
                                        Requirements.                                     are specified in Sec.
                                                                                          Sec.   63.3130 and
                                                                                          63.3131.
Sec.   63.10(b)(2)(i)-(ii)...........  Recordkeeping of         Yes before [date 181     See 63.3130(g).
                                        Occurrence and           days after date of
                                        Duration of Startups     publication of final
                                        and Shutdowns and of     rule in the Federal
                                        Failures to Meet         Register]. No on and
                                        Standards.               after [date 181 days
                                                                 after date of
                                                                 publication of final
                                                                 rule in the Federal
                                                                 Register].
Sec.   63.10(b)(2)(iii)..............  Recordkeeping Relevant   Yes....................
                                        to Maintenance of Air
                                        Pollution Control and
                                        Monitoring Equipment.
Sec.   63.10(b)(2)(iv)-(v)...........  Actions Taken to         Yes before [date 181     See Sec.
                                        Minimize Emissions       days after date of       63.3130(g)(4) for a
                                        During SSM.              publication of final     record of actions
                                                                 rule in the Federal      taken to minimize
                                                                 Register]. No on and     emissions during a
                                                                 after [date 181 days     deviation from the
                                                                 after date of            standard.
                                                                 publication of final
                                                                 rule in the Federal
                                                                 Register].
Sec.   63.10(b)(2)(vi)...............  Recordkeeping for CMS    Yes before [date 181     See Sec.   63.3130(g)
                                        Malfunctions.            days after date of       for records of periods
                                                                 publication of final     of deviation from the
                                                                 rule in the Federal      standard, including
                                                                 Register]. No on and     instances where a CMS
                                                                 after [date 181 days     is inoperative or out-
                                                                 after date of            of-control.
                                                                 publication of final
                                                                 rule in the Federal
                                                                 Register].

[[Page 59003]]

 
Sec.   63.10(b)(2)(vii)-(xi).........  Records................  Yes....................
Sec.   63.10(b)(2)(xii)..............  Records................  Yes....................
Sec.   63.10(b)(2)(xiii).............  .......................  No.....................  Subpart IIII does not
                                                                                          require the use of
                                                                                          CEMS.
Sec.   63.10(b)(2)(xiv)..............  .......................  Yes....................
Sec.   63.10(b)(3)...................  Recordkeeping            Yes....................
                                        Requirements for
                                        Applicability
                                        Determinations.
Sec.   63.10(c)(1)-(6)...............  Additional               Yes....................
                                        Recordkeeping
                                        Requirements for
                                        Sources with CMS.
Sec.   63.10(c)(7)-(8)...............  Additional               No.....................  See Sec.   63.3130(g)
                                        Recordkeeping                                     for records of periods
                                        Requirements for                                  of deviation from the
                                        Sources with CMS.                                 standard, including
                                                                                          instances where a CMS
                                                                                          is inoperative or out-
                                                                                          of-control.
Sec.   63.10(c)(10)-(14).............  .......................  Yes....................
Sec.   63.10(c)(15)..................  Records Regarding the    Yes before [date 181
                                        SSM Plan.                days after date of
                                                                 publication of final
                                                                 rule in the Federal
                                                                 Register]. No on and
                                                                 after [date 181 days
                                                                 after date of
                                                                 publication of final
                                                                 rule in the Federal
                                                                 Register].
Sec.   63.10(d)(1)...................  General Reporting        Yes....................  Additional requirements
                                        Requirements.                                     are specified in Sec.
                                                                                           63.3120.
Sec.   63.10(d)(2)...................  Report of Performance    Yes....................  Additional requirements
                                        Test Results.                                     are specified in Sec.
                                                                                           63.3120(b).
Sec.   63.10(d)(3)...................  Reporting Opacity or     No.....................  Subpart IIII does not
                                        Visible Emissions                                 require opacity or
                                        Observations.                                     visible emissions
                                                                                          observations.
Sec.   63.10(d)(4)...................  Progress Reports for     Yes....................
                                        Sources With
                                        Compliance Extensions.
Sec.   63.10(d)(5)...................  Startup, Shutdown, and   Yes before [date 181     See 63.3120(a)(6).
                                        Malfunction Reports.     days after date of
                                                                 publication of final
                                                                 rule in the Federal
                                                                 Register]. No on and
                                                                 after [date 181 days
                                                                 after date of
                                                                 publication of final
                                                                 rule in the Federal
                                                                 Register].
Sec.   63.10(e)(1)-(2)...............  Additional CMS Reports.  No.....................  Subpart IIII does not
                                                                                          require the use of
                                                                                          CEMS.
Sec.   63.10(e)(3)...................  Excess Emissions/CMS     No.....................  Section 63.3120(b)
                                        Performance Reports.                              specifies the contents
                                                                                          of periodic compliance
                                                                                          reports.
Sec.   63.10(e)(4)...................  COMS Data Reports......  No.....................  Subpart IIII does not
                                                                                          specify requirements
                                                                                          for opacity or COMS.
Sec.   63.10(f)......................  Recordkeeping/Reporting  Yes....................
                                        Waiver.
Sec.   63.11.........................  Control Device           No.....................  Subpart IIII does not
                                        Requirements/Flares.                              specify use of flares
                                                                                          for compliance.
Sec.   63.12.........................  State Authority and      Yes....................
                                        Delegations.
Sec.   63.13.........................  Addresses..............  Yes....................
Sec.   63.14.........................  Incorporation by         Yes....................
                                        Reference.
Sec.   63.15.........................  Availability of          Yes....................
                                        Information/
                                        Confidentiality.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

0
21. Table 5 to subpart IIII of part 63 is added to read as follows:

  Table 5 to Subpart IIII of Part 63--List of Hazardous Air Pollutants
 That Must Be Counted Toward Total Organic HAP Content if Present at 0.1
                         Percent or More by Mass
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                      Chemical name                           CAS No.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane...............................         79-34-5
1,1,2-Trichloroethane...................................         79-00-5
1,1-Dimethylhydrazine...................................         57-14-7
1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane.............................         96-12-8
1,2-Diphenylhydrazine...................................        122-66-7

[[Page 59004]]

 
1,3-Butadiene...........................................        106-99-0
1,3-Dichloropropene.....................................        542-75-6
1,4-Dioxane.............................................        123-91-1
2,4,6-Trichlorophenol...................................         88-06-2
2,4/2,6-Dinitrotoluene (mixture)........................      25321-14-6
2,4-Dinitrotoluene......................................        121-14-2
2,4-Toluene diamine.....................................         95-80-7
2-Nitropropane..........................................         79-46-9
3,3'-Dichlorobenzidine..................................         91-94-1
3,3'-Dimethoxybenzidine.................................        119-90-4
3,3'-Dimethylbenzidine..................................        119-93-7
4,4'-Methylene bis(2-chloroaniline).....................        101-14-4
Acetaldehyde............................................         75-07-0
Acrylamide..............................................         79-06-1
Acrylonitrile...........................................        107-13-1
Allyl chloride..........................................        107-05-1
alpha-Hexachlorocyclohexane (a-HCH).....................        319-84-6
Aniline.................................................         62-53-3
Benzene.................................................         71-43-2
Benzidine...............................................         92-87-5
Benzotrichloride........................................         98-07-7
Benzyl chloride.........................................        100-44-7
beta-Hexachlorocyclohexane (b-HCH)......................        319-85-7
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate..............................        117-81-7
Bis(chloromethyl)ether..................................        542-88-1
Bromoform...............................................         75-25-2
Captan..................................................        133-06-2
Carbon tetrachloride....................................         56-23-5
Chlordane...............................................         57-74-9
Chlorobenzilate.........................................        510-15-6
Chloroform..............................................         67-66-3
Chloroprene.............................................        126-99-8
Cresols (mixed).........................................       1319-77-3
DDE.....................................................       3547-04-4
Dichloroethyl ether.....................................        111-44-4
Dichlorvos..............................................         62-73-7
Epichlorohydrin.........................................        106-89-8
Ethyl acrylate..........................................        140-88-5
Ethylene dibromide......................................        106-93-4
Ethylene dichloride.....................................        107-06-2
Ethylene oxide..........................................         75-21-8
Ethylene thiourea.......................................         96-45-7
Ethylidene dichloride (1,1-Dichloroethane)..............         75-34-3
Formaldehyde............................................         50-00-0
Heptachlor..............................................         76-44-8
Hexachlorobenzene.......................................        118-74-1
Hexachlorobutadiene.....................................         87-68-3
Hexachloroethane........................................         67-72-1
Hydrazine...............................................        302-01-2
Isophorone..............................................         78-59-1
Lindane (hexachlorocyclohexane, all isomers)............         58-89-9
m-Cresol................................................        108-39-4
Methylene chloride......................................         75-09-2
Naphthalene.............................................         91-20-3
Nitrobenzene............................................         98-95-3
Nitrosodimethylamine....................................         62-75-9
o-Cresol................................................         95-48-7
o-Toluidine.............................................         95-53-4
Parathion...............................................         56-38-2
p-Cresol................................................        106-44-5
p-Dichlorobenzene.......................................        106-46-7
Pentachloronitrobenzene.................................         82-68-8
Pentachlorophenol.......................................         87-86-5
Propoxur................................................        114-26-1
Propylene dichloride....................................         78-87-5
Propylene oxide.........................................         75-56-9
Quinoline...............................................         91-22-5
Tetrachloroethene.......................................        127-18-4
Toxaphene...............................................       8001-35-2
Trichloroethylene.......................................         79-01-6
Trifluralin.............................................       1582-09-8

[[Page 59005]]

 
Vinyl bromide...........................................        593-60-2
Vinyl chloride..........................................         75-01-4
Vinylidene chloride.....................................         75-35-4
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Subpart MMMM--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air 
Pollutants for Surface Coating of Miscellaneous Metal Parts and 
Products

0
22. Section 63.3900 is amended by revising paragraphs (a)(2)(i) and 
(ii), (b), and (c) to read as follows:


Sec.  63.3900  What are my general requirements for complying with this 
subpart?

    (a) * * *
    (2) * * *
    (i) Before [date 181 days after publication of final rule in the 
Federal Register], the coating operation(s) must be in compliance with 
the applicable emission limit in Sec.  63.3890 at all times except 
during periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction. On or after [date 
181 days after publication of final rule in the Federal Register] you 
must be in compliance with the applicable emission limits in Sec.  63. 
3890 and the operating limits in Table 1 of this subpart at all times.
    (ii) Before [date 181 days after publication of final rule in the 
Federal Register], the coating operation(s) must be in compliance with 
the operating limits for emission capture systems and add-on control 
devices required by Sec.  63.3892 at all times except during periods of 
startup, shutdown, and malfunction, and except for solvent recovery 
systems for which you conduct liquid-liquid material balances according 
to Sec.  63.3961(j). On or after [date 181 days after publication of 
final rule in the Federal Register] the coating operation(s) must be in 
compliance with the operating limits for emission capture systems and 
add-on control devices required by Sec.  63.3892 at all times, except 
for solvent recovery systems for which you conduct liquid-liquid 
material balances according to Sec.  63.3961(j).
* * * * *
    (b) Before [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule 
in the Federal Register], you must always operate and maintain your 
affected source, including all air pollution control and monitoring 
equipment you use for purposes of complying with this subpart, 
according to the provisions in Sec.  63.6(e)(1)(i). On and after [date 
181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal 
Register], at all times, the owner or operator must operate and 
maintain any affected source, including associated air pollution 
control equipment and monitoring equipment, in a manner consistent with 
safety and good air pollution control practices for minimizing 
emissions. The general duty to minimize emissions does not require the 
owner or operator to make any further efforts to reduce emissions if 
levels required by the applicable standard have been achieved. 
Determination of whether a source is operating in compliance with 
operation and maintenance requirements will be based on information 
available to the Administrator that may include, but is not limited to, 
monitoring results, review of operation and maintenance procedures, 
review of operation and maintenance records, and inspection of the 
affected source.
    (c) Before [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule 
in the Federal Register], if your affected source uses an emission 
capture system and add-on control device, you must develop a written 
startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan (SSMP) according to the 
provisions in Sec.  63.6(e)(3). The plan must address the startup, 
shutdown, and corrective actions in the event of a malfunction of the 
emission capture system or the add-on control device. The plan must 
also address any coating operation equipment that may cause increased 
emissions or that would affect capture efficiency if the process 
equipment malfunctions, such as conveyors that move parts among 
enclosures. On and after [date 181 days after date of publication of 
final rule in the Federal Register], the SSMP is not required.
0
23. Section 63.3920 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraphs (a)(5) introductory text and (a)(5)(i) and (iv);
0
b. Adding paragraph (a)(5)(v);
0
c. Revising paragraphs (a)(6) introductory text and (a)(6)(iii);
0
d. Adding paragraph (a)(6)(iv);
0
e. Revising paragraphs (a)(7) introductory text, (a)(7)(iii), 
(a)(7)(vi) through (viii), (a)(7) (x), and (a)(7)(xiii) and (xiv);
0
f. Adding paragraph (a)(7)(xv);
0
g. Revising paragraph (c) introductory text; and
0
h. Adding paragraphs (d) through (h).
    The revisions and additions read as follows:


Sec.  63.3920  What reports must I submit?

    (a) * * *
    (5) Deviations: Compliant material option. If you used the 
compliant material option and there was a deviation from the applicable 
organic HAP content requirements in Sec.  63.3890, the semiannual 
compliance report must contain the information in paragraphs (a)(5)(i) 
through (v) of this section.
    (i) Identification of each coating used that deviated from the 
applicable emission limit, and each thinner and/or other additive, and 
cleaning material used that contained organic HAP, and the dates, time 
and duration each was used.
* * * * *
    (iv) Before [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule 
in the Federal Register], a statement of the cause of each deviation. 
On and after [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in 
the Federal Register], a statement of the cause of each deviation 
(including unknown cause, if applicable).
    (v) On and after [date 181 days after date of publication of final 
rule in the Federal Register], the number of deviations and, for each 
deviation, a list of the affected source or equipment, an estimate of 
the quantity of each regulated pollutant emitted over any applicable 
emission limit in Sec.  63.3890, a description of the method used to 
estimate the emissions, and the actions you took to minimize emissions 
in accordance with Sec.  63.3900(b).
    (6) Deviations: Emission rate without add-on controls option. If 
you used the emission rate without add-on controls option and there was 
a deviation from the applicable emission limit in Sec.  63.3890, the 
semiannual compliance report must contain the information in paragraphs 
(a)(6)(i) through (iv) of this section.
* * * * *
    (iii) Before [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule 
in the Federal Register], a statement of the cause of each deviation. 
On and after [date 181

[[Page 59006]]

days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register], 
a statement of the cause of each deviation (including unknown cause, if 
applicable).
    (iv) On and after [date 181 days after date of publication of final 
rule in the Federal Register], the number of deviations and, for each 
deviation, the date, time, duration, a list of the affected source or 
equipment, an estimate of the quantity of each regulated pollutant 
emitted over any applicable emission limit in Sec.  63.3890, a 
description of the method used to estimate the emissions, and the 
actions you took to minimize emissions in accordance with Sec.  
63.3900(b).
    (7) Deviations: Emission rate with add-on controls option. If you 
used the emission rate with add-on controls option and there was a 
deviation from the applicable emission limit in Sec.  63.3890 or the 
applicable operating limit(s) in Table 1 to this subpart (including any 
periods when emissions bypassed the add-on control device and were 
diverted to the atmosphere), before [date 181 days after date of 
publication of final rule in the Federal Register], the semiannual 
compliance report must contain the information in paragraphs (a)(7)(i) 
through (xiv) of this section. This includes periods of startup, 
shutdown, and malfunction during which deviations occurred. On and 
after [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the 
Federal Register], the semiannual compliance report must contain the 
information in paragraphs (a)(7)(i) through (xii), (a)(7)(xiv), and 
(a)(7)(xv) of this section. If you use the emission rate with add-on 
controls option and there was a deviation from the applicable work 
practice standards in Sec.  63.3893(b), the semiannual compliance 
report must contain the information in paragraph (a)(7)(xiii) of this 
section.
* * * * *
    (iii) The date and time that each malfunction of the capture system 
or add-on control devices started and stopped.
* * * * *
    (vi) Before [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule 
in the Federal Register], the date and time that each CPMS was 
inoperative, except for zero (low-level) and high-level checks. On and 
after [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the 
Federal Register], the number of instances that the CPMS was 
inoperative, and for each instance, except for zero (low-level) and 
high-level checks, the date, time, and duration that the CPMS was 
inoperative; the cause (including unknown cause) for the CPMS being 
inoperative; and the actions you took to minimize emissions in 
accordance with Sec.  63.3900(b).
    (vii) Before [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule 
in the Federal Register], the date, time, and duration that each CPMS 
was out-of-control, including the information in Sec.  63.8(c)(8). On 
and after [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the 
Federal Register], the number of instances that the CPMS was out of 
control as specified in Sec.  63.8(c)(7) and, for each instance, the 
date, time, and duration that the CPMS was out-of-control; the cause 
(including unknown cause) for the CPMS being out-of-control; and 
descriptions of corrective actions taken.
    (viii) Before [date 181 days after date of publication of final 
rule in the Federal Register], the date and time period of each 
deviation from an operating limit in Table 1 to this subpart; date and 
time period of any bypass of the add-on control device; and whether 
each deviation occurred during a period of startup, shutdown, or 
malfunction or during another period. On and after [date 181 days after 
date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register], the number 
of deviations from an operating limit in Table 1 to this subpart and, 
for each deviation, the date, time, and duration of each deviation; and 
the date, time, and duration of any bypass of the add-on control 
device.
* * * * *
    (x) Before [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule 
in the Federal Register], a breakdown of the total duration of the 
deviations from the operating limits in Table 1 of this subpart and 
bypasses of the add-on control device during the semiannual reporting 
period into those that were due to startup, shutdown, control equipment 
problems, process problems, other known causes, and other unknown 
causes. On and after [date 181 days after date of publication of final 
rule in the Federal Register], a breakdown of the total duration of the 
deviations from the operating limits in Table 1 to this subpart and 
bypasses of the add-on control device during the semiannual reporting 
period into those that were due to control equipment problems, process 
problems, other known causes, and other unknown causes.
* * * * *
    (xiii) Before [date 181 days after date of publication of final 
rule in the Federal Register], for each deviation from the work 
practice standards, a description of the deviation, the date and time 
period of the deviation, and the actions you took to correct the 
deviation. On and after [date 181 days after date of publication of 
final rule in the Federal Register], for deviations from the work 
practice standards, the number of deviations, and, for each deviation, 
the information in paragraphs (a)(7)(xiii)(A) and (B) of this section:
    (A) A description of the deviation; the date, time, and duration of 
the deviation; and the actions you took to minimize emissions in 
accordance with Sec.  63.3900(b).
    (B) The description required in paragraph (a)(7)(xiii)(A) of this 
section must include a list of the affected sources or equipment for 
which a deviation occurred and the cause of the deviation (including 
unknown cause, if applicable).
    (xiv) Before [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule 
in the Federal Register], statement of the cause of each deviation. On 
and after [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the 
Federal Register], for deviations from an emission limit in Sec.  
63.3890 or an operating limit in Table 1 to this subpart, a statement 
of the cause of each deviation (including unknown cause, if applicable) 
and the actions you took to minimize emissions in accordance with Sec.  
63.3900(b).
    (xv) On and after [date 181 days after date of publication of final 
rule in the Federal Register], for each deviation from an emission 
limit in Sec.  63.3890 or operating limit in Table 1 to this subpart, a 
list of the affected sources or equipment for which a deviation 
occurred, an estimate of the quantity of each regulated pollutant 
emitted over any emission limit in Sec.  63.3890 or operating limit in 
Table 1 to this subpart, and a description of the method used to 
estimate the emissions.
* * * * *
    (c) Startup, shutdown, malfunction reports. Before [date 181 days 
after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register], if 
you used the emission rate with add-on controls option and you had a 
startup, shutdown, or malfunction during the semiannual reporting 
period, you must submit the reports specified in paragraphs (c)(1) and 
(2) of this section. On and after [date 181 days after date of 
publication of final rule in the Federal Register], the reports 
specified in paragraphs (c)(1) and (2) of this section are not 
required.
* * * * *
    (d) On and after [date 181 days after date of publication of final 
rule in the Federal Register], you must submit the results of the 
performance test required

[[Page 59007]]

in Sec. Sec.  63.3940 and 63.3950 following the procedure specified in 
paragraphs (d)(1) through (3) of this section.
    (1) For data collected using test methods supported by the EPA's 
Electronic Reporting Tool (ERT) as listed on the EPA's ERT website 
(https://www.epa.gov/electronic-reporting-air-emissions/electronic-reporting-tool-ert) at the time of the test, you must submit the 
results of the performance test to the EPA via the CEDRI. The CEDRI 
interface can be accessed through the EPA's CDX (https://cdx.epa.gov//
). Performance test data must be submitted in a file format generated 
through the use of the EPA's ERT or an alternate electronic file format 
consistent with the XML schema listed on the EPA's ERT website.
    (2) For data collected using test methods that are not supported by 
the EPA's ERT as listed on the EPA's ERT website at the time of the 
test, you must submit the results of the performance test to the 
Administrator at the appropriate address listed in Sec.  63.13, unless 
the Administrator agrees to or specifies an alternate reporting method.
    (3) If you claim that some of the performance test information 
being submitted under paragraph (d)(1) of this section is CBI, you must 
submit a complete file generated through the use of the EPA's ERT or an 
alternate electronic file consistent with the XML schema listed on the 
EPA's ERT website, including information claimed to be CBI, on a 
compact disc, flash drive, or other commonly used electronic storage 
medium to the EPA. The electronic medium must be clearly marked as CBI 
and mailed to U.S. EPA/OAPQS/CORE CBI Office, Attention: Group Leader, 
Measurement Policy Group, MD C404-02, 4930 Old Page Rd., Durham, NC 
27703. The same ERT or alternate file with the CBI omitted must be 
submitted to the EPA via the EPA's CDX as described in paragraph (d)(1) 
of this section.
    (e) On and after [date 181 days after date of publication of final 
rule in the Federal Register], the owner or operator shall submit the 
initial notifications required in Sec.  63.9(b) and the notification of 
compliance status required in Sec.  63.9(h) and Sec.  63.3910(c) to the 
EPA via the CEDRI. The CEDRI interface can be accessed through the 
EPA's CDX (https://cdx.epa.gov/). The owner or operator must upload to 
CEDRI an electronic copy of each applicable notification in portable 
document format (PDF). The applicable notification must be submitted by 
the deadline specified in this subpart, regardless of the method in 
which the reports are submitted. Owners or operators who claim that 
some of the information required to be submitted via CEDRI is CBI shall 
submit a complete report generated using the appropriate form in CEDRI 
or an alternate electronic file consistent with the XML schema listed 
on the EPA's CEDRI website, including information claimed to be CBI, on 
a compact disc, flash drive, or other commonly used electronic storage 
medium to the EPA. The electronic medium shall be clearly marked as CBI 
and mailed to U.S. EPA/OAQPS/CORE CBI Office, Attention: Group Leader, 
Measurement Policy Group, MD C404-02, 4930 Old Page Rd., Durham, NC 
27703. The same file with the CBI omitted shall be submitted to the EPA 
via the EPA's CDX as described earlier in this paragraph.
    (f) On and after [date 181 days after date of publication of final 
rule in the Federal Register], or once the reporting template has been 
available on the CEDRI website for 1 year, whichever date is later, the 
owner or operator shall submit the semiannual compliance report 
required in paragraph (a) of this section to the EPA via the CEDRI. The 
CEDRI interface can be accessed through the EPA's CDX (https://cdx.epa.gov/). The owner or operator must use the appropriate 
electronic template on the CEDRI website for this subpart or an 
alternate electronic file format consistent with the XML schema listed 
on the CEDRI website (https://www.epa.gov/electronic-reporting-air-emissions/compliance-and-emissions-data-reporting-interface-cedri). The 
date report templates become available will be listed on the CEDRI 
website. If the reporting form for the semiannual compliance report 
specific to this subpart is not available in CEDRI at the time that the 
report is due, you must submit the report to the Administrator at the 
appropriate addresses listed in Sec.  63.13. Once the form has been 
available in CEDRI for 1 year, you must begin submitting all subsequent 
reports via CEDRI. The reports must be submitted by the deadlines 
specified in this subpart, regardless of the method in which the 
reports are submitted. Owners or operators who claim that some of the 
information required to be submitted via CEDRI is CBI shall submit a 
complete report generated using the appropriate form in CEDRI or an 
alternate electronic file consistent with the XML schema listed on the 
EPA's CEDRI website, including information claimed to be CBI, on a 
compact disc, flash drive, or other commonly used electronic storage 
medium to the EPA. The electronic medium shall be clearly marked as CBI 
and mailed to U.S. EPA/OAQPS/CORE CBI Office, Attention: Group Leader, 
Measurement Policy Group, MD C404-02, 4930 Old Page Rd., Durham, NC 
27703. The same file with the CBI omitted shall be submitted to the EPA 
via the EPA's CDX as described earlier in this paragraph.
    (g) If you are required to electronically submit a report through 
the CEDRI in the EPA's CDX, and due to a planned or actual outage of 
either the EPA's CEDRI or CDX systems within the period of time 
beginning 5 business days prior to the date that the submission is due, 
you will be or are precluded from accessing CEDRI or CDX and submitting 
a required report within the time prescribed, you may assert a claim of 
EPA system outage for failure to timely comply with the reporting 
requirement. You must submit notification to the Administrator in 
writing as soon as possible following the date you first knew, or 
through due diligence should have known, that the event may cause or 
caused a delay in reporting. You must provide to the Administrator a 
written description identifying the date, time and length of the 
outage; a rationale for attributing the delay in reporting beyond the 
regulatory deadline to the EPA system outage; describe the measures 
taken or to be taken to minimize the delay in reporting; and identify a 
date by which you propose to report, or if you have already met the 
reporting requirement at the time of the notification, the date you 
reported. In any circumstance, the report must be submitted 
electronically as soon as possible after the outage is resolved. The 
decision to accept the claim of EPA system outage and allow an 
extension to the reporting deadline is solely within the discretion of 
the Administrator.
    (h) If you are required to electronically submit a report through 
CEDRI in the EPA's CDX and a force majeure event is about to occur, 
occurs, or has occurred or there are lingering effects from such an 
event within the period of time beginning 5 business days prior to the 
date the submission is due, the owner or operator may assert a claim of 
force majeure for failure to timely comply with the reporting 
requirement. For the purposes of this section, a force majeure event is 
defined as an event that will be or has been caused by circumstances 
beyond the control of the affected facility, its contractors, or any 
entity controlled by the affected facility that prevents you from 
complying with the requirement to submit a report electronically within 
the time period prescribed. Examples of such events are acts of nature 
(e.g., hurricanes, earthquakes, or floods), acts of war or terrorism, 
or equipment failure

[[Page 59008]]

or safety hazard beyond the control of the affected facility (e.g., 
large scale power outage). If you intend to assert a claim of force 
majeure, you must submit notification to the Administrator in writing 
as soon as possible following the date you first knew, or through due 
diligence should have known, that the event may cause or caused a delay 
in reporting. You must provide to the Administrator a written 
description of the force majeure event and a rationale for attributing 
the delay in reporting beyond the regulatory deadline to the force 
majeure event; describe the measures taken or to be taken to minimize 
the delay in reporting; and identify a date by which you propose to 
report, or if you have already met the reporting requirement at the 
time of the notification, the date you reported. In any circumstance, 
the reporting must occur as soon as possible after the force majeure 
event occurs. The decision to accept the claim of force majeure and 
allow an extension to the reporting deadline is solely within the 
discretion of the Administrator.
0
24. Section 63.3930 is amended by revising paragraphs (j), (k) 
introductory text, and (k)(1) and (2) to read as follows:


Sec.  63.3930  What records must I keep?

* * * * *
    (j) Before [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule 
in the Federal Register], you must keep records of the date, time, and 
duration of each deviation. On and after [date 181 days after date of 
publication of final rule in the Federal Register], for each deviation 
from an emission limitation reported under Sec.  63.3920(a)(5) through 
(7), a record of the information specified in paragraphs (j)(1) through 
(4) of this section, as applicable.
    (1) The date, time, and duration of the deviation, as reported 
under Sec.  63.3920(a)(5) through (7).
    (2) A list of the affected sources or equipment for which the 
deviation occurred and the cause of the deviation, as reported under 
Sec.  63.3920(a)(5) through (7).
    (3) An estimate of the quantity of each regulated pollutant emitted 
over any applicable emission limit in Sec.  63.3890 or any applicable 
operating limit in Table 1 to this subpart, and a description of the 
method used to calculate the estimate, as reported under Sec.  
63.3920(a)(5) through (7).
    (4) A record of actions taken to minimize emissions in accordance 
with Sec.  63.3900(b) and any corrective actions taken to return the 
affected unit to its normal or usual manner of operation.
    (k) If you use the emission rate with add-on controls option, you 
must also keep the records specified in paragraphs (k)(1) through (8) 
of this section.
    (1) Before [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule 
in the Federal Register], for each deviation, a record of whether the 
deviation occurred during a period of startup, shutdown, or 
malfunction. On and after [date 181 days after date of publication of 
final rule in the Federal Register], a record of whether the deviation 
occurred during a period of startup, shutdown, or malfunction is not 
required.
    (2) Before [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule 
in the Federal Register], the records in Sec.  63.6(e)(3)(iii) through 
(v) related to startup, shutdown, and malfunction. On and after [date 
181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal 
Register], the records in Sec.  63.6(e)(3)(iii) through (v) related to 
startup, shutdown, and malfunction are not required.
* * * * *
0
25. Section 63.3931 is amended by revising paragraph (a) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  63.3931  In what form and for how long must I keep my records?

    (a) Your records must be in a form suitable and readily available 
for expeditious review, according to Sec.  63.10(b)(1). Where 
appropriate, the records may be maintained as electronic spreadsheets 
or as a database. On and after [date 181 days after date of publication 
of final rule in the Federal Register], any records required to be 
maintained by this subpart that are in reports that were submitted 
electronically via the EPA's CEDRI may be maintained in electronic 
format. This ability to maintain electronic copies does not affect the 
requirement for facilities to make records, data, and reports available 
upon request to a delegated air agency or the EPA as part of an on-site 
compliance evaluation.
* * * * *
0
26. Section 63.3941 is amended by revising paragraphs (a)(1)(i), 
(a)(4), (b)(1), the definition of ``Davg'' in Equation 1 of paragraph 
(b)(4), and paragraph (c) to read as follows:


Sec.  63.3941  How do I demonstrate initial compliance with the 
emission limitations?

* * * * *
    (a) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (i) Count each organic HAP in Table 5 to this subpart that is 
measured to be present at 0.1 percent by mass or more and at 1.0 
percent by mass or more for other compounds. For example, if toluene 
(not listed in Table 5 to this subpart) is measured to be 0.5 percent 
of the material by mass, you do not have to count it. Express the mass 
fraction of each organic HAP you count as a value truncated to four 
places after the decimal point (e.g., 0.3791).
* * * * *
    (4) Information from the supplier or manufacturer of the material. 
You may rely on information other than that generated by the test 
methods specified in paragraphs (a)(1) through (3) of this section, 
such as manufacturer's formulation data, if it represents each organic 
HAP in Table 5 to this subpart that is present at 0.1 percent by mass 
or more and at 1.0 percent by mass or more for other compounds. For 
example, if toluene (not listed in Table 5 to this subpart) is 0.5 
percent of the material by mass, you do not have to count it. For 
reactive adhesives in which some of the HAP react to form solids and 
are not emitted to the atmosphere, you may rely on manufacturer's data 
that expressly states the organic HAP or volatile matter mass fraction 
emitted. If there is a disagreement between such information and 
results of a test conducted according to paragraphs (a)(1) through (3) 
of this section, then the test method results will take precedence 
unless, after consultation, you demonstrate to the satisfaction of the 
enforcement agency that the formulation data are correct.
* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (1) ASTM Method D2697-03 (2014) or D6093-97 (2016). You may use 
ASTM D2697-03 (Reapproved 2014) (incorporated by reference, see Sec.  
63.14), or D6093-97 (Reapproved 2016) (incorporated by reference, see 
Sec.  63.14), to determine the volume fraction of coating solids for 
each coating. Divide the nonvolatile volume percent obtained with the 
methods by 100 to calculate volume fraction of coating solids.
* * * * *
    (4) * * *

Davg = Average density of volatile matter in the coating, 
grams volatile matter per liter volatile matter, determined from 
test results using ASTM D1475-13 (incorporated by reference, see 
Sec.  63.14), information from the supplier or manufacturer of the 
material, or reference sources providing density or specific gravity 
data for pure materials. If there is disagreement between ASTM 
D1475-13 test results and other information sources, the test 
results will take precedence unless, after consultation you 
demonstrate to the satisfaction of the enforcement agency that the 
formulation data are correct.

    (c) Determine the density of each coating. Determine the density of 
each coating used during the compliance period from test results using 
ASTM

[[Page 59009]]

D1475-13 (incorporated by reference, see Sec.  63.14), information from 
the supplier or manufacturer of the material, or specific gravity data 
for pure chemicals. If there is disagreement between ASTM D1475-13 test 
results and the supplier's or manufacturer's information, the test 
results will take precedence unless, after consultation you demonstrate 
to the satisfaction of the enforcement agency that the formulation data 
are correct.
* * * * *
0
27. Section 63.3951 is amended by revising paragraph (c) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  63.3951  How do I demonstrate initial compliance with the 
emission limitations?

* * * * *
    (c) Determine the density of each material. Determine the density 
of each liquid coating, thinner and/or other additive, and cleaning 
material used during each month from test results using ASTM D1475-13 
or ASTM D2111-10 (Reapproved 2015) (both incorporated by reference, see 
Sec.  63.14), information from the supplier or manufacturer of the 
material, or reference sources providing density or specific gravity 
data for pure materials. If you are including powder coatings in the 
compliance determination, determine the density of powder coatings, 
using ASTM D5965-02 (2013) (incorporated by reference, see Sec.  
63.14), or information from the supplier. If there is disagreement 
between ASTM D1475-13 or ASTM D2111-10 (2015) test results and other 
such information sources, the test results will take precedence unless, 
after consultation you demonstrate to the satisfaction of the 
enforcement agency that the formulation data are correct. If you 
purchase materials or monitor consumption by weight instead of volume, 
you do not need to determine material density. Instead, you may use the 
material weight in place of the combined terms for density and volume 
in Equations 1A, 1B, 1C, and 2 of this section.
* * * * *
0
28. Section 63.3960 is amended by revising paragraphs (a)(1) and (4), 
(b)(1), and (c) introductory text to read as follows:


Sec.  63.3960  By what date must I conduct performance tests and other 
initial compliance demonstrations?

    (a) * * *
    (1) All emission capture systems, add-on control devices, and CPMS 
must be installed and operating no later than the applicable compliance 
date specified in Sec.  63.3883. Except for solvent recovery systems 
for which you conduct liquid-liquid material balances according to 
Sec.  63.3961(j), you must conduct according to the schedule in 
paragraphs (a)(1)(i) and (ii) of this section initial and periodic 
performance tests of each capture system and add-on control device 
according to the procedures in Sec. Sec.  63.3964, 63.3965, and 63.3966 
and establish the operating limits required by Sec.  63.3892. For a 
solvent recovery system for which you conduct liquid-liquid material 
balances according to Sec.  63.3961(j), you must initiate the first 
material balance no later than the applicable compliance date specified 
in Sec.  63.3883. For magnet wire coating operations, you may, with 
approval, conduct a performance test of one representative magnet wire 
coating machine for each group of identical or very similar magnet wire 
coating machines.
    (i) You must conduct the initial performance test and establish the 
operating limits required by Sec.  63.3892 no later than 180 days after 
the applicable compliance date specified in Sec.  63.3883.
    (ii) You must conduct periodic performance tests and establish the 
operating limits required by Sec.  63.3892 within 5 years following the 
previous performance test. You must conduct the first periodic 
performance test before [date 3 years after date of publications of 
final rule in the Federal Register], unless you are already required to 
complete periodic performance tests as a requirement of renewing your 
facility's operating permit under 40 CFR part 70 or 40 CFR part 71 and 
have conducted a performance test on or after [date 2 years before date 
of publications of final rule in the Federal Register]. Thereafter you 
must conduct a performance test no later than 5 years following the 
previous performance test. Operating limits must be confirmed or 
reestablished during each performance test. For any control device for 
which you are using the catalytic oxidizer control option at Sec.  
63.3967(b) and following the catalyst maintenance procedures in Sec.  
63.3967(b)(4), you are not required to conduct periodic testing control 
device performance testing as specified by this paragraph. For any 
control device for which instruments are used to continuously measure 
organic compound emissions, you are not required to conduct periodic 
control device performance testing as specified by this paragraph.
* * * * *
    (4) For the initial compliance demonstration, you do not need to 
comply with the operating limits for the emission capture system and 
add-on control device required by Sec.  63.3892 until after you have 
completed the initial performance tests specified in paragraph (a)(1) 
of this section. Instead, you must maintain a log detailing the 
operation and maintenance of the emission capture system, add-on 
control device, and continuous parameter monitors during the period 
between the compliance date and the performance test. You must begin 
complying with the operating limits established based on the initial 
performance tests specified in paragraph (a)(1) of this section for 
your affected source on the date you complete the performance tests. 
For magnet wire coating operations, you must begin complying with the 
operating limits for all identical or very similar magnet wire coating 
machines on the date you complete the performance test of a 
representative magnet wire coating machine. The requirements in this 
paragraph (a)(4) do not apply to solvent recovery systems for which you 
conduct liquid-liquid material balances according to the requirements 
in Sec.  63.3961(j).
    (b) * * *
    (1) All emission capture systems, add-on control devices, and CPMS 
must be installed and operating no later than the applicable compliance 
date specified in Sec.  63.3883. Except for magnet wire coating 
operations and solvent recovery systems for which you conduct liquid-
liquid material balances according to Sec.  63.3961(j), you must 
conduct according to the schedule in paragraphs (b)(1)(i) and (ii) of 
this section initial and periodic performance tests of each capture 
system and add-on control device according to the procedures in 
Sec. Sec.  63.3964, 63.3965, and 63.3966 and establish the operating 
limits required by Sec.  63.3892. For magnet wire coating operations, 
you may, with approval, conduct a performance test of a single magnet 
wire coating machine that represents identical or very similar magnet 
wire coating machines. For a solvent recovery system for which you 
conduct liquid-liquid material balances according to Sec.  63.3961(j), 
you must initiate the first material balance no later than the 
compliance date specified in Sec.  63.3883.
    (i) You must conduct the initial performance test and establish the 
operating limits required by Sec.  63.3892 no later than 180 days after 
the applicable compliance date specified in Sec.  63.3883.
    (ii) You must conduct periodic performance tests and establish the 
operating limits required by Sec.  63.3892 within 5 years following the 
previous performance test. You must conduct the first periodic 
performance test before

[[Page 59010]]

[date 3 years after date of publications of final rule in the Federal 
Register], unless you are already required to complete periodic 
performance tests as a requirement of renewing your facility's 
operating permit under 40 CFR part 70 or 40 CFR part 71 and have 
conducted a performance test on or after [date 2 years before date of 
publications of final rule in the Federal Register]. Thereafter you 
must conduct a performance test no later than 5 years following the 
previous performance test. Operating limits must be confirmed or 
reestablished during each performance test. For any control device for 
which you are using the catalytic oxidizer control option at Sec.  
63.3967(b) and following the catalyst maintenance procedures in Sec.  
63.3967(b)(4), you are not required to conduct periodic testing control 
device performance testing as specified by this paragraph. For any 
control device for which instruments are used to continuously measure 
organic compound emissions, you are not required to conduct periodic 
control device performance testing as specified by this paragraph.
* * * * *
    (c) You are not required to conduct an initial performance test to 
determine capture efficiency or destruction efficiency of a capture 
system or control device if you receive approval to use the results of 
a performance test that has been previously conducted on that capture 
system or control device. Any such previous tests must meet the 
conditions described in paragraphs (c)(1) through (3) of this section. 
You are still required to conduct a periodic performance test according 
to the applicable requirements of paragraphs (a)(1)(ii) and (b)(2)(ii) 
of this section.
* * * * *
0
29. Section 63.3961 is amended by revising paragraph (j)(3) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  63.3961  How do I demonstrate initial compliance?

* * * * *
    (j) * * *
    (3) Determine the mass fraction of volatile organic matter for each 
coating, thinner and/or other additive, and cleaning material used in 
the coating operation controlled by the solvent recovery system during 
the month, kg volatile organic matter per kg coating. You may determine 
the volatile organic matter mass fraction using EPA Method 24 of 40 CFR 
part 60, appendix A-7, ASTM D2369-10 (Reapproved 2015)\e\, 
(incorporated by reference, see Sec.  63.14), or an EPA approved 
alternative method, or you may use information provided by the 
manufacturer or supplier of the coating. In the event of any 
inconsistency between information provided by the manufacturer or 
supplier and the results of EPA Method 24 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix 
A-7, ASTM D2369-10 (Reapproved 2015)\e\, or an approved alternative 
method, the test method results will take precedence unless, after 
consultation you demonstrate to the satisfaction of the enforcement 
agency that the formulation data are correct.
* * * * *
0
30. Section 63.3963 is amended by revising paragraph (f) and adding 
paragraph (i) to read as follows:


Sec.  63.3963  How do I demonstrate continuous compliance with the 
emission limitations?

* * * * *
    (f) As part of each semiannual compliance report required in Sec.  
63.3920, you must identify the coating operation(s) for which you used 
the emission rate with add-on controls option. If there were no 
deviations from the emission limits in Sec.  63.3890, the operating 
limits in Sec.  63.3892, and the work practice standards in Sec.  
63.3893, submit a statement that you were in compliance with the 
emission limitations during the reporting period because the organic 
HAP emission rate for each compliance period was less than or equal to 
the applicable emission limit in Sec.  63.3890, and you achieved the 
operating limits required by Sec.  63.3892 and the work practice 
standards required by Sec.  63.3893 during each compliance period.
* * * * *
    (i) On and after [date 181 days after date of publication of final 
rule in the Federal Register], deviations that occur due to malfunction 
of the emission capture system, add-on control device, or coating 
operation that may affect emission capture or control device efficiency 
are required to operate in accordance with Sec.  63.3900(b). The 
Administrator will determine whether the deviations are violations 
according to the provisions in Sec.  63.3900(b).
* * * * *
0
31. Section 63.3964 is amended by revising paragraphs (a) introductory 
text and (a)(1) to read as follows:


Sec.  63.3964  What are the general requirements for performance tests?

    (a) Before [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule 
in the Federal Register], you must conduct each performance test 
required by Sec.  63.3960 according to the requirements in Sec.  
63.7(e)(1) and under the conditions in this section, unless you obtain 
a waiver of the performance test according to the provisions in Sec.  
63.7(h). On and after [date 181 days after date of publication of final 
rule in the Federal Register], you must conduct each performance test 
required by Sec.  63.3960 according to the requirements in this section 
unless you obtain a waiver of the performance test according to the 
provisions in Sec.  63.7(h).
    (1) Representative coating operation operating conditions. You must 
conduct the performance test under representative operating conditions 
for the coating operation. Operations during periods of startup, 
shutdown, or periods of nonoperation do not constitute representative 
conditions for purposes of conducting a performance test. The owner or 
operator may not conduct performance tests during periods of 
malfunction. You must record the process information that is necessary 
to document operating conditions during the test and explain why the 
conditions represent normal operation. Upon request, you must make 
available to the Administrator such records as may be necessary to 
determine the conditions of performance tests.
* * * * *
0
32. Section 63.3965 is amended by revising the introductory text to 
read as follows:


Sec.  63.3965  How do I determine the emission capture system 
efficiency?

    You must use the procedures and test methods in this section to 
determine capture efficiency as part of each performance test required 
by Sec.  63.3960.
* * * * *
0
33. Section 63.3966 is amended by revising the introductory text and 
paragraph (b) to read as follows:


Sec.  63.3966  How do I determine the add-on control device emission 
destruction or removal efficiency?

    You must use the procedures and test methods in this section to 
determine the add-on control device emission destruction or removal 
efficiency as part of the performance test required by Sec.  63.3960. 
For each performance test, you must conduct three test runs as 
specified in Sec.  63.7(e)(3) and each test run must last at least 1 
hour. If the source is a magnet wire coating machine, you may use the 
procedures in section 3.0 of appendix A to this subpart as an 
alternative.
* * * * *
    (b) Measure total gaseous organic mass emissions as carbon at the 
inlet and outlet of the add-on control device simultaneously, using 
either EPA Method 25 or 25A of appendix A-7 to 40 CFR part 60.
    (1) Use EPA Method 25 of appendix A-7 to 40 CFR part 60 if the add-
on

[[Page 59011]]

control device is an oxidizer and you expect the total gaseous organic 
concentration as carbon to be more than 50 parts per million (ppm) at 
the control device outlet.
    (2) Use EPA Method 25A of appendix A-7 to 40 CFR part 60 if the 
add-on control device is an oxidizer and you expect the total gaseous 
organic concentration as carbon to be 50 ppm or less at the control 
device outlet.
    (3) Use EPA Method 25A of appendix A-7 to 40 CFR part 60 if the 
add-on control device is not an oxidizer.
    (4) You may use EPA Method 18 of appendix A-6 to 40 CFR part 60 to 
subtract methane emissions from measured total gaseous organic mass 
emissions as carbon.
* * * * *
0
34. Section 63.3967 is amended by revising paragraphs (a)(1) and (2), 
(b)(1) through (3), (d)(1) and (2), and (e)(1) through (4) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  63.3967  How do I establish the emission capture system and add-
on control device operating limits during the performance test?

* * * * *
    (a) * * *
    (1) During performance tests, you must monitor and record the 
combustion temperature at least once every 15 minutes during each of 
the three test runs. You must monitor the temperature in the firebox of 
the thermal oxidizer or immediately downstream of the firebox before 
any substantial heat exchange occurs.
    (2) For each performance test, use the data collected during the 
performance test to calculate and record the average combustion 
temperature maintained during the performance test. This average 
combustion temperature is the minimum operating limit for your thermal 
oxidizer.
    (b) * * *
    (1) During performance tests, you must monitor and record the 
temperature just before the catalyst bed and the temperature difference 
across the catalyst bed at least once every 15 minutes during each of 
the three test runs.
    (2) For each performance test, use the data collected during the 
performance test to calculate and record the average temperature just 
before the catalyst bed and the average temperature difference across 
the catalyst bed maintained during the performance test. These are the 
minimum operating limits for your catalytic oxidizer.
    (3) You must monitor the temperature at the inlet to the catalyst 
bed and implement a site-specific inspection and maintenance plan for 
your catalytic oxidizer as specified in paragraph (b)(4) of this 
section. During the performance test, you must monitor and record the 
temperature just before the catalyst bed at least once every 15 minutes 
during each of the three test runs. For each performance test, use the 
data collected during the performance test to calculate and record the 
average temperature just before the catalyst bed during the performance 
test. This is the minimum operating limit for your catalytic oxidizer.
* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (1) During performance tests, you must monitor and record the 
condenser outlet (product side) gas temperature at least once every 15 
minutes during each of the three test runs.
    (2) For each performance test, use the data collected during the 
performance test to calculate and record the average condenser outlet 
(product side) gas temperature maintained during the performance test. 
This average condenser outlet gas temperature is the maximum operating 
limit for your condenser.
    (e) * * *
    (1) During performance tests, you must monitor and record the 
desorption concentrate stream gas temperature at least once every 15 
minutes during each of the three runs of the performance test.
    (2) For each performance test, use the data collected during the 
performance test to calculate and record the average temperature. This 
is the minimum operating limit for the desorption concentrate gas 
stream temperature.
    (3) During performance tests, you must monitor and record the 
pressure drop of the dilute stream across the concentrator at least 
once every 15 minutes during each of the three runs of the performance 
test.
    (4) For each performance test, use the data collected during the 
performance test to calculate and record the average pressure drop. 
This is the minimum operating limit for the dilute stream across the 
concentrator.
* * * * *
0
35. Section 63.3968 is amended by revising paragraphs (a)(4), (5), and 
(7) and (c)(3) introductory text to read as follows:


Sec.  63.3968  What are the requirements for continuous parameter 
monitoring system installation, operation, and maintenance?

    (a) * * *
    (4) Before [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule 
in the Federal Register], you must maintain the CPMS at all times and 
have available necessary parts for routine repairs of the monitoring 
equipment. On and after [date 181 days after date of publication of 
final rule in the Federal Register], you must maintain the CPMS at all 
times in accordance with Sec.  63.3900(b) and keep necessary parts 
readily available for routine repairs of the monitoring equipment.
    (5) Before [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule 
in the Federal Register], you must operate the CPMS and collect 
emission capture system and add-on control device parameter data at all 
times that a controlled coating operation is operating, except during 
monitoring malfunctions, associated repairs, and required quality 
assurance or control activities (including, if applicable, calibration 
checks and required zero and span adjustments). On and after [date 181 
days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register], 
you must operate the CPMS and collect emission capture system and add-
on control device parameter data at all times in accordance with Sec.  
63.3900(b).
* * * * *
    (7) A monitoring malfunction is any sudden, infrequent, not 
reasonably preventable failure of the CPMS to provide valid data. 
Monitoring failures that are caused in part by poor maintenance or 
careless operation are not malfunctions. Before [date 181 days after 
date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register], any period 
for which the monitoring system is out-of-control and data are not 
available for required calculations is a deviation from the monitoring 
requirements. On and after [date 181 days after date of publication of 
final rule in the Federal Register], except for periods of required 
quality assurance or control activities, any period for which the CPMS 
fails to operate and record data continuously as required by paragraph 
(a)(5) of this section, or generates data that cannot be included in 
calculating averages as specified in (a)(6) of this section constitutes 
a deviation from the monitoring requirements.
* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (3) For all thermal oxidizers and catalytic oxidizers, you must 
meet the requirements in paragraphs (a) and (c)(3)(i) through (v) of 
this section for each gas temperature monitoring device. For the 
purposes of this paragraph (c)(3), a thermocouple is part of the 
temperature sensor.
* * * * *
0
36. Section 63.3981 is amended by revising the definitions of 
``Deviation'' and ``Non-HAP coating'' to read as follows:

[[Page 59012]]

Sec.  63.3981  What definitions apply to this subpart?

* * * * *
    Deviation means:
    (1) Before [date 181 days after date of publication in the Federal 
Register], any instance in which an affected source subject to this 
subpart, or an owner or operator of such a source:
    (i) Fails to meet any requirement or obligation established by this 
subpart including but not limited to, any emission limit or operating 
limit or work practice standard;
    (ii) Fails to meet any term or condition that is adopted to 
implement an applicable requirement in this subpart and that is 
included in the operating permit for any affected source required to 
obtain such a permit; or
    (iii) Fails to meet any emission limit, or operating limit, or work 
practice standard in this subpart during startup, shutdown, or 
malfunction, regardless of whether or not such failure is permitted by 
this subpart; and
    (2) On and after [date 181 days after date of publication of final 
rule in the Federal Register], any instance in which an affected source 
subject to this subpart or an owner or operator of such a source:
    (i) Fails to meet any requirement or obligation established by this 
subpart including but not limited to any emission limit, operating 
limit, or work practice standard; or
    (ii) Fails to meet any term or condition that is adopted to 
implement an applicable requirement in this subpart and that is 
included in the operating permit for any affected source required to 
obtain such a permit.
* * * * *
    Non-HAP coating means, for the purposes of this subpart, a coating 
that contains no more than 0.1 percent by mass of any individual 
organic HAP that is listed in Table 5 to this subpart and no more than 
1.0 percent by mass for any other individual HAP.
* * * * *
0
37. Table 2 to Subpart MMMM of part 63 is revised to read as follows:

       Table 2 to Subpart MMMM of Part 63--Applicability of General Provisions to Subpart MMMM of Part 63
      You must comply with the applicable General Provisions requirements according to the following table:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 Applicable to subpart
               Citation                        Subject                    MMMM                 Explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec.   63.1(a)(1)-(14)...............  General Applicability..  Yes....................
Sec.   63.1(b)(1)-(3)................  Initial Applicability    Yes....................  Applicability to
                                        Determination.                                    subpart MMMM is also
                                                                                          specified in Sec.
                                                                                          63.3881.
Sec.   63.1(c)(1)....................  Applicability After      Yes....................
                                        Standard Established.
Sec.   63.1(c)(2)-(3)................  Applicability of Permit  No.....................  Area sources are not
                                        Program for Area                                  subject to subpart
                                        Sources.                                          MMMM.
Sec.   63.1(c)(4)-(5)................  Extensions and           Yes....................
                                        Notifications.
Sec.   63.1(e).......................  Applicability of Permit  Yes....................
                                        Program Before
                                        Relevant Standard is
                                        Set.
Sec.   63.2..........................  Definitions............  Yes....................  Additional definitions
                                                                                          are specified in Sec.
                                                                                           63.3981.
Sec.   63.1(a)-(c)...................  Units and Abbreviations  Yes....................
Sec.   63.4(a)(1)-(5)................  Prohibited Activities..  Yes....................
Sec.   63.4(b)-(c)...................  Circumvention/           Yes....................
                                        Severability.
Sec.   63.5(a).......................  Construction/            Yes....................
                                        Reconstruction.
Sec.   63.5(b)(1)-(6)................  Requirements for         Yes....................
                                        Existing Newly
                                        Constructed, and
                                        Reconstructed Sources.
Sec.   63.5(d).......................  Application for          Yes....................
                                        Approval of
                                        Construction/
                                        Reconstruction.
Sec.   63.5(e).......................  Approval of              Yes....................
                                        Construction/
                                        Reconstruction.
Sec.   63.5(f).......................  Approval of              Yes....................
                                        Construction/
                                        Reconstruction Based
                                        on Prior State Review.
Sec.   63.6(a).......................  Compliance With          Yes....................
                                        Standards and
                                        Maintenance
                                        Requirements--Applicab
                                        ility.
Sec.   63.6(b)(1)-(7)................  Compliance Dates for     Yes....................  Section 63.3883
                                        New and Reconstructed                             specifies the
                                        Sources.                                          compliance dates.
Sec.   63.6(c)(1)-(5)................  Compliance Dates for     Yes....................  Section 63.3883
                                        Existing Sources.                                 specifies the
                                                                                          compliance dates.
Sec.   63.6(e)(1)-(2)................  Operation and            Yes before [date 181     See Sec.   63.3900(b)
                                        Maintenance.             days after date of       for general duty
                                                                 publication of final     requirement.
                                                                 rule in the Federal
                                                                 Register]. No on and
                                                                 after [date 181 days
                                                                 after date of
                                                                 publication of final
                                                                 rule in the Federal
                                                                 Register].
Sec.   63.6(e)(3)....................  Startup, Shutdown, and   Yes before [date 181
                                        Malfunction Plan.        days after date of
                                                                 publication of final
                                                                 rule in the Federal
                                                                 Register]. No on and
                                                                 after [date 181 days
                                                                 after date of
                                                                 publication of final
                                                                 rule in the Federal
                                                                 Register].

[[Page 59013]]

 
Sec.   63.6(f)(1)....................  Compliance Except        Yes before [date 181
                                        During Startup,          days after date of
                                        Shutdown, and            publication of final
                                        Malfunction.             rule in the Federal
                                                                 Register]. No on and
                                                                 after [date 181 days
                                                                 after date of
                                                                 publication of final
                                                                 rule in the Federal
                                                                 Register].
Sec.   63.6(f)(2)-(3)................  Methods for Determining  Yes....................
                                        Compliance..
Sec.   63.6(g)(1)-(3)................  Use of an Alternative    Yes....................
                                        Standard.
Sec.   63.6(h).......................  Compliance With Opacity/ No.....................  Subpart MMMM does not
                                        Visible Emission                                  establish opacity
                                        Standards.                                        standards and does not
                                                                                          require continuous
                                                                                          opacity monitoring
                                                                                          systems (COMS).
Sec.   63.6(i)(1)-(16)...............  Extension of Compliance  Yes....................
Sec.   63.6(j).......................  Presidential Compliance  Yes....................
                                        Exemption.
Sec.   63.7(a)(1)....................  Performance Test         Yes....................  Applies to all affected
                                        Requirements--Applicab                            sources. Additional
                                        ility.                                            requirements for
                                                                                          performance testing
                                                                                          are specified in Sec.
                                                                                          Sec.   63.3964,
                                                                                          63.3965, and 63.3966.
Sec.   63.7(a)(2)....................  Performance Test         Yes....................  Applies only to
                                        Requirements--Dates.                              performance tests for
                                                                                          capture system and
                                                                                          control device
                                                                                          efficiency at sources
                                                                                          using these to comply
                                                                                          with the standard.
                                                                                          Section 63.3960
                                                                                          specifies the schedule
                                                                                          for performance test
                                                                                          requirements that are
                                                                                          earlier than those
                                                                                          specified in Sec.
                                                                                          63.7(a)(2).
Sec.   63.7(a)(3)-(4)................  Performance Tests        Yes....................
                                        Required By the
                                        Administrator, Force
                                        Majeure.
Sec.   63.7(b)-(d)...................  Performance Test         Yes....................  Applies only to
                                        Requirements--Notifica                            performance tests for
                                        tion, Quality                                     capture system and add-
                                        Assurance, Facilities                             on control device
                                        Necessary for Safe                                efficiency at sources
                                        Testing, Conditions                               using these to comply
                                        During Test.                                      with the standard.
Sec.   63.7(e)(1)....................  Conduct of Performance   Yes before [date 181     See Sec.  Sec.
                                        Tests.                   days after date of       63.3964
                                                                 publication of final
                                                                 rule in the Federal
                                                                 Register]. No on and
                                                                 after [date 181 days
                                                                 after date of
                                                                 publication of final
                                                                 rule in the Federal
                                                                 Register].
Sec.   63.7(e)(2)-(4)................  Conduct of Performance   Yes....................
                                        Tests.
Sec.   63.7(f).......................  Performance Test         Yes....................  Applies to all test
                                        Requirements--Use of                              methods except those
                                        Alternative Test                                  used to determine
                                        Method.                                           capture system
                                                                                          efficiency.
Sec.   63.7(g)-(h)...................  Performance Test         Yes....................  Applies only to
                                        Requirements--Data                                performance tests for
                                        Analysis,                                         capture system and add-
                                        Recordkeeping,                                    on control device
                                        Reporting, Waiver of                              efficiency at sources
                                        Test.                                             using these to comply
                                                                                          with the standard.
Sec.   63.8(a)(1)-(3)................  Monitoring               Yes....................  Applies only to
                                        Requirements--Applicab                            monitoring of capture
                                        ility.                                            system and add-on
                                                                                          control device
                                                                                          efficiency at sources
                                                                                          using these to comply
                                                                                          with the standard.
                                                                                          Additional
                                                                                          requirements for
                                                                                          monitoring are
                                                                                          specified in Sec.
                                                                                          63.3968.
Sec.   63.8(a)(4)....................  Additional Monitoring    No.....................  Subpart MMMM does not
                                        Requirements.                                     have monitoring
                                                                                          requirements for
                                                                                          flares.
Sec.   63.8(b).......................  Conduct of Monitoring..  Yes....................

[[Page 59014]]

 
Sec.   63.8(c)(1)....................  Continuous Monitoring    Yes before [date 181     Section 63.3968
                                        System (CMS) Operation   days after date of       specifies the
                                        and Maintenance.         publication of final     requirements for the
                                                                 rule in the Federal      operation of CMS for
                                                                 Register]. No on and     capture systems and
                                                                 after [date 181 days     add-on control devices
                                                                 after date of            at sources using these
                                                                 publication of final     to comply.
                                                                 rule in the Federal
                                                                 Register].
Sec.   63.8(c)(2)-(3)................  CMS Operation and        Yes....................  Applies only to
                                        Maintenance.                                      monitoring of capture
                                                                                          system and add-on
                                                                                          control device
                                                                                          efficiency at sources
                                                                                          using these to comply
                                                                                          with the standard.
                                                                                          Additional
                                                                                          requirements for CMS
                                                                                          operations and
                                                                                          maintenance are
                                                                                          specified in Sec.
                                                                                          63.3968.
Sec.   63.8(c)(4)....................  CMS....................  No.....................  Sec.   63.3968
                                                                                          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)....................  COMS...................  No.....................  Subpart MMMM does not
                                                                                          have opacity or
                                                                                          visible emission
                                                                                          standards.
Sec.   63.8(c)(6)....................  CMS Requirements.......  No.....................  Section 63.3968
                                                                                          specifies the
                                                                                          requirements for
                                                                                          monitoring systems for
                                                                                          capture systems and
                                                                                          add-on control devices
                                                                                          at sources using these
                                                                                          to comply.
Sec.   63.8(c)(7)....................  CMS Out-of-Control       Yes....................
                                        Periods.
Sec.   63.8(c)(8)....................  CMS Out-of-Control       No.....................  Sec.   63.3920 requires
                                        Periods and Reporting.                            reporting of CMS out-
                                                                                          of-control periods.
Sec.   63.8(d)-(e)...................  Quality Control Program  No.....................  Subpart MMMM does not
                                        and CMS Performance                               require the use of
                                        Evaluation.                                       continuous emissions
                                                                                          monitoring systems.
Sec.   63.8(f)(1)-(5)................  Use of an Alternative    Yes....................
                                        Monitoring Method.
Sec.   63.8(f)(6)....................  Alternative to Relative  No.....................  Subpart MMMM does not
                                        Accuracy Test.                                    require the use of
                                                                                          continuous emissions
                                                                                          monitoring systems.
Sec.   63.8(g)(1)-(5)................  Data Reduction.........  No.....................  Sections 63.3967 and
                                                                                          63.3968 specify
                                                                                          monitoring data
                                                                                          reduction.
Sec.   63.9(a)-(d)...................  Notification             Yes....................
                                        Requirements.
Sec.   63.9(e).......................  Notification of          Yes....................  Applies only to capture
                                        Performance Test.                                 system and add-on
                                                                                          control device
                                                                                          performance tests at
                                                                                          sources using these to
                                                                                          comply with the
                                                                                          standard.
Sec.   63.9(f).......................  Notification of Visible  No.....................  Subpart MMMM does not
                                        Emissions/Opacity Test.                           have opacity or
                                                                                          visible emissions
                                                                                          standards.
Sec.   63.9(g)(1)-(3)................  Additional               No.....................  Subpart MMMM does not
                                        Notifications When                                require the use of
                                        Using CMS.                                        continuous emissions
                                                                                          monitoring systems.
Sec.   63.9(h).......................  Notification of          Yes....................  Section 63.3910
                                        Compliance Status.                                specifies the dates
                                                                                          for submitting the
                                                                                          notification of
                                                                                          compliance status.
Sec.   63.9(i).......................  Adjustment of Submittal  Yes....................
                                        Deadlines.
Sec.   63.9(j).......................  Change in Previous       Yes....................
                                        Information.
Sec.   63.10(a)......................  Recordkeeping/           Yes....................
                                        Reporting--Applicabili
                                        ty and General
                                        Information.
Sec.   63.10(b)(1)...................  General Recordkeeping    Yes....................  Additional requirements
                                        Requirements.                                     are specified in Sec.
                                                                                          Sec.   63.3930 and
                                                                                          63.3931.
Sec.   63.10(b)(2)(i)-(ii)...........  Recordkeeping of         Yes before [date 181     See Sec.   63.3930(j).
                                        Occurrence and           days after date of
                                        Duration of Startups     publication of final
                                        and Shutdowns and of     rule in the Federal
                                        Failures to Meet         Register]. No on and
                                        Standards.               after [date 181 days
                                                                 after date of
                                                                 publication of final
                                                                 rule in the Federal
                                                                 Register].

[[Page 59015]]

 
Sec.   63.10(b)(2)(iii)..............  Recordkeeping Relevant   Yes....................  Sec.   63.10(b)(2)(iii)
                                        to Maintenance of Air
                                        Pollution Control and
                                        Monitoring Equipment.
Sec.   63.10(b)(2) (iv)-(v)..........  Actions Taken to         Yes before [date 181     See Sec.   63.3930(j)
                                        Minimize Emissions       days after date of       for a record of
                                        During Startup,          publication of final     actions taken to
                                        Shutdown, and            rule in the Federal      minimize emissions
                                        Malfunction.             Register]. No on and     duration a deviation
                                                                 after [date 181 days     from the standard.
                                                                 after date of
                                                                 publication of final
                                                                 rule in the Federal
                                                                 Register].
Sec.   63.10(b)(2) (vi)..............  Recordkeeping for CMS    Yes before [date 181     See Sec.   63.3930(j)
                                        Malfunctions.            days after date of       for records of periods
                                                                 publication of final     of deviation from the
                                                                 rule in the Federal      standard, including
                                                                 Register]. No on and     instances where a CMS
                                                                 after [date 181 days     is inoperative or out-
                                                                 after date of            of-control.
                                                                 publication of final
                                                                 rule in the Federal
                                                                 Register].
Sec.   63.10(b)(2) (xii).............  Records................  Yes....................
Sec.   63.10(b)(2) (xiii)............  .......................  No.....................  Subpart MMMM does not
                                                                                          require the use of
                                                                                          continuous emissions
                                                                                          monitoring systems.
Sec.   63.10(b)(2) (xiv).............  .......................  Yes....................
Sec.   63.10(b)(3)...................  Recordkeeping            Yes....................
                                        Requirements for
                                        Applicability
                                        Determinations.
Sec.   63.10(c) (1)-(6)..............  Additional               Yes....................
                                        Recordkeeping
                                        Requirements for
                                        Sources with CMS.
Sec.   63.10(c) (7)-(8)..............  Additional               No.....................  See Sec.   63.3930(j)
                                        Recordkeeping                                     for records of periods
                                        Requirements for                                  of deviation from the
                                        Sources with CMS.                                 standard, including
                                                                                          instances where a CMS
                                                                                          is inoperative or out-
                                                                                          of-control.
Sec.   63.10(c)(10)-(14).............  Additional               Yes....................
                                        Recordkeeping
                                        Requirements for
                                        Sources with CMS.
Sec.   63.10(c)(15)..................  Records Regarding the    Yes before [date 181
                                        Startup, Shutdown, and   days after date of
                                        Malfunction Plan.        publication of final
                                                                 rule in the Federal
                                                                 Register]. No on and
                                                                 after [date 181 days
                                                                 after date of
                                                                 publication of final
                                                                 rule in the Federal
                                                                 Register].
Sec.   63.10(d)(1)...................  General Reporting        Yes....................  Additional requirements
                                        Requirements.                                     are specified in Sec.
                                                                                           63.3920.
Sec.   63.10(d)(2)...................  Report of Performance    Yes....................  Additional requirements
                                        Test Results.                                     are specified in Sec.
                                                                                           63.3920(b) and (d).
Sec.   63.10(d)(3)...................  Reporting Opacity or     No.....................  Subpart MMMM does not
                                        Visible Emissions                                 require opacity or
                                        Observations.                                     visible emissions
                                                                                          observations.
Sec.   63.10(d)(4)...................  Progress Reports for     Yes....................
                                        Sources With
                                        Compliance Extensions.
Sec.   63.10(d)(5)...................  Startup, Shutdown, and   Yes before [date 181     See Sec.   63.3920
                                        Malfunction Reports.     days after date of       (a)(7) and (c).
                                                                 publication of final
                                                                 rule in the Federal
                                                                 Register]. No on and
                                                                 after [date 181 days
                                                                 after date of
                                                                 publication of final
                                                                 rule in the Federal
                                                                 Register].
Sec.   63.10(e) (1)-(2)..............  Additional CMS Reports.  No.....................  Subpart MMMM does not
                                                                                          require the use of
                                                                                          continuous emissions
                                                                                          monitoring systems.
Sec.   63.10(e) (3)..................  Excess Emissions/CMS     No.....................  Section 63.3920 (b)
                                        Performance Reports.                              specifies the contents
                                                                                          of periodic compliance
                                                                                          reports.
Sec.   63.10(e) (4)..................  COMS Data Reports......  No.....................  Subpart MMMMM does not
                                                                                          specify requirements
                                                                                          for opacity or COMS.
Sec.   63.10(f)......................  Recordkeeping/Reporting  Yes....................
                                        Waiver.
Sec.   63.11.........................  Control Device           No.....................  Subpart MMMM does not
                                        Requirements/Flares.                              specify use of flares
                                                                                          for compliance.
Sec.   63.12.........................  State Authority and      Yes....................
                                        Delegations.
Sec.   63.13.........................  Addresses..............  Yes....................
Sec.   63.14.........................  Incorporation by         Yes....................
                                        Reference.

[[Page 59016]]

 
Sec.   63.15.........................  Availability of          Yes....................
                                        Information/
                                        Confidentiality.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

0
38. Table 5 to Subpart MMMM of part 63 is added to read as follows:

  Table 5 to Subpart MMMM of Part 63--List of Hazardous Air Pollutants
 That Must Be Counted Toward Total Organic HAP Content if Present at 0.1
                         Percent or More by Mass
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                      Chemical name                           CAS No.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane...............................         79-34-5
1,1,2-Trichloroethane...................................         79-00-5
1,1-Dimethylhydrazine...................................         57-14-7
1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane.............................         96-12-8
1,2-Diphenylhydrazine...................................        122-66-7
1,3-Butadiene...........................................        106-99-0
1,3-Dichloropropene.....................................        542-75-6
1,4-Dioxane.............................................        123-91-1
2,4,6-Trichlorophenol...................................         88-06-2
2,4/2,6-Dinitrotoluene (mixture)........................      25321-14-6
2,4-Dinitrotoluene......................................        121-14-2
2,4-Toluene diamine.....................................         95-80-7
2-Nitropropane..........................................         79-46-9
3,3'-Dichlorobenzidine..................................         91-94-1
3,3'-Dimethoxybenzidine.................................        119-90-4
3,3'-Dimethylbenzidine..................................        119-93-7
4,4'-Methylene bis(2-chloroaniline).....................        101-14-4
Acetaldehyde............................................         75-07-0
Acrylamide..............................................         79-06-1
Acrylonitrile...........................................        107-13-1
Allyl chloride..........................................        107-05-1
alpha-Hexachlorocyclohexane (a-HCH).....................        319-84-6
Aniline.................................................         62-53-3
Benzene.................................................         71-43-2
Benzidine...............................................         92-87-5
Benzotrichloride........................................         98-07-7
Benzyl chloride.........................................        100-44-7
beta-Hexachlorocyclohexane (b-HCH)......................        319-85-7
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate..............................        117-81-7
Bis(chloromethyl)ether..................................        542-88-1
Bromoform...............................................         75-25-2
Captan..................................................        133-06-2
Carbon tetrachloride....................................         56-23-5
Chlordane...............................................         57-74-9
Chlorobenzilate.........................................        510-15-6
Chloroform..............................................         67-66-3
Chloroprene.............................................        126-99-8
Cresols (mixed).........................................       1319-77-3
DDE.....................................................       3547-04-4
Dichloroethyl ether.....................................        111-44-4
Dichlorvos..............................................         62-73-7
Epichlorohydrin.........................................        106-89-8
Ethyl acrylate..........................................        140-88-5
Ethylene dibromide......................................        106-93-4
Ethylene dichloride.....................................        107-06-2
Ethylene oxide..........................................         75-21-8
Ethylene thiourea.......................................         96-45-7
Ethylidene dichloride (1,1-Dichloroethane)..............         75-34-3
Formaldehyde............................................         50-00-0
Heptachlor..............................................         76-44-8
Hexachlorobenzene.......................................        118-74-1
Hexachlorobutadiene.....................................         87-68-3
Hexachloroethane........................................         67-72-1
Hydrazine...............................................        302-01-2
Isophorone..............................................         78-59-1
Lindane (hexachlorocyclohexane, all isomers)............         58-89-9

[[Page 59017]]

 
m-Cresol................................................        108-39-4
Methylene chloride......................................         75-09-2
Naphthalene.............................................         91-20-3
Nitrobenzene............................................         98-95-3
Nitrosodimethylamine....................................         62-75-9
o-Cresol................................................         95-48-7
o-Toluidine.............................................         95-53-4
Parathion...............................................         56-38-2
p-Cresol................................................        106-44-5
p-Dichlorobenzene.......................................        106-46-7
Pentachloronitrobenzene.................................         82-68-8
Pentachlorophenol.......................................         87-86-5
Propoxur................................................        114-26-1
Propylene dichloride....................................         78-87-5
Propylene oxide.........................................         75-56-9
Quinoline...............................................         91-22-5
Tetrachloroethene.......................................        127-18-4
Toxaphene...............................................       8001-35-2
Trichloroethylene.......................................         79-01-6
Trifluralin.............................................       1582-09-8
Vinyl bromide...........................................        593-60-2
Vinyl chloride..........................................         75-01-4
Vinylidene chloride.....................................         75-35-4
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Subpart NNNN--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air 
Pollutants: Surface Coating of Large Appliances

0
39. Section 63.4168 is amended by adding paragraphs (c)(3)(i) through 
(vii) to read as follows:


Sec.  63.4168  What are the requirements for continuous parameter 
monitoring system installation, operation, and maintenance?

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (3) * * *
    (i) Locate the temperature sensor in a position that provides a 
representative temperature.
    (ii) Use a temperature sensor with a measurement sensitivity of 4 
degrees Fahrenheit or 0.75 percent of the temperature value, whichever 
is larger.
    (iii) Shield the temperature sensor system from electromagnetic 
interference and chemical contaminants.
    (iv) If a gas temperature chart recorder is used, it must have a 
measurement sensitivity in the minor division of at least 20 degrees 
Fahrenheit.
    (v) Perform an electronic calibration at least semiannually 
according to the procedures in the manufacturer's owners manual. 
Following the electronic calibration, you must conduct a temperature 
sensor validation check in which a second or redundant temperature 
sensor placed nearby the process temperature sensor must yield a 
reading within 30 degrees Fahrenheit of the process temperature 
sensor's reading.
    (vi) Any time the sensor exceeds the manufacturer's specified 
maximum operating temperature range, either conduct calibration and 
validation checks or install a new temperature sensor.
    (vii) At least monthly, inspect components for integrity and 
electrical connections for continuity, oxidation, and galvanic 
corrosion.
* * * * *

Subpart OOOO--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air 
Pollutants: Printing, Coating, and Dyeing of Fabrics and Other 
Textiles

0
40. Section 63.4371 is amended by revising the definition for ``No 
organic HAP'' to read as follows:


Sec.  63.4371  What definitions apply to this subpart?

* * * * *
    No organic HAP means no organic HAP in Table 5 to this subpart is 
present at 0.1 percent by mass or more and no organic HAP not listed in 
Table 5 to this subpart is present at 1.0 percent by mass or more. The 
organic HAP content of a regulated material is determined according to 
Sec.  63.4321(e)(1).
* * * * *

Subpart PPPP--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air 
Pollutants for Surface Coating of Plastic Parts and Products

0
41. Section 63.4492 is amended by revising paragraph (b) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  63.4492  What operating limits must I meet?

* * * * *
    (b) For any controlled coating operation(s) on which you use the 
emission rate with add-on controls option, except those for which you 
use a solvent recovery system and conduct a liquid-liquid material 
balance according to Sec.  63.4561(j), you must meet the operating 
limits specified in Table 1 to this subpart. These operating limits 
apply to the emission capture and control systems on the coating 
operation(s) for which you use this option, and you must establish the 
operating limits during the performance tests required in Sec.  63.4560 
according to the requirements in Sec.  63.4567. You must meet the 
operating limits established during the most recent performance tests 
required in Sec.  63.4560 at all times after you establish them.
* * * * *
0
42. Section 63.4500 is amended by revising paragraphs (a)(2)(i) and 
(ii), (b), and (c) to read as follows:


Sec.  63.4500  What are my general requirements for complying with this 
subpart?

    (a) * * *
    (2) * * *

[[Page 59018]]

    (i) The coating operation(s) must be in compliance with the 
applicable emission limit in Sec.  63.4490 at all times.
    (ii) The coating operation(s) must be in compliance with the 
operating limits for emission capture systems and add-on control 
devices required by Sec.  63.4492 at all times, except for solvent 
recovery systems for which you conduct liquid-liquid material balances 
according to Sec.  63.4561(j).
* * * * *
    (b) Before [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule 
in the Federal Register], you must always operate and maintain your 
affected source, including all air pollution control and monitoring 
equipment you use for purposes of complying with this subpart, 
according to the provisions in Sec.  63.6(e)(1)(i). On and after [date 
181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal 
Register], at all times, the owner or operator must operate and 
maintain any affected source, including associated air pollution 
control equipment and monitoring equipment, in a manner consistent with 
safety and good air pollution control practices for minimizing 
emissions. The general duty to minimize emissions does not require the 
owner or operator to make any further efforts to reduce emissions if 
levels required by the applicable standard have been achieved. 
Determination of whether a source is operating in compliance with 
operation and maintenance requirements will be based on information 
available to the Administrator that may include, but is not limited to, 
monitoring results, review of operation and maintenance procedures, 
review of operation and maintenance records, and inspection of the 
affected source.
    (c) Before [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule 
in the Federal Register], if your affected source uses an emission 
capture system and add-on control device, you must develop a written 
startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan (SSMP) according to the 
provisions in Sec.  63.6(e)(3). The plan must address the startup, 
shutdown, and corrective actions in the event of a malfunction of the 
emission capture system or the add-on control device. The plan must 
also address any coating operation equipment that may cause increased 
emissions or that would affect capture efficiency if the process 
equipment malfunctions, such as conveyors that move parts among 
enclosures. On and after [date 181 days after date of publication of 
final rule in the Federal Register], the SSMP is not required.
0
43. Section 63.4520 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraphs (a)(5) introductory text and (a)(5)(i) and (iv);
0
b. Adding paragraph (a)(5)(v);
0
c. Revising paragraph (a)(6) introductory text and (a)(6)(iii);
0
d. Adding paragraph (a)(6)(iv);
0
e. Revising paragraph (a)(7) introductory text, (a)(7)(iii), (a)(7)(vi) 
through (viii), (a)(7)(x), and (a)(7)(xiii) and (xiv);
0
f. Adding paragraph (a)(7)(xv);
0
g. Revising paragraph (c) introductory text; and
0
h. Adding paragraphs (d) through (h).
    The revisions and additions read as follows:


Sec.  63.4520  What reports must I submit?

    (a) * * *
    (5) Deviations: Compliant material option. If you used the 
compliant material option and there was a deviation from the applicable 
organic HAP content requirements in Sec.  63.4490, the semiannual 
compliance report must contain the information in paragraphs (a)(5)(i) 
through (v) of this section.
    (i) Identification of each coating used that deviated from the 
applicable emission limit, and each thinner and/or other additive, and 
cleaning material used that contained organic HAP, and the date, time, 
and duration each was used.
* * * * *
    (iv) Before [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule 
in the Federal Register], a statement of the cause of each deviation. 
On and after [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in 
the Federal Register], a statement of the cause of each deviation 
(including unknown cause, if applicable).
    (v) On and after [date 181 days after date of publication of final 
rule in the Federal Register], the number of deviations and, for each 
deviation, a list of the affected source or equipment, an estimate of 
the quantity of each regulated pollutant emitted over any applicable 
emission limit in Sec.  63.4490, a description of the method used to 
estimate the emissions, and the actions you took to minimize emissions 
in accordance with Sec.  63.4500(b).
    (6) Deviations: Emission rate without add-on controls option. If 
you used the emission rate without add-on controls option and there was 
a deviation from the applicable emission limit in Sec.  63.4490, the 
semiannual compliance report must contain the information in paragraphs 
(a)(6)(i) through (iv) of this section.
* * * * *
    (iii) Before [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule 
in the Federal Register], a statement of the cause of each deviation. 
On and after [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in 
the Federal Register], a statement of the cause of each deviation 
(including unknown cause, if applicable).
    (iv) On and after [date 181 days after date of publication of final 
rule in the Federal Register], the number of deviations, date, time, 
duration, a list of the affected source or equipment, an estimate of 
the quantity of each regulated pollutant emitted over any applicable 
emission limit in Sec.  63.4490, a description of the method used to 
estimate the emissions, and the actions you took to minimize emissions 
in accordance with Sec.  63.4500(b).
    (7) Deviations: Emission rate with add-on controls option. If you 
used the emission rate with add-on controls option and there was a 
deviation from the applicable emission limit in Sec.  63.4490 or the 
applicable operating limit(s) in Table 1 to this subpart (including any 
periods when emissions bypassed the add-on control device and were 
diverted to the atmosphere), before [date 181 days after date of 
publication of final rule in the Federal Register], the semiannual 
compliance report must contain the information in paragraphs (a)(7)(i) 
through (xiv) of this section. This includes periods of startup, 
shutdown, and malfunction during which deviations occurred. On and 
after [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the 
Federal Register], the semiannual compliance report must contain the 
information in paragraphs (a)(7)(i) through (xii), (a)(7)(xiv), and 
(a)(7)(xv) of this section. If you use the emission rate with add-on 
controls option and there was a deviation from the applicable work 
practice standards in Sec.  63.4493(b), the semiannual compliance 
report must contain the information in paragraph (a)(7)(xiii) of this 
section.
* * * * *
    (iii) The date and time that each malfunction of the capture system 
or add-on control devices started and stopped.
* * * * *
    (vi) Before [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule 
in the Federal Register], the date and time that each CPMS was 
inoperative, except for zero (low-level) and high-level checks. On and 
after [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the 
Federal Register], the number of instances that the CPMS was 
inoperative, and for each instance, except for zero (low-level) and 
high-level checks, the date, time, and duration that the CPMS was 
inoperative;

[[Page 59019]]

the cause (including unknown cause) for the CPMS being inoperative; and 
the actions you took to minimize emissions in accordance with Sec.  
63.4500(b).
    (vii) Before [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule 
in the Federal Register], the date, time, and duration that each CPMS 
was out-of-control, including the information in Sec.  63.8(c)(8). On 
and after [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the 
Federal Register], the number of instances that the CPMS was out of 
control as specified in Sec.  63.8(c)(7) and, for each instance, the 
date, time, and duration that the CPMS was out-of-control; the cause 
(including unknown cause) for the CPMS being out-of-control; and 
descriptions of corrective actions taken.
    (viii) Before [date 181 days after date of publication of final 
rule in the Federal Register], the date and time period of each 
deviation from an operating limit in Table 1 to this subpart; date and 
time period of any bypass of the add-on control device; and whether 
each deviation occurred during a period of startup, shutdown, or 
malfunction or during another period. On and after [date 181 days after 
date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register], the number 
of deviations from an operating limit in Table 1 to this subpart and, 
for each deviation, the date, time, and duration of each deviation; the 
date, time, and duration of any bypass of the add-on control device.
* * * * *
    (x) Before [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule 
in the Federal Register], a breakdown of the total duration of the 
deviations from the operating limits in Table 1 of this subpart and 
bypasses of the add-on control device during the semiannual reporting 
period into those that were due to startup, shutdown, control equipment 
problems, process problems, other known causes, and other unknown 
causes. On and after [date 181 days after date of publication of final 
rule in the Federal Register], a breakdown of the total duration of the 
deviations from the operating limits in Table 1 to this subpart and 
bypasses of the add-on control device during the semiannual reporting 
period into those that were due to control equipment problems, process 
problems, other known causes, and other unknown causes.
* * * * *
    (xiii) Before [date 181 days after date of publication of final 
rule in the Federal Register], for each deviation from the work 
practice standards, a description of the deviation, the date and time 
period of the deviation, and the actions you took to correct the 
deviation. On and after [date 181 days after date of publication of 
final rule in the Federal Register], for deviations from the work 
practice standards, the number of deviations, and, for each deviation, 
the information in paragraphs (a)(7)(xiii)(A) and (B) of this section:
    (A) A description of the deviation; the date, time, and duration of 
the deviation; and the actions you took to minimize emissions in 
accordance with Sec.  63.4500(b).
    (B) The description required in paragraph (a)(7)(xiii)(A) of this 
section must include a list of the affected sources or equipment for 
which a deviation occurred and the cause of the deviation (including 
unknown cause, if applicable.
    (xiv) Before [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule 
in the Federal Register], a statement of the cause of each deviation. 
On and after [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in 
the Federal Register], for deviations from an emission limit in Sec.  
63.4490 or an operating limit in Table 1 to this subpart, a statement 
of the cause of each deviation (including unknown cause, if applicable) 
and the actions you took to minimize emissions in accordance with Sec.  
63.4500(b).
    (xv) On and after [date 181 days after date of publication of final 
rule in the Federal Register], for each deviation from an emission 
limit in Sec.  63.4490 or operating limit in Table 1 to this subpart, a 
list of the affected sources or equipment for which a deviation 
occurred, an estimate of the quantity of each regulated pollutant 
emitted over any emission limit in Sec.  63.4490 or operating limit in 
Table 1 to this subpart, and a description of the method used to 
estimate the emissions.
* * * * *
    (c) Startup, shutdown, malfunction reports. Before [date 181 days 
after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register], if 
you used the emission rate with add-on controls option and you had a 
startup, shutdown, or malfunction during the semiannual reporting 
period, you must submit the reports specified in paragraphs (c)(1) and 
(2) of this section. On and after [date 181 days after date of 
publication of final rule in the Federal Register], the reports 
specified in paragraphs (c)(1) and (2) of this section are not 
required.
* * * * *
    (d) On and after [date 181 days after date of publication of final 
rule in the Federal Register], you must submit the results of the 
performance tests required in Sec.  63.4560 following the procedure 
specified in paragraphs (d)(1) through (3) of this section.
    (1) For data collected using test methods supported by the EPA's 
Electronic Reporting Tool (ERT) as listed on the EPA's ERT website 
(https://www.epa.gov/electronic-reporting-air-emissions/electronic-reporting-tool-ert) at the time of the test, you must submit the 
results of the performance test to the EPA via the CEDRI. The CEDRI 
interface can be accessed through the EPA's CDX (https://cdx.epa.gov/). 
Performance test data must be submitted in a file format generated 
through the use of the EPA's ERT or an alternate electronic file format 
consistent with the XML schema listed on the EPA's ERT website.
    (2) For data collected using test methods that are not supported by 
the EPA's ERT as listed on the EPA's ERT website at the time of the 
test, you must submit the results of the performance test to the 
Administrator at the appropriate address listed in Sec.  63.13, unless 
the Administrator agrees to or specifies an alternate reporting method.
    (3) If you claim that some of the performance test information 
being submitted under paragraph (d)(1) of this section is CBI, you must 
submit a complete file generated through the use of the EPA's ERT or an 
alternate electronic file consistent with the XML schema listed on the 
EPA's ERT website, including information claimed to be CBI, on a 
compact disc, flash drive, or other commonly used electronic storage 
medium to the EPA. The electronic medium must be clearly marked as CBI 
and mailed to U.S. EPA/OAPQS/CORE CBI Office, Attention: Group Leader, 
Measurement Policy Group, MD C404-02, 4930 Old Page Rd., Durham, NC 
27703. The same ERT or alternate file with the CBI omitted must be 
submitted to the EPA via the EPA's CDX as described in paragraph (d)(1) 
of this section.
    (e) On and after [date 181 days after date of publication of final 
rule in the Federal Register], the owner or operator shall submit the 
initial notifications required in Sec.  63.9(b) and the notification of 
compliance status required in Sec.  63.9(h) and Sec.  63.4510(c) to the 
EPA via the CEDRI. The CEDRI interface can be accessed through the 
EPA's CDX (https://cdx.epa.gov/). The owner or operator must upload to 
CEDRI an electronic copy of each applicable notification in portable 
document format (PDF). The applicable notification must be submitted by 
the deadline specified in this subpart, regardless of the method in 
which the

[[Page 59020]]

reports are submitted. Owners or operators who claim that some of the 
information required to be submitted via CEDRI is CBI shall submit a 
complete report generated using the appropriate form in CEDRI or an 
alternate electronic file consistent with the XML schema listed on the 
EPA's CEDRI website, including information claimed to be CBI, on a 
compact disc, flash drive, or other commonly used electronic storage 
medium to the EPA. The electronic medium shall be clearly marked as CBI 
and mailed to U.S. EPA/OAQPS/CORE CBI Office, Attention: Group Leader, 
Measurement Policy Group, MD C404-02, 4930 Old Page Rd., Durham, NC 
27703. The same file with the CBI omitted shall be submitted to the EPA 
via the EPA's CDX as described earlier in this paragraph.
    (f) On and after [date 181 days after date of publication of final 
rule in the Federal Register], or once the reporting template has been 
available on the CEDRI website for 1 year, whichever date is later, the 
owner or operator shall submit the semiannual compliance report 
required in paragraph (a) of this section to the EPA via the CEDRI. 
(CEDRI can be accessed through the EPA's CDX (https://cdx.epa.gov/)). 
The owner or operator must use the appropriate electronic template on 
the CEDRI website for this subpart or an alternate electronic file 
format consistent with the XML schema listed on the CEDRI website 
(https://www.epa.gov/electronic-reporting-air-emissions/compliance-and-emissions-data-reporting-interface-cedri). The date report templates 
become available will be listed on the CEDRI website. If the reporting 
form for the semiannual compliance report specific to this subpart is 
not available in CEDRI at the time that the report is due, you must 
submit the report to the Administrator at the appropriate addresses 
listed in Sec.  63.13. Once the form has been available in CEDRI for 1 
year, you must begin submitting all subsequent reports via CEDRI. The 
reports must be submitted by the deadlines specified in this subpart, 
regardless of the method in which the reports are submitted. Owners or 
operators who claim that some of the information required to be 
submitted via CEDRI is CBI shall submit a complete report generated 
using the appropriate form in CEDRI or an alternate electronic file 
consistent with the XML schema listed on the EPA's CEDRI website, 
including information claimed to be CBI, on a compact disc, flash 
drive, or other commonly used electronic storage medium to the EPA. The 
electronic medium shall be clearly marked as CBI and mailed to U.S. 
EPA/OAQPS/CORE CBI Office, Attention: Group Leader, Measurement Policy 
Group, MD C404-02, 4930 Old Page Rd., Durham, NC 27703. The same file 
with the CBI omitted shall be submitted to the EPA via the EPA's CDX as 
described earlier in this paragraph.
    (g) If you are required to electronically submit a report through 
the CEDRI in the EPA's CDX, and due to a planned or actual outage of 
either the EPA's CEDRI or CDX systems within the period of time 
beginning 5 business days prior to the date that the submission is due, 
you will be or are precluded from accessing CEDRI or CDX and submitting 
a required report within the time prescribed, you may assert a claim of 
EPA system outage for failure to timely comply with the reporting 
requirement. You must submit notification to the Administrator in 
writing as soon as possible following the date you first knew, or 
through due diligence should have known, that the event may cause or 
caused a delay in reporting. You must provide to the Administrator a 
written description identifying the date, time and length of the 
outage; a rationale for attributing the delay in reporting beyond the 
regulatory deadline to the EPA system outage; describe the measures 
taken or to be taken to minimize the delay in reporting; and identify a 
date by which you propose to report, or if you have already met the 
reporting requirement at the time of the notification, the date you 
reported. In any circumstance, the report must be submitted 
electronically as soon as possible after the outage is resolved. The 
decision to accept the claim of EPA system outage and allow an 
extension to the reporting deadline is solely within the discretion of 
the Administrator.
    (h) If you are required to electronically submit a report through 
CEDRI in the EPA's CDX and a force majeure event is about to occur, 
occurs, or has occurred or there are lingering effects from such an 
event within the period of time beginning 5 business days prior to the 
date the submission is due, the owner or operator may assert a claim of 
force majeure for failure to timely comply with the reporting 
requirement. For the purposes of this section, a force majeure event is 
defined as an event that will be or has been caused by circumstances 
beyond the control of the affected facility, its contractors, or any 
entity controlled by the affected facility that prevents you from 
complying with the requirement to submit a report electronically within 
the time period prescribed. Examples of such events are acts of nature 
(e.g., hurricanes, earthquakes, or floods), acts of war or terrorism, 
or equipment failure or safety hazard beyond the control of the 
affected facility (e.g., large scale power outage). If you intend to 
assert a claim of force majeure, you must submit notification to the 
Administrator in writing as soon as possible following the date you 
first knew, or through due diligence should have known, that the event 
may cause or caused a delay in reporting. You must provide to the 
Administrator a written description of the force majeure event and a 
rationale for attributing the delay in reporting beyond the regulatory 
deadline to the force majeure event; describe the measures taken or to 
be taken to minimize the delay in reporting; and identify a date by 
which you propose to report, or if you have already met the reporting 
requirement at the time of the notification, the date you reported. In 
any circumstance, the reporting must occur as soon as possible after 
the force majeure event occurs. The decision to accept the claim of 
force majeure and allow an extension to the reporting deadline is 
solely within the discretion of the Administrator.
0
44. Section 63.4530 is amended by revising paragraphs (h), (i) 
introductory text, and (i)(1) and (2) to read as follows:


Sec.  63.4530  What records must I keep?

* * * * *
    (h) Before [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule 
in the Federal Register], you must keep records of the date, time, and 
duration of each deviation. On and after [date 181 days after date of 
publication of final rule in the Federal Register], for each deviation 
from an emission limitation reported under Sec.  63.4520(a)(5) through 
(7), a record of the information specified in paragraphs (h)(1) through 
(4) of this section, as applicable.
    (1) The date, time, and duration of the deviation, as reported 
under Sec.  63.4520(a)(5) through (7).
    (2) A list of the affected sources or equipment for which the 
deviation occurred and the cause of the deviation, as reported under 
Sec.  63.4520(a)(5) through (7).
    (3) An estimate of the quantity of each regulated pollutant emitted 
over any applicable emission limit in Sec.  63.4490 or any applicable 
operating limit in Table 1 to this subpart, and a description of the 
method used to calculate the estimate, as reported under Sec.  
63.4520(a)(5) through (7).
    (4) A record of actions taken to minimize emissions in accordance 
with Sec.  63.4500(b) and any corrective actions taken to return the 
affected unit to its normal or usual manner of operation.

[[Page 59021]]

    (i) If you use the emission rate with add-on controls option, you 
must also keep the records specified in paragraphs (i)(1) through (8) 
of this section.
    (1) Before [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule 
in the Federal Register], for each deviation, a record of whether the 
deviation occurred during a period of startup, shutdown, or 
malfunction. On and after [date 181 days after date of publication of 
final rule in the Federal Register], a record of whether the deviation 
occurred during a period of startup, shutdown, or malfunction is not 
required.
    (2) Before [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule 
in the Federal Register], the records in Sec.  63.6(e)(3)(iii) through 
(v) related to startup, shutdown, and malfunction. On and after [date 
181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal 
Register], the records in Sec.  63.6(e)(3)(iii) through (v) related to 
startup, shutdown, and malfunction are not required.
* * * * *
0
45. Section 63.4531 is amended by revising paragraph (a) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  63.4531  In what form and for how long must I keep my records?

    (a) Your records must be in a form suitable and readily available 
for expeditious review, according to Sec.  63.10(b)(1). Where 
appropriate, the records may be maintained as electronic spreadsheets 
or as a database. On and after [date 181 days after date of publication 
of final rule in the Federal Register], any records required to be 
maintained by this subpart that are in reports that were submitted 
electronically via the EPA's CEDRI may be maintained in electronic 
format. This ability to maintain electronic copies does not affect the 
requirement for facilities to make records, data, and reports available 
upon request to a delegated air agency or the EPA as part of an on-site 
compliance evaluation.
* * * * *
0
46. Section 63.4541 is amended by revising paragraphs (a)(1)(i) and 
(a)(2) and (4) to read as follows:


Sec.  63.4541  How do I demonstrate initial compliance with the 
emission limitations?

* * * * *
    (a) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (i) Count each organic HAP in Table 5 to this subpart that is 
measured to be present at 0.1 percent by mass or more and at 1.0 
percent by mass or more for other compounds. For example, if toluene 
(not listed in Table 5 to this subpart) is measured to be 0.5 percent 
of the material by mass, you do not have to count it. Express the mass 
fraction of each organic HAP you count as a value truncated to four 
places after the decimal point (e.g., 0.3791).
* * * * *
    (2) EPA Method 24 (appendix A-7 to 40 CFR part 60). For coatings, 
you may use EPA Method 24 to determine the mass fraction of nonaqueous 
volatile matter and use that value as a substitute for mass fraction of 
organic HAP. As an alternative to using EPA Method 24, you may use ASTM 
D2369-10 (Reapproved 2015) \e\ (incorporated by reference, see Sec.  
63.14). For reactive adhesives in which some of the HAP react to form 
solids and are not emitted to the atmosphere, you may use the 
alternative method contained in appendix A to this subpart, rather than 
EPA Method 24. You may use the volatile fraction that is emitted, as 
measured by the alternative method in appendix A to this subpart, as a 
substitute for the mass fraction of organic HAP.
* * * * *
    (4) Information from the supplier or manufacturer of the material. 
You may rely on information other than that generated by the test 
methods specified in paragraphs (a)(1) through (3) of this section, 
such as manufacturer's formulation data, if it represents each organic 
HAP in Table 5 to this subpart that is present at 0.1 percent by mass 
or more and at 1.0 percent by mass or more for other compounds. For 
example, if toluene (not listed in Table 5 to this subpart) is 0.5 
percent of the material by mass, you do not have to count it. For 
reactive adhesives in which some of the HAP react to form solids and 
are not emitted to the atmosphere, you may rely on manufacturer's data 
that expressly states the organic HAP or volatile matter mass fraction 
emitted. If there is a disagreement between such information and 
results of a test conducted according to paragraphs (a)(1) through (3) 
of this section, then the test method results will take precedence 
unless, after consultation you demonstrate to the satisfaction of the 
enforcement agency that the formulation data are correct.
* * * * *
0
47. Section 63.4551 is amended by revising paragraph (c) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  63.4551  How do I demonstrate initial compliance with the 
emission limitations?

* * * * *
    (c) Determine the density of each material. Determine the density 
of each liquid coating, thinner and/or other additive, and cleaning 
material used during each month from test results using ASTM D1475-13 
or ASTM D2111-10 (Reapproved 2015) (both incorporated by reference, see 
Sec.  63.14), information from the supplier or manufacturer of the 
material, or reference sources providing density or specific gravity 
data for pure materials. If there is disagreement between ASTM D1475-13 
or ASTM D2111-10 (2015) and other such information sources, the test 
results will take precedence unless, after consultation you demonstrate 
to the satisfaction of the enforcement agency that the formulation data 
are correct. If you purchase materials or monitor consumption by weight 
instead of volume, you do not need to determine material density. 
Instead, you may use the material weight in place of the combined terms 
for density and volume in Equations 1A, 1B, 1C, and 2 of this section.
* * * * *
0
48. Section 63.4560 is amended by revising the section heading and 
paragraphs (a)(1) and (4), (b)(1), and (c) introductory text to read as 
follows:


Sec.  63.4560  By what date must I conduct performance tests and 
initial compliance demonstrations?

    (a) * * *
    (1) All emission capture systems, add-on control devices, and CPMS 
must be installed and operating no later than the applicable compliance 
date specified in Sec.  63.4483. Except for solvent recovery systems 
for which you conduct liquid-liquid material balances according to 
Sec.  63.4561(j), you must conduct according to the schedule in 
paragraphs (a)(1)(i) and (ii) of this section initial and periodic 
performance tests of each capture system and add-on control device 
according to the procedures in Sec. Sec.  63.4564, 63.4565, and 63.4566 
and establish the operating limits required by Sec.  63.4492. For a 
solvent recovery system for which you conduct liquid-liquid material 
balances according to Sec.  63.4561(j), you must initiate the first 
material balance no later than the applicable compliance date specified 
in Sec.  63.4483.
    (i) You must conduct the initial performance test and establish the 
operating limits required by Sec.  63.4492 no later than 180 days after 
the applicable compliance date specified in Sec.  63.4483.
    (ii) You must conduct periodic performance tests and establish the 
operating limits required by Sec.  63.4492 within 5 years following the 
previous performance test. You must conduct the first periodic 
performance test before [date 3 years after date of publications of 
final rule in the Federal Register], unless you are already required to 
complete periodic performance tests as a requirement of renewing your 
facility's operating permit under 40 CFR

[[Page 59022]]

part 70 or 40 CFR part 71 and have conducted a performance test on or 
after [date 2 years before date of publications of final rule in the 
Federal Register]. Thereafter you must conduct a performance test no 
later than 5 years following the previous performance test. Operating 
limits must be confirmed or reestablished during each performance test. 
For any control device for which you are using the catalytic oxidizer 
control option at Sec.  63.4567(b) and following the catalyst 
maintenance procedures in Sec.  63.4567(b)(4), you are not required to 
conduct periodic control device performance testing as specified by 
this paragraph. For any control device for which instruments are used 
to continuously measure organic compound emissions, you are not 
required to conduct periodic control device performance testing as 
specified by this paragraph.
* * * * *
    (4) For the initial compliance demonstration, you do not need to 
comply with the operating limits for the emission capture system and 
add-on control device required by Sec.  63.4492 until after you have 
completed the initial performance tests specified in paragraph (a)(1) 
of this section. Instead, you must maintain a log detailing the 
operation and maintenance of the emission capture system, add-on 
control device, and continuous parameter monitors during the period 
between the compliance date and the performance test. You must begin 
complying with the operating limits established based on the initial 
performance tests specified in paragraph (a)(1) of this section for 
your affected source on the date you complete the performance tests. 
The requirements in this paragraph (a)(4) do not apply to solvent 
recovery systems for which you conduct liquid-liquid material balances 
according to the requirements in Sec.  63.4561(j).
    (b) * * *
    (1) All emission capture systems, add-on control devices, and CPMS 
must be installed and operating no later than the applicable compliance 
date specified in Sec.  63.4483. Except for solvent recovery systems 
for which you conduct liquid-liquid material balances according to 
Sec.  63.4561(j), you must conduct according to the schedule in 
paragraphs (b)(1)(i) and (ii) of this section initial and periodic 
performance tests of each capture system and add-on control device 
according to the procedures in Sec. Sec.  63.4564, 63.4565, and 63.4566 
and establish the operating limits required by Sec.  63.4492. For a 
solvent recovery system for which you conduct liquid-liquid material 
balances according to Sec.  63.4561(j), you must initiate the first 
material balance no later than the compliance date specified in Sec.  
63.4483.
    (i) You must conduct the initial performance test and establish the 
operating limits required by Sec.  63.4492 no later than 180 days after 
the applicable compliance date specified in Sec.  63.4483.
    (ii) You must conduct periodic performance tests and establish the 
operating limits required by Sec.  63.4492 within 5 years following the 
previous performance test. You must conduct the first periodic 
performance test before [date 3 years after date of publications of 
final rule in the Federal Register], unless you are already required to 
complete periodic performance tests as a requirement of renewing your 
facility's operating permit under 40 CFR part 70 or 40 CFR part 71 and 
have conducted a performance test on or after [date 2 years before date 
of publications of final rule in the Federal Register]. Thereafter you 
must conduct a performance test no later than 5 years following the 
previous performance test. Operating limits must be confirmed or 
reestablished during each performance test. For any control device for 
which you are using the catalytic oxidizer control option at Sec.  
63.4567(b) and following the catalyst maintenance procedures in Sec.  
63.4567(b)(4), you are not required to conduct periodic control device 
performance testing as specified by this paragraph. For any control 
device for which instruments are used to continuously measure organic 
compound emissions, you are not required to conduct periodic control 
device performance testing as specified by this paragraph.
* * * * *
    (c) You are not required to conduct an initial performance test to 
determine capture efficiency or destruction efficiency of a capture 
system or control device if you receive approval to use the results of 
a performance test that has been previously conducted on that capture 
system or control device. Any such previous tests must meet the 
conditions described in paragraphs (c)(1) through (3) of this section. 
You are still required to conduct a periodic performance test according 
to the applicable requirements of paragraphs (a)(1)(ii) and (b)(2)(ii) 
of this section.
* * * * *
0
49. Section 63.4561 is amended by revising paragraphs (j)(3) and (n) to 
read as follows:


Sec.  63.4561  How do I demonstrate initial compliance?

* * * * *
    (j) * * *
    (3) Determine the mass fraction of volatile organic matter for each 
coating, thinner and/or other additive, and cleaning material used in 
the coating operation controlled by the solvent recovery system during 
the month, kg volatile organic matter per kg coating. You may determine 
the volatile organic matter mass fraction using EPA Method 24 of 40 CFR 
part 60, appendix A-7, ASTM D2369-10 (Reapproved 2015)\e\ (incorporated 
by reference, see Sec.  63.14), or an EPA approved alternative method. 
Alternatively, you may determine the volatile organic matter mass 
fraction using information provided by the manufacturer or supplier of 
the coating. In the event of any inconsistency between information 
provided by the manufacturer or supplier and the results of EPA Method 
24 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-7, ASTM D2369-10 (Reapproved 2015)\e\, 
or an approved alternative method, the test method results will take 
precedence unless, after consultation you demonstrate to the 
satisfaction of the enforcement agency that the formulation data are 
correct.
* * * * *
    (n) Compliance demonstration. The organic HAP emission rate for the 
initial compliance period, calculated using Equation 5 of this section, 
must be less than or equal to the applicable emission limit for each 
subcategory in Sec.  63.4490 or the predominant activity or facility-
specific emission limit allowed in Sec.  63.4490(c). You must keep all 
records as required by Sec. Sec.  63.4530 and 63.4531. As part of the 
notification of compliance status required by Sec.  63.4510, you must 
identify the coating operation(s) for which you used the emission rate 
with add-on controls option and submit a statement that the coating 
operation(s) was (were) in compliance with the emission limitations 
during the initial compliance period because the organic HAP emission 
rate was less than or equal to the applicable emission limit in Sec.  
63.4490, and for control devices other than solvent recovery system 
using a liquid-liquid material balance, you achieved the operating 
limits required by Sec.  63.4492 and the work practice standards 
required by Sec.  63.4493.
0
50. Section 63.4563 is amended by revising paragraph (f) and adding 
paragraph (g) to read as follows:


Sec.  63.4563  How do I demonstrate continuous compliance with the 
emission limitations?

* * * * *
    (f) As part of each semiannual compliance report required in Sec.  
63.4520, you must identify the coating operation(s) for which you used 
the emission rate with add-on controls

[[Page 59023]]

option. If there were no deviations from the emission limits in Sec.  
63.4490, the operating limits in Sec.  63.34492, and the work practice 
standards in Sec.  63.4493, submit a statement that you were in 
compliance with the emission limitations during the reporting period 
because the organic HAP emission rate for each compliance period was 
less than or equal to the applicable emission limit in Sec.  63.4490, 
and you achieved the operating limits required by Sec.  63.4492 and the 
work practice standards required by Sec.  63.4493 during each 
compliance period.
    (g) On and after [date 181 days after date of publication of final 
rule in the Federal Register], deviations that occur due to malfunction 
of the emission capture system, add-on control device, or coating 
operation that may affect emission capture or control device efficiency 
are required to operate in accordance with Sec.  63.4500(b). The 
Administrator will determine whether the deviations are violations 
according to the provisions in Sec.  63.4500(b).
* * * * *
0
51. Section 63.4564 is amended by revising paragraphs (a) introductory 
text and (a)(1) to read as follows:


Sec.  63.4564  What are the general requirements for performance tests?

    (a) Before [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule 
in the Federal Register], you must conduct each performance test 
required by Sec.  63.4560 according to the requirements in Sec.  
63.7(e)(1) and under the conditions in this section, unless you obtain 
a waiver of the performance test according to the provisions in Sec.  
63.7(h). On and after [date 181 days after date of publication of final 
rule in the Federal Register], you must conduct each performance test 
required by Sec.  63.4560 according to the requirements in this section 
unless you obtain a waiver of the performance test according to the 
provisions in Sec.  63.7(h).
    (1) Representative coating operation operating conditions. You must 
conduct the performance test under representative operating conditions 
for the coating operation. Operations during periods of startup, 
shutdown, or nonoperation do not constitute representative conditions 
for purposes of conducting a performance test. The owner or operator 
may not conduct performance tests during periods of malfunction. You 
must record the process information that is necessary to document 
operating conditions during the test and explain why the conditions 
represent normal operation. Upon request, you must make available to 
the Administrator such records as may be necessary to determine the 
conditions of performance tests.
* * * * *
0
52. Section 63.4565 is amended by revising the introductory text to 
read as follows:


Sec.  63.4565  How do I determine the emission capture system 
efficiency?

    You must use the procedures and test methods in this section to 
determine capture efficiency as part of each performance test required 
by Sec.  63.4560.
* * * * *
0
53. Section 63.4566 is amended by revising the introductory text and 
paragraphs (a)(1) through (4) and (b) to read as follows:


Sec.  63.4566  How do I determine the add-on control device emission 
destruction or removal efficiency?

    You must use the procedures and test methods in this section to 
determine the add-on control device emission destruction or removal 
efficiency as part of the performance test required by Sec.  63.4560. 
For each performance test, you must conduct three test runs as 
specified in Sec.  63.7(e)(3) and each test run must last at least 1 
hour.
    (a) * * *
    (1) Use EPA Method 1 or 1A of appendix A-1 to 40 CFR part 60, as 
appropriate, to select sampling sites and velocity traverse points.
    (2) Use EPA Method 2, 2A, 2C, 2D, or 2F of appendix A-1 to 40 CFR 
part 60, or 2G of appendix A-2 to 40 CFR part 60, as appropriate, to 
measure gas volumetric flow rate.
    (3) Use EPA Method 3, 3A, or 3B of appendix A-2 to 40 CFR part 60, 
as appropriate, for gas analysis to determine dry molecular weight.
    (4) Use EPA Method 4 of appendix A-3 to 40 CFR part 60, to 
determine stack gas moisture.
* * * * *
    (b) Measure total gaseous organic mass emissions as carbon at the 
inlet and outlet of the add-on control device simultaneously, using 
either EPA Method 25 or 25A of appendix A-7 to 40 CFR part 60.
    (1) Use EPA Method 25 of appendix A-7 if the add-on control device 
is an oxidizer and you expect the total gaseous organic concentration 
as carbon to be more than 50 parts per million (ppm) at the control 
device outlet.
    (2) Use EPA Method 25A of appendix A-7 if the add-on control device 
is an oxidizer and you expect the total gaseous organic concentration 
as carbon to be 50 ppm or less at the control device outlet.
    (3) Use EPA Method 25A of appendix A-7 if the add-on control device 
is not an oxidizer.
    (4) You may use EPA Method 18 in appendix A-6 of part 60 to 
subtract methane emissions from measured total gaseous organic mass 
emissions as carbon.
* * * * *
0
54. Section 63.4567 is amended by revising the introductory text and 
paragraphs (a)(1) and (2), (b)(1) through (3), (c)(1), (d)(1) and (2), 
and (e)(1) through (4) to read as follows:


Sec.  63.4567  How do I establish the emission capture system and add-
on control device operating limits during the performance test?

    During performance tests required by Sec.  63.4560 and described in 
Sec. Sec.  63.4564, 63.4565, and 63.4566, you must establish the 
operating limits required by Sec.  63.4492 according to this section, 
unless you have received approval for alternative monitoring and 
operating limits under Sec.  63.8(f) as specified in Sec.  63.4492.
    (a) * * *
    (1) During performance tests, you must monitor and record the 
combustion temperature at least once every 15 minutes during each of 
the three test runs. You must monitor the temperature in the firebox of 
the thermal oxidizer or immediately downstream of the firebox before 
any substantial heat exchange occurs.
    (2) For each performance test, use the data collected during the 
performance test to calculate and record the average combustion 
temperature maintained during the performance test. This average 
combustion temperature is the minimum operating limit for your thermal 
oxidizer.
    (b) * * *
    (1) During performance tests, you must monitor and record the 
temperature just before the catalyst bed and the temperature difference 
across the catalyst bed at least once every 15 minutes during each of 
the three test runs.
    (2) For each performance test, use the data collected during the 
performance test to calculate and record the average temperature just 
before the catalyst bed and the average temperature difference across 
the catalyst bed maintained during the performance test. These are the 
minimum operating limits for your catalytic oxidizer.
    (3) You must monitor the temperature at the inlet to the catalyst 
bed and implement a site-specific inspection and maintenance plan for 
your catalytic oxidizer as specified in paragraph (b)(4) of this 
section. During performance

[[Page 59024]]

tests, you must monitor and record the temperature just before the 
catalyst bed at least once every 15 minutes during each of the three 
test runs. For each performance test, use the data collected during the 
performance test to calculate and record the average temperature just 
before the catalyst bed during the performance test. This is the 
minimum operating limit for your catalytic oxidizer.
* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (1) During performance tests, you must monitor and record the total 
regeneration desorbing gas (e.g., steam or nitrogen) mass flow for each 
regeneration cycle, and the carbon bed temperature after each carbon 
bed regeneration and cooling cycle for the regeneration cycle either 
immediately preceding or immediately following the performance test.
* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (1) During performance tests, you must monitor and record the 
condenser outlet (product side) gas temperature at least once every 15 
minutes during each of the three test runs of the performance test.
    (2) For each performance test, use the data collected during the 
performance test to calculate and record the average condenser outlet 
(product side) gas temperature maintained during the performance test. 
This average condenser outlet gas temperature is the maximum operating 
limit for your condenser.
    (e) * * *
    (1) During performance tests, you must monitor and record the 
desorption concentrate stream gas temperature at least once every 15 
minutes during each of the three runs of the performance test.
    (2) For each performance test, use the data collected during the 
performance test to calculate and record the average temperature. This 
is the minimum operating limit for the desorption concentrate gas 
stream temperature.
    (3) During each performance test, you must monitor and record the 
pressure drop of the dilute stream across the concentrator at least 
once every 15 minutes during each of the three runs of the performance 
test.
    (4) For each performance test, use the data collected during the 
performance test to calculate and record the average pressure drop. 
This is the minimum operating limit for the dilute stream across the 
concentrator.
* * * * *
0
55. Section 63.4568 is amended by revising paragraphs (a)(4), (5), and 
(7) and (c)(3) introductory text to read as follows:


Sec.  63.4568  What are the requirements for continuous parameter 
monitoring system installation, operation, and maintenance?

    (a) * * *
    (4) Before [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule 
in the Federal Register], you must maintain the CPMS at all times and 
have available necessary parts for routine repairs of the monitoring 
equipment. On and after [date 181 days after date of publication of 
final rule in the Federal Register], you must maintain the CPMS at all 
times in accordance with Sec.  63.4500(b) and keep necessary parts 
readily available for routine repairs of the monitoring equipment.
    (5) Before [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule 
in the Federal Register], you must operate the CPMS and collect 
emission capture system and add-on control device parameter data at all 
times that a controlled coating operation is operating, except during 
monitoring malfunctions, associated repairs, and required quality 
assurance or control activities (including, if applicable, calibration 
checks and required zero and span adjustments). On and after [date 181 
days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register], 
you must operate the CPMS and collect emission capture system and add-
on control device parameter data at all times in accordance with Sec.  
63.4500(b).
* * * * *
    (7) A monitoring malfunction is any sudden, infrequent, not 
reasonably preventable failure of the CPMS to provide valid data. 
Monitoring failures that are caused in part by poor maintenance or 
careless operation are not malfunctions. Before [date 181 days after 
date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register], any period 
for which the monitoring system is out-of-control and data are not 
available for required calculations is a deviation from the monitoring 
requirements. On and after [date 181 days after date of publication of 
final rule in the Federal Register], except for periods of required 
quality assurance or control activities, any period for which the CPMS 
fails to operate and record data continuously as required by paragraph 
(a)(5) of this section, or generates data that cannot be included in 
calculating averages as specified in (a)(6) of this section constitutes 
a deviation from the monitoring requirements.
* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (3) For all thermal oxidizers and catalytic oxidizers, you must 
meet the requirements in paragraphs (a) and (c)(3)(i) through (v) of 
this section for each gas temperature monitoring device. For the 
purposes of this paragraph (c)(3), a thermocouple is part of the 
temperature sensor.
* * * * *
0
56. Section 63.4581 is amended by revising the definitions of 
``Deviation'' and ``Non-HAP coating'' to read as follows:


Sec.  63.4581  What definitions apply to this subpart?

* * * * *
    Deviation means:
    (1) Before [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule 
in the Federal Register], any instance in which an affected source 
subject to this subpart, or an owner or operator of such a source:
    (i) Fails to meet any requirement or obligation established by this 
subpart including but not limited to, any emission limit or operating 
limit or work practice standard;
    (ii) Fails to meet any term or condition that is adopted to 
implement an applicable requirement in this subpart and that is 
included in the operating permit for any affected source required to 
obtain such a permit; or
    (iii) Fails to meet any emission limit, or operating limit, or work 
practice standard in this subpart during startup, shutdown, or 
malfunction, regardless of whether or not such failure is permitted by 
this subpart; and
    (2) On and after [date 181 days after date of publication of final 
rule in the Federal Register], any instance in which an affected source 
subject to this subpart or an owner or operator of such a source:
    (i) Fails to meet any requirement or obligation established by this 
subpart including but not limited to any emission limit, operating 
limit, or work practice standard; or
    (ii) Fails to meet any term or condition that is adopted to 
implement an applicable requirement in this subpart and that is 
included in the operating permit for any affected source required to 
obtain such a permit.
* * * * *
    Non-HAP coating means, for the purposes of this subpart, a coating 
that contains no more than 0.1 percent by mass of any individual 
organic HAP that is listed in Table 5 to this subpart and no more than 
1.0 percent by mass for any other individual HAP.
* * * * *
0
57. Table 2 to Subpart PPPP of part 63 is revised to read as follows:

[[Page 59025]]



       Table 2 to Subpart PPPP of Part 63--Applicability of General Provisions to Subpart PPPP of Part 63
      You must comply with the applicable General Provisions requirements according to the following table:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 Applicable to subpart
               Citation                        Subject                    PPPP                 Explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec.   63.1(a)(1)-(12)...............  General Applicability..  Yes.                     .......................
Sec.   63.1(b)(1)-(3)................  Initial Applicability    Yes....................  Applicability to
                                        Determination.                                    subpart PPPP is also
                                                                                          specified in Sec.
                                                                                          63.4481.
Sec.   63.1(c)(1)....................  Applicability After      Yes.                     .......................
                                        Standard Established.
Sec.   63.1(c)(2)....................  Applicability of Permit  No.....................  Area sources are not
                                        Program for Area                                  subject to subpart
                                        Sources.                                          PPPP.
Sec.   63.1(c)(5)....................  Extensions and           Yes.                     .......................
                                        Notifications.
Sec.   63.1(e).......................  Applicability of Permit  Yes.                     .......................
                                        Program Before
                                        Relevant Standard is
                                        Set.
Sec.   63.2..........................  Definitions............  Yes....................  Additional definitions
                                                                                          are specified in Sec.
                                                                                           63.4581.
Sec.   63.3..........................  Units and Abbreviations  Yes.                     .......................
Sec.   63.4(a)(1)-(2)................  Prohibited Activities..  Yes.                     .......................
Sec.   63.4(b)-(c)...................  Circumvention/           Yes.                     .......................
                                        Fragmentation.
Sec.   63.5(a).......................  Construction/            Yes.                     .......................
                                        Reconstruction.
Sec.   63.5(b)(1), (3), (4), (6).....  Requirements for         Yes.                     .......................
                                        Existing, Newly
                                        Constructed, and
                                        Reconstructed Sources.
Sec.   63.5(d)(1)(i)\(ii)(F),          Application for          Yes.                     .......................
 (d)(1)(ii)(H), (d)(1)(ii)(J),          Approval of
 (d)(1)(iii), (d)(2)-(4).               Construction/
                                        Reconstruction.
Sec.   63.5(e).......................  Approval of              Yes.                     .......................
                                        Construction/
                                        Reconstruction.
Sec.   63.5(f).......................  Approval of              Yes.                     .......................
                                        Construction/
                                        Reconstruction Based
                                        on Prior State Review.
Sec.   63.6(a).......................  Compliance With          Yes.                     .......................
                                        Standards and
                                        Maintenance
                                        Requirements--Applicab
                                        ility.
Sec.   63.6(b)(1)-(5), (b)(7)........  Compliance Dates for     Yes....................  Section 63.4483
                                        New and Reconstructed                             specifies the
                                        Sources.                                          compliance dates.
Sec.   63.6(c)(1), (2), (5)..........  Compliance Dates for     Yes....................  Section 63.4483
                                        Existing Sources.                                 specifies the
                                                                                          compliance dates.
Sec.   63.6(e)(1)(i)-(ii)............  Operation and            Yes before [date 181     See Sec.   63.4500(b)
                                        Maintenance.             days after date of       for general duty
                                                                 publication of final     requirement.
                                                                 rule in the Federal
                                                                 Register] No on and
                                                                 after [date 181 days
                                                                 after date of
                                                                 publication of final
                                                                 rule in the Federal
                                                                 Register].
Sec.   63.6(e)(1)(iii)...............  Operation and            Yes.                     .......................
                                        Maintenance.
Sec.   63.6(e)(3)(i), (e)(3)(iii)-     Startup, Shutdown, and   Yes before [date 181     .......................
 (ix).                                  Malfunction Plan         days after date of
                                        (SSMP).                  publication of final
                                                                 rule in the Federal
                                                                 Register]. No on and
                                                                 after [date 181 days
                                                                 after date of
                                                                 publication of final
                                                                 rule in the Federal
                                                                 Register].
Sec.   63.6(f)(1)....................  Compliance Except        Yes before [date 181     .......................
                                        During Startup,          days after date of
                                        Shutdown, and            publication of final
                                        Malfunction.             rule in the Federal
                                                                 Register]. No on and
                                                                 after [date 181 days
                                                                 after date of
                                                                 publication of final
                                                                 rule in the Federal
                                                                 Register].
Sec.   63.6(f)(2)-(3)................  Methods for Determining  Yes.                     .......................
                                        Compliance.
Sec.   63.6(g).......................  Use of an Alternative    Yes.                     .......................
                                        Standard.
Sec.   63.6(h).......................  Compliance With Opacity/ No.....................  Subpart PPPP does not
                                        Visible Emission                                  establish opacity
                                        Standards.                                        standards and does not
                                                                                          require continuous
                                                                                          opacity monitoring
                                                                                          systems (COMS).
Sec.   63.6(i)(1)-(14), (16).........  Extension of Compliance  Yes.                     .......................
Sec.   63.6(j).......................  Presidential Compliance  Yes.                     .......................
                                        Exemption.
Sec.   63.7(a)(1)....................  Performance Test         Yes....................  Applies to all affected
                                        Requirements--Applicab                            sources. Additional
                                        ility.                                            requirements for
                                                                                          performance testing
                                                                                          are specified in Sec.
                                                                                          Sec.   63.4564,
                                                                                          63.4565, and 63.4566.

[[Page 59026]]

 
Sec.   63.7(a)(2), except (a)(2)(i)-   Performance Test         Yes....................  Applies only to
 (viii).                                Requirements--Dates.                              performance tests for
                                                                                          capture system and
                                                                                          control device
                                                                                          efficiency at sources
                                                                                          using these to comply
                                                                                          with the standards.
                                                                                          Section 63.4560
                                                                                          specifies the schedule
                                                                                          for performance test
                                                                                          requirements that are
                                                                                          earlier than those
                                                                                          specified in Sec.
                                                                                          63.7(a)(2).
Sec.   63.7(a)(3)-(4)................  Performance Tests        Yes.                     .......................
                                        Required By the
                                        Administrator, Force
                                        Majeure.
Sec.   63.7(b)-(d)...................  Performance Test         Yes....................  Applies only to
                                        Requirements--Notifica                            performance tests for
                                        tion, Quality                                     capture system and add-
                                        Assurance, Facilities                             on control device
                                        Necessary for Safe                                efficiency at sources
                                        Testing, Conditions                               using these to comply
                                        During Test.                                      with the standards.
Sec.   63.7(e)(1)....................  Conduct of Performance   Yes before [date 181     See Sec.   63.4500 and
                                        Tests.                   days after date of       Sec.   63.4564(a).
                                                                 publication of final
                                                                 rule in the Federal
                                                                 Register]. No on and
                                                                 after [date 181 days
                                                                 after date of
                                                                 publication of final
                                                                 rule in the Federal
                                                                 Register].
Sec.   63.7(e)(2)-(4)................  Conduct of Performance   Yes.                     .......................
                                        Tests.
Sec.   63.7(f).......................  Performance Test         Yes....................  Applies to all test
                                        Requirements--Use                                 methods except those
                                        Alternative Test                                  of used to determine
                                        Method.                                           capture system
                                                                                          efficiency.
Sec.   63.7(g)-(h)...................  Performance Test         Yes....................  Applies only to
                                        Requirements--Data                                performance tests for
                                        Analysis,                                         capture system and add-
                                        Recordkeeping,                                    on control device
                                        Reporting, Waiver of                              efficiency at sources
                                        Test.                                             using these to comply
                                                                                          with the standards.
Sec.   63.8(a)(1)-(2)................  Monitoring               Yes....................  Applies only to
                                        Requirements--Applicab                            monitoring of capture
                                        ility.                                            system and add-on
                                                                                          control device
                                                                                          efficiency at sources
                                                                                          using these to comply
                                                                                          with the standards.
                                                                                          Additional
                                                                                          requirements for
                                                                                          monitoring are
                                                                                          specified in Sec.
                                                                                          63.4568.
Sec.   63.8(a)(4)....................  Additional Monitoring    No.....................  Subpart PPPP does not
                                        Requirements.                                     have monitoring
                                                                                          requirements for
                                                                                          flares.
Sec.   63.8(b).......................  Conduct of Monitoring..  Yes.                     .......................
Sec.   63.8(c)(1)....................  Continuous Monitoring    Yes before [date 181     Section 63.4568
                                        System (CMS) Operation   days after date of       specifies the
                                        and Maintenance.         publication of final     requirements for the
                                                                 rule in the Federal      operation of CMS for
                                                                 Register]. No on and     capture systems and
                                                                 after [date 181 days     add-on control devices
                                                                 after date of            at sources using these
                                                                 publication of final     to comply.
                                                                 rule in the Federal
                                                                 Register].
Sec.   63.8(c)(2)-(3)................  CMS Operation and        Yes....................  Applies only to
                                        Maintenance.                                      monitoring of capture
                                                                                          system and add-on
                                                                                          control device
                                                                                          efficiency at sources
                                                                                          using these to comply
                                                                                          with the standard.
                                                                                          Additional
                                                                                          requirements for CMS
                                                                                          operations and
                                                                                          maintenance are
                                                                                          specified in Sec.
                                                                                          63.4568.
Sec.   63.8(c)(4)....................  CMS....................  No.....................  Section 63.4568
                                                                                          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)....................  COMS...................  No.....................  Subpart PPPP does not
                                                                                          have opacity or
                                                                                          visible emission
                                                                                          standards.

[[Page 59027]]

 
Sec.   63.8(c)(6)....................  CMS Requirements.......  No.....................  Section 63.4568
                                                                                          specifies the
                                                                                          requirements for
                                                                                          monitoring systems for
                                                                                          capture systems and
                                                                                          add-on control devices
                                                                                          at sources using these
                                                                                          to comply.
Sec.   63.8(c)(7)....................  CMS Out-of-Control       Yes.                     .......................
                                        Periods.
Sec.   63.8(c)(8)....................  CMS Out-of-Control       No.....................  Section 63.4520
                                        Periods and Reporting.                            requires reporting of
                                                                                          CMS out-of-control
                                                                                          periods.
Sec.   63.8(d)-(e)...................  Quality Control Program  No.....................  Subpart PPPP does not
                                        and CMS Performance                               require the use of
                                        Evaluation.                                       continuous emissions
                                                                                          monitoring systems.
Sec.   63.8(f)(1)-(5)................  Use of an Alternative    Yes.                     .......................
                                        Monitoring Method.
Sec.   63.8(f)(6)....................  Alternative to Relative  No.....................  Subpart PPPP does not
                                        Accuracy Test.                                    require the use of
                                                                                          continuous emissions
                                                                                          monitoring systems.
Sec.   63.8(g).......................  Data Reduction.........  No.....................  Sections 63.4567 and
                                                                                          63.4568 specify
                                                                                          monitoring data
                                                                                          reduction.
Sec.   63.9(a)-(d)...................  Notification             Yes.                     .......................
                                        Requirments.
Sec.   63.9(e).......................  Notification of          Yes....................  Applies only to capture
                                        Performance Test.                                 system and add-on
                                                                                          control device
                                                                                          performance tests at
                                                                                          sources using these to
                                                                                          comply with the
                                                                                          standards.
Sec.   63.9(f).......................  Notification of Visible  No.....................  Subpart PPPP does not
                                        Emissions/Opacity Test.                           have opacity or
                                                                                          visible emission
                                                                                          standards.
Sec.   63.9(g).......................  Additional               No.....................  Subpart PPPP does not
                                        Notifications When                                require the use of
                                        Using CMS.                                        continuous emissions
                                                                                          monitoring systems.
Sec.   63.9(h)(1)-(3), (5)-(6).......  Notification of          Yes....................  Section 63.4510
                                        Compliance Status.                                specifies the dates
                                                                                          for submitting the
                                                                                          notification of
                                                                                          compliance status.
Sec.   63.9(i).......................  Adjustment of Submittal  Yes.                     .......................
                                        Deadlines.
Sec.   63.9(j).......................  Change in Previous       Yes.                     .......................
                                        Information.
Sec.   63.10(a)......................  Recordkeeping/           Yes.                     .......................
                                        Reporting--Applicabili
                                        ty and General
                                        Information.
Sec.   63.10(b)(1)...................  General Recordkeeping    Yes....................  Additional requirements
                                        Requirements.                                     are specified in Sec.
                                                                                          Sec.   63.4530 and
                                                                                          63.4531.
Sec.   63.10(b)(2)(i)-(ii)...........  Recordkeeping of         Yes before [date 181     See Sec.   63.4530(h).
                                        Occurrence and           days after date of
                                        Duration of Startups     publication of final
                                        and Shutdowns and of     rule in the Federal
                                        Failures to Meet         Register]. No on and
                                        Standards.               after [date 181 days
                                                                 after date of
                                                                 publication of final
                                                                 rule in the Federal
                                                                 Register].
Sec.   63.10(b)(2)(iii)..............  Recordkeeping Relevant   Yes.                     .......................
                                        to Maintenance of Air
                                        Pollution Control and
                                        Monitoring Equipment.
Sec.   63.10(b)(2)(iv)-(v)...........  Actions Taken to         Yes before [date 181     See Sec.
                                        Minimize Emissions       days after date of       63.4530(h)(4) for a
                                        During Startup,          publication of final     record of actions
                                        Shutdown, and            rule in the Federal      taken to minimize
                                        Malfunction.             Register]. No on and     emissions during a
                                                                 after [date 181 days     deviation from the
                                                                 after date of            standard.
                                                                 publication of final
                                                                 rule in the Federal
                                                                 Register].
Sec.   63.10(b)(2)(vi)...............  Recordkeeping for CMS    Yes before [date 181     See Sec.   63.4530(h)
                                        Malfunctions.            days after date of       for records of periods
                                                                 publication of final     of deviation from the
                                                                 rule in the Federal      standard, including
                                                                 Register]. No on and     instances where a CMS
                                                                 after [date 181 days     is inoperative or out-
                                                                 after date of            of-control.
                                                                 publication of final
                                                                 rule in the Federal
                                                                 Register].
Sec.   63.10(b)(2)(vii)-(xii)........  Records................  Yes.                     .......................
Sec.   63.10(b)(2)(xiii).............  .......................  No.....................  Subpart PPPP does not
                                                                                          require the use of
                                                                                          continuous emissions
                                                                                          monitoring systems.
Sec.   63.10(b)(2)(xiv)..............  .......................  Yes.                     .......................

[[Page 59028]]

 
Sec.   63.10(b)(3)...................  Recordkeeping            Yes.                     .......................
                                        Requirements for
                                        Applicability
                                        Determinations.
Sec.   63.10(c)(1),(5)-(6)...........  Additional               Yes.                     .......................
                                        Recordkeeping
                                        Requirements for
                                        Sources with CMS.
Sec.   63.10(c)(7)-(8)...............  Additional               No.....................  See Sec.   63.4530(h)
                                        Recordkeeping                                     for records of periods
                                        Requirements for                                  of deviation from the
                                        Sources with CMS.                                 standard, including
                                                                                          instances where a CMS
                                                                                          is inoperative or out-
                                                                                          of-control.
Sec.   63.10(c)(10)-(14).............  Additional               Yes.                     .......................
                                        Recordkeeping
                                        Requirements for
                                        Sources with CMS.
Sec.   63.10(c)(15)..................  Records Regarding the    Yes before [date 181     .......................
                                        Startup, Shutdown, and   days after date of
                                        Malfunction Plan.        publication of final
                                                                 rule in the Federal
                                                                 Register]. No on and
                                                                 after [date 181 days
                                                                 after date of
                                                                 publication of final
                                                                 rule in the Federal
                                                                 Register].
Sec.   63.10(d)(1)...................  General Reporting        Yes....................  Additional requirements
                                        Requirements.                                     are specified in Sec.
                                                                                           63.4520.
Sec.   63.10(d)(2)...................  Report of Performance    Yes....................  Additional requirements
                                        Test Results.                                     are specified in Sec.
                                                                                           63.4520(b).
Sec.   63.10(d)(3)...................  Reporting Opacity or     No.....................  Subpart PPPP does not
                                        Visible Emissions                                 require opacity or
                                        Observations.                                     visible emissions
                                                                                          observations.
Sec.   63.10(d)(4)...................  Progress Reports for     Yes.                     .......................
                                        Sources With
                                        Compliance Extensions.
Sec.   63.10(d)(5)...................  Startup, Shutdown, and   Yes before [date 181     See Sec.
                                        Malfunction Reports.     days after date of       63.4520(a)(7).
                                                                 publication of final
                                                                 rule in the Federal
                                                                 Register]. No on and
                                                                 after [date 181 days
                                                                 after date of
                                                                 publication of final
                                                                 rule in the Federal
                                                                 Register].
Sec.   63.10(e)(1)-(2)...............  Additional CMS Reports.  No.....................  Subpart PPPP does not
                                                                                          require the use of
                                                                                          continuous emissions
                                                                                          monitoring systems.
Sec.   63.10(e)(3)...................  Excess Emissions/CMS     No.....................  Section 63.4520(b)
                                        Performance Reports.                              specifies the contents
                                                                                          of periodic compliance
                                                                                          reports.
Sec.   63.10(e)(4)...................  COMS Data Reports......  No.....................  Subpart PPPP does not
                                                                                          specify requirements
                                                                                          for opacity or COMS.
Sec.   63.10(f)......................  Recordkeeping/Reporting  Yes.                     .......................
                                        Waiver.
Sec.   63.11.........................  Control Device           No.....................  Subpart PPPP does not
                                        Requirements/Flares.                              specify use of flares
                                                                                          for compliance.
Sec.   63.12.........................  State Authority and      Yes.                     .......................
                                        Delegations.
Sec.   63.13.........................  Addresses..............  Yes.                     .......................
Sec.   63.14.........................  Incorporation by         Yes.                     .......................
                                        Reference.
Sec.   63.15.........................  Availability of          Yes.                     .......................
                                        Information/
                                        Confidentiality.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

0
58. Table 5 to Subpart PPPP of part 63 is added to read as follows:

  Table 5 to Subpart PPPP of Part 63--List of Hazardous Air Pollutants
 That Must Be Counted Toward Total Organic HAP Content if Present at 0.1
                         Percent or More by Mass
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                      Chemical name                           CAS No.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane...............................         79-34-5
1,1,2-Trichloroethane...................................         79-00-5
1,1-Dimethylhydrazine...................................         57-14-7
1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane.............................         96-12-8
1,2-Diphenylhydrazine...................................        122-66-7
1,3-Butadiene...........................................        106-99-0
1,3-Dichloropropene.....................................        542-75-6

[[Page 59029]]

 
1,4-Dioxane.............................................        123-91-1
2,4,6-Trichlorophenol...................................         88-06-2
2,4/2,6-Dinitrotoluene (mixture)........................      25321-14-6
2,4-Dinitrotoluene......................................        121-14-2
2,4-Toluene diamine.....................................         95-80-7
2-Nitropropane..........................................         79-46-9
3,3'-Dichlorobenzidine..................................         91-94-1
3,3'-Dimethoxybenzidine.................................        119-90-4
3,3'-Dimethylbenzidine..................................        119-93-7
4,4'-Methylene bis(2-chloroaniline).....................        101-14-4
Acetaldehyde............................................         75-07-0
Acrylamide..............................................         79-06-1
Acrylonitrile...........................................        107-13-1
Allyl chloride..........................................        107-05-1
alpha-Hexachlorocyclohexane (a-HCH).....................        319-84-6
Aniline.................................................         62-53-3
Benzene.................................................         71-43-2
Benzidine...............................................         92-87-5
Benzotrichloride........................................         98-07-7
Benzyl chloride.........................................        100-44-7
beta-Hexachlorocyclohexane (b-HCH)......................        319-85-7
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate..............................        117-81-7
Bis(chloromethyl)ether..................................        542-88-1
Bromoform...............................................         75-25-2
Captan..................................................        133-06-2
Carbon tetrachloride....................................         56-23-5
Chlordane...............................................         57-74-9
Chlorobenzilate.........................................        510-15-6
Chloroform..............................................         67-66-3
Chloroprene.............................................        126-99-8
Cresols (mixed).........................................       1319-77-3
DDE.....................................................       3547-04-4
Dichloroethyl ether.....................................        111-44-4
Dichlorvos..............................................         62-73-7
Epichlorohydrin.........................................        106-89-8
Ethyl acrylate..........................................        140-88-5
Ethylene dibromide......................................        106-93-4
Ethylene dichloride.....................................        107-06-2
Ethylene oxide..........................................         75-21-8
Ethylene thiourea.......................................         96-45-7
Ethylidene dichloride (1,1-Dichloroethane)..............         75-34-3
Formaldehyde............................................         50-00-0
Heptachlor..............................................         76-44-8
Hexachlorobenzene.......................................        118-74-1
Hexachlorobutadiene.....................................         87-68-3
Hexachloroethane........................................         67-72-1
Hydrazine...............................................        302-01-2
Isophorone..............................................         78-59-1
Lindane (hexachlorocyclohexane, all isomers)............         58-89-9
m-Cresol................................................        108-39-4
Methylene chloride......................................         75-09-2
Naphthalene.............................................         91-20-3
Nitrobenzene............................................         98-95-3
Nitrosodimethylamine....................................         62-75-9
o-Cresol................................................         95-48-7
o-Toluidine.............................................         95-53-4
Parathion...............................................         56-38-2
p-Cresol................................................        106-44-5
p-Dichlorobenzene.......................................        106-46-7
Pentachloronitrobenzene.................................         82-68-8
Pentachlorophenol.......................................         87-86-5
Propoxur................................................        114-26-1
Propylene dichloride....................................         78-87-5
Propylene oxide.........................................         75-56-9
Quinoline...............................................         91-22-5
Tetrachloroethene.......................................        127-18-4
Toxaphene...............................................       8001-35-2
Trichloroethylene.......................................         79-01-6
Trifluralin.............................................       1582-09-8
Vinyl bromide...........................................        593-60-2
Vinyl chloride..........................................         75-01-4

[[Page 59030]]

 
Vinylidene chloride.....................................         75-35-4
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Subpart RRRR--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air 
Pollutants: Surface Coating of Metal Furniture

0
59. Section 63.4965 is amended by adding paragraphs (b)(1) through (3) 
to read as follows:


Sec.  63.4965  How do I determine the add-on control device emission 
destruction or removal efficiency?

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (1) Use EPA Method 25 if the add-on control device is an oxidizer 
and you expect the total gaseous organic concentration as carbon to be 
more than 50 parts per million (ppm) at the control device outlet.
    (2) Use EPA Method 25A if the add-on control device is an oxidizer 
and you expect the total gaseous organic concentration as carbon to be 
50 ppm or less at the control device outlet.
    (3) Use EPA Method 25A if the add-on control device is not an 
oxidizer.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2019-18345 Filed 10-25-19; 4:15 pm]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P

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