National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Paper and Other Web Coating Residual Risk and Technology Review, 41276-41319 [2020-05854]

Download as PDF 41276 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 132 / Thursday, July 9, 2020 / Rules and Regulations ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 63 [EPA–HQ–OAR–2018–0416; FRL–10006–74– OAR] RIN 20660–AU22 National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Paper and Other Web Coating Residual Risk and Technology Review Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Final rule. AGENCY: This action finalizes the residual risk and technology review (RTR) conducted for the Paper and Other Web Coating (POWC) source category regulated under national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP). The Agency is finalizing the proposed determination that risks due to emissions of air toxics are acceptable from this source category and that the current NESHAP provides an ample margin of safety to protect public health. Further, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) identified no new cost-effective controls under the technology review that would achieve significant further emissions reductions, and, thus, is finalizing the proposed determination that no revisions to the standards are necessary based on developments in practices, processes, or control technologies. In addition, the Agency is taking final action addressing startup, shutdown, and malfunction (SSM). These final amendments address emissions during SSM events, add a compliance demonstration equation that accounts for retained volatiles in the coated web; add repeat testing and electronic reporting requirements; and make technical and editorial changes. The EPA is making these amendments to improve the effectiveness of the NESHAP, and although these amendments are not expected to reduce emissions of hazardous air pollutants (HAP), they will improve monitoring, compliance, and implementation of the rule. DATES: This final rule is effective on July 9, 2020. The incorporation by reference (IBR) of certain publications listed in the rule is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of July 9, 2020. The IBR of certain other publications listed in the rule is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of December 4, 2002. ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES2 SUMMARY: VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:54 Jul 08, 2020 Jkt 250001 No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2018–0416. All documents in the docket are listed on the https://www.regulations.gov/ website. Although listed, some information is not publicly available, e.g., Confidential Business Information (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 form. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically through https://www.regulations.gov/, or in hard copy at the EPA Docket Center, WJC West Building, Room Number 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room hours of operation are 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Eastern Standard Time (EST), Monday through Friday. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566–1744, and the telephone number for the Docket Center is (202) 566–1742. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For questions about this final action, contact Dr. Kelley Spence, Sector Policies and Programs Division (E143–03), Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711; telephone number: (919) 541– 3158; fax number: (919) 541–0516; and email address: spence.kelley@epa.gov. For specific information regarding the risk modeling methodology, contact Mr. James Hirtz, Health and Environmental Impacts Division (C539–02), Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711; telephone number: (919) 541– 0881; fax number: (919) 541–0840; and email address: hirtz.james@epa.gov. For information about the applicability of the NESHAP to a particular entity, contact Mr. John Cox, Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, WJC South Building (Mail Code 2221A), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: (202) 564–1395; and email address: cox.john@epa.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Preamble acronyms and abbreviations. The EPA uses 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: ASME American Society of Mechanical Engineers ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 CAA Clean Air Act CDX Central Data Exchange CEDRI Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface CFR Code of Federal Regulations EPA Environmental Protection Agency ERT Electronic Reporting Tool HAP hazardous air pollutant(s) HI hazard index IBR incorporation by reference ICR Information Collection Request km kilometer MACT maximum achievable control technology MIR maximum individual risk NESHAP national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants NSPS new source performance standards NTTAA National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act OMB Office of Management and Budget PDF portable document format POWC paper and other web coating ppm parts per million ppmv parts per million by volume PRA Paperwork Reduction Act RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act RTR residual risk and technology review SSM startup, shutdown, and malfunction the Court United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit TOSHI target organ-specific hazard index tpy tons per year UMRA Unfunded Mandates Reform Act URE unit risk estimate U.S.C. United States Code VCS voluntary consensus standards VOC volatile organic compound(s) Background information. On September 19, 2019, the EPA proposed determinations regarding the POWC NESHAP RTR and proposed revisions to the NESHAP to address emissions during SSM events and improve monitoring, compliance, and implementation. In this action, the EPA is finalizing the proposed RTR determinations and additional revisions for the rule. The Agency summarizes the more significant comments we received regarding the proposed rule and provide our responses in this preamble. A summary of all other public comments on the proposal and the EPA’s responses to those comments is available in the National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Paper and Other Web Coating (40 CFR part 63, subpart JJJJ) Residual Risk and Technology Review, Final Amendments—Response to Public Comments on September 19, 2019 Proposal, in Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– OAR–2018–0416. A ‘‘track changes’’ version of the regulatory language that incorporates the changes in this action is available in the docket. Organization of this document. The information in this preamble is organized as follows: I. General Information A. Does this action apply to me? E:\FR\FM\09JYR2.SGM 09JYR2 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 132 / Thursday, July 9, 2020 / Rules and Regulations B. Where can I get a copy of this document and other related information? C. Judicial Review and Administrative Reconsideration II. Background A. What is the statutory authority for this action? B. What is the POWC source category and how does the NESHAP regulate HAP emissions from the source category? C. What changes did we propose for the POWC source category in our September 19, 2019, proposal? III. What is included in this final rule? A. What are the final rule amendments based on the risk review for the POWC source category? B. What are the final rule amendments based on the technology review for the POWC source category? C. What are the final rule amendments addressing emissions during periods of SSM? D. What other changes have been made to the NESHAP? E. What are the effective and compliance dates of the standards? IV. What is the rationale for our final decisions and amendments for the POWC source category? A. Residual Risk Review for the POWC Source Category B. Technology Review for the POWC Source Category C. Revisions to the SSM Provisions for the POWC Source Category D. Method For Determining Volatile Organic Matter Retained in the Coated Web E. Periodic Performance Testing F. Electronic Reporting G. Temperature Sensor Validation H. Operating Parameter Clarification I. IBR Under 1 CFR part 51 for the POWC Source Category J. Technical and Editorial Changes V. Summary of Cost, Environmental, and Economic Impacts and Additional Analyses Conducted A. What are the affected facilities? B. What are the air quality impacts? C. What are the cost impacts? D. What are the economic impacts? E. What are the benefits? F. What analysis of environmental justice did we conduct? G. What analysis of children’s environmental health did we conduct? VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews A. Executive Orders 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review B. Executive Order 13771: Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs C. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) D. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) F. Executive Order 13132: Federalism G. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments H. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:54 Jul 08, 2020 Jkt 250001 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 L. Congressional Review Act (CRA) I. General Information A. Does this action apply to me? Regulated entities. Categories and entities potentially regulated by this action are shown in Table 1 of this preamble. TABLE 1—NESHAP AND INDUSTRIAL SOURCE CATEGORIES AFFECTED BY THIS FINAL ACTION NESHAP and source category Paper and Other Web Coating. 1 North System. American NAICS 1 code 322220, 322121, 326113, 326112, 325992, 327993 Industry Classification Table 1 of this preamble is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather to provide a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by the final action for the source category listed. To determine whether your facility is affected, you should examine the applicability criteria in the appropriate NESHAP. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of any aspect of this NESHAP, please contact the appropriate person listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble. B. Where can I get a copy of this document and other related information? In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of this final action will also be available on the internet. Following signature by the EPA Administrator, the EPA will post a copy of this final action at: https:// www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-airpollution/paper-and-other-web-coatingnational-emission-standards-hazardous0. Following publication in the Federal Register, the EPA will post the Federal Register version and key technical documents at this same website. Additional information is available on the RTR website at https:// www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-airpollution/risk-and-technology-reviewnational-emissions-standardshazardous. This information includes PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 41277 an overview of the RTR program and links to project websites for the RTR source categories. C. Judicial Review and Administrative Reconsideration Under Clean Air Act (CAA) section 307(b)(1), judicial review of this final action is available only by filing a petition for review in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (the Court) by September 8, 2020. Under CAA section 307(b)(2), the requirements established by this final rule may not be challenged separately in any civil or criminal proceedings brought by the EPA to enforce the requirements. Section 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA further provides that only an objection to a rule or procedure which was raised with reasonable specificity during the period for public comment (including any public hearing) may be raised during judicial review. This section also provides a mechanism for the EPA to reconsider the rule if the person raising an objection can demonstrate to the Administrator that it was impracticable to raise such objection within the period for public comment or if the grounds for such objection arose after the period for public comment (but within the time specified for judicial review) and if such objection is of central relevance to the outcome of the rule. Any person seeking to make such a demonstration should submit a Petition for Reconsideration to the Office of the Administrator, U.S. EPA, Room 3000, WJC South Building, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460, with a copy to both the person(s) listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section, and the Associate General Counsel for the Air and Radiation Law Office, Office of General Counsel (Mail Code 2344A), U.S. EPA, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460. II. Background A. What is the statutory authority for this action? Section 112 of the CAA establishes a two-stage regulatory process to address emissions of HAP from stationary sources. In the first stage, the Agency must identify categories of sources emitting one or more of the HAP listed in CAA section 112(b) and then promulgate technology-based NESHAP for those sources. ‘‘Major sources’’ are those that emit, or have the potential to emit, any single HAP at a rate of 10 tons per year (tpy) or more, or 25 tpy or more of any combination of HAP. For major sources, these standards are commonly E:\FR\FM\09JYR2.SGM 09JYR2 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES2 41278 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 132 / Thursday, July 9, 2020 / Rules and Regulations referred to as maximum achievable control technology (MACT) standards and must reflect the maximum degree of emission reductions of HAP achievable (after considering cost, energy requirements, and non-air quality health and environmental impacts). In developing MACT standards, CAA section 112(d)(2) directs the EPA to consider the application of measures, processes, methods, systems, or techniques, including, but not limited to, those that reduce the volume of or eliminate HAP emissions through process changes, substitution of materials, or other modifications; enclose systems or processes to eliminate emissions; collect, capture, or treat HAP when released from a process, stack, storage, or fugitive emissions point; are design, equipment, work practice, or operational standards; or any combination of the above. For these MACT standards, the statute specifies certain minimum stringency requirements, which are referred to as MACT floor requirements, and which may not be based on cost considerations. See CAA section 112(d)(3). For new sources, the MACT floor cannot be less stringent than the emission control achieved in practice by the best-controlled similar source. The MACT standards for existing sources can be less stringent than floors for new sources, but they cannot be less stringent than the average emission limitation achieved by the bestperforming 12 percent of existing sources in the category or subcategory (or the best-performing five sources for categories or subcategories with fewer than 30 sources). In developing MACT standards, the Agency must also consider control options that are more stringent than the floor under CAA section 112(d)(2). The EPA may establish standards more stringent than the floor, based on the consideration of the cost of achieving the emissions reductions, any non-air quality health and environmental impacts, and energy requirements. In the second stage of the regulatory process, the CAA requires the EPA to undertake two different analyses, which we refer to as the technology review and the residual risk review. Under the technology review, the EPA must review the technology-based standards and revise them ‘‘as necessary (taking into account developments in practices, processes, and control technologies)’’ no less frequently than every 8 years, pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6). Under the residual risk review, the EPA must evaluate the risk to public health remaining after application of the technology-based standards and revise VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:54 Jul 08, 2020 Jkt 250001 the standards, if necessary, to provide an ample margin of safety to protect public health or to prevent, taking into consideration costs, energy, safety, and other relevant factors, an adverse environmental effect. The residual risk review is required within 8 years after promulgation of the technology-based standards, pursuant to CAA section 112(f). In conducting the residual risk review, if the EPA determines that the current standards provide an ample margin of safety to protect public health, it is not necessary to revise the MACT standards pursuant to CAA section 112(f).1 For more information on the statutory authority for this rule, see 84 FR 49382 (September 19, 2019). B. What is the POWC source category and how does the NESHAP regulate HAP emissions From the source category? The EPA promulgated the POWC NESHAP on December 4, 2002 (67 FR 72330). The standards are codified at 40 CFR part 63, subpart JJJJ. The POWC source category includes new and existing facilities that coat paper and other web substrates that are major sources of HAP emissions. For purposes of the regulation, a web is defined as a continuous substrate that is capable of being rolled at any point during the coating process. Further, a web coating line is any number of work stations, of which one or more applies a continuous layer of coating material along the entire width of a continuous web substrate or any portion of the width of the web substrate, and any associated curing/ drying equipment between an unwind (or feed) station and a rewind (or cutting) station. The source category covered by this NESHAP currently includes 168 facilities. Web coating operations covered by other NESHAP (i.e., Printing and Publishing, 40 CFR part 63, subpart KK; Magnetic Tape, 40 CFR part 63, subpart EE; Metal Coil Coating, 40 CFR part 63, subpart SSSS; Fabric Coating, 40 CFR part 63, subpart OOOO), and research and development lines are excluded from the requirements of 40 CFR part 63, subpart JJJJ. In addition, specific process exclusions include lithography, screen printing, letterpress, and narrow web flexographic printing. Facilities subject to the POWC NESHAP utilize low-solvent coatings, add-on controls, or a combination of 1 The Court has affirmed this approach of implementing CAA section 112(f)(2)(A): NRDC v. EPA, 529 F.3d 1077, 1083 (DC Cir. 2008) (‘‘If EPA determines that the existing technology-based standards provide an ‘ample margin of safety,’ then the Agency is free to readopt those standards during the residual risk rulemaking.’’). PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 both to meet the organic HAP emission limits, as described in the preamble to the proposed rule (84 FR 49385, September 19, 2019). The NESHAP also includes various operating limits, initial and continuous compliance requirements, and recordkeeping and reporting requirements for the POWC source category. The EPA reviewed these requirements and are updating them as part of this action in conjunction with finalizing the RTR for this source category C. What changes did we propose for the POWC source category in our September 19, 2019, proposal? On September 19, 2019, the EPA published a proposed rule in the Federal Register for the POWC NESHAP, 40 CFR part 63, subpart JJJJ, that took into consideration the RTR analyses. As discussed in the preamble to the proposed rule, the technology review did not identify any developments in practices, processes, or control technologies that were widely applicable to the industry that would significantly reduce HAP emissions, and, therefore, the Agency did not propose any changes to the NESHAP based on the technology review. Further, as discussed in the preamble to the proposed rule, the risk analysis indicated no changes to the NESHAP are necessary to reduce risk to an acceptable level, to provide an ample margin of safety to protect public health, or to prevent an adverse environmental effect. In addition to and separate from the proposed determinations based on our RTR analyses, the EPA proposed the following: • Revisions to the SSM provisions of the NESHAP 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; • a new compliance calculation to account for retained volatile organic content retained in the coated web; • new periodic air emissions testing requirements for facilities that use nonrecovery control devices; • new reporting provisions requiring affected sources to electronically submit initial notifications, notification of compliance status, semiannual compliance reports, performance test reports, and performance evaluation reports; • new temperature sensor validation requirements; • operating parameter clarifications; E:\FR\FM\09JYR2.SGM 09JYR2 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 132 / Thursday, July 9, 2020 / Rules and Regulations • IBR of several test methods; and • technical and editorial changes to remove the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA)-defined carcinogens reference, clarify compliance demonstration options, clarify the definition of coating materials, add a web coating line usage threshold, add a printing activity exemption, clarify testing requirements, change applicability of sources using only non-HAP coatings, clarify oxidizer temperature monitoring compliance, and revise compliance report content requirements. III. What is included in this final rule? This action is finalizing the EPA’s determinations pursuant to the RTR provisions of CAA section 112 for the POWC source category. This action is also finalizing other changes to the NESHAP, including revisions to the SSM requirements; a compliance calculation to account for retained volatile organic content retained in the coated web; periodic testing requirements for add-on control devices; electronic submittal of initial notifications, notification of compliance status, semiannual compliance reports, performance test reports, and performance evaluation reports; temperature sensor validation requirements; operating parameter clarifications; IBR of several test methods; and various technical and editorial changes. jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES2 A. What are the final rule amendments based on the risk review for the POWC source category? The EPA proposed no changes to the POWC NESHAP based on the risk review conducted pursuant to CAA section 112(f). The EPA is finalizing the proposed determination that risks from the source category are acceptable, considering all of the health information and factors evaluated, and also considering risk estimation uncertainty. The Agency is also finalizing the proposed determination that revisions to the current standards are not necessary to reduce risk to an acceptable level, to provide an ample margin of safety to protect public health, or to prevent an adverse environmental effect. The EPA received no new data or other information during the public comment period that affected the proposed determinations. Therefore, the EPA is finalizing the proposed determination and making no revisions to the NESHAP based on the analyses conducted under CAA section 112(f), and we are readopting the standards. VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:54 Jul 08, 2020 Jkt 250001 B. What are the final rule amendments based on the technology review for the POWC source category? In the proposed rule, the EPA proposed to determine that there are no developments in practices, processes, and control technologies that warrant revisions to the MACT standards for this source category. The EPA received no new data or other information during the public comment period that affected our proposed determinations. Therefore, the EPA is finalizing the proposed determination and making no revisions to the MACT standards under CAA section 112(d)(6). C. What are the final rule amendments addressing emissions during periods of SSM? The EPA proposed amendments to the POWC NESHAP to remove and revise provisions related to SSM. The EPA is finalizing the amendments, as proposed, with minor clarifications with this rulemaking. 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. As detailed in section IV.D of the preamble to the proposed rule (84 FR 49382, September 19, 2019), the amended POWC NESHAP requires that the standards apply at all times (see 40 CFR 63.3320(b)), consistent with the Court decision in Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F.3d 1019 (D.C. Cir. 2008). In addition to eliminating the SSM exemption, the EPA has removed the requirement for sources to develop and maintain an SSM plan, as well as certain recordkeeping and reporting provisions related to the SSM exemption. The EPA is finalizing the SSM provisions as proposed without setting a separate standard for startup and shutdown as discussed in the preamble to the proposed rule in section IV.D. Further, the EPA is not finalizing standards for malfunctions. As discussed in the September 19, 2019, proposal, the EPA interprets CAA section 112 as not requiring emissions that occur during periods of malfunction to be factored into development of CAA section 112 standards, although the EPA has the PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 41279 discretion to set standards for malfunctions where feasible. For this action, it is unlikely that a malfunction would result in a violation of the standards, and no comments were submitted that would suggest otherwise. Refer to section IV.D of the preamble to the proposed rule for further discussion of the EPA’s rationale for the decision not to set standards for malfunctions, as well as a discussion of the actions a source could take in the unlikely event that a source fails to comply with the applicable CAA section 112(d) standards as a result of a malfunction event. As explained in more detail below, the EPA is finalizing revisions to the General Provisions table to 40 CFR part 63, subpart JJJJ, to eliminate requirements that include rule language providing an exemption for periods of SSM. Additionally, the EPA is finalizing our proposal to eliminate language related to SSM that treats periods of startup and shutdown the same as periods of malfunction, as explained further below. Finally, the EPA is finalizing the proposed amendments to revise the reporting and recordkeeping requirements as they relate to malfunctions, as further described below. As discussed in the preamble to the proposed rule, these revisions are consistent with the requirement in 40 CFR 63.3320(b) that the standards apply at all times. Refer to sections IV.C of this preamble for a detailed discussion of these amendments. D. What other changes have been made to the NESHAP? Other changes that have been made to the regulation include incorporation of a compliance calculation to account for retained volatile organic content retained in the coated web; periodic performance testing requirements; electronic submittal of initial notifications, notification of compliance status, semiannual compliance reports, performance test reports, and performance evaluation reports; temperature sensor validation requirements; operating parameter clarifications; IBR of several test methods; and various technical and editorial changes. The EPA’s analyses and changes related to these issues are discussed below. Other changes to the NESHAP that do not fall into the categories in the previous section include: • Method for determining volatile organic matter retained in the coated web. The EPA is finalizing the addition of an equation to account for volatile organic matter retained in the coated E:\FR\FM\09JYR2.SGM 09JYR2 41280 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 132 / Thursday, July 9, 2020 / Rules and Regulations web as discussed in section IV.D of this preamble. • Periodic performance testing. The EPA is finalizing a periodic testing requirement for non-recovery add-on control devices to ensure continued compliance, as discussed in section IV.E of this preamble. • Electronic reporting. The EPA is finalizing amendments to the reporting requirements to require electronic reporting for initial notifications, notifications of compliance status, semiannual compliance reports, performance test reports, and performance evaluation reports, as discussed in section IV.F of this preamble. • Temperature sensor validation. The EPA is finalizing amendments to remove the temperature sensor calibration requirement and replace it with validation requirements to ensure continued compliance, as discussed in section IV.G of this preamble. • Operating parameter clarification. The EPA is finalizing, as proposed, an operating parameter clarification, as discussed in section IV.H of this preamble. • IBR under 1 CFR part 51. The EPA is finalizing the IBR of several test methods, as discussed in section IV.I of this preamble. • Technical and editorial changes. The EPA is finalizing technical and editorial changes, as discussed in section IV.J of this preamble. jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES2 E. What are the effective and compliance dates of the standards? The revisions to the NESHAP being promulgated in this action are effective on July 9, 2020.2 The compliance date for affected existing facilities is 365 days after the effective date of the final rule, with the exception of electronic reporting of semiannual reports. Affected source owners and operators that commence construction or reconstruction after September 19, 2019, must comply with all requirements of the subpart, including the amendments being finalized with this action (except for the electronic reporting of semiannual reports), no later than the effective date of the final rule or upon startup, whichever is later. All affected sources must use the Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface (CEDRI) reporting template for semiannual reports for the subsequent semiannual reporting period after the form has been available in CEDRI for 1 2 This final action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2), so the effective date of the final rule is the promulgation date as specified in CAA section 112(d)(10). VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:54 Jul 08, 2020 Jkt 250001 year. All affected existing facilities must meet the current requirements of 40 CFR part 63, subpart JJJJ until the applicable compliance date of the amended rule. As explained in the preamble to the proposed rule, the EPA proposed a compliance period of 180 days for existing sources because the amendments would impact ongoing compliance requirements (84 FR 79406, September 19, 2019). Two significant amendments, the removal of the SSM exemption and the addition of electronic reporting, were determined to require additional time for changing reporting and recordkeeping systems. As stated in the preamble to the proposed rule, the EPA’s experience with similar industries that are required to convert reporting mechanisms; 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; reliably employ electronic reporting; and convert logistics of reporting processes to different timereporting parameters, shows that a time period of a minimum of 90 days, and more typically, 180 days, is generally necessary to successfully complete these changes. Our experience with similar industries further shows that owners or operators of this sort of regulated facility generally requires a time period of 180 days to read and understand the amended rule requirements; evaluate their operations to ensure that they can meet the standards during periods of startup and shutdown as defined in the rule, and make any necessary adjustments; adjust parameter monitoring and recording systems to accommodate revisions; and update their operations to reflect the revised requirements. The EPA recognizes the confusion that multiple compliance dates for individual requirements would create and the additional burden such an assortment of dates would impose. In the preamble to the proposed rule, the EPA solicited comment on whether the 180-day compliance period was reasonable and specifically requested sources provide information regarding the specific actions they would need to undertake to comply with the amended rule. The EPA also noted that information provided in response to this request for comment could result in changes to the proposed compliance date (84 FR 49406, September 19, 2019). Comments were provided suggesting that 180 days was not enough time to comply with the proposed changes and that a minimum of 365 days was needed. Commenters noted that tasks that would need to be completed during PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 the compliance period were: Develop site-specific implementation plan for changes to add-on control device requirements; review startup and shutdown procedures; reprogram electronic systems and automated alarms consistent with the removal of the SSM provisions; revise the oxidizer temperature operating limit; rework recordkeeping and reporting procedures and systems to match the new CEDRI form; develop and communicate guidance to ensure consistent implementation across a company’s facilities; prepare permit applications; acquire new permits; and develop and provide training for facility staff on the amended requirements. The EPA reviewed the information provided by commenters regarding tasks needed to be completed during the compliance period and agrees that 180 days is not sufficient time, particularly for implementing the changes to add-on control device requirements and for reworking recordkeeping and reporting procedures to comply with the amendments, including the removal of the SSM exemption. This source category needs additional time for these changes because of the complexity of the compliance calculations and the potential for a large variety of products to be produced on the same equipment (which requires multiple startup and shutdown events on a regular basis). From our assessment of the time frame needed for compliance with the entirety of the revised requirements and considering the public comments received, the EPA considers a period of 365 days to be the most expeditious compliance period practicable for the POWC source category, and, thus, the EPA is finalizing that existing affected sources must be in compliance with all of the POWC NESHAP amended requirements within 365 days of the effective date. Additionally, comments were received from multiple commenters requesting more time to develop and train on the CEDRI semiannual reporting template. The Agency agrees with the commenters that more time is needed to accurately develop the template and to train facility staff on its use. As such, the EPA is finalizing that the electronic reporting template is not required to be used for semiannual reports until it has been available in CEDRI for 1 year. To prevent two separate reports for one semiannual reporting period, the Agency is finalizing that the reporting template should be used for the first full semiannual reporting period after the template has been available in CEDRI for 1 year. For example, if the template E:\FR\FM\09JYR2.SGM 09JYR2 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 132 / Thursday, July 9, 2020 / Rules and Regulations becomes available in CEDRI on March 13, 2020, it would be used beginning with the report submitted for the July 2021–December 2021 reporting period. IV. What is the rationale for our final decisions and amendments for the POWC source category? For each issue, this section provides a description of what the EPA proposed and what the EPA is finalizing for the issue, a summary of key comments and responses, and the EPA’s rationale for the final decisions and amendments. For all comments not discussed in this preamble, comment summaries and the EPA’s responses can be found in the comment summary and response document available in the docket (Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2018– 0416). jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES2 A. Residual Risk Review for the POWC Source Category 1. What did we propose pursuant to CAA section 112(f) for the POWC source category? A residual risk analysis was conducted for the POWC source category. Details of the risk analysis can be found in section IV of the preamble to the proposed rule (84 FR 49382, September 19, 2019). The results of the risk analyses, and decisions on risk acceptability and ample margin of safety, as well as the results of the environmental risk screening assessment, are summarized here. For the POWC source category risk assessment conducted prior to proposal, the EPA estimated risks based on actual and allowable emissions from POWC surface coating operations. The risk results for the POWC source category indicate that both the actual and allowable inhalation cancer risks to the individual most exposed are at least 14 times below the presumptive limit of acceptability of 100-in-1 million (i.e., 1in-10 thousand). The residual risk assessment for the POWC source category 3 estimated cancer incidence rate at 0.005 cases per year based on actual emissions. Approximately 4,300 people are exposed to a cancer risk equal to or above 1-in-1 million from the source category based upon actual emissions from 11 facilities. The maximum chronic noncancer target organ-specific hazard index (TOSHI) due to inhalation exposures is less than 1 for actual and allowable emissions. The results of the acute screening analysis show that acute risks 3 Residual Risk Assessment for the Paper and Other Web Coating Source Category in Support of the 2020 Risk and Technology Review Final Rule, Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2018–0416. VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:54 Jul 08, 2020 Jkt 250001 are below a level of concern for the source category considering the conservative assumptions used that err on the side of overestimating acute risk. Multipathway screen values are below a level of concern for both carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic persistent and bioaccumulative HAP as well as emissions of lead compounds. Maximum cancer and noncancer risks due to ingestion exposures using healthprotective risk screening assumptions are below the presumptive limit of acceptability. The maximum estimated excess cancer risk is below 1-in-1 million and the maximum noncancer hazard quotient (HQ) for mercury is less than 1 based upon the Tier 1 farmer/ fisher exposure scenario. The risk assessment for the POWC source category is contained in the report titled Residual Risk Assessment for the Paper and Other Web Coating Source Category in Support of the 2020 Risk and Technology Review Final Rule, which can be found in the docket for this action (Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– OAR–2018–0416). 2. How did the risk review change for the POWC source category? Neither the risk assessment nor the Agency’s determinations regarding risk acceptability, ample margin of safety, or adverse environmental effects for the POWC source category have changed since the proposal was published on September 19, 2019. Therefore, the EPA is finalizing the risk review as proposed with no changes (84 FR 49398, September 19, 2019). 3. What key comments did we receive on the risk review, and what are our responses? Comments were received regarding the risk assessment inputs the EPA used to conduct the POWC source category risk assessment. First, commenters noted that the acute emissions multipliers should be less than the value of 10 that the EPA used in its source category acute risk assessment. The EPA agrees with the commenters that an acute hourly multiplier of 10 likely over-estimates the emissions for this source category, however, we did not reanalyze acute risk for this final rulemaking because the risk values were already deemed acceptable using the multiplier of 10 for the proposal and would have been further reduced with a lower multiplier. Second, commenters noted that the EPA’s risk assessment was ‘‘very conservative and likely overstates both annual and short-term HAP emission rates’’ because it used allowable emissions as actual emissions where no other data were available. The PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 41281 commenters are correct in their assessment that the EPA used allowable emissions as actual emissions when no other data were available to ensure that the risk analysis did not underestimate the risk posed by the source category. Because risk was acceptable using this conservative approach and would have been reduced further if actual emissions data had been available, the results of this approach further supports the EPA’s conclusion. Additionally, comments were received regarding the risk assessment methods the EPA used to conduct the POWC source category risk assessment. Two commenters stated that the formaldehyde health value used in the risk assessment was not based on the best available science, and that the EPA should have used the value from the Chemical Industry Institute of Technology (CIIT) biologically-based dose-response model. We disagree with the commenters that the EPA should have used the CIIT formaldehyde value because the EPA has a tiered prioritized list of appropriate health benchmark values for use in the residual risk assessment, and in general, the hierarchy places greater weight on the EPA-derived health benchmarks than those from other organizations. Even though the commenters claim the Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) value the EPA used was too high (i.e., the value over-estimated risk), the EPA proposed, and is finalizing, that the risks from formaldehyde from this source category are acceptable. Comments were also received supporting the EPA’s use of the 99th percentile concentration for modeling acute risk. Overall, the EPA received no comments or new information demonstrating a need for the Agency to reanalyze risk for the final rulemaking, and, therefore, the risk assessment conducted for the proposed rule was used to support the Agency’s conclusions for the final rule. Additionally, the EPA received several comments supporting our conclusions relating to risk acceptability and that additional emissions reductions are not necessary to provide an ample margin of safety. One commenter opposed our acceptability determination because the EPA did not consider risk from emission sources from other source categories. The EPA has the discretion to conduct a facilitywide risk assessment which factors in emissions from process equipment outside of the source category. The Agency examines facility-wide risks to provide additional context for the source category risks. The development of facility-wide risk estimates provides E:\FR\FM\09JYR2.SGM 09JYR2 41282 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 132 / Thursday, July 9, 2020 / Rules and Regulations additional information about the potential cumulative risks in the vicinity of the source category emission units as one means of informing potential risk-based decisions about the source category in question. The Agency recognizes that, because these risk estimates were derived from facilitywide emission estimates which have not generally been subjected to the same level of engineering review as the source category emission estimates, they may be less certain than our risk estimates for the source category in question, but they remain important for providing context as long as their uncertainty is taken into consideration in the process. For detailed comment summaries regarding the residual risk review and the corresponding responses, see the memorandum in the docket, National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Paper and Other Web Coating (40 CFR part 63, subpart JJJJ) Residual Risk and Technology Review, Final Amendments—Response to Public Comments on September 19, 2019 Proposal. jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES2 4. What is the rationale for our final approach and final decisions for the risk review? As noted in our proposal, the EPA sets standards under CAA section 112(f)(2) using ‘‘a two-step standardsetting approach, with an analytical first step to determine an ‘acceptable risk’ that considers all health information, including risk estimation uncertainty, and includes a presumptive limit on maximum individual risk (MIR) of ‘approximately 1-in-10 thousand’’’ (see 54 FR 38045, September 14, 1989). The EPA weighs all health risk factors in our risk acceptability determination, including the cancer MIR, cancer incidence, the maximum TOSHI, the maximum acute noncancer HQ, the extent of noncancer risks, the distribution of cancer and noncancer risks in the exposed population, and the risk estimation uncertainties. The EPA evaluated all of the comments on the risk review and determined that no changes to the review are needed. For the reasons explained in the proposal, the EPA determined that the risks from the POWC source category are acceptable, and the current standards provide an ample margin of safety to protect public health and prevent an adverse environmental effect. Therefore, pursuant to CAA section 112(f)(2), the EPA is finalizing the residual risk review as proposed. VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:54 Jul 08, 2020 Jkt 250001 B. Technology Review for the POWC Source Category 1. What did we propose pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6) for the POWC source category? Pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6), the EPA proposed to conclude that no revisions to the current MACT standards for the POWC source category are necessary (84 FR 49382, September 19, 2019). As described in section III.B of the preamble to the proposed rule, the technology review focused on identifying developments in practices, processes, and control technologies for reduction of HAP emissions from POWC facilities. In conducting the technology review, the EPA searched for and reviewed information on practices, processes, and control technologies that were not considered during the development of the POWC NESHAP. The review included a search of the Reasonably Available Control Technology/Best Available Control Technology/Lowest Achievable Emission Rate (RACT/BACT/LAER) Clearinghouse database, reviews of title V permits for POWC facilities, site visits to facilities with POWC operations, and a review of relevant literature. We did not identify any developments in practices, processes, or control technologies that were widely applicable to the industry and would significantly reduce HAP emissions, and, therefore, the EPA did not propose any changes to the NESHAP based on the technology review. For more details on the technology review, see the Technology Review Analysis for the Paper and Other Web Coating Source Category memorandum, in the docket for this rulemaking (Docket ID Item No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2018–0416–0086). 2. How did the technology review change for the POWC source category? No new information was received to change the Agency’s conclusions with respect to the technology review since the proposal was published on September 19, 2019. Therefore, the EPA is finalizing the proposed determination that no revisions to the NESHAP are necessary pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6). 3. What key comments did we receive on the technology review, and what are our responses? The EPA received no comments that identified improved control technology, work practices, operational procedures, process changes, or pollution prevention approaches to reduce emissions in the category since promulgation of the current NESHAP. PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 The EPA received multiple supportive comments on the proposed technology review. For detailed comment summaries regarding the technology review and the corresponding responses, see the memorandum in the docket, National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Paper and Other Web Coating (40 CFR part 63, subpart JJJJ) Residual Risk and Technology Review, Final Amendments—Response to Public Comments on September 19, 2019 Proposal. 4. What is the rationale for our final approach for the technology review? The technology review did not identify any changes in practices, processes, or control technologies that would reduce emissions in this category. The EPA did not identify any control equipment not previously identified; improvements to existing controls; work practices, process changes, or operational procedures not previously considered; or any new pollution prevention alternatives for this source category. We evaluated all of the comments on the technology review and determined that no changes to the review are needed, therefore, the EPA is finalizing the determination that no revisions to the NESHAP are necessary pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6). Additional details of our technology review can be found in the memorandum titled Technology Review Analysis for the Paper and Other Web Coating Source Category, in the docket for this rulemaking (Docket ID Item No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2018–0416–0086). C. Revisions to the SSM Provisions for the POWC Source Category 1. What did we propose pursuant to SSM provisions for the POWC source category? The EPA proposed amendments to the POWC NESHAP to remove provisions related to SSM that are not consistent with the requirement that the standards apply at all times. More information concerning the elimination of SSM provisions is in the preamble to the proposed rule (84 FR 49399–49402, September 19, 2019). 2. How did the revisions to the SSM provisions change for the POWC source category? The EPA is finalizing the SSM provisions as proposed with no changes. 3. What key comments did we receive on the SSM provisions, and what are our responses? The EPA received several comments related to the proposed removal of the E:\FR\FM\09JYR2.SGM 09JYR2 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 132 / Thursday, July 9, 2020 / Rules and Regulations SSM provisions. One commenter believed that the EPA is not required to change the regulation to require sources to meet the emission standards at all times, including periods of SSM. The EPA disagrees with the commenter’s assertion. The EPA believes the Sierra Club decision (Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F.3d 1019) held that emission limitations under CAA section 112 must apply continuously and meet minimum stringency requirements, even during periods of SSM. Consistent with this reading, the EPA proposed to remove the SSM exemption, and is finalizing the removal with this action. Other commenters were generally supportive of the SSM exemption removal and noted that it would likely have minimal impacts on regulated facilities. For detailed comment summaries regarding the removal of the SSM exemption and the corresponding responses, see the memorandum in the docket, National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Paper and Other Web Coating (40 CFR part 63, subpart JJJJ) Residual Risk and Technology Review, Final Amendments—Response to Public Comments on September 19, 2019 Proposal. 4. What is the rationale for our final approach and final decisions for the revisions to the SSM provisions? The rationale for each of the amendments the EPA is finalizing to address SSM is in the preamble to the proposed rule (84 FR 49399–49402, September 19, 2019). After evaluation of the comments received, the EPA’s rationale for revisions to the SSM provisions has not changed since proposal and we are finalizing the approach for removing the SSM provisions as proposed. jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES2 D. Method for Determining Volatile Organic Matter Retained in the Coated Web 1. What did we propose? A portion of the HAP in coatings applied to paper and other web substrates may be retained in the web instead of being volatilized as air emissions. The existing NESHAP allows for the accounting of HAP retained in the coated web in 40 CFR 63.3360(g), but stakeholders indicated the requirement to ‘‘develop a testing protocol to determine the mass of volatile matter retained . . . and submit this protocol to the Administrator for approval’’ was vague and unworkable. As discussed in the preamble to the proposed rule (84 FR 49402, September 19, 2019), to provide clarity and reduce regulatory burden, the EPA proposed to VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:54 Jul 08, 2020 Jkt 250001 incorporate the utilization of an emission factor to account for volatile organic matter retained in the coated web. As discussed in the preamble to the proposed rule, the EPA proposed new language to allow facilities to account for retained volatile organics in their compliance demonstration calculations without requiring the submittal of an alternative monitoring request to the EPA under the provisions of 40 CFR 63.8(f). 2. What changed since proposal? Two changes have been made to the proposed provisions for determining volatile organic matter retained in the coated web. First, the EPA has clarified that ‘‘retained in the web’’ means ‘‘retained in the coated web or otherwise not emitted.’’ Second, the EPA has added additional flexibility to allow any EPA-approved method, manufacturer’s emissions test data, or mass balance approach using modified EPA Method 24 to be used to develop the emission factor. 3. What are the key comments and what are our responses? The EPA received comments from four commenters supporting the addition of the emission factor approach for determining the amount of volatile matter retained in the web. Commenters suggested that the EPA clarify that ‘‘retained in the web’’ means ‘‘retained in the coated web or otherwise not emitted.’’ The EPA agrees that this is an appropriate clarification and has revised the regulatory text accordingly. The EPA also received comments suggesting that we allow other methods for developing the emission factor to determine the amount of volatile organic matter retained. Commenters specifically requested the ability to use other EPA-approved test methods, manufacturer’s emissions test data, or mass-balance type approaches using modified EPA Method 24. The EPA agrees that allowing the use of these methods would provide flexibility and still appropriately characterize emissions from the web coating process. For detailed comment summaries regarding the methods used to determine the volatile organic matter retained in the coated web and the corresponding responses, see the memorandum in the docket, National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Paper and Other Web Coating (40 CFR part 63, subpart JJJJ) Residual Risk and Technology Review, Final Amendments—Response to Public Comments on September 19, 2019 Proposal. PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 41283 4. What is the rationale for our final approach to determining volatile matter retained in the coated web? The EPA reviewed the public comments and are finalizing the proposed method of determining the volatile organic material retained in the coated web with two changes as a result of public comment. The EPA is clarifying that ‘‘retained in the web’’ means ‘‘retained in the coated web or otherwise not emitted’’ in the regulatory text and is allowing for additional test methods for use in the development of the emission factor. Both of these changes provide regulatory clarity and flexibility, but still appropriately characterize emissions from the web coating process. The amendments add compliance flexibility and reduce regulatory burden but do not alter the emission standard. This approach quantifies emissions in a way that is representative of the actual emissions from the coating operations instead of assuming that all coating-HAP is emitted. E. Periodic Performance Testing 1. What did we propose? The EPA proposed that facilities that use non-recovery control devices (e.g., thermal and catalytic oxidizers) must conduct periodic air emissions performance testing, with the first of the periodic performance tests to be conducted within 3 years of the effective date of the revised standards and thereafter every 5 years following the previous test. The EPA also proposed that facilities using the emission factor approach to account for volatile matter retained in the web must conduct periodic performance testing every 5 years to re-establish the emission factor. 2. What changed since proposal? The periodic performance testing requirements for catalytic oxidizers and those for emission factor development have changed since the September 2019 proposal in response to public comment. For catalytic oxidizers, commenters suggested that annual catalyst activity testing would be more indicative of oxidizer operation than 5year inlet/outlet emissions testing. The EPA is therefore finalizing that catalytic oxidizers may do an annual catalyst activity test instead of the 5-year inlet/ outlet emissions testing. The EPA is finalizing periodic performance testing requirements for thermal oxidizers as proposed (84 FR 49403, September 19, 2019). The EPA has clarified that the testing is only required for add-on control devices used to demonstrate E:\FR\FM\09JYR2.SGM 09JYR2 41284 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 132 / Thursday, July 9, 2020 / Rules and Regulations jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES2 compliance with the POWC NESHAP. The EPA is not finalizing the 5-year requirement to re-establish emission factors used in determining the amount of volatile organics retained in the coated web for 40 CFR 63.3360(g), but is finalizing a requirement that periodic performance testing be done if there is a change in coating formulation, operation conditions, or other change that could reasonably result in increased emissions since the time of the last test used to establish the emission factor. 3. What are the key comments and what are our responses? Comments were received both opposing and supporting the proposed 5-year periodic emissions testing requirements. Commenters that opposed the requirements noted that oxidizers are not used continuously in the flexible packaging industry but only when compliant coatings are not used and stated that testing does not show any evidence of degradation in thermal oxidizers. Commenters noted that degradation may occur when a catalytic oxidizer is used to control a process using silicon-containing coatings, but that a catalyst activity test would be more appropriate to determine performance. The EPA has reviewed these comments and is finalizing repeat emissions performance testing for catalytic oxidizers with the alternative to perform an annual catalyst activity test. The EPA is finalizing the periodic emissions performance test requirements for thermal oxidizers, as proposed. Both requirements can be found in 40 CFR 63.3360(a)(2). Commenters suggested that periodic performance testing for re-establishment of emission factors, such as for reactive coatings, is not necessary in most cases and would be excessively burdensome and unnecessary, except if the product’s formulation or its process conditions have changed in a way that would increase emissions. The EPA has reviewed the commenters concerns and agrees that repeat testing to re-establish emission factors for coatings used in the POWC industry every 5 years could be burdensome and is not finalizing this requirement in this action. Commenters requested clarification that the first periodic emissions performance test can be conducted within either 3 years of promulgation of the final amendments or within 60 months of the previous test, whichever is later, to ensure that any facility that has recently conducted a performance test will have the full 5 years between tests. The EPA intended that performance tests recently performed (within 3 years of promulgation of the VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:54 Jul 08, 2020 Jkt 250001 final amendments) can count towards the first periodic testing requirements. Commenters also requested clarification if state-required volatile organic compound (VOC) performance testing or HAP performance testing performed for another MACT can count towards this requirement. The EPA agrees that both testing for VOC destruction efficiency and HAP destruction efficiency for another subpart are appropriate substitutions for the periodic testing requirements in the POWC NESHAP because these tests will demonstrate ongoing performance of the control device. Both of these issues have been clarified in 40 CFR 63.3330(a)(2). Commenters requested clarification that only control devices used to demonstrate compliance with the POWC NESHAP would need to be tested, and that VOC tests required by the state permitting authority could be used to meet the proposed requirements. The EPA agrees with the commenters that add-on control devices not used to demonstrate compliance with the POWC NESHAP (i.e., those used to demonstrate compliance with new source performance standards (NSPS) or state VOC requirements) are not required to be tested under the POWC NESHAP amendments. The EPA also agrees that VOC tests required by the state permitting authority could be used to meet the POWC repeat testing requirements. The EPA’s proposal was not intended to impose duplicative testing requirements. Regulatory text has been amended throughout the NESHAP to state that the requirements for add-on control devices are only for those used to demonstrate compliance with 40 CFR 63.3320, and that VOC tests required by state permitting authorities can be used to meet the repeat performance testing requirements. For detailed comment summaries regarding the repeat testing provisions and the corresponding responses, see the memorandum in the docket, National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Paper and Other Web Coating (40 CFR part 63, subpart JJJJ) Residual Risk and Technology Review, Final Amendments—Response to Public Comments on September 19, 2019 Proposal. 4. What is the rationale for our final approach and final decisions for the periodic emissions testing requirement? Although ongoing monitoring of operating parameters is required by the existing POWC NESHAP, as the control device ages over time, the destruction efficiency of the control device can be PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 compromised due to various factors. These factors are discussed in more detail in the memorandum titled Revised Periodic Testing of Control Devices Used to Comply with the Paper and Other Web Coating NESHAP, in the docket for this rulemaking (Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2018–0416). After considering the comments discussed above and based on the need for vigilance in maintaining the control device equipment, the EPA is finalizing the requirement for periodic testing of thermal oxidizers once every 5 years and the alternative of annual catalyst activity tests for catalytic oxidizers. F. Electronic Reporting 1. What did we propose? The EPA proposed amendments to the POWC NESHAP to require owners and operators of POWC facilities to submit electronic copies of required performance test reports (40 CFR 63.3400(f)), performance evaluation reports (40 CFR 63.3400(g)), initial notifications (40 CFR 63.3400(b)), notification of compliance status (40 CFR 63.3400(e)), and semiannual compliance reports (40 CFR 63.3400(c)) through the EPA’s Central Data Exchange (CDX) using CEDRI. A description of the electronic data submission process is provided in the proposal (at 84 FR 49403, September 19, 2019) and in the memorandum, Electronic Reporting Requirements for New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) and National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) Rules, Docket ID Item No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2018–0416–0091. The proposed amendment replaces the previous rule requirement to submit the notifications and reports to the Administrator at the appropriate address listed in 40 CFR 63.13. This rule requirement does not affect submittals required by state air agencies as required by 40 CFR 63.13. For the performance test reports required in 40 CFR 63.3400(f), the amendments proposed required 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 4 at the time of the test be submitted in the format generated through the use of the ERT and that other performance test results be submitted in portable document format (PDF) using the attachment module of the ERT. Similarly, performance evaluation results of continuous monitoring systems (CMS) 4 https://www.epa.gov/electronic-reporting-airemissions/electronic-reporting-tool-ert. E:\FR\FM\09JYR2.SGM 09JYR2 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 132 / Thursday, July 9, 2020 / Rules and Regulations jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES2 measuring relative accuracy test audit pollutants that are supported by the ERT at the time of the test must be submitted in the format generated through the use of the ERT and other performance evaluation results be submitted in PDF using the attachment module of the ERT. For the proposed electronic submittal of initial notifications required in 40 CFR 63.3400(b), no specific form is available at this time, therefore, these notifications are required to be submitted in PDF using the attachment module of the ERT. For electronic submittal of notifications of compliance status reports required in 40 CFR 63.3400(e), it was proposed that the final semiannual report template discussed above, would also contain the information required for the notification of compliance status report. For semiannual compliance reports required in 40 CFR 63.3400(c), the amendment proposed required that owners and operators use the final semiannual report template to submit information to CEDRI. The template will reside in CEDRI and was proposed to be used on and after 180 days past finalization of the amendments. The proposed template for these reports was included in the docket for public comment.5 Additionally, in the proposal, the EPA 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 provided 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. 2. What changed since proposal? The EPA has changed the deadline to use the CEDRI semiannual reporting template to be 1 year after the template has been available in CEDRI, instead of the proposed 180 days after date of publication of the final rule. The EPA has also changed the electronic submittal of the notification of compliance status to be a PDF instead in the semiannual reporting template. No other changes have been made to the proposed requirement for owners and operators of POWC facilities to submit initial notifications, performance test 5 See POWC_Electronic_Reporting_Template.xlsx, available at Docket ID Item No. EPA–HQ–2018– 0416–0165. VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:54 Jul 08, 2020 Jkt 250001 reports, performance evaluation reports, and semiannual reports electronically using CEDRI. 3. What are the key comments and what are our responses? The EPA received one comment supporting the proposed amendment to require electronic reporting. The commenter, however, believed that the proposed force majeure language in 40 CFR 63.3400(j) should be removed so there is no exemption from reporting due to force majeure events. As explained in detail in the response-tocomments document, 40 CFR 63.3400(j) does not provide an exemption to reporting, only a method for requesting an extension of the reporting deadline. The EPA has retained the proposed language in 40 CFR 63.3400(j) for the final rule. Commenters expressed concern about potential inconsistencies between the POWC electronic reporting requirements and state requirements of paper copies of reports for VOC and title V compliance. Commenters asked for clarification that the electronic reporting requirements replace the POWC title V compliance reporting, including timing. The Agency does not agree with the commenter’s suggestion concerning potential inconsistencies between state requirements for paper reporting and federal requirements for VOC and title V permit compliance. State requirements developed under the state’s own authorities are separate and apart from federal requirements developed for this rule. As individual federal rules establish applicable requirements—including electronic reporting—title V programs bundle those individual requirements, except for adding appropriate periodic monitoring when necessary, without change. Therefore, title V and the individual rule’s electronic reporting requirements are the same. Commenters also asked for clarification that the transition to the new reporting methodology would apply to an entire reporting period instead of becoming effective in the middle of a reporting period, resulting in two different reports being prepared. The EPA’s intent was not to require two different reports to be prepared for one reporting period. The EPA has clarified in this action that the reporting template should be used at the beginning of the first full reporting period after the template has been available in CEDRI for 1 year. Commenters expressed concern regarding the electronic reporting template and asked for more time to meet with the EPA to develop and PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 41285 understand the spreadsheet. Commenters also provided feedback on the spreadsheet. The EPA agrees that more time is needed to develop the template and to work with stakeholders to understand how to use the spreadsheet. As such, the EPA is changing the compliance date for using the spreadsheet template to be 1 year after the final template is available in CEDRI. The EPA will work with stakeholders to develop the spreadsheet and to provide training on CEDRI and how to complete the spreadsheet. Because the EPA intends to work with stakeholders to update the template in the future, it has not placed an updated version of the template in the docket for this rulemaking. For detailed comment summaries regarding electronic reporting and the corresponding responses, see the memorandum in the docket, National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Paper and Other Web Coating (40 CFR part 63, subpart JJJJ) Residual Risk and Technology Review, Final Amendments—Response to Public Comments on September 19, 2019 Proposal. 4. What is the rationale for our final approach and final decisions for the electronic reporting requirement? The EPA is finalizing, as proposed, the requirement that owners or operators of POWC facilities submit electronic copies of initial notifications, notifications of compliance status, performance test reports, performance evaluation reports, and semiannual compliance reports using CEDRI. The EPA is finalizing that the deadline to use the CEDRI semiannual reporting template is 1 year after the template has been available in CEDRI. The EPA is finalizing that the electronic submittal of the notice of compliance status should be in pdf form instead of the semiannual reporting template. The EPA is also finalizing, as proposed, provisions that allow facility owners or operators a process to request extensions for submitting electronic reports for circumstances beyond the control of the facility (i.e., for a possible outage in the CDX or CEDRI or for a force majeure event). The amendments 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 E:\FR\FM\09JYR2.SGM 09JYR2 41286 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 132 / Thursday, July 9, 2020 / Rules and Regulations the EPA to assess and determine compliance; and will ultimately reduce burden on regulated facilities, delegated air agencies, and the EPA. 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, Docket ID Item No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2018–0416–0165. jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES2 G. Temperature Sensor Validation 1. What did we propose? As discussed in the preamble to the proposed rule (84 FR 49382, September 19, 2019), at 40 CFR 63.3350(e)(9), the original POWC NESHAP required facilities to conduct an electronic calibration of the temperature monitoring device every 3 months or, if calibration could not be performed, replace the temperature sensor. Facilities subject to the standard have explained to the EPA that they are not aware of a temperature sensor manufacturer that provides procedures or protocols for conducting electronic calibration of temperature sensors. Facilities have reported that because they cannot calibrate their temperature sensors, the alternative is to replace them every 3 months. Industry representatives explained that this is burdensome and requested that an alternative approach to the current requirement in 40 CFR 63.3350(e)(9) be considered. The EPA proposed to modify 40 CFR 63.3350(e) to allow multiple alternative approaches to temperature sensor validation. The first alternative allows the use of a National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) traceable temperature measurement device or simulator to confirm the accuracy of any temperature sensor placed into use for at least one quarterly period, where the accuracy of the temperature measurement must be within 2.5 percent of the temperature measured by the NIST traceable device or 5 degrees Fahrenheit, whichever is greater. The second alternative allows the temperature sensor manufacturer to certify the electrical properties of the temperature sensor. The third alternative codifies the common practice of replacing temperature sensors quarterly. The fourth alternative allows for the permanent installation of a redundant temperature sensor as close as practicable to the process temperature sensor. The redundant sensors must read within 25 degrees Fahrenheit of each other for thermal and catalytic oxidizers. VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:54 Jul 08, 2020 Jkt 250001 2. What changed since proposal? Comments were received on the temperature sensor validation amendments requesting clarification on the requirements. The EPA has clarified the requirements, as discussed below, in the final rulemaking. 3. What are the key comments and what are our responses? Commenters identified inconsistencies between 40 CFR 63.8 and the POWC NESHAP. Specifically, the commenters noted that the proposed amendments require ‘‘validation’’ whereas 40 CFR 63.8 requires ‘‘calibration.’’ The EPA proposed to remove the term ‘‘calibration’’ from the POWC NESHAP because temperature sensors such as thermocouples do not typically have calibration procedures. To fix this inconsistency, the EPA is finalizing changes to Table 2 for the 40 CFR 63.8(c)(3) entry to direct affected sources to 40 CFR 63.3350(e)(10)(iv) for temperature sensor validation procedures in lieu of calibration requirements. Additionally, the EPA is finalizing changes to Table 2 for the 40 CFR 63.8(d)(1)–(2) entry to direct affected sources to 40 CFR 63.3350(e)(5) for continuous parameter monitoring system (CPMS) quality control procedures and to the 40 CFR 63.8(d)(3) entry to state that it does not apply, because 40 CFR 63.3350(e)(5) specifies the program of corrective action. Commenters also questioned whether Table 2 requires a notification of performance evaluation for temperature sensors under 40 CFR 63.8(e)(2). The EPA is also finalizing changes to Table 2 to clarify notifications are not required for temperature sensor validations. Commenters provided background information on thermocouple accuracy and calibrations and requested that the EPA adopt mechanical validations as an option to verify temperature sensor operation. These mechanical validations include visually inspecting the head and wiring of the device and monitoring the function/non-function of the device. Commenters explained that this type of validation is appropriate because thermocouples typically fail instead of drifting and becoming less accurate. In response to this comment, the EPA added mechanical validations as an option for verifying temperature sensor operation in the final rule. Similarly, commenters requested that the requirement in 40 CFR 63.3350(e)(10)(vi) for quarterly inspection of all components for integrity and all electrical connections for continuity, oxidization, and galvanic corrosion be removed. Commenters PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 noted that this requirement is redundant because electronic monitoring systems are designed to alert facility personnel if a signal from the temperature sensor is interrupted. The commenters suggested that the EPA simplify the requirement to include only a quarterly inspection of thermocouple components for proper connection and integrity and clarify that any such inspection only applies to the temperature sensor and not the entire oxidation system. The EPA did not intend to create redundant burden with the proposed requirements. The Agency agrees with the commenter and is requiring in the final rule a quarterly inspection of the thermocouple components or to continuously operate an electronic monitoring system designed to notify personnel if the temperature sensor signal is interrupted at 40 CFR 63.3350(e)(10)(vi). Commenters supported the proposed options for testing the accuracy of temperature sensors and requested clarification on whether the use of dualsensor thermocouples or the use of multiple sensors in the oxidizer combustion chamber would meet the proposed requirements. The Agency has added a new subsection to clarify that these options would meet the finalized requirements. Additionally, the EPA reviewed the proposed temperature sensor validation regulatory text and determined that, as proposed, it was vague and sometimes inconsistent. For example, the proposed amendments said to validate the temperature sensor quarterly by following the applicable procedures in the manufacturer’s owner’s manual. The EPA received additional information and found that owner’s manuals specified annual inspection procedures. Also as proposed, facilities would need to quarterly validate by permanently installing a redundant temperature sensor, which was vague and confusing to affected sources. The EPA has amended 40 CFR 63.3350(e)(10)(iv) to clarify each option for verifying that a temperature sensor is operating properly and how frequently to perform the verification. The EPA is finalizing the following verification options: • Semiannually compare the temperature sensor to a NIST traceable temperature measurement device; • annually validate the temperature sensor by following applicable mechanical and electrical validation procedures in the manufacturer’s owner’s manual; • annually request the temperature sensor manufacturer to certify or recertify electromotive force; E:\FR\FM\09JYR2.SGM 09JYR2 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 132 / Thursday, July 9, 2020 / Rules and Regulations • annually replace the temperature sensor with a new certified temperature sensor; • permanently install a redundant temperature sensor as close as practicable to the process temperature sensor; or • permanently install a temperature sensor with dual sensors to account for the possibility of failure. One commenter requested that the required accuracy of 2.5 percent at 40 CFR part 63.3350(e)(10)(iv)(A) apply equally at 40 CFR part 63.3350(e)(10)(iv)(E) instead of 25 degrees Fahrenheit. The commenter was not aware of any reason to specify different levels of accuracy between the proposed validation methods. With this final action, the EPA has changed the 25 degrees Fahrenheit requirement in 40 CFR 63.3350(e)(10)(iv)(E) to be 2.5 percent to be consistent with the requirements of 40 CFR 63.3350(e)(10)(iv)(A). Commenters also requested that the requirement to calibrate the chart recorder or data logger in section 40 CFR 63.3350(e)(10)(i) be removed because it is not feasible to calibrate either device, and most facilities now use an electronic signal to record temperature data for compliance purposes, not a chart recorder. The EPA agrees and has removed this statement from the regulatory text. For detailed comment summaries regarding the temperature sensor validation requirements and corresponding responses, see the memorandum in the docket, National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Paper and Other Web Coating (40 CFR part 63, subpart JJJJ) Residual Risk and Technology Review, Final Amendments—Response to Public Comments on September 19, 2019 Proposal. jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES2 4. What is the rationale for our final approach and final decisions for the temperature senor calibration requirement? The EPA proposed modifications to 40 CFR 63.3350(e) to allow multiple alternative approaches to temperature sensor calibration to address concerns raised by affected facilities prior to proposal. After reviewing the public comments received, the Agency is clarifying the requirements in this final rulemaking, as discussed above. These amendments ensure that the temperature sensors are operating properly to demonstrate continuous compliance with the emission standards. VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:54 Jul 08, 2020 Jkt 250001 H. Operating Parameter Clarification 1. What did we propose? The EPA proposed to clarify language in 40 CFR 63.3370 which previously implied all deviations in operating parameters result in non-compliance with the standard. Specifically, the EPA proposed at 40 CFR 63.3370(k)(5) to clarify that each 3-hour average operating parameter that is outside of the operating limit range established during a performance test should be assumed to have zero control and all HAP must be assumed to be emitted for that period in the monthly compliance calculation. 2. What changed since proposal? The EPA is finalizing the clarification that a deviation from a 3-hour average operating parameter is not a deviation of the standard, unless the emission limitations for the month in which the deviation occurred are exceeded. Based on public comment, the EPA has also added the option in 40 CFR 63.3370(k)(5) for a facility to develop a control destruction efficiency curve for use in determining compliance instead of assuming zero control for all deviations. The EPA has also added minor clarifications as discussed below. 3. What are the key comments and what are our responses? Commenters supported the EPA’s proposed clarification that deviations in operating parameters are not automatically indicative of noncompliance with the POWC standard. Commenters also stated that a deviation from a 3-hour operating limit does not indicate non-compliance because the standard is based on a monthly average. The EPA agrees that the intent of the clarification was for operating parameters of add-on control devices only, as the requirement was placed in 40 CFR 63.3370(k)(5) which only applies to add-on control devices and not coating lines using compliant coatings. Several commenters disagreed with the EPA’s proposal that each 3-hour average operating parameter that is outside of the operating limit range established during a performance test should be assumed to have ‘‘zero control.’’ Commenters asserted that there was no scientific basis for this assumption and indicated that if a performance test performed well above the minimum required destruction efficiency, dropping below the established temperature may have no effect on the destruction efficiency. Commenters recommended that the EPA allow facilities to develop a control PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 41287 curve based on test data or engineering data that documents the level of control achieved at temperatures lower than the performance test established temperature. The EPA has considered the commenters’ suggestion and have added the option to develop a control curve for add-on control devices at 40 CFR 63.3360(e)(4). Facilities must work with their permitting authority to develop the control curve. For detailed comment summaries regarding the operating parameter clarification and responses, see the memorandum in the docket, National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Paper and Other Web Coating (40 CFR part 63, subpart JJJJ) Residual Risk and Technology Review, Final Amendments—Response to Public Comments on September 19, 2019 Proposal. 4. What is the rationale for our final approach and final decisions for the operating parameter clarification? Operating parameters were established in the original POWC NESHAP to aid in determining compliance, but operating parameters were not intended to constitute a violation of the emission standard. For example, one 3-hour average regenerative thermal oxidizer firebox temperature below the setpoint established during the stack test would not necessarily indicate a violation of the POWC emission standard for the month, but it is a deviation of the operating parameter limit. The EPA is finalizing, as proposed, language to clarify this distinction with minor changes based on public comment. I. IBR Under 1 CFR Part 51 for the POWC NESHAP 1. What did we propose? In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA proposed to incorporate by reference the following voluntary consensus standards (VCS) into 40 CFR 63.14: • ASTM D2369–10 (Reapproved 2015)e, Standard Test Method for Volatile Content of Coatings, IBR approved for 40 CFR 63.3360(c). • ASTM D2697–03 (Reapproved 2014), Standard Test Method for Volume Nonvolatile Matter in Clear or Pigmented Coatings, IBR approved for 40 CFR 63.3360(c). • ASTM 3960–98, Standard Practice for Determining Volatile Organic Compound (VOC) Content of Paints and Related Coatings, IBR approved for 40 CFR 63.3360(d). • ASTM D6093–97, (Reapproved 2016), Standard Test Method for Percent E:\FR\FM\09JYR2.SGM 09JYR2 41288 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 132 / Thursday, July 9, 2020 / Rules and Regulations Volume Nonvolatile Matter in Clear or Pigmented Coatings Using a Helium Gas Pycnometer, IBR approved for 40 CFR 63.3360(c). • ASTM D2111–10 (Reapproved 2015), Standard Test Methods for Specific Gravity of Halogenated Organic Solvents and Their Admixtures, IBR approved for 40 CFR 63.3360(c). • ASTM D1963–85 (Reapproved 1996), Standard Test Method for Specific Gravity of Drying Oils, Varnishes, Resins, and Related Materials at 25/25°C (Withdrawn 2004), IBR approved for 40 CFR 63.3360(c). 2. What changed since proposal? No changes to the proposed IBR were made since publication of the proposal (84 FR 49405, September 19, 2019). 3. What are the key comments and what are our responses? No comments were received on the proposed IBR of the standards into 40 CFR 63.14. 4. What is the rationale for our final approach and final decisions for the IBR under 1 CFR part 51? In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is finalizing, as proposed, the IBR of the documents listed in section IV.I.1 of this preamble. J. Technical and Editorial Changes jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES2 1. Removal of OSHA-Defined Carcinogens Reference a. What did we propose? The EPA proposed to amend sections 40 CFR 63.3360(c)(1)(i) and (3), which describe how to demonstrate initial compliance with the emission limitations using the compliant material option, to remove references to OSHAdefined carcinogens as specified in 29 CFR 1910.1200(d)(4). The reference to OSHA-defined carcinogens as specified in 29 CFR 1910.1200(d)(4) is intended to specify which compounds must be included in calculating total organic HAP content of a coating material if they are present at 0.1 percent or greater by mass. The Agency proposed to remove this reference because 29 CFR 1910.1200(d)(4) has been amended and no longer readily defines which compounds are carcinogens. The EPA proposed to replace the references to OSHA-defined carcinogens and 29 CFR 1910.1200(d)(4) with a list (in proposed new Table 3 to Subpart JJJJ of Part 63— List of Hazardous Air Pollutants That Must Be Counted Relative to Determining Coating HAP Content if Present at 0.1 Percent or More By Mass) of those organic HAP that must be included in calculating total organic VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:54 Jul 08, 2020 Jkt 250001 HAP content of a coating material if they are present at 0.1 percent or greater by mass. b. What changed since proposal? The EPA has changed the approach for the removal of the reference to 29 CFR 1910.1200(d)(4) based on public comment. The EPA is not finalizing the proposed Table 3 to 40 CFR part 63, subpart JJJJ, and is finalizing a reference to appendix A to 29 CFR 1910.1200 where 29 CFR 1910.1200(d)(4) was previously referenced. c. What are the key comments and what are our responses? Multiple commenters asked that the EPA delete the proposed Table 3 to 40 CFR part 63, subpart JJJJ, and modify the proposed methodology for determining the HAP content of coatings. Commenters pointed out that 29 CFR 1910.1200(d)(4) was not a list, but a list of references for manufacturers and importers to use to classify chemicals. Commenters asked that the POWC NESHAP reference the current OSHA Safety Data Sheets (SDS) rule (29 CFR 1910.1200) instead of adding a static list in the form of the proposed Table 3 to 40 CFR part 63, subpart JJJJ. The EPA agrees the commenters’ suggestion is a more-streamlined solution for updating the OSHA reference and is not finalizing the table in the final rule and has added the reference to appendix A to 29 CFR 1910.1200. For detailed comment summaries regarding the OSHA-defined carcinogens reference and the corresponding responses, see the memorandum in the docket, National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Paper and Other Web Coating (40 CFR Part 63, Subpart JJJJ) Residual Risk and Technology Review, Final Amendments—Response to Public Comments on September 19, 2019 Proposal. d. What is the rationale for our final approach? The EPA has reviewed the comments received regarding the removal of the OSHA-defined carcinogens language and agrees that appendix A to 29 CFR 1910.1200 is an appropriate replacement for the outdated 29 CFR 1910.1200(d)(4) reference. Given that the OSHA language that the POWC proposal sought to replace is in appendix A, for the final POWC amendment the EPA is finalizing the regulatory text at 40 CFR 63.3360(c)(1)(i) to be as follows: (i) Include each organic HAP determined to be present at greater than or equal to 0.1 mass percent for PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA)-defined carcinogens as specified in section A.6.4 of appendix A to 29 CFR 1910.1200 and greater than or equal to 1.0 mass percent for other organic HAP compounds. 2. Clarification of Compliance Demonstration Options a. What did we propose? The EPA proposed an introductory paragraph and a new subsection to clarify the compliance demonstration requirements in 40 CFR 63.3370. As originally promulgated, it was not clear that compliance can be demonstrated based on individual web coating lines, groups of web coating lines, or all of the web coating lines located at an affected facility. An introductory paragraph to 40 CFR 63.3370 was proposed to clarify the intent that compliance can be demonstrated across the web coating lines in a facility by grouping them or treating them individually or a combination of both. Additionally, a new subsection 40 CFR 63.3370(r) was proposed to clarify that compliance with the subpart can be demonstrated using a mass-balance approach. While the compliance calculations included in 40 CFR 63.3370(b)–(p) are thorough, there are instances where variables in the equations are not needed, resulting in confusion by the regulated facilities and the regulating agencies as to what is required to demonstrate compliance. The mass-balance approach proposed in 40 CFR 63.3370(r) clarifies the original intent of the rule. b. What changed since proposal? The EPA received comments suggesting minor edits to the proposed language regarding the mass-balance compliance demonstration approach and has incorporated these edits, as appropriate, as discussed below. No changes were made to the introductory paragraph to 40 CFR 63.3370 and the EPA is finalizing this section, as proposed, in this action. c. What are the key comments and what are our responses? Commenters expressed support for the proposed clarification that compliance can be demonstrated across multiple lines. Commenters also felt that this clarification reduces the potential for inconsistent regulatory interpretations by sources and permitting agencies and makes the POWC NESHAP consistent with other coating rules. The EPA acknowledges the commenters’ support and is finalizing the clarification, as proposed. E:\FR\FM\09JYR2.SGM 09JYR2 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 132 / Thursday, July 9, 2020 / Rules and Regulations Commenters noted that the EPA incorrectly stated procedures for demonstrating compliance by massbalance at 40 CFR 63.3370(r)(1)—the mass of HAP emitted during the month should be divided by the mass applied according to any of the procedures listed in 40 CFR 63.3320(b)(1)–(3). Commenters also suggested additional regulatory text revisions to be consistent with proposed edits to other sections. The EPA has reviewed these comments and agrees with the commenters suggested edits to correct the massbalance calculation and has done so in this rulemaking. For detailed comment summaries regarding the clarification of the compliance demonstration options and the corresponding responses, see the memorandum in the docket, National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Paper and Other Web Coating (40 CFR Part 63, Subpart JJJJ) Residual Risk and Technology Review, Final Amendments—Response to Public Comments on September 19, 2019 Proposal. c. What are the key comments and what are our responses? subpart and not 40 CFR part 63, subpart OOOO. Commenters supported the EPA’s proposed clarifications to the definition of coating materials and further suggested that the EPA revise the definition to ensure that it is not incorrectly interpreted to exclude hot melt adhesives or coatings. The EPA agrees with the commenters and hot melt materials are included in the revised regulatory text in 40 CFR 63.3310 to reflect this. For detailed comment summaries regarding the coating materials definition and the corresponding responses, see the memorandum in the docket, National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Paper and Other Web Coating (40 CFR Part 63, Subpart JJJJ) Residual Risk and Technology Review, Final Amendments—Response to Public Comments on September 19, 2019 Proposal. b. What changed since proposal? Since proposal, the EPA has clarified that the predominant activity should be determined on a calendar year basis. d. What is the rationale for our final approach? The EPA is finalizing, as proposed, revisions to the coating material definition in 40 CFR 63.3310 to clarify that coating materials are liquid or semiliquid materials and revisions to the web coating line definition to clarify that coating materials are liquid or semiliquid. The EPA is also finalizing the clarification that hot melt materials are included in the definition and that vapor deposition and dry abrasive materials deposited onto a coated surface area are excluded from the definition. These revisions will improve regulatory clarity by confirming that the weight of solid materials should not be accounted for in the compliance demonstration calculations, and that vapor-deposition coating is not covered by this subpart. The EPA proposed, and is finalizing, amendments to the regulatory text to clarify that compliance can be demonstrated based on individual web coating lines, groups of web coating lines, or all of the web coating lines located at an affected facility. The EPA is finalizing corrections to the mass balance calculation. Additionally, the EPA proposed, and is finalizing, a new subsection in 40 CFR 63.3370(r) to clarify the intent of the rule as a massbalance approach of demonstrating compliance. The clarification to the compliance demonstration options were made to help reduce confusion among regulated entities and regulating authorities. 3. Clarification of Coating Materials Definition The EPA proposed to revise the coating material definition in 40 CFR 63.3310 to clarify that coating materials are liquid or semi-liquid materials. Additionally, the EPA proposed to revise the web coating line definition to clarify that coating materials are liquid or semi-liquid. b. What changed since proposal? The EPA has clarified in the definition of coating materials to include hot melt adhesives and other hot melt materials. VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:54 Jul 08, 2020 Jkt 250001 d. What is the rationale for our final approach? 4. Addition of Web Coating Line Usage Threshold a. What did we propose? a. What did we propose? jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES2 41289 The EPA proposed to add a usage threshold to 40 CFR 63.3300(h), similar to that in 40 CFR part 63, subpart OOOO, that requires a web coating line that coats both paper and another substrate, such as fabric, to comply with the subpart that corresponds to the predominate activity conducted. The EPA proposed to define predominant activity to be 90 percent of the mass of substrate coated during the compliance period. For example, a web coating line that coats 90 percent or more of a paper substrate, and 10 percent or less of a fabric substrate, would be subject to this PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 c. What are the key comments and what are our responses? Commenters supported usage thresholds for converting lines that coat both paper and another substrate. Commenters noted that the usage of the term ‘‘affected source’’ in the proposal appears to be inconsistent with the example because the POWC NESHAP is the collection of all web coating lines. Additionally, commenters thought the term compliance period could be interpreted to require a facility performing different types of coating to determine which NESHAP applies on a monthly basis. Commenters requested that the EPA clarify these issues. The EPA agrees with the commenters and have edited the regulatory text to clarify that predominant activity must be determined on a calendar year basis. For detailed comment summaries regarding the web coating line threshold and the corresponding responses, see the memorandum in the docket, National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Paper and Other Web Coating (40 CFR Part 63, Subpart JJJJ) Residual Risk and Technology Review, Final Amendments—Response to Public Comments on September 19, 2019 Proposal. d. What is the rationale for our final approach? The EPA reviewed the public comments and added clarifying language to the proposed usage threshold. This language was added to promote regulatory certainty and reduce burden from sources that could be subject to multiple NESHAP. 5. Addition of Printing Activity Exemption a. What did we propose? The EPA proposed to add a printing activity exemption to 40 CFR 63.3300(i) which allows for modified web coating lines already subject to this subpart to continue to demonstrate compliance with this subpart, in lieu of demonstrating compliance with 40 CFR part 63, subpart KK (Printing and Publishing NESHAP). b. What changed since proposal? The EPA has clarified the language in the printing activity exemption to allow for existing and modified lines to be E:\FR\FM\09JYR2.SGM 09JYR2 41290 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 132 / Thursday, July 9, 2020 / Rules and Regulations subject to the POWC NESHAP in lieu of 40 CFR part 63, subpart KK. this subpart, which test for total HAP concentration. c. What are the key comments and what are our responses? b. What changed since proposal? The EPA is finalizing the removal of ‘‘by compound’’ in 40 CFR 63.3220(b)(4) to clarify that the 20 ppmv standard applies to the total of organic HAP emitted, not to each individual HAP. As part of our review, the EPA found four additional instances of ‘‘by compound’’ in 40 CFR 63.3370(a)(5), (f), (f)(3), and (f)(3)(iii) that also needed to be removed. Multiple commenters supported the EPA’s proposed printing activity exemption to allow for modified POWC lines already subject to the POWC NESHAP to continue to demonstrate compliance with 40 CFR part 63, subpart JJJJ in lieu of demonstrating compliance with 40 CFR part 63, subpart KK. Commenters suggested that this exemption also apply to existing sources as well as modified sources (e.g., for POWC web coating lines that already have a product and packaging rotogravure print station and/or a wideweb flexographic print station). The commenter noted that, as written, if during a single month the line exceeds 5 percent of the total mass of materials applied at the print station, the line applicability would permanently change to the Printing and Publishing NESHAP. The EPA agrees with the commenters and has clarified the regulatory text in this action, as appropriate. For detailed comment summaries regarding the printing activity exemption and the corresponding responses, see the memorandum in the docket, National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Paper and Other Web Coating (40 CFR Part 63, Subpart JJJJ) Residual Risk and Technology Review, Final Amendments—Response to Public Comments on September 19, 2019 Proposal. d. What is the rationale for our final approach? In this rulemaking, the EPA is finalizing a printing activity exemption to 40 CFR 63.3300(i) which allows for modified and existing web coating lines already subject to this subpart to continue to demonstrate compliance with this subpart, in lieu of demonstrating compliance with 40 CFR part 63, subpart KK (i.e., the Printing and Publishing NESHAP). This exemption will reduce regulatory burden without resulting in increased emissions. 6. Clarification of Testing Requirements jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES2 a. What did we propose? The EPA proposed to remove the ‘‘by compound’’ statement in 40 CFR 63.3320(b)(4) to clarify that the standard is 20 parts per million by volume (ppmv) for the total of organic HAP emitted, not 20 ppmv for each individual HAP emitted. This is consistent with the test methods used in VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:54 Jul 08, 2020 Jkt 250001 c. What are the key comments and what are our responses? Commenters supported the EPA’s proposal to remove ‘‘by compound’’ in 40 CFR 63.3220(b)(4) to clarify that the 20 ppmv standard applies to the total of organic HAP emitted, not to each individual HAP. d. What is the rationale for our final approach? The removal of ‘‘by compound’’ makes the POWC NESHAP consistent with the test methods referenced in the subpart, as they test for total HAP concentration, not individual HAP compounds. 7. Applicability to Sources Using Only Non-HAP Coatings a. What did we propose? The EPA requested comment on changing the applicability of the POWC NESHAP to exclude sources that only use non-HAP coatings but are located at a major source to reduce regulatory burden. As identified during the development of the risk modeling input file and discussed in section III.C of the preamble to the proposed rule (84 FR 49406, September 19, 2019), some facilities that utilize only non-HAP coatings are subject to the POWC NESHAP because they perform web coating operations and are a major source because of non-POWC source category emissions. For example, a nonHAP coating line used to produce paper towel cores may be located at an integrated pulp and paper facility that is a major source because of emissions from the pulping operations. This facility would be required to comply with the requirements of 40 CFR part 63, subpart JJJJ, even though the coatings used contain no HAP, and, therefore, no HAP are emitted from the web coating lines. b. What changed since proposal? The EPA received supportive comments regarding the change of applicability to sources using only nonHAP coatings. The Agency has reviewed PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 the public comments and, instead of changing the applicability of the subpart, is finalizing an exemption for reporting requirements for these sources. c. What are the key comments and what are our responses? Commenters supported the EPA’s proposal to reduce regulatory burden by excluding sources that are located at a major source of HAP but do not use coatings that contain HAP for the POWC emission sources. Commenters stated that the change will reduce regulatory burden without increasing emissions and could incentivize sources to convert to non-HAP coatings to avoid applicability of the POWC NESHAP, resulting in emissions reductions. Commenters further suggested that the exclusion is a logical step under the EPA’s efforts to reduce regulatory burden and is similar in key aspects to the rulemaking to rescind the EPA’s ‘‘once in, always in’’ policy. Commenters suggested that the EPA clarify that all of the subject coating lines at the facility must use non-HAP coatings to qualify for the exclusion. The EPA has reviewed these comments and has added regulatory text exempting sources that only use nonHAP coatings on all of the subject web coating lines at the facility from ongoing compliance reporting requirements. For detailed comment summaries regarding applicability to sources only using non-HAP coatings and the corresponding responses, see the memorandum in the docket, National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Paper and Other Web Coating (40 CFR Part 63, Subpart JJJJ) Residual Risk and Technology Review, Final Amendments—Response to Public Comments on September 19, 2019 Proposal. d. What is the rationale for our final approach? The EPA requested comment on changing the applicability of sources using only non-HAP coatings and received comments supporting the change. The EPA is finalizing an exemption to on-going reporting requirements for these sources as it will reduce regulatory burden without increasing emissions. 8. Oxidizer Temperature Monitoring a. What did we propose? The EPA proposed to add language to recognize that thermal oxidizers can demonstrate compliance with the standard as long as the 3-hour average firebox temperature does not drop lower E:\FR\FM\09JYR2.SGM 09JYR2 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 132 / Thursday, July 9, 2020 / Rules and Regulations than 50 degrees Fahrenheit below the average combustion temperature established during the performance test to promote consistency between the Pressure Sensitive Tape and Label Surface Coating Operations NSPS (40 CFR part 60, subpart RR) and the POWC NESHAP, as well as to account for temperature swings due to startup and/ or shutdown of web coating lines. b. What changed since proposal? The EPA has made minor clarifications to the regulatory text to promote consistency throughout the subpart and has added similar language for catalytic oxidizers. jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES2 c. What are the key comments and what are our responses? Commenters were supportive of the EPA’s proposed language for thermal oxidizers and requested that it be included for catalytic oxidizers as well. Additionally, commenters noted that the Pressure Sensitive Tape and Label Surface Coating Operations NSPS allows for setting the minimum temperature drop across the catalyst bed at 80 percent of the average temperature difference during the most recent performance test and requested that this language be added to promote consistency between the two rules. The Agency has reviewed the commenters suggestions and agree that it is appropriate to add the temperature language for catalytic oxidizers. To ensure complete combustion, the EPA also added a requirement that the catalyst’s minimum temperature must always be 50 degrees Fahrenheit above the catalyst’s ignition temperature. Commenters also suggested edits to promote consistency throughout the subpart as it relates to the temperature language. The EPA has reviewed these suggestions and made edits to the regulatory text in this action, as appropriate. For detailed comment summaries regarding the oxidizer temperature monitoring requirements and the corresponding responses, see the memorandum in the docket, National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Paper and Other Web Coating (40 CFR Part 63, Subpart JJJJ) Residual Risk and Technology Review, Final Amendments—Response to Public Comments on September 19, 2019 Proposal. d. What is the rationale for our final approach? The EPA proposed to add language to recognize that thermal oxidizers can demonstrate compliance with the standard as long as the 3-hour average VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:54 Jul 08, 2020 Jkt 250001 firebox temperature does not drop lower than 50 degrees Fahrenheit below the average combustion temperature established during the performance test to promote consistency between the Pressure Sensitive Tape and Label Surface Coating Operations NSPS and the POWC NESHAP, as well as to account for temperature swings due to startup and/or shutdown of web coating lines. After reviewing the public comments, the EPA has added the same requirements to catalytic oxidizers. In addition, the EPA has added language similar to that in the Pressure Sensitive Tape and Label Surface Coating Operations NSPS to allow for setting the minimum temperature drop across the catalyst bed at 80 percent of the average temperature difference during the most recent performance test. To ensure complete combustion, the EPA also added a requirement that the catalyst’s minimum temperature must always be 50 degrees Fahrenheit above the catalyst’s ignition temperature. 9. Compliance Report Content a. What did we propose? The EPA proposed new reporting requirements at 40 CFR 63.3400(c)(2) that would require facilities to record data for failures to meet an applicable standard, estimate the quantity of each regulated pollutant over any emission limit and a description of the method used, and document any actions taken to minimize emissions. b. What changed since proposal? The EPA has revised the compliance report content requirements in 40 CFR 63.3400(c)(2) to clarify what should be reported. c. What are the key comments and what are our responses? Commenters noted that the new reporting requirements should be eliminated because they go beyond the General Provisions at 40 CFR 63.10 and, because compliance is determined monthly, short deviations are not likely to cause excess emissions. Commenters further noted that the proposed additions are not relevant to a rule where compliance is not demonstrated on a short-term basis. The EPA has reviewed the commenters concerns and agree that the language is not appropriate for 40 CFR part 63, subpart JJJJ. The EPA has revised the requirements in 40 CFR 63.3400(c)(2) to clarify what is required to be reported and has also revised the requirements in 40 CFR 63.3410(c) to clarify what records should be maintained. Additionally, while the EPA was reviewing the report content PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 41291 requirements, it became clear that the requirements were confusing as to what should be reported for facilities using compliant coatings versus facilities using add-on controls. The EPA has clarified that 40 CFR 63.3400(c)(2)(v) applies to facilities using only compliant coatings (i.e., those that do not use a CMS). The EPA also clarified that 40 CFR 63.3400(c)(2)(vi) applies to facilities that have add-on control devices (i.e., those that use a CPMS or a continuous emission monitoring system). These amendments should improve regulatory clarity. For detailed comment summaries regarding compliance report content and the corresponding responses, see the memorandum in the docket, National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Paper and Other Web Coating (40 CFR Part 63, Subpart JJJJ) Residual Risk and Technology Review, Final Amendments—Response to Public Comments on September 19, 2019 Proposal. d. What is the rationale for our final approach? The EPA proposed new reporting requirements at 40 CFR 63.3400(c)(2) that would require facilities to record data for failures to meet an applicable standard, estimate the quantity of each regulated pollutant over any emission limit and a description of the method used, and document any actions taken to minimize emissions to be consistent with recent RTR rulemakings. After reviewing the comments received during the public comment period, as well as the regulatory language, it was determined that these requirements were not appropriate for 40 CFR part 63, subpart JJJJ because compliance is demonstrated on a monthly basis and therefore these requirements are not being finalized. In response to comments, amendments were added to the compliance report contents section to clarify what should be reported and by whom. 10. Other Amendments The following additional changes were proposed that address technical and editorial corrections: • Revised the references to the other NESHAP in 40 CFR 63.3300 to clarify the appropriate subparts; • revised 40 CFR 3350(c) to clarify that bypass valves on always-controlled work stations should be monitored; • revised 40 CFR 63.3350(e)(4) to clarify 3-hour averages should be block averages, consistent with the requirements in Table 1 to Subpart JJJJ of Part 63; E:\FR\FM\09JYR2.SGM 09JYR2 41292 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 132 / Thursday, July 9, 2020 / Rules and Regulations • revised the monitoring requirements section in 40 CFR 63.3360 to clarify what constitutes representative conditions; • revised the recordkeeping requirements section in 40 CFR 63.3410 to include the requirement to show continuous compliance after effective date of regulation; • revised the terminology in the delegation of authority section in 40 CFR 63.3420 to match the definitions in 40 CFR 63.90; • revised the General Provisions applicability table (Table 2 to Subpart JJJJ of Part 63) to provide more detail and to make it align with those sections of the General Provisions that have been amended or reserved over time; and • renumbered the equations throughout the subpart for regulatory clarity. No comments were received on these other amendments and, therefore, the EPA is finalizing them as proposed. V. Summary of Cost, Environmental, and Economic Impacts and Additional Analyses Conducted jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES2 A. What are the affected facilities? The POWC source category includes any facility that is located at a major source and is engaged in the coating of paper, plastic film, metallic foil, and other web surfaces. All the coating lines at a subject facility are defined as one affected source. Any new source means any affected source for which construction or reconstruction was commenced after the date the EPA first proposed regulations establishing a NESHAP applicable to the source (i.e., for the POWC source category, September 13, 2000). An existing source means any source other than a new source. Generally, an additional line at an existing facility is considered part of the existing affected source. New affected sources are new lines installed at new facilities or at a facility with no prior POWC operations. There are currently 168 facilities in the United States that are subject to the POWC NESHAP. The EPA is aware of one new affected source that is under construction that will be subject to the POWC NESHAP in the future. The EPA is not aware of any other facilities that are under construction or are planned to be constructed which would be considered ‘‘new facilities’’ under the POWC NESHAP. B. What are the air quality impacts? At the current level of control, estimated emissions of total HAP are approximately 3,870 tpy. Compared to pre-MACT levels, this represents a VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:54 Jul 08, 2020 Jkt 250001 significant reduction of HAP for the category. When the POWC NESHAP was finalized in 2002, the EPA estimated the annual baseline HAP emissions from the source category to be approximately 42,000 tpy (67 FR 72331, December 4, 2002). The amendments will require all 168 major sources with equipment subject to the POWC NESHAP to operate without the SSM exemption. Eliminating the SSM exemption will reduce emissions by requiring facilities to meet the applicable standard during SSM periods; however, the EPA is unable to quantify the specific emission reductions associated with eliminating the exemption. The requirement for repeat performance testing once every 5 years for thermal oxidizers and the alternative of annual catalyst activity testing for catalytic oxidizers will ensure that the control device is operating correctly and may reduce emissions, but no method for accurately estimating such emissions reduction is available. Indirect or secondary air emissions impacts are impacts that would result from the increased electricity usage associated with the operation of control devices (i.e., increased secondary emissions of criteria pollutants from power plants). Energy impacts consist of the electricity and steam needed to operate control devices and other equipment that would be required under this final rule. The EPA expects no secondary air emissions impacts or energy impacts from this rulemaking. For further information, see the memorandum titled Revised Cost, Environmental, and Energy Impacts of Regulatory Options for the Paper and Other Web Coatings Risk and Technology Review, in the docket for this action (Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– OAR–2018–0416). C. What are the cost impacts? Startup and shutdown are considered normal operations for most facilities subject to the POWC NESHAP. The EPA does not believe removing the SSM exemption will result in additional incurred costs. As discussed in detail in the memorandum titled Revised Cost, Environmental, and Energy Impacts of Regulatory Options for the Paper and Other Web Coatings Risk and Technology Review, it is estimated that 65 oxidizers will have to perform repeat performance testing. Fifty eight of these 65 are thermal oxidizers, and 3 are catalytic oxidizers. For costing purposes, it was assumed that repeat emissions performance testing will be performed every 5 years on the thermal PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 oxidizers, and annual catalyst activity testing will be conducted on the catalytic oxidizers. The estimated cost for an inlet-outlet EPA Method 25A performance test (with electronic reporting of results) is $28,000 per test and the estimated cost for annual catalyst activity testing is $1,000, for an estimated nationwide cost of $1,750,000 (2018$) every 5 years. The electronic reporting requirement is not expected to require any additional labor hours to prepare, compared to the paper semiannual compliance reports that are already prepared. Therefore, the costs associated with the electronic reporting requirement are zero. D. What are the economic impacts? The economic impact analysis is designed to inform decision makers about the potential economic consequences of a regulatory action. To assess the potential impact, the largest cost expected to be experienced in any 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 final revisions to the POWC NESHAP, the 168 affected facilities are owned by 91 different parent companies, and the total costs associated with the final requirements range from less than 0.000001 to 3 percent of annual sales revenue per ultimate owner. These costs are not expected to result in a significant market impact, regardless of whether they are passed on to the purchaser or absorbed by the firms. The EPA also prepared a small business screening assessment to determine whether any of the identified affected entities are small entities, as defined by the U.S. Small Business Administration. Twenty-nine of the facilities potentially affected by the final revisions to the POWC NESHAP are small entities. However, the costs associated with the final requirements for the affected small entities range from 0.0003 to 3 percent of annual sales revenues per ultimate owner; there is one facility with costs of 1.4 percent and one facility with costs of 3 percent of annual sales revenues per ultimate owner. Therefore, there are no significant economic impacts on a substantial number of small entities from these final amendments. E. What are the benefits? Because these final amendments are not considered economically significant, as defined by Executive Order 12866, and because we did not estimate emission reductions associated with the E:\FR\FM\09JYR2.SGM 09JYR2 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 132 / Thursday, July 9, 2020 / Rules and Regulations final revisions, the EPA did not estimate any benefits from reducing emissions. jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES2 F. What analysis of environmental justice did we conduct? Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994) establishes federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision directs federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income populations in the United States. To examine the potential for any environmental justice issues that might be associated with the source category, the EPA performed a demographic analysis, which is an assessment of risk to individual demographic groups of the populations living within 5 kilometers (km) and within 50 km of the facilities. In the analysis, the EPA evaluated the distribution of HAP-related cancer and noncancer risk from the POWC source category across different social, demographic, and economic groups within the populations living near facilities identified as having the highest risks.6 The methodology and the results of the demographic analysis are presented in a technical report, Risk and Technology Review—Analysis of Demographic Factors for Populations Living Near Paper and Other Web Coating Facilities, available in the docket for this action (Docket ID Item No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2018–0416–0088). These results, for various demographic groups, are based on the estimated risk from actual emissions levels for the population living within 50 km of the facilities. The results of the POWC source category demographic analysis indicate that emissions from the source category expose approximately 4,300 people to a cancer risk at or above 1-in-1 million and no one is exposed to a chronic noncancer TOSHI greater than 1. The specific demographic results indicate that the percentage of the population potentially impacted by emissions is greater than its corresponding national percentage for the white population (86 percent for the source category 6 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 2 times the poverty level, and linguistically isolated people. VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:54 Jul 08, 2020 Jkt 250001 compared to 62 percent nationwide) and for the below-poverty-level population (17 percent compared to 14 percent nationwide). The risks due to HAP emissions from this source category are low for all populations. Furthermore, the EPA does not expect this final rule to achieve significant reductions in HAP emissions. Therefore, the EPA concludes that this final rule will not have disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority or low-income populations because it does not affect the level of protection provided to human health or the environment. However, this final rule will provide additional benefits to these demographic groups by improving the monitoring, compliance, and implementation of the NESHAP. G. What analysis of children’s environmental health did we conduct? The EPA does not believe the environmental health or safety risks addressed by this action present a disproportionate risk to children. The results of the POWC source category demographic analysis indicate that emissions from the source category expose approximately 4,300 people to a cancer risk at or above 1-in-1 million and no one is exposed to a chronic noncancer TOSHI greater than 1. The distribution of the population with risks above 1-in-1 million is 20 percent for ages 0 to 17, 62 percent for ages 18 to 64, and 17 percent for ages 65 and up. Children ages 0 to 17 constitute 23 percent of the population nationwide. Therefore, the analysis shows that actual emissions from 40 CFR part 63, subpart JJJJ facilities have a slightly smaller impact on children ages 0 to 17. This action’s health and risk assessments are contained in sections III and IV of the preamble to the proposed rule and further documented in the risk report titled Residual Risk Assessment for the Paper and Other Web Source Category in Support of the 2020 Risk and Technology Review Final Rule, which can be found in the docket for this action (Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– OAR–2018–0416). VI. 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. PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 41293 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 the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review. B. Executive Order 13771: Reducing Regulations and Controlling Regulatory Costs This action is not an Executive Order 13771 regulatory action because this action is not significant under Executive Order 12866. C. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) The information collection activities in this proposed rule have been submitted for approval to OMB under the PRA. The Information Collection Request (ICR) document that the EPA prepared has been assigned EPA ICR number 1951.09, OMB Control No. 2060–0511. You can find a copy of the ICR in the docket for this rule, and it is briefly summarized here. The information collection requirements are not enforceable until OMB approves them. The POWC NESHAP applies to existing facilities and new POWC facilities. In general, all NESHAP standards require initial notifications, notifications of compliance status, performance tests, performance evaluation reports, and periodic reports by the owners/operators of the affected facilities. They are also required to maintain records of the occurrence and duration of any malfunction in the operation of an affected facility, or any period during which the monitoring system is inoperative. These notifications, reports, and records are essential in determining compliance, and are required of all affected facilities subject to NESHAP. This information is being collected to assure compliance with 40 CFR part 63, subpart JJJJ. Respondents/affected entities: POWC facilities. Respondent’s obligation to respond: Mandatory (40 CFR Part 63, Subpart JJJJ). Estimated number of respondents: 170. Frequency of response: Initially, occasionally, and semiannually. Total estimated burden: 17,300 hours (per year). Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b). Total estimated cost: $2,735,000 (per year), includes $765,000 annualized capital and operation and maintenance costs. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to E:\FR\FM\09JYR2.SGM 09JYR2 41294 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 132 / Thursday, July 9, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 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. When OMB approves this ICR, the Agency will announce that approval in the Federal Register and publish a technical amendment to 40 CFR part 9 to display the OMB control number for the approved information collection activities contained in this final rule. this action present a disproportionate risk to children. This action’s health and risk assessments are contained in sections III and IV of this preamble and further documented in the risk report titled Residual Risk Assessment for the Paper and Other Web Source Category in Support of the 2020 Risk and Technology Review Final Rule, which can be found in the docket for this action (Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR– 2018–0416). D. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. The small entities subject to the requirements of this action and the annualized costs associated with the final requirements in this action for the affected small entities are described in section V.D above. I. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211 because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866. E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) This action does not contain any unfunded mandate of $100 million or more as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531–1538. 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. jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES2 G. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments This action does not have tribal implications as specified in Executive Order 13175. It will not have substantial direct effects on tribal governments, on the relationship between the federal government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the federal government and Indian tribes. No tribal governments own facilities subject to the NESHAP. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action. H. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is not economically significant as defined in Executive Order 12866, and because the EPA does not believe the environmental health risks or safety risks addressed by VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:54 Jul 08, 2020 Jkt 250001 J. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) and 1 CFR Part 51 This action involves technical standards. The EPA is finalizing the following six VCS as alternatives to EPA Method 24 and is incorporating them by reference for the first time in the finalized amendments: • ASTM D2369–10 (Reapproved 2015)e, ‘‘Standard Test Method for Volatile Content of Coatings.’’ This test method describes a procedure used for the determination of the weight percent volatile content of solvent-borne and waterborne coatings. • ASTM D2697–03 (Reapproved 2014), ‘‘Standard Test Method for Volume Nonvolatile Matter in Clear or Pigmented Coatings.’’ This test method is applicable to the determination of the volume of nonvolatile matter in coatings. • ASTM D3960–98, ‘‘Standard Practice for Determining Volatile Organic Compound (VOC) Content of Paints and Related Coatings.’’ This test method is used for the measurement of the VOC content of solvent borne and waterborne paints and related coatings. This method is an acceptable alternative to EPA Method 24 because the regulation allows for the use of VOC content as a surrogate for HAP. • ASTM D6093–97 (Reapproved 2016), ‘‘Standard Test Method for Percent Volume Nonvolatile Matter in Clear or Pigmented Coatings Using a Helium Gas Pycnometer.’’ This test method is used for the determination of the percent volume nonvolatile matter in clear and pigmented coatings. • ASTM D2111–10 (Reapproved 2015), ‘‘Standard Test Methods for Specific Gravity of Halogenated Organic Solvents and Their Admixtures.’’ This test method is used for the PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 determination of the specific gravity of halogenated organic solvents and solvent admixtures. • ASTM D1963–85 (Reapproved 1996), ‘‘Standard Test Method for Specific Gravity of Drying Oils, Varnishes, Resins, and Related Materials at 25° C.’’ This test method is used for the determination of the specific gravity of drying oils, varnishes, alkyd resins, fatty acids, and related materials. This method is an acceptable alternative to EPA Method 24 for density only and may not be valid for all coatings and is valid at the designated temperature (25 degrees Celsius). This standard was withdrawn in 2004 with no replacement; there is no later version. These standards are reasonably available from the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM), 100 Barr Harbor Drive, Post Office Box C700, West Conshohocken, PA 19428–2959. See https://www.astm.org/. While the EPA has identified another 19 VCS as being potentially applicable to this NESHAP, we have decided not to use these VCS in this rulemaking. The use of these VCS would not be practical due to lack of equivalency, documentation, validation date, and other important technical and policy considerations. See the memorandum titled Voluntary Consensus Standard Results for National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Paper and Other Web Coating, in the docket for this rule for the reasons for these determinations (Docket ID Item No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2018–0416–0068). The revised regulatory text references ANSI/ASME PTC 19.10–1981 (40 CFR 63.3360) and ASTM D5087–02 (40 CFR 63.3165). These standards were previously approved for this section. That approval continues without change. 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. 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 E:\FR\FM\09JYR2.SGM 09JYR2 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 132 / Thursday, July 9, 2020 / Rules and Regulations contained in section V.F of this preamble and the technical report, Risk and Technology Review—Analysis of Demographic Factors for Populations Living Near Paper and Other Web Coating Facilities, which is available in the docket for this action (Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2018–0416). L. Congressional Review Act (CRA) This action is subject to the CRA, and the EPA will submit a rule report to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63 Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedures, Air pollution control, Hazardous substances, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Dated: March 11, 2020. Andrew R. Wheeler, Administrator. For the reasons set out in the preamble, 40 CFR part 63 is amended as follows: PART 63—NATIONAL EMISSION STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANTS FOR SOURCE CATEGORIES 1. The authority citation for part 63 continues to read as follows: ■ Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. Subpart A—General Provisions 2. Section 63.14 is amended by: a. Redesignating paragraphs (h)(49) through (114) as (h)(51) through (116) and paragraphs (h)(18) through (48) as (h)(19) through (49), respectively; ■ b. Adding new paragraphs (h)(18) and (50); and ■ c. Revising newly redesignated paragraphs (h)(21), (26), (30), and (80). The additions and revisions read as follows: ■ ■ § 63.14 Incorporations by reference. jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES2 * * * * * (h) * * * (18) ASTM D1963–85 (Reapproved 1996), Standard Test Method for Specific Gravity of Drying Oils, Varnishes, Resins, and Related Materials at 25/25°C, approved November 29, 1985, IBR approved for § 63.3360(c). * * * * * (21) ASTM D2111–10 (Reapproved 2015), Standard Test Methods for Specific Gravity and Density of Halogenated Organic Solvents and Their VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:54 Jul 08, 2020 Jkt 250001 Admixtures, approved June 1, 2015, IBR approved for §§ 63.3360(c), 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), 63.3360(c), 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), appendix A to subpart PPPP, 63.4741(a), 63.4941(a) and (b), and 63.4961(j). * * * * * (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), 63.3360(c), 63.3941(b), 63.4141(b), 63.4741(a) and (b), and 63.4941(b). * * * * * (50) ASTM 3960–98, Standard Practice for Determining Volatile Organic Compound (VOC) Content of Paints and Related Coatings, approved November 10, 1998, IBR approved for § 63.3360(c). * * * * * (80) 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), 63.3360(c), 63.3941(b), 63.4141(b), 63.4741(a) and (b), and 63.4941(b). * * * * * Subpart JJJJ—National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Paper and Other Web Coating 3. Section 63.3300 is amended by: a. Revising the introductory text and paragraphs (a), (b), (d), (e) and (f); and ■ b. Adding paragraphs (h) through (j). The revisions and additions read as follows: ■ ■ § 63.3300 Which of my emission sources are affected by this subpart? The affected source subject to this subpart is the collection of all web coating lines at your facility. This includes web coating lines engaged in the coating of metal webs that are used in flexible packaging, and web coating lines engaged in the coating of fabric substrates for use in pressure sensitive tape and abrasive materials. Web coating lines specified in paragraphs (a) through (g) of this section are not part of the affected source of this subpart. (a) Any web coating line that is standalone equipment under subpart KK of PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 41295 this part (National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for the Printing and Publishing Industry) which the owner or operator includes in the affected source under subpart KK. (b) Any web coating line that is a product and packaging rotogravure or wide-web flexographic press under subpart KK of this part (NESHAP for the Printing and Publishing Industry) which is included in the affected source under subpart KK. * * * * * (d) Any web coating line subject to subpart EE of this part (NESHAP for Magnetic Tape Manufacturing Operations). (e) Any web coating line subject to subpart SSSS of this part (NESHAP for Surface Coating of Metal Coil). (f) Any web coating line subject to subpart OOOO of this part (NESHAP for the Printing, Coating, and Dyeing of Fabrics and Other Textiles). This includes any web coating line that coats both a paper or other web substrate and a fabric or other textile substrate, except for a fabric substrate used for pressure sensitive tape and abrasive materials. * * * * * (h) Any web coating line that coats both paper or a web, and another substrate such as fabric, may comply with the subpart of this part that applies to the predominant activity conducted on the affected source. Predominant activity for this subpart is 90 percent of the mass of substrate coated during the compliance period. For example, a web coating line that coats 90 percent or more of a paper substrate, and 10 percent or less of a fabric or other textile substrate, would be subject to this subpart and not subpart OOOO of this part. You may use data for any reasonable time period of at least one year in determining the relative amount of coating activity, as long as they are expected to represent the way the source will continue to operate in the future. You must demonstrate and document the predominant activity annually. (i) Any web coating line subject to this part that is modified to include printing activities, may continue to demonstrate compliance with this part, in lieu of demonstrating compliance with subpart KK of this part. Any web coating line with product and packaging rotogravure print station(s) and/or a wide-web flexographic print station(s) that is subject to this subpart may elect to continue demonstrating compliance with this subpart in lieu of subpart KK of this part, if the mass of the materials applied to the line’s print station(s) in E:\FR\FM\09JYR2.SGM 09JYR2 41296 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 132 / Thursday, July 9, 2020 / Rules and Regulations a month ever exceed 5 percent of the total mass of materials applied onto the line during the same period. (j) If all of the subject web coating lines at your facility utilize non-HAP coatings, you can become exempt from the reporting requirements of this subpart, provided you submit a onetime report as required in § 63.3370(s) to your permitting authority documenting the use of only non-HAP coatings. ■ 4. Section 63.3310 is amended by revising the definitions of ‘‘coating material(s)’’ and ‘‘web coating line’’ to read as follows: § 63.3310 subpart? What definitions are used in this * * * * * Coating material(s) means all liquid or semi-liquid materials (including the solids fraction of those materials as applied), such as inks, varnishes, adhesives (including hot melt adhesives or other hot melt materials), primers, solvents, reducers, and other materials applied to a substrate via a web coating line. Materials used to form a substrate or applied via vapor deposition, and dry abrasive materials deposited on top of a coated web, are not considered coating materials. * * * * * Web coating line means any number of work stations, of which one or more applies a continuous layer of liquid or semi-liquid coating material across the entire width or any portion of the width of a web substrate, and any associated curing/drying equipment between an unwind or feed station and a rewind or cutting station. * * * * * ■ 5. Section 63.3320 is amended by revising paragraphs (b) introductory text and (b)(4) to read as follows: The revisions read as follows: § 63.3320 meet? What emission standards must I jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES2 * * * * * (b) You must limit organic HAP emissions to the level specified in paragraph (b)(1), (2), (3), or (4) of this section for all periods of operation, including startup, shutdown, and malfunction (SSM). * * * * * (4) If you use an oxidizer to control organic HAP emissions, operate the oxidizer such that an outlet organic HAP concentration of no greater than 20 parts per million by volume (ppmv) on a dry basis is achieved and the efficiency of the capture system is 100 percent. * * * * * VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:54 Jul 08, 2020 Jkt 250001 6. Section 63.3321 is amended by revising paragraph (a) to read as follows: ■ § 63.3321 meet? What operating limits must I (a) For any web coating line or group of web coating lines for which you use add-on control devices to demonstrate compliance with the emission standards in § 63.3320, unless you use a solvent recovery system and conduct a liquidliquid material balance, you must meet the operating limits specified in Table 1 to this subpart or according to paragraph (b) of this section. These operating limits apply to emission capture systems and control devices used to demonstrate compliance with this subpart, and you must establish the operating limits during the performance test according to the requirements in § 63.3360(e)(3). You must meet the operating limits at all times after you establish them. * * * * * ■ 7. Section 63.3330 is revised to read as follows: § 63.3330 When must I comply? (a) For affected sources which commenced construction or reconstruction prior to September 19, 2019, you must comply as follows: (1) Before July 9, 2021, the affected coating operation(s) must be in compliance with the applicable emission limit in § 63.3320 at all times, except during periods of SSM. On and after July 9, 2021, the affected coating operation(s) must be in compliance with the applicable emission limit in § 63.3320 at all times, including periods of SSM. (2) A periodic emissions performance test must be performed by July 9, 2023, or within 60 months of the previous test, whichever is later, and subsequent tests no later than 60 months thereafter, as required in § 63.3360. Performance testing for HAP or VOC destruction efficiency required by state agencies can be used to meet this requirement. (3) After July 9, 2021, you must electronically submit initial notifications, notifications of compliance status, performance evaluation reports, and performance test reports, as required in § 63.3400. Semiannual compliance reports must be submitted electronically for the first full semiannual compliance period after the template has been available in the Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface (CEDRI) for 1 year. (b) For new affected sources which commenced construction or reconstruction after September 19, 2019, you must comply as indicated in paragraphs (b)(1) through (3) of this PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 section. Existing affected sources which have undergone reconstruction as defined in § 63.2 are subject to the requirements for new affected sources. The costs associated with the purchase and installation of air pollution control equipment are not considered in determining whether the existing affected source has been reconstructed. Additionally, the costs of retrofitting and replacing of equipment that is installed specifically to comply with this subpart are not considered reconstruction costs. (1) The coating operation(s) must be in compliance with the applicable emission limit in § 63.3320 at all times, including periods of SSM, starting July 9, 2020, or immediately upon startup, whichever is later. (2) You must complete any initial performance test required in § 63.3360 within the time limits specified in § 63.7(a)(2), and subsequent tests no later than 60 months thereafter. (3) You must electronically submit initial notifications, notifications of compliance status, performance evaluation reports, and performance test reports as required in § 63.3400 starting July 9, 2020, or immediately upon startup, whichever is later. Semiannual compliance reports must be submitted electronically for the first full semiannual compliance period after the template has been available in CEDRI for 1 year. ■ 8. Section 63.3340 is revised to read as follows: § 63.3340 What general requirements must I meet to comply with the standards? (a) Before July 9, 2021, for each existing source for which construction or reconstruction commenced on or before September 19, 2019, you must be in compliance with the emission limits and operating limits in this subpart at all times, except during periods of SSM. On and after July 9, 2021, for each such source you must be in compliance with the emission limits and operating limits in this subpart at all times. For new and reconstructed sources for which construction or reconstruction commenced after September 19, 2019, you must be in compliance with the emission limits and operating limits in this subpart at all times, starting July 9, 2020, or immediately upon startup, whichever is later. (b) For affected sources as of September 19, 2019, before July 9, 2021, 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 E:\FR\FM\09JYR2.SGM 09JYR2 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 132 / Thursday, July 9, 2020 / Rules and Regulations and after July 9, 2021, for such sources and on July 9, 2020, or immediately upon startup, whichever is later, for new or reconstructed affected sources, you must always operate and maintain your affected source, including associated air pollution control equipment and monitoring equipment, in a manner consistent with safety and good air pollution control practices for minimizing emissions. The general duty to minimize emissions does not require the owner or operator to make any further efforts to reduce emissions if levels required by the applicable standard have been achieved. Determination of whether a source is operating in compliance with operation and maintenance requirements will be based on information available to the Administrator which may include, but is not limited to, monitoring results, review of operation and maintenance procedures, review of operation and maintenance records, and inspection of the source. (c) You must conduct each performance test required by § 63.3360 according to the requirements in § 63.3360(e)(2) and under the conditions in this section unless you obtain a waiver of the performance test according to the provisions in § 63.7(h). (1) Representative coating operation operating conditions. You must conduct the performance test under representative operating conditions for the coating operation. Operations during periods of startup, shutdown, and nonoperation do not constitute representative conditions. You may not conduct performance tests during periods of malfunction. You must record the process information that is necessary to document operating conditions during the test and explain why the conditions represent normal operation. Upon request, you shall make available to the Administrator such records as may be necessary to determine the conditions of performance tests. (2) Representative emission capture system and add-on control device operating conditions. You must conduct the performance test when the emission capture system and add-on control device are operating at a representative flow rate, and the add-on control device is operating at a representative inlet concentration. Representative conditions exclude periods of startup and shutdown. You may not conduct performance tests during periods of malfunction. You must record information that is necessary to document emission capture system and add-on control device operating conditions during the test and explain VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:54 Jul 08, 2020 Jkt 250001 why the conditions represent normal operation. (d) Table 2 to this subpart specifies the provisions of subpart A of this part that apply if you are subject to subpart JJJJ. ■ 9. Section 63.3350 is amended by: ■ a. Revising paragraphs (b), (c) introductory text, (d)(1)(iii), (e) introductory text, and (e)(2) and (4); ■ b. Redesignating paragraphs (e)(5) through (10) as paragraphs (e)(6) through (11); ■ c. Adding new paragraph (e)(5); and ■ d. Revising newly redesignated paragraph (e)(10). The revisions and addition read as follows: § 63.3350 If I use a control device to comply with the emission standards, what monitoring must I do? * * * * * (b) Following the date on which the initial or periodic performance test of a control device is completed to demonstrate continuing compliance with the standards, you must monitor and inspect each capture system and each control device used to comply with § 63.3320. You must install and operate the monitoring equipment as specified in paragraphs (c) and (f) of this section. (c) Bypass and coating use monitoring. If you own or operate web coating lines with intermittentlycontrolled work stations, you must monitor bypasses of the control device and the mass of each coating material applied at the work station during any such bypass. If using a control device for complying with the requirements of this subpart, you must demonstrate that any coating material applied on a nevercontrolled work station or an intermittently-controlled work station operated in bypass mode is allowed in your compliance demonstration according to § 63.3370(o) and (p). The bypass monitoring must be conducted using at least one of the procedures in paragraphs (c)(1) through (4) of this section for each work station and associated dryer. * * * * * (d) * * * (1) * * * (iii) You must have valid data from at least 90 percent of the hours when the process is operated. Invalid or missing data should be reported as a deviation in the semiannual compliance report. * * * * * (e) Continuous parameter monitoring system (CPMS). If you are using a control device to comply with the emission standards in § 63.3320, you must install, operate, and maintain each PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 41297 CPMS specified in paragraphs (e)(10) and (11) and (f) of this section according to the requirements in paragraphs (e)(1) through (9) of this section. You must install, operate, and maintain each CPMS specified in paragraph (c) of this section according to paragraphs (e)(5) through (8) of this section. * * * * * (2) You must have valid data from at least 90 percent of the hours when the process operated. * * * * * (4) You must determine the block 3hour average of all recorded readings for each operating period. To calculate the average for each 3-hour averaging period, you must have at least two of three of the hourly averages for that period using only average values that are based on valid data (i.e., not from out-of-control periods). (5) Except for temperature sensors, you must develop a quality control program that must contain, at a minimum, a written protocol that describes the procedures for each of the operations in § 63.3350(e)(5)(i) through (vi). The owner or operator shall keep these written procedures on record for the life of the affected source or until the affected source is no longer subject to the provisions of this part, to be made available for inspection, upon request, by the Administrator. If the performance evaluation plan is revised, the owner or operator shall keep previous (i.e., superseded) versions of the performance evaluation plan on record to be made available for inspection, upon request, by the Administrator, for a period of 5 years after each revision to the plan. For temperature sensors, you must follow the requirements in § 63.3350(e)(10). (i) Initial and any subsequent calibration of the continuous monitoring system (CMS); (ii) Determination and adjustment of the calibration drift of the CMS; (iii) Preventative maintenance of the CMS, including spare parts inventory; (iv) Data recording, calculations, and reporting; (v) Accuracy audit procedures, including sampling and analysis methods; and (vi) Program of corrective action for a malfunctioning CMS. * * * * * (10) Oxidizer. If you are using an oxidizer to comply with the emission standards of this subpart, you must comply with paragraphs (e)(10)(i) through (vi) of this section. (i) Install, maintain, and operate temperature monitoring equipment according to the manufacturer’s specifications. E:\FR\FM\09JYR2.SGM 09JYR2 41298 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 132 / Thursday, July 9, 2020 / Rules and Regulations (ii) For an oxidizer other than a catalytic oxidizer, install, operate, and maintain a temperature monitoring device equipped with a continuous recorder. The device must be capable of monitoring temperature with an accuracy of ±1 percent of the temperature being monitored in degrees Fahrenheit or ±1.8 degrees Fahrenheit, whichever is greater. The temperature sensor must be installed in the combustion chamber at a location in the combustion zone. (iii) For a catalytic oxidizer, install, operate, and maintain a temperature monitoring device equipped with a continuous recorder. The device must be capable of monitoring temperature with an accuracy of ±1 percent of the temperature being monitored in degrees Fahrenheit or ±1.8 degrees Fahrenheit, whichever is greater. The temperature sensor must be installed in the vent stream at the nearest feasible point to the inlet and outlet of the catalyst bed. Calculate the temperature rise across the catalyst. (iv) For temperature sensors, you must develop a quality control program that must contain, at a minimum, a written protocol that describes the procedures for verifying that the temperature sensor is operating properly using at least one of the methods in paragraph (e)(10)(iv)(A), (B), (C), (D), (E), or (F) of this section. The owner or operator shall keep these written procedures on record for the life of the affected source or until the affected source is no longer subject to the provisions of this part, to be made available for inspection, upon request, by the Administrator: (A) Semiannually, compare measured readings to a National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) traceable temperature measurement device or simulate a typical operating temperature using a NIST traceable temperature simulation device. When the temperature measurement device method is used, the sensor of the calibrated device must be placed as close as practicable to the process sensor, and both devices must be subjected to the same environmental conditions. The accuracy of the temperature measured must be 2.5 percent of the temperature measured by the NIST traceable device or 5 degrees Fahrenheit whichever is greater. (B) Annually validate the temperature sensor by following applicable mechanical and electrical validation procedures in the manufacturer owner’s manual. (C) Annually request the temperature sensor manufacturer to certify or recertify electromotive force (electrical properties) of the thermocouple. (D) Annually replace the temperature sensor with a new certified temperature sensor in lieu of validation. (E) Permanently install a redundant temperature sensor as close as If you control organic HAP on any individual web coating line or any group of web coating lines to demonstrate compliance with the emission limits in § 63.3320 by: (1) Limiting organic HAP or volatile matter content of coatings. jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES2 (2) Using a capture and control system ................................... (b) Control Device. If you are using a control device to comply with the emission standards in § 63.3320, you are not required to conduct a performance test to demonstrate compliance if one or VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:54 Jul 08, 2020 Jkt 250001 Frm 00024 § 63.3360 What performance tests must I conduct? (a) The performance test methods you must conduct are as follows: You must: Determine the organic HAP or volatile matter and coating solids content of coating materials according to procedures in paragraphs (c) and (d) of this section. If applicable, determine the mass of volatile matter retained in the coated web or otherwise not emitted to the atmosphere according to paragraph (g) of this section. (i) Initially, conduct a performance test for each capture and control system to determine: The destruction or removal efficiency of each control device other than solvent recovery according to § 63.3360(e), and the capture efficiency of each capture system according to § 63.3360(f). If applicable, determine the mass of volatile matter retained in the coated web or otherwise not emitted to the atmosphere according to § 63.3360(g). (ii) Perform a periodic test once every 5 years for each thermal oxidizer to determine the destruction or removal efficiency according to § 63.3360(e). If applicable, determine the mass of volatile matter retained in the coated web or otherwise not emitted to the atmosphere according to § 63.3360(g). (iii) Either perform a periodic test once every 5 years for each catalytic oxidizer to determine the destruction or removal efficiency according to § 63.3360(e) OR perform a catalyst activity test annually on each catalytic oxidizer to ensure that the catalyst is performing properly according to § 63.3360(e)(3)(ii)(D)(1). If applicable, determine the mass of volatile matter retained in the coated web or otherwise not emitted to the atmosphere according to § 63.3360(g). more of the criteria in paragraphs (b)(1) through (3) of this section are met. (1) The control device is equipped with continuous emission monitoring systems (CEMS) for determining inlet PO 00000 practicable to the process temperature sensor. The sensors must yield a reading within 2.5 percent of each other for thermal oxidizers and catalytic oxidizers. (F) Permanently install a temperature sensor with dual sensors to account for the possibility of failure. (v) Conduct the validation checks in paragraph (e)(10)(iv)(A), (B), or (C) of this section any time the temperature sensor exceeds the manufacturer’s specified maximum operating temperature range or install a new temperature sensor. (vi) At least quarterly, inspect temperature sensor components for proper connection and integrity or continuously operate an electronic monitoring system designed to notify personnel if the signal from the temperature sensor is interrupted. * * * * * ■ 10. Section 63.3360 is amended by: ■ a. Revising paragraphs (a), (b), (c)(1)(i), and (c)(2) through (4), (d)(1) through (3), and (e)(1) through (3); ■ b. Adding paragraph (e)(4); and ■ c. Revising the paragraphs (f) introductory text and (g). The revisions and addition read as follows: Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 and outlet total organic volatile matter concentration and meeting the requirements of Performance Specification 6, 8, or 9 in Appendix B to 40 CFR Part 60 and capture efficiency E:\FR\FM\09JYR2.SGM 09JYR2 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 132 / Thursday, July 9, 2020 / Rules and Regulations has been determined in accordance with the requirements of this subpart such that an overall organic HAP control efficiency can be calculated, and the CEMS are used to demonstrate continuous compliance in accordance with § 63.3350; or (2) You have met the requirements of § 63.7(h) (for waiver of performance testing); or (3) The control device is a solvent recovery system and you comply by means of a monthly liquid-liquid material balance. (c) * * * (1) * * * (i) Include each organic HAP determined to be present at greater than or equal to 0.1 mass percent for Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA)-defined carcinogens as specified in section A.6.4 of appendix A to 29 CFR 1910.1200 and greater than or equal to 1.0 mass percent for other organic HAP compounds. * * * * * (2) Method 24. For coatings, determine the volatile organic content as mass fraction of nonaqueous volatile matter and use it as a substitute for organic HAP using Method 24 of appendix A–7 to 40 CFR part 60. The Method 24 determination may be performed by the manufacturer of the coating and the results provided to you. One of the voluntary consensus standards in paragraphs (c)(2)(i) through (v) of this section may be used as an alternative to using Method 24. (i) ASTM D1963–85 (Reapproved 1996), (incorporated by reference, see § 63.14); (ii) ASTM D2111–10 (Reapproved 2015), (incorporated by reference, see § 63.14); (iii) ASTM D2369–10 (Reapproved 2015)e, (incorporated by reference, see § 63.14); (iv) ASTM D2697–03 (Reapproved 2014), (incorporated by reference, see § 63.14); and (v) ASTM D6093–97 (Reapproved 2016), (incorporated by reference, see § 63.14). (3) Formulation data. You may use formulation data to determine the organic HAP mass fraction of a coating material. Formulation data may be provided to the owner or operator by the manufacturer of the material. In the event of an inconsistency between Method 311 (appendix A to this part) test data and a facility’s formulation data, and the Method 311 test value is higher, the Method 311 data will govern. Formulation data may be used provided that the information represents all organic HAP present at a level equal VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:54 Jul 08, 2020 Jkt 250001 to or greater than 0.1 percent for OSHAdefined carcinogens as specified in section A.6.4 of appendix A to 29 CFR 1910.1200 and equal to or greater than 1.0 percent for other organic HAP compounds in any raw material used. (4) As-applied organic HAP mass fraction. If the as-purchased coating material is applied to the web without any solvent or other material added, then the as-applied organic HAP mass fraction is equal to the as-purchased organic HAP mass fraction. Otherwise, the as-applied organic HAP mass fraction must be calculated using Equation 4 of § 63.3370. (d) * * * (1) Method 24. You may determine the volatile organic and coating solids mass fraction of each coating applied using Method 24 (appendix A–7 to 40 CFR part 60). The Method 24 determination may be performed by the manufacturer of the material and the results provided to you. When using volatile organic compound content as a surrogate for HAP, you may also use ASTM D3960–98, (incorporated by reference, see § 63.14) as an alternative to Method 24. If these values cannot be determined using either of these methods, you must submit an alternative technique for determining their values for approval by the Administrator. (2) Formulation data. You may determine the volatile organic content and coating solids content of a coating material based on formulation data and may rely on volatile organic content data provided by the manufacturer of the material. In the event of any inconsistency between the formulation data and the results of Method 24 of appendix A–7 to 40 CFR part 60 and the Method 24 results are higher, the results of Method 24 will govern. (3) As-applied volatile organic content and coating solids content. If the aspurchased coating material is applied to the web without any solvent or other material added, then the as-applied volatile organic content is equal to the as-purchased volatile content and the as-applied coating solids content is equal to the as-purchased coating solids content. Otherwise, the as-applied volatile organic content must be calculated using Equation 5 to § 63.3370(c)(4) and the as-applied coating solids content must be calculated using Equation 6 to § 63.3370(d). (e) * * * (1) Initial performance test. An initial performance test to establish the destruction or removal efficiency of the control device used to comply with the emission standards in § 63.3320 must be PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 41299 conducted such that control device inlet and outlet testing is conducted simultaneously, and the data are reduced in accordance with the test methods and procedures in paragraphs (e)(1)(i) through (ix) of this section. You must conduct three test runs as specified in § 63.7(e)(3), and each test run must last at least 1 hour. (i) Method 1 or 1A of appendix A–1 to 40 CFR part 60 must be used for sample and velocity traverses to determine sampling locations. (ii) Method 2, 2A, 2C, 2D, or 2F of appendix A–1 to 40 CFR part 60, or Method 2G of appendix A–2 to 40 CFR part 60 must be used to determine gas volumetric flow rate. (iii) Method 3, 3A, or 3B of appendix A–2 to 40 CFR part 60 must be used for gas analysis to determine dry molecular weight. You may also use as an alternative to Method 3B the manual method for measuring the oxygen, carbon dioxide, and carbon monoxide content of exhaust gas in ANSI/ASME PTC 19.10–1981 Part 10, (incorporated by reference, see § 63.14). (iv) Method 4 of appendix A–3 to 40 CFR part 60 must be used to determine stack gas moisture. (v) Methods for determining the gas volumetric flow rate, dry molecular weight, and stack gas moisture must be performed, as applicable, during each test run. (vi) Method 25 or 25A of appendix A– 7 to 40 CFR part 60 must be used to determine total gaseous non-methane organic matter concentration. Use the same test method for both the inlet and outlet measurements which must be conducted simultaneously. You must submit notice of the intended test method to the Administrator for approval along with notification of the performance test required under § 63.7(b). You must use Method 25A if any of the conditions described in paragraphs (e)(1)(vi)(A) through (D) of this section apply to the control device. (A) The control device is not an oxidizer. (B) The control device is an oxidizer but an exhaust gas volatile organic matter concentration of 50 ppmv or less is required to comply with the emission standards in § 63.3320; or (C) The control device is an oxidizer but the volatile organic matter concentration at the inlet to the control system and the required level of control are such that they result in exhaust gas volatile organic matter concentrations of 50 ppmv or less; or (D) The control device is an oxidizer but because of the high efficiency of the control device the anticipated volatile organic matter concentration at the E:\FR\FM\09JYR2.SGM 09JYR2 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 132 / Thursday, July 9, 2020 / Rules and Regulations the conditions that exist when the affected source is operating under normal operating conditions. For the purpose of determining volatile organic compound concentrations and mass Where: Mf = Total organic volatile matter mass flow rate, kilograms (kg)/hour (h). Qsd = Volumetric flow rate of gases entering or exiting the control device, as determined according to paragraph (e)(1)(ii) of this section, dry standard cubic meters (dscm)/h. Cc = Concentration of organic compounds as carbon, ppmv. 12.0 = Molecular weight of carbon. 0.0416 = Conversion factor for molar volume, kg-moles per cubic meter (mol/m3) (@293 Where: E = Organic volatile matter control efficiency of the control device, percent. Mfi = Organic volatile matter mass flow rate at the inlet to the control device, kg/h. Mfo = Organic volatile matter mass flow rate at the outlet of the control device, kg/h. requirements in paragraphs (e)(3)(i) and (ii) of this section. (i) Thermal oxidizer. If your add-on control device is a thermal oxidizer, establish the operating limits according to paragraphs (e)(3)(i)(A) and (B) of this section. (A) During the performance test, 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. (B) Use the data collected during the performance test to calculate and record the average combustion temperature maintained during the performance test. Maintain the 3-hour average combustion temperature no more than 50 degrees Fahrenheit lower than this average combustion temperature. (ii) Catalytic oxidizer. If your add-on control device is a catalytic oxidizer, establish the operating limits according to paragraphs (e)(3)(ii)(A) and (B) or paragraphs (e)(3)(ii)(C) and (D) of this section. (A) During the performance test, 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. (B) 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 (x) The control device destruction or removal efficiency is determined as the average of the efficiencies determined in the test runs and calculated in Equation 2. (2) Process information. You must record such process information as may be necessary to determine the conditions in existence at the time of the performance test. Representative conditions exclude periods of startup and shutdown. You may not conduct performance tests during periods of malfunction. You must record the process information that is necessary to document operating conditions during the test and include in such record an explanation to support that such conditions represent normal operation. Upon request, you shall make available to the Administrator such records as may be necessary to determine the conditions of performance tests. (3) Operating limits. If you are using one or more add-on control device other than a solvent recovery system for which you conduct a liquid-liquid material balance to comply with the emission standards in § 63.3320, you must establish the applicable operating limits required by § 63.3321. These operating limits apply to each add-on emission control device, and you must establish the operating limits during the performance test required by paragraph (e) of this section according to the VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:54 Jul 08, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 flow rates, the average of the results of all the runs will apply. (viii) Volatile organic matter mass flow rates must be determined for each run specified in paragraph (e)(1)(vii) of this section using Equation 1: Kelvin (K) and 760 millimeters of mercury (mmHg)). (ix) For each run, emission control device destruction or removal efficiency must be determined using Equation 2: performance test. Maintain the 3-hour average combustion temperature no more than 50 degrees Fahrenheit lower than this average combustion temperature or maintain the 3-hour average temperature difference across the catalyst bed at no less than 80 percent of this average temperature differential, provided that the minimum temperature is always 50 degrees Fahrenheit above the catalyst’s ignition temperature. (C) As an alternative to monitoring the temperature difference across the catalyst bed, you may monitor the temperature at the inlet to the catalyst bed and implement a site-specific inspection and maintenance plan for your catalytic oxidizer as specified in paragraph (e)(3)(ii)(D) 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. Use the data collected during the performance test to calculate and record the average temperature just before the catalyst bed during the performance test. Maintain the 3-hour average combustion temperature no more than 50 degrees Fahrenheit lower than this average combustion temperature. (D) You must develop and implement an inspection and maintenance plan for your catalytic oxidizer(s) for which you elect to monitor according to paragraph (e)(3)(ii)(C) of this section. The plan must address, at a minimum, the elements specified in paragraphs (e)(3)(ii)(D)(1) through (3) of this section. E:\FR\FM\09JYR2.SGM 09JYR2 ER09JY20.000</GPH> control device exhaust is 50 ppmv or less, regardless of inlet concentration. (vii) Except as provided in § 63.7(e)(3), each performance test must consist of three separate runs with each run conducted for at least 1 hour under ER09JY20.023</GPH> jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES2 41300 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 132 / Thursday, July 9, 2020 / Rules and Regulations jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES2 Where: Mvret = Mass of volatile matter retained in the coated web after curing or drying, or otherwise not emitted to the atmosphere, kg. Cvi = Volatile organic content of coating material, i, expressed as a mass fraction, kg/kg. Mi = Mass of as-purchased coating material, i, applied in a month, kg. q = Number of different materials added to the coating material. Cvij = Volatile organic content of material, j, added to as-purchased coating material, i, expressed as a mass fraction, kg/kg. Mij = Mass of material, j, added to aspurchased coating material, i, in a month, kg. EFi = Volatile organic matter site- and product-specific emission factor (threerun average determined from performance testing, evaluated as proportion of mass volatile organics emitted to mass of volatile organics in varying temperatures for your control device. (f) Capture efficiency. If you demonstrate compliance by meeting the requirements of § 63.3370(f), (g), (h), (i), (j)(2), (l), (o)(2) or (3), or (q), you must determine capture efficiency using the procedures in paragraph (f)(1), (2), or (3) of this section, as applicable. * * * * * (g) Volatile matter retained in the coated web or otherwise not emitted to the atmosphere. You may choose to take into account the mass of volatile matter retained in the coated web after curing or drying or otherwise not emitted to the atmosphere when determining compliance with the emission standards in § 63.3320. If you choose this option, you must develop a site- and productspecific emission factor (EF) and determine the amount of volatile matter retained in the coated web or otherwise not emitted using Equation 3 to § 63.3360(g)(1). The EF must be developed by conducting a performance test using an approved EPA test method, or alternative approved by the Administrator by obtaining the average of a three-run test. You may additionally use manufacturer’s emissions test data (as long as it replicates the facility’s the coatings used during the performance test). (2) [Reserved] * * * * ■ 11. Section 63.3370 is amended by: ■ a. Adding introductory text; ■ b. Revising paragraphs (a), (c)(1)(ii), (c)(2)(i) and (ii), (c)(3) and (4), and (d); ■ c. Redesignating paragraphs (e) through (p) as paragraphs (f) through (q); ■ d. Adding new paragraph (e); ■ e. Revising newly redesignated paragraphs (f) through (m) and (o) though (q); and ■ f. Adding paragraphs (r) and (s). The additions and revisions read as follows: * § 63.3370 How do I demonstrate compliance with the emission standards? You must demonstrate compliance each month with the emission coating formulation and operating conditions), or a mass-balance type approach using a modified Method 24 (including ASTM D5403–93 for radiation-cureable coatings). The EF should equal the proportion of the mass of volatile organics emitted to the mass of volatile organics in the coating materials evaluated. You may use the EF in your compliance calculations only for periods that the work station(s) was (were) used to make the product, or a similar product, corresponding to that produced during the performance test. You must develop a separate EF for each group of different products that you choose to utilize an EF for calculating emissions by conducting a separate performance test for that group of products. You must conduct a periodic performance test to re-establish the EF if there is a change in coating formulation, operating conditions, or other change that could reasonably be expected to increase emissions since the time of the last test that was used to establish the EF. (1) Calculate the mass of volatile organics retained in the coated web or otherwise not emitted for the month from each group of similar products using Equation 3: limitations in § 63.3320(b)(1) through (4). For each monthly demonstration, you may apply any combination of the emission limitations to each of your web coating lines individually, to each of one or more groupings of your lines (including a single grouping encompassing all lines of your affected source), or to any combination of individual and grouped lines, so long as each web coating line is included in the compliance demonstration for the month (i.e., you are not required to apply the same emission limitation to each of the individual lines or groups of lines). You may change the emission limitation that you apply each month to your individual or grouped lines, and you may change line groupings for your monthly compliance demonstration. (a) A summary of how you must demonstrate compliance follows: If you choose to demonstrate compliance by: Then you must demonstrate that: To accomplish this: (1) Use of ‘‘as-purchased’’ compliant coating materials. (i) Each coating material used at an existing affected source does not exceed 0.04 kg organic HAP per kg coating material, and each coating material used at a new affected source does not exceed 0.016 kg organic HAP per kg coating material as-purchased; or. Follow the procedures set out in § 63.3370(b). VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:54 Jul 08, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\09JYR2.SGM 09JYR2 ER09JY20.018</GPH> (1) Annual sampling and analysis of the catalyst activity (i.e., conversion efficiency) following the manufacturer’s or catalyst supplier’s recommended procedures, (2) Monthly inspection of the oxidizer system including the burner assembly and fuel supply lines for problems, and (3) Annual internal and monthly external visual inspection of the catalyst bed to check for channeling, abrasion, and settling. If problems are found, you must take corrective action consistent with the manufacturer’s recommendations and conduct a new performance test to determine destruction efficiency in accordance with this section. (4) Control Destruction Efficiency Curve Development. If you are using one or more add-on control devices other than a solvent recovery system for which you conduct a liquid-liquid material balance to comply with the emission standards in § 63.3320, you may establish a control destruction efficiency curve for use in estimating emissions that occur during deviations of the 3-hour operating parameters. This curve can be generated using test data or manufacturer’s data that specifically documents the level of control at 41301 41302 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 132 / Thursday, July 9, 2020 / Rules and Regulations If you choose to demonstrate compliance by: (2) Use of ‘‘as-applied’’ compliant coating materials. Then you must demonstrate that: To accomplish this: (ii) Each coating material used at an existing affected source does not exceed 0.2 kg organic HAP per kg coating solids, and each coating material used at a new affected source does not exceed 0.08 kg organic HAP per kg coating solids as-purchased. (i) Each coating material used at an existing affected source does not exceed 0.04 kg organic HAP per kg coating material, and each coating material used at a new affected source does not exceed 0.016 kg organic HAP per kg coating material as-applied; or. Follow the procedures set out in § 63.3370(b). (ii) Each coating material used at an existing affected source does not exceed 0.2 kg organic HAP per kg coating solids, and each coating material used at a new affected source does not exceed 0.08 kg organic HAP per kg coating solids as-applied; or. (iii) Monthly average of all coating materials used at an existing affected source does not exceed 0.04 kg organic HAP per kg coating material, and monthly average of all coating materials used at a new affected source does not exceed 0.016 kg organic HAP per kg coating material as-applied on a monthly average basis; or. (iv) Monthly average of all coating materials used at an existing affected source does not exceed 0.2 kg organic HAP per kg coating solids, and monthly average of all coating materials used at a new affected source does not exceed 0.08 kg organic HAP per kg coating solids as-applied on a monthly average basis. (3) Tracking total monthly organic HAP applied. Total monthly organic HAP applied does not exceed the calculated limit based on emission limitations. (4) Accounting for volatile matter retained in the coated web or otherwise not emitted. (5) Use of a capture system and control device. A site- and product-specific emission factor was appropriately established for the group of products for which the site- and productspecific emission factor was used in the compliance calculations. (i) Overall organic HAP control efficiency is equal to 95 percent at an existing affected source and 98 percent at a new affected source on a monthly basis; or oxidizer outlet organic HAP concentration is no greater than 20 ppmv and capture efficiency is 100 percent; or operating parameters are continuously monitored; or. (ii) Overall organic HAP emission rate does not exceed 0.2 kg organic HAP per kg coating solids for an existing affected source or 0.08 kg organic HAP per kg coating solids for a new affected source on a monthly average as-applied basis;. (iii) Overall organic HAP emission rate does not exceed 0.04 kg organic HAP per kg coating material for an existing affected source or 0.016 kg organic HAP per kg coating material for a new affected source on a monthly average as-applied basis; or. jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES2 (iv) Overall organic HAP emission rate does not exceed the calculated limit based on emission limitations. VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:54 Jul 08, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\09JYR2.SGM Follow the procedures set out in § 63.3370(c)(1). Use either Equation 4 or 5 of § 63.3370 to determine compliance with § 63.3320(b)(2) in accordance with § 63.3370(c)(5)(i). Follow the procedures set out in § 63.3370(c)(2). Use Equations 6 and 7 of § 63.3370 to determine compliance with § 63.3320(b)(3) in accordance with § 63.3370(c)(5)(i). Follow the procedures set out in § 63.3370(c)(3). Use Equation 8 of § 63.3370 to determine compliance with § 63.3320(b)(2) in accordance with § 63.3370(c)(5)(ii). Follow the procedures set out in § 63.3370(c)(4). Use Equation 9 of § 63.3370 to determine compliance with § 63.3320(b)(3) in accordance with § 63.3370(c)(5)(ii). Follow the procedures set out in § 63.3370(d). Show that total monthly HAP applied (Equation 10 of § 63.3370) is less than the calculated equivalent allowable organic HAP (Equation 17 or 18 of § 63.3370). Follow the procedures set out in § 63.3360(g) and § 63.3370(e) Follow the procedures set out in § 63.3370(f) to determine compliance with § 63.3320(b)(1) according to § 63.3370(j) if using a solvent recovery device, or § 63.3370(k) if using a control device and CPMS, or § 63.3370(l) if using an oxidizer. Follow the procedures set out in § 63.3370(g) to determine compliance with § 63.3320(b)(3) according to § 63.3370(j) if using a solvent recovery device, or § 63.3370(l) if using an oxidizer. Follow the procedures set out in § 63.3370(h) to determine compliance with § 63.3320(b)(2) according to § 63.3370(j) if using a solvent recovery device, or § 63.3370(l) if using an oxidizer. Follow the procedures set out in § 63.3370(i). Show that the monthly organic HAP emission rate is less than the calculated equivalent allowable organic HAP emission rate (Equation 17 or 18 of § 63.3370). Calculate the monthly organic HAP emission rate according to § 63.3370(j) if using a solvent recovery device, or § 63.3370(l) if using an oxidizer. 09JYR2 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 132 / Thursday, July 9, 2020 / Rules and Regulations If you choose to demonstrate compliance by: Then you must demonstrate that: To accomplish this: (6) Use of multiple capture and/or control devices. (i) Overall organic HAP control efficiency is equal to 95 percent at an existing affected source and 98 percent at a new affected source on a monthly basis; or. Follow the procedures set out in § 63.3370(f) to determine compliance with § 63.3320(b)(1) according to § 63.3370(f)(1) or (2). Follow the procedures set out in § 63.3370(g) to determine compliance with § 63.3320(b)(3) according to § 63.3370(o). Follow the procedures set out in § 63.3370(h) to determine compliance with § 63.3320(b)(2) according to § 63.3370(o). Follow the procedures set out in § 63.3370(i). Show that the monthly organic HAP emission rate is less than the calculated equivalent allowable organic HAP emission rate (Equation 17 or 18 of § 63.3370) according to § 63.3370(o). Follow the procedures set out in § 63.3370(g) to determine compliance with § 63.3320(b)(3) according to § 63.3370(o). Follow the procedures set out in § 63.3370(h) to determine compliance with § 63.3320(b)(2) according to § 63.3370(o). Follow the procedures set out in § 63.3370(i). Show that the monthly organic HAP emission rate is less than the calculated equivalent allowable organic HAP emission rate (Equation 17 or 18 of § 63.3370) according to § 63.3370(o). Follow the procedures set out in § 63.3370(s). (ii) Average equivalent organic HAP emission rate does not exceed 0.2 kg organic HAP per kg coating solids for an existing affected source or 0.08 kg organic HAP per kg coating solids for a new affected source on a monthly average as-applied basis; or. (iii) Average equivalent organic HAP emission rate does not exceed 0.04 kg organic HAP per kg coating material for an existing affected source or 0.016 kg organic HAP per kg coating material for a new affected source on a monthly average as-applied basis; or. (iv) Average equivalent organic HAP emission rate does not exceed the calculated limit based on emission limitations. (7) Use of a combination of compliant coatings and control devices. (i) Average equivalent organic HAP emission rate does not exceed 0.2 kg organic HAP per kg coating solids for an existing affected source or 0.08 kg organic HAP per kg coating solids for a new affected source on a monthly average as-applied basis; or. (ii) Average equivalent organic HAP emission rate does not exceed 0.04 kg organic HAP per kg coating material for an existing affected source or 0.016 kg organic HAP per kg coating material for a new affected source on a monthly average as-applied basis; or. (iii) Average equivalent organic HAP emission rate does not exceed the calculated limit based on emission limitations. (8) Use of non-HAP coatings .......... All coatings for all coating lines at an affected source have organic HAP contents below 0.1 percent by mass for OSHA-defined carcinogens as specified in section A.6.4 of appendix A to 29 CFR 1910.1200, and below 1.0 percent by mass for other organic HAP compounds. * * (c) * * * (1) * * * * (ii) Calculate the as-applied organic HAP content of each coating material using Equation 4: * Where: Cahi = Monthly average, as-applied, organic HAP content of coating material, i, expressed as a mass fraction, kg/kg. Chi = Organic HAP content of coating material, i, as-purchased, expressed as a mass fraction, kg/kg. VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:54 Jul 08, 2020 Jkt 250001 Mi = Mass of as-purchased coating material, i, applied in a month, kg. q = number of different materials added to the coating material. Chij = Organic HAP content of material, j, added to as-purchased coating material, i, expressed as a mass fraction, kg/kg. PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 Mij = Mass of material, j, added to aspurchased coating material, i, in a month, kg. or calculate the as-applied volatile organic content of each coating material using Equation 5: E:\FR\FM\09JYR2.SGM 09JYR2 ER09JY20.001</GPH> * jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES2 41303 41304 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 132 / Thursday, July 9, 2020 / Rules and Regulations Where: Cavi = Monthly average, as-applied, volatile organic content of coating material, i, expressed as a mass fraction, kg/kg. Cvi = Volatile organic content of coating material, i, expressed as a mass fraction, kg/kg. Mi = Mass of as-purchased coating material, i, applied in a month, kg. q = Number of different materials added to the coating material. Cvij = Volatile organic content of material, j, added to as-purchased coating material, i, expressed as a mass fraction, kg/kg. Mij = Mass of material, j, added to aspurchased coating material, i, in a month, kg. Where: Csi = Coating solids content of coating material, i, expressed as a mass fraction, kg/kg. Mi = Mass of as-purchased coating material, i, applied in a month, kg. q = Number of different materials added to the coating material. Csij = Coating solids content of material, j, added to as-purchased coating material, i, expressed as a mass-fraction, kg/kg. Where: Hsi = As-applied, organic HAP to coating solids ratio of coating material, i. Cahi = Monthly average, as-applied, organic HAP content of coating material, i, expressed as a mass fraction, kg/kg. Casi = Monthly average, as-applied, coating solids content of coating material, i, expressed as a mass fraction, kg/kg. Where: HL = Monthly average, as-applied, organic HAP content of all coating materials applied, expressed as kg organic HAP per kg of coating material applied, kg/kg. p = Number of different coating materials applied in a month. Chi = Organic HAP content of coating material, i, as-purchased, expressed as a mass fraction, kg/kg. Mi = Mass of as-purchased coating material, i, applied in a month, kg. q = Number of different materials added to the coating material. (2) * * * Mij = Mass of material, j, added to aspurchased coating material, i, in a month, kg. (ii) Calculate the as-applied organic HAP to coating solids ratio using Equation 7: HAP content of all coating materials applied at an existing affected source is less than 0.04 kg organic HAP per kg of coating material applied, and all coating materials applied at a new affected source are less than 0.016 kg organic HAP per kg of coating material applied, as determined by Equation 8: VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:54 Jul 08, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\09JYR2.SGM 09JYR2 ER09JY20.003</GPH> ER09JY20.004</GPH> Chij = Organic HAP content of material, j, added to as-purchased coating material, i, expressed as a mass fraction, kg/kg. Mij = Mass of material, j, added to aspurchased coating material, i, in a month, kg. Mvret = Mass of volatile matter retained in the coated web after curing or drying, or otherwise not emitted to the atmosphere, ER09JY20.002</GPH> jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES2 ER09JY20.005</GPH> (3) Monthly average organic HAP content of all coating materials asapplied is less than the mass percent limit (§ 63.3320(b)(2)). Demonstrate that the monthly average as-applied organic (i) Determine the as-applied coating solids content of each coating material following the procedure in § 63.3360(d). You must calculate the as-applied coating solids content of coating materials which are reduced, thinned, or diluted prior to application, using Equation 6: Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 132 / Thursday, July 9, 2020 / Rules and Regulations (4) Monthly average organic HAP content of all coating materials asapplied is less than the mass fraction of coating solids limit (§ 63.3320(b)(3)). Demonstrate that the monthly average as-applied organic HAP content on the basis of coating solids applied of all coating materials applied at an existing affected source is less than 0.20 kg organic HAP per kg coating solids applied, and all coating materials applied at a new affected source are less than 0.08 kg organic HAP per kg coating solids applied, as determined by Equation 9: Where: Hs = Monthly average, as-applied, organic HAP to coating solids ratio, kg organic HAP/kg coating solids applied. p = Number of different coating materials applied in a month. Chi = Organic HAP content of coating material, i, as-purchased, expressed as a mass fraction, kg/kg. Mi = Mass of as-purchased coating material, i, applied in a month, kg. q = Number of different materials added to the coating material. Chij = Organic HAP content of material, j, added to as-purchased coating material, i, expressed as a mass fraction, kg/kg. Mij = Mass of material, j, added to aspurchased coating material, i, in a month, kg. Mvret = Mass of volatile matter retained in the coated web after curing or drying, or otherwise not emitted to the atmosphere, kg. The value of this term will be zero in all cases except where you choose to take into account the volatile matter retained in the coated web or otherwise not emitted to the atmosphere for the compliance demonstration procedures in § 63.3370. Csi = Coating solids content of coating material, i, expressed as a mass fraction, kg/kg. Csij = Coating solids content of material, j, added to as-purchased coating material, i, expressed as a mass-fraction, kg/kg. Where: Hm = Total monthly organic HAP applied, kg. p = Number of different coating materials applied in a month. Chi = Organic HAP content of coating material, i, as-purchased, expressed as a mass fraction, kg/kg. Mi = Mass of as-purchased coating material, i, applied in a month, kg. q = Number of different materials added to the coating material. Chij = Organic HAP content of material, j, added to as-purchased coating material, i, expressed as a mass fraction, kg/kg. Mij = Mass of material, j, added to aspurchased coating material, i, in a month, kg. Mvret = Mass of volatile matter retained in the coated web after curing or drying, or otherwise not emitted to the atmosphere, kg. The value of this term will be zero in all cases except where you choose to take into account the volatile matter retained in the coated web or otherwise not emitted to the atmosphere for the compliance demonstration procedures in § 63.3370. account volatile organic matter that is retained in the coated web or otherwise not emitted, you must identify each group of similar products that can utilize each site- and product-specific emission factor. Details regarding the test methods and calculations are provided in § 63.3360(g). (f) Capture and control to reduce emissions to no more than allowable limit (§ 63.3320(b)(1)). Operate a capture system and control device and demonstrate an overall organic HAP control efficiency of at least 95 percent at an existing affected source and at least 98 percent at a new affected source for each month, or operate a capture system and oxidizer so that an outlet organic HAP concentration of no greater than 20 ppmv on a dry basis is achieved as long as the capture efficiency is 100 percent as detailed in § 63.3320(b)(4). Unless one of the cases described in paragraph (f)(1), (2), or (3) of this section applies to the affected source, you must either demonstrate compliance in accordance with the procedure in paragraph (i) of this section when emissions from the affected source are controlled by a solvent recovery device, or the procedure in paragraph (l) of this section when emissions are controlled by an oxidizer or demonstrate compliance for a web coating line by operating each capture system and each control device and continuous parameter monitoring according to the procedures in paragraph (k) of this section. (1) If the affected source has only always-controlled work stations and operates more than one capture system or more than one control device, you must demonstrate compliance in accordance with the provisions of either paragraph (o) or (q) of this section. (2) If the affected source operates one or more never-controlled work stations or one or more intermittently-controlled work stations, you must demonstrate compliance in accordance with the provisions of paragraph (o) of this section. (3) An alternative method of demonstrating compliance with § 63.3320(b)(1) is the installation of a PTE around the web coating line that VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:54 Jul 08, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 * * * * (d) Monthly allowable organic HAP applied. Demonstrate that the total monthly organic HAP applied as determined by Equation 10 is less than the calculated equivalent allowable organic HAP as determined by Equation 17 or 18 in paragraph (m) of this section: E:\FR\FM\09JYR2.SGM 09JYR2 ER09JY20.007</GPH> (e) Accounting for volatile matter retained in the coated web or otherwise not emitted. If you choose to use the equation in § 63.3360(g) to take into * ER09JY20.006</GPH> jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES2 kg. The value of this term will be zero in all cases except where you choose to take into account the volatile matter retained in the coated web or otherwise not emitted to the atmosphere for the compliance demonstration procedures in § 63.3370. 41305 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 132 / Thursday, July 9, 2020 / Rules and Regulations achieves 100 percent capture efficiency and ventilation of all organic HAP emissions from the total enclosure to an oxidizer with an outlet organic HAP concentration of no greater than 20 ppmv on a dry basis. If this method is selected, you must demonstrate compliance by following the procedures in paragraphs (f)(3)(i) and (ii) of this section. Compliance is determined according to paragraph (f)(3)(iii) of this section. (i) Demonstrate that a total enclosure is installed. An enclosure that meets the requirements in § 63.3360(f)(1) will be considered a total enclosure. (ii) Determine the organic HAP concentration at the outlet of your total enclosure using the procedures in paragraph (f)(3)(ii)(A) or (B) of this section. (A) Determine the control device efficiency using Equation 2 of § 63.3360 and the applicable test methods and procedures specified in § 63.3360(e). (B) Use a CEMS to determine the organic HAP emission rate according to paragraphs (j)(2)(i) through (x) of this section. (iii) You are in compliance if the installation of a total enclosure is demonstrated and the organic HAP concentration at the outlet of the incinerator is demonstrated to be no greater than 20 ppmv on a dry basis. (g) Capture and control to achieve mass fraction of coating solids applied limit (§ 63.3320(b)(3)). Operate a capture system and control device and limit the organic HAP emission rate from an existing affected source to no more than 0.20 kg organic HAP emitted per kg coating solids applied, and from a new affected source to no more than 0.08 kg organic HAP emitted per kg coating solids applied as determined on a monthly average as-applied basis. If the affected source operates more than one capture system, more than one control device, one or more never-controlled work stations, or one or more intermittently-controlled work stations, then you must demonstrate compliance in accordance with the provisions of paragraph (o) of this section. Otherwise, you must demonstrate compliance following the procedure in paragraph (j) of this section when emissions from the affected source are controlled by a solvent recovery device or the procedure in paragraph (l) of this section when emissions are controlled by an oxidizer. (h) Capture and control to achieve mass fraction limit (§ 63.3320(b)(2)). Operate a capture system and control device and limit the organic HAP emission rate to no more than 0.04 kg organic HAP emitted per kg coating material applied at an existing affected source, and no more than 0.016 kg organic HAP emitted per kg coating material applied at a new affected source as determined on a monthly average as-applied basis. If the affected source operates more than one capture system, more than one control device, one or more never-controlled work stations, or one or more intermittentlycontrolled work stations, then you must demonstrate compliance in accordance with the provisions of paragraph (o) of this section. Otherwise, you must demonstrate compliance following the procedure in paragraph (j) of this section when emissions from the affected source are controlled by a solvent recovery device or the procedure in paragraph (l) of this section when emissions are controlled by an oxidizer. (i) Capture and control to achieve allowable emission rate. Operate a capture system and control device and limit the monthly organic HAP emissions to less than the allowable emissions as calculated in accordance with paragraph (m) of this section. If the affected source operates more than one capture system, more than one control device, one or more never-controlled work stations, or one or more intermittently-controlled work stations, then you must demonstrate compliance in accordance with the provisions of paragraph (o) of this section. Otherwise, the owner or operator must demonstrate compliance following the procedure in paragraph (j) of this section when emissions from the affected source are controlled by a solvent recovery device or the procedure in paragraph (l) of this section when emissions are controlled by an oxidizer. (j) Solvent recovery device compliance demonstration. If you use a solvent recovery device to control emissions, you must show compliance by following the procedures in either paragraph (j)(1) or (2) of this section: (1) Liquid-liquid material balance. Perform a monthly liquid-liquid material balance as specified in paragraphs (j)(1)(i) through (v) of this section and use the applicable equations in paragraphs (j)(1)(vi) through (ix) of this section to convert the data to units of the selected compliance option in paragraphs (f) through (i) of this section. Compliance is determined in accordance with paragraph (j)(1)(x) of this section. (i) Determine the mass of each coating material applied on the web coating line or group of web coating lines controlled by a common solvent recovery device during the month. (ii) If demonstrating compliance on the basis of organic HAP emission rate based on coating solids applied, organic HAP emission rate based on coating material applied, or emission of less than the calculated allowable organic HAP, determine the organic HAP content of each coating material asapplied during the month following the procedure in § 63.3360(c). (iii) Determine the volatile organic content of each coating material asapplied during the month following the procedure in § 63.3360(d). (iv) If demonstrating compliance on the basis of organic HAP emission rate based on coating solids applied or emission of less than the calculated allowable organic HAP, determine the coating solids content of each coating material applied during the month following the procedure in § 63.3360(d). (v) Determine and monitor the amount of volatile organic matter recovered for the month according to the procedures in § 63.3350(d). (vi) Recovery efficiency. Calculate the volatile organic matter collection and recovery efficiency using Equation 11: Where: Rv = Organic volatile matter collection and recovery efficiency, percent. Mvr = Mass of volatile matter recovered in a month, kg. Mvret = Mass of volatile matter retained in the coated web after curing or drying, or otherwise not emitted to the atmosphere, kg. The value of this term will be zero in all cases except where you choose to take into account the volatile matter VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:54 Jul 08, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\09JYR2.SGM 09JYR2 ER09JY20.008</GPH> jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES2 41306 Mi = Mass of as-purchased coating material, i, applied in a month, kg. q = Number of different materials added to the coating material. Cvij = Volatile organic content of material, j, added to as-purchased coating material, i, expressed as a mass fraction, kg/kg. Where: He = Total monthly organic HAP emitted, kg. Rv = Organic volatile matter collection and recovery efficiency, percent. p = Number of different coating materials applied in a month. Chi = Organic HAP content of coating material, i, as-purchased, expressed as a mass fraction, kg/kg. Mi = Mass of as-purchased coating material, i, applied in a month, kg. q = Number of different materials added to the coating material. Chij = Organic HAP content of material, j, added to as-purchased coating material, i, expressed as a mass fraction, kg/kg. Mij = Mass of material, j, added to aspurchased coating material, i, in a month, kg. Mvret = Mass of volatile matter retained in the coated web after curing or drying, or otherwise not emitted to the atmosphere, kg. The value of this term will be zero Where: L = Mass organic HAP emitted per mass of coating solids applied, kg/kg. He = Total monthly organic HAP emitted, kg. p = Number of different coating materials applied in a month. Csi = Coating solids content of coating material, i, expressed as a mass fraction, kg/kg. Mi = Mass of as-purchased coating material, i, applied in a month, kg. q = Number of different materials added to the coating material. Csij = Coating solids content of material, j, added to as-purchased coating material, i, expressed as a mass-fraction, kg/kg. Where: S = Mass organic HAP emitted per mass of material applied, kg/kg. He = Total monthly organic HAP emitted, kg. p = Number of different coating materials applied in a month. Mi = Mass of as-purchased coating material, i, applied in a month, kg. q = Number of different materials added to the coating material. Mij = Mass of material, j, added to aspurchased coating material, i, in a month, kg. percent or greater at an existing affected source and 98 percent or greater at a new affected source; or (B) The organic HAP emission rate based on coating solids applied is no more than 0.20 kg organic HAP per kg coating solids applied at an existing affected source and no more than 0.08 kg organic HAP per kg coating solids applied at a new affected source; or (C) The organic HAP emission rate based on coating material applied is no more than 0.04 kg organic HAP per kg coating material applied at an existing affected source and no more than 0.016 (x) You are in compliance with the emission standards in § 63.3320(b) if: (A) The volatile organic matter collection and recovery efficiency is 95 VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:54 Jul 08, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 Mij = Mass of material, j, added to aspurchased coating material, i, in a month, kg. (vii) Organic HAP emitted. Calculate the organic HAP emitted during the month using Equation 12: in all cases except where you choose to take into account the volatile matter retained in the coated web or otherwise not emitted to the atmosphere for the compliance demonstration procedures in this section. (viii) Organic HAP emission rate based on coating solids applied. Calculate the organic HAP emission rate based on coating solids applied using Equation 13: Mij = Mass of material, j, added to aspurchased coating material, i, in a month, kg. (ix) Organic HAP emission rate based on coating materials applied. Calculate the organic HAP emission rate based on coating material applied using Equation 14: kg organic HAP per kg coating material applied at a new affected source; or (D) The organic HAP emitted during the month is less than the calculated allowable organic HAP as determined using paragraph (m) of this section. (2) Continuous emission monitoring of capture system and control device performance. Demonstrate initial compliance through a performance test on capture efficiency and continuing compliance through continuous emission monitors and continuous monitoring of capture system operating parameters following the procedures in paragraphs (j)(2)(i) through (vii) of this E:\FR\FM\09JYR2.SGM 09JYR2 ER09JY20.010</GPH> ER09JY20.011</GPH> retained in the coated web or otherwise not emitted to the atmosphere for the compliance demonstration procedures in this section. p = Number of different coating materials applied in a month. Cvi = Volatile organic content of coating material, i, expressed as a mass fraction, kg/kg. 41307 ER09JY20.009</GPH> jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 132 / Thursday, July 9, 2020 / Rules and Regulations section. Use the applicable equations specified in paragraphs (j)(2)(viii) through (x) of this section to convert the monitoring and other data into units of the selected compliance option in paragraphs (f) through (i) of this section. Compliance is determined in accordance with paragraph (j)(2)(xi) of this section. (i) Control device efficiency. Continuously monitor the gas stream entering and exiting the control device to determine the total organic volatile matter mass flow rate (e.g., by determining the concentration of the vent gas in grams per cubic meter and the volumetric flow rate in cubic meters per second such that the total organic volatile matter mass flow rate in grams per second can be calculated) such that the control device efficiency of the control device can be calculated for each month using Equation 2 of § 63.3360. (ii) Capture efficiency monitoring. Whenever a web coating line is operated, continuously monitor the operating parameters established in accordance with § 63.3350(f) to ensure capture efficiency. (iii) Determine the percent capture efficiency in accordance with § 63.3360(f). (iv) Control efficiency. Calculate the overall organic HAP control efficiency achieved for each month using Equation 15: Where: R = Overall organic HAP control efficiency, percent. E = Organic volatile matter control efficiency of the control device, percent. CE = Organic volatile matter capture efficiency of the capture system, percent. coating material applied on the web coating line or group of web coating lines controlled by a common control device during the month. (vi) If demonstrating compliance on the basis of organic HAP emission rate based on coating solids applied, organic HAP emission rate based on coating material applied, or emission of less than the calculated allowable organic HAP, determine the organic HAP content of each coating material asapplied during the month following the procedure in § 63.3360(c). (vii) If demonstrating compliance on the basis of organic HAP emission rate based on coating solids applied or emission of less than the calculated allowable organic HAP, determine the coating solids content of each coating material as-applied during the month following the procedure in § 63.3360(d). (viii) Organic HAP emitted. Calculate the organic HAP emitted during the month for each month using Equation 16: coating material applied using Equation 14 of this section. (xi) Compare actual performance to the performance required by compliance option. The affected source is in compliance with the emission standards in § 63.3320(b) for each month if the capture system is operated such that the average capture system operating parameter is greater than or less than (as appropriate) the operating parameter value established in accordance with § 63.3350(f); and (A) The organic volatile matter collection and recovery efficiency is 95 percent or greater at an existing affected source and 98 percent or greater at a new affected source; or (B) The organic HAP emission rate based on coating solids applied is no more than 0.20 kg organic HAP per kg coating solids applied at an existing affected source and no more than 0.08 kg organic HAP per kg coating solids applied at a new affected source; or (C) The organic HAP emission rate based on coating material applied is no more than 0.04 kg organic HAP per kg coating material applied at an existing affected source and no more than 0.016 kg organic HAP per kg coating material applied at a new affected source; or (D) The organic HAP emitted during the month is less than the calculated allowable organic HAP as determined using paragraph (m) of this section. (k) Capture and control system compliance demonstration procedures using a CPMS. If you use an add-on control device, you must demonstrate initial compliance for each capture system and each control device through performance tests and demonstrate continuing compliance through continuous monitoring of capture system and control device operating parameters as specified in paragraphs (k)(1) through (3) of this section. Compliance is determined in accordance with paragraph (k)(4) or (k)(5) of this section. (1) Determine the control device destruction or removal efficiency using (v) If demonstrating compliance on the basis of organic HAP emission rate based on coating solids applied, organic HAP emission rate based on coating materials applied, or emission of less than the calculated allowable organic HAP, determine the mass of each jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES2 Where: He = Total monthly organic HAP emitted, kg. R = Overall organic HAP control efficiency, percent. p = Number of different coating materials applied in a month. Cahi = Monthly average, as-applied, organic HAP content of coating material, i, expressed as a mass fraction, kg/kg. Mi = Mass of as-purchased coating material, i, applied in a month, kg. Mvret = Mass of volatile matter retained in the coated web after curing or drying, or otherwise not emitted to the atmosphere, kg. The value of this term will be zero in all cases except where you choose to take into account the volatile matter retained in the coated web or otherwise not emitted to the atmosphere for the compliance demonstration procedures in this section. (ix) Organic HAP emission rate based on coating solids applied. Calculate the organic HAP emission rate based on coating solids applied using Equation 13 of this section. (x) Organic HAP emission rate based on coating materials applied. Calculate the organic HAP emission rate based on VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:54 Jul 08, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\09JYR2.SGM 09JYR2 ER09JY20.013</GPH> Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 132 / Thursday, July 9, 2020 / Rules and Regulations ER09JY20.012</GPH> 41308 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 132 / Thursday, July 9, 2020 / Rules and Regulations the applicable test methods and procedures in § 63.3360(e). (2) Determine the emission capture efficiency in accordance with § 63.3360(f). (3) Whenever a web coating line is operated, continuously monitor the operating parameters established according to § 63.3350(e) and (f). (4) No operating limit deviations. You are in compliance with the emission standards in § 63.3320(b) if the thermal oxidizer is operated such that the average combustion temperature does not fall more than 50 degrees Fahrenheit below the temperature established in accordance with § 63.3360(e)(3)(i) for each 3-hour period or if the catalytic oxidizer is operating such that the threehour average temperature difference across the bed does not fall more than 80 percent of the average temperature established in accordance with § 63.3360(e)(3)(ii) and the minimum temperature is always 50 degrees Fahrenheit above the catalyst’s ignition temperature, or the catalytic oxidizer average combustion temperature does not fall more than 50 °F below the temperature established in accordance with § 63.3360(e)(3)(ii) for each 3-hour period, and the capture system operating parameter is operated at an average value greater than or less than (as appropriate) the operating parameter value established in accordance with § 63.3350(f); and (i) The overall organic HAP control efficiency is 95 percent or greater at an existing affected source and 98 percent or greater at a new affected source; or (ii) The organic HAP emission rate based on coating solids applied is no more than 0.20 kg organic HAP per kg coating solids applied at an existing affected source and no more than 0.08 kg organic HAP per kg coating solids applied at a new affected source; or (iii) The organic HAP emission rate based on coating material applied is no more than 0.04 kg organic HAP per kg coating material applied at an existing affected source and no more than 0.016 kg organic HAP per kg coating material applied at a new affected source; or (iv) The organic HAP emitted during the month is less than the calculated allowable organic HAP as determined using paragraph (m) of this section. (5) Operating limit deviations. If one or more operating limit deviations occurred during the monthly averaging period, compliance with the emission standards in § 63.3320(b) is determined by either assuming no control of emissions or by estimating the emissions using a control destruction efficiency curve during each 3-hour period that was a deviation. You are in VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:54 Jul 08, 2020 Jkt 250001 compliance with the emission standards in § 63.3320(b) if, including the periods of deviations: (i) The overall organic HAP control efficiency is 95 percent or greater at an existing affected source and 98 percent or greater at a new affected source; or (ii) The organic HAP emission rate based on coating solids applied is no more than 0.20 kg organic HAP per kg coating solids applied at an existing affected source and no more than 0.08 kg organic HAP per kg coating solids applied at a new affected source; or (iii) The organic HAP emission rate based on coating material applied is no more than 0.04 kg organic HAP per kg coating material applied at an existing affected source and no more than 0.016 kg organic HAP per kg coating material applied at a new affected source; or (iv) The organic HAP emitted during the month is less than the calculated allowable organic HAP as determined using paragraph (m) of this section. (l) Oxidizer compliance demonstration procedures. If you use an oxidizer to control emissions to comply with this subpart, you must show compliance by following the procedures in paragraph (l)(1) of this section. Use the applicable equations specified in paragraph (l)(2) of this section to convert the monitoring and other data into units of the selected compliance option in paragraph (f) through (i) of this section. Compliance is determined in accordance with paragraph (l)(3) or (l)(4) of this section. (1) Demonstrate initial compliance through performance tests of capture efficiency and control device efficiency and continuing compliance through continuous monitoring of capture system and control device operating parameters as specified in paragraphs (l)(1)(i) through (vi) of this section: (i) Determine the oxidizer destruction efficiency using the procedure in § 63.3360(e). (ii) Determine the capture system capture efficiency in accordance with § 63.3360(f). (iii) Capture and control efficiency monitoring. Whenever a web coating line is operated, continuously monitor the operating parameters established in accordance with § 63.3350(e) and (f) to ensure capture and control efficiency. (iv) If demonstrating compliance on the basis of organic HAP emission rate based on coating solids applied, organic HAP emission rate based on coating materials applied, or emission of less than the calculated allowable organic HAP, determine the mass of each coating material applied on the web coating line or group of web coating PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 41309 lines controlled by a common oxidizer during the month. (v) If demonstrating compliance on the basis of organic HAP emission rate based on coating solids applied, organic HAP emission rate based on coating material applied, or emission of less than the calculated allowable organic HAP, determine the organic HAP content of each coating material asapplied during the month following the procedure in § 63.3360(c). (vi) If demonstrating compliance on the basis of organic HAP emission rate based on coating solids applied or emission of less than the calculated allowable organic HAP, determine the coating solids content of each coating material applied during the month following the procedure in § 63.3360(d). (2) Convert the information obtained under paragraph (q)(1) of this section into the units of the selected compliance option using the calculation procedures specified in paragraphs (l)(2)(i) through (iv) of this section. (i) Control efficiency. Calculate the overall organic HAP control efficiency achieved using Equation 15. (ii) Organic HAP emitted. Calculate the organic HAP emitted during the month using Equation 16. (iii) Organic HAP emission rate based on coating solids applied. Calculate the organic HAP emission rate based on coating solids applied for each month using Equation 13. (iv) Organic HAP emission rate based on coating materials applied. Calculate the organic HAP emission rate based on coating material applied using Equation 14. (3) No operating limit deviations. You are in compliance with the emission standards in § 63.3320(b) if the oxidizer is operated such that the average combustion temperature does not fall more than 50 degrees Fahrenheit below the temperature established in accordance with § 63.3360(e)(3)(i) for each 3-hour period, or the catalytic oxidizer average combustion temperature does not fall more than 50 degrees Fahrenheit below the temperature established in accordance with § 63.3360(e)(3)(ii) for each 3-hour period or the temperature difference across the bed does not fall more than 80 percent of the average temperature established in accordance with § 63.3360(e)(3)(ii) and the minimum temperature is always 50 degrees Fahrenheit above the catalyst’s ignition temperature, and the capture system operating parameter is operated at an average value greater than or less than (as appropriate) the operating parameter value established in accordance with § 63.3350(f); and E:\FR\FM\09JYR2.SGM 09JYR2 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 132 / Thursday, July 9, 2020 / Rules and Regulations (i) The overall organic HAP control efficiency is 95 percent or greater at an existing affected source and 98 percent or greater at a new affected source; or (ii) The organic HAP emission rate based on coating solids applied is no more than 0.20 kg organic HAP per kg coating solids applied at an existing affected source and no more than 0.08 kg organic HAP per kg coating solids applied at a new affected source; or (iii) The organic HAP emission rate based on coating material applied is no more than 0.04 kg organic HAP per kg coating material applied at an existing affected source and no more than 0.016 kg organic HAP per kg coating material applied at a new affected source; or (iv) The organic HAP emitted during the month is less than the calculated allowable organic HAP as determined using paragraph (m) of this section. (4) Operating limit deviations. If one or more operating limit deviations occurred during the monthly averaging period, compliance with the emission standards in § 63.3320(b) is determined by assuming no control of emissions or by estimating the emissions using a control destruction efficiency curve during each 3-hour period that was a deviation. You are in compliance with the emission standards in § 63.3320(b) if, including the periods of deviation: (i) The overall organic HAP control efficiency is 95 percent or greater at an existing affected source and 98 percent or greater at a new affected source; or (ii) The organic HAP emission rate based on coating solids applied is no more than 0.20 kg organic HAP per kg coating solids applied at an existing affected source and no more than 0.08 kg organic HAP per kg coating solids applied at a new affected source; or (iii) The organic HAP emission rate based on coating material applied is no more than 0.04 kg organic HAP per kg coating material applied at an existing affected source and no more than 0.016 kg organic HAP per kg coating material applied at a new affected source; or (iv) The organic HAP emitted during the month is less than the calculated allowable organic HAP as determined using paragraph (m) of this section. (m) Monthly allowable organic HAP emissions. This paragraph provides the procedures and calculations for determining monthly allowable organic HAP emissions for use in demonstrating compliance in accordance with paragraph (d), (i), (j)(1)(x)(D), (j)(2)(xi)(D), or (l)(3)(iv) of this section. You will need to determine the amount of coating material applied at greater than or equal to 20 mass percent coating solids and the amount of coating material applied at less than 20 mass percent coating solids. The allowable organic HAP limit is then calculated based on coating material applied at greater than or equal to 20 mass percent coating solids complying with 0.2 kg organic HAP per kg coating solids at an existing affected source or 0.08 kg organic HAP per kg coating solids at a new affected source, and coating material applied at less than 20 mass percent coating solids complying with 4 mass percent organic HAP at an existing affected source and 1.6 mass-percent organic HAP at a new affected source as follows: (1) Determine the as-purchased mass of each coating material applied each month. (2) Determine the as-purchased coating solids content of each coating material applied each month in accordance with § 63.3360(d)(1). (3) Determine the as-purchased mass fraction of each coating material which was applied at 20 mass percent or greater coating solids content on an asapplied basis. (4) Determine the total mass of each solvent, diluent, thinner, or reducer added to coating materials which were applied at less than 20 mass percent coating solids content on an as-applied basis each month. (5) Calculate the monthly allowable organic HAP emissions using Equation 17 for an existing affected source: Where: Ha = Monthly allowable organic HAP emissions, kg. p = Number of different coating materials applied in a month. Mi = mass of as-purchased coating material, i, applied in a month, kg. Gi = Mass fraction of each coating material, i, which was applied at 20 mass percent or greater coating solids content, on an as-applied basis, kg/kg. Csi = Coating solids content of coating material, i, expressed as a mass fraction, kg/kg. q = Number of different materials added to the coating material. MLj = Mass of non-coating-solids-containing coating material, j, added to coatingsolids-containing coating materials which were applied at less than 20 mass percent coating solids content, on an asapplied basis, in a month, kg. Where: Ha = Monthly allowable organic HAP emissions, kg. p = Number of different coating materials applied in a month. Mi = Mass of as-purchased coating material, i, applied in a month, kg. Gi = Mass fraction of each coating material, i, which was applied at 20 mass percent or greater coating solids content, on an as-applied basis, kg/kg. Csi = Coating solids content of coating material, i, expressed as a mass fraction, kg/kg. q = Number of different materials added to the coating material. MLj = Mass of non-coating-solids-containing coating material, j, added to coatingsolids-containing coating materials which were applied at less than 20 mass percent coating solids content, on an asapplied basis, in a month, kg. VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:54 Jul 08, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 or Equation 18 for a new affected source: * * * * (o) Combinations of capture and control. If you operate more than one capture system, more than one control device, one or more never-controlled work stations, or one or more intermittently-controlled work stations, E:\FR\FM\09JYR2.SGM 09JYR2 ER09JY20.015</GPH> * ER09JY20.014</GPH> jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES2 41310 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 132 / Thursday, July 9, 2020 / Rules and Regulations you must calculate organic HAP emissions according to the procedures in paragraphs (o)(1) through (4) of this section, and use the calculation procedures specified in paragraph (o)(5) of this section to convert the monitoring and other data into units of the selected control option in paragraphs (f) through (i) of this section. Use the procedures specified in paragraph (o)(6) of this section to demonstrate compliance. (1) Solvent recovery system using liquid-liquid material balance compliance demonstration. If you choose to comply by means of a liquidliquid material balance for each solvent recovery system used to control one or more web coating lines, you must determine the organic HAP emissions for those web coating lines controlled by that solvent recovery system either: (i) In accordance with paragraphs (j)(1)(i) through (iii) and (v) through (vii) of this section, if the web coating lines controlled by that solvent recovery system have only always-controlled work stations; or (ii) In accordance with paragraphs (j)(1)(ii), (iii), (v), and (vi) and (p) of this section, if the web coating lines controlled by that solvent recovery system have one or more nevercontrolled or intermittently-controlled work stations. (2) Solvent recovery system using performance test compliance demonstration and CEMS. To demonstrate compliance through an initial test of capture efficiency, continuous monitoring of a capture system operating parameter, and a CEMS on each solvent recovery system used to control one or more web coating lines, you must: (i) For each capture system delivering emissions to that solvent recovery system, monitor the operating parameter established in accordance with § 63.3350(f) to ensure capture system efficiency; and (ii) Determine the organic HAP emissions for those web coating lines served by each capture system delivering emissions to that solvent recovery system either: (A) In accordance with paragraphs (j)(2)(i) through (iii), (v), (vi), and (viii) of this section, if the web coating lines served by that capture and control system have only always-controlled work stations; or (B) In accordance with paragraphs (j)(2)(i) through (iii), (vi), and (p) of this section, if the web coating lines served by that capture and control system have one or more never-controlled or intermittently-controlled work stations. (3) Oxidizer. To demonstrate compliance through performance tests VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:54 Jul 08, 2020 Jkt 250001 of capture efficiency and control device efficiency, continuous monitoring of capture system, and CPMS for control device operating parameters for each oxidizer used to control emissions from one or more web coating lines, you must: (i) Monitor the operating parameter in accordance with § 63.3350(e) to ensure control device efficiency; and (ii) For each capture system delivering emissions to that oxidizer, monitor the operating parameter established in accordance with § 63.3350(f) to ensure capture efficiency; and (iii) Determine the organic HAP emissions for those web coating lines served by each capture system delivering emissions to that oxidizer either: (A) In accordance with paragraphs (l)(1)(i) through (vi) of this section, if the web coating lines served by that capture and control system have only alwayscontrolled work stations; or (B) In accordance with paragraphs (l)(1)(i) through (iii), (v), and (p) of this section, if the web coating lines served by that capture and control system have one or more never-controlled or intermittently-controlled work stations. (4) Uncontrolled coating lines. If you own or operate one or more uncontrolled web coating lines, you must determine the organic HAP applied on those web coating lines using Equation 10. The organic HAP emitted from an uncontrolled web coating line is equal to the organic HAP applied on that web coating line. (5) Convert the information obtained under paragraphs (o)(1) through (4) of this section into the units of the selected compliance option using the calculation procedures specified in paragraphs (o)(5)(i) through (iv) of this section. (i) Organic HAP emitted. Calculate the organic HAP emissions for the affected source for the month by summing all organic HAP emissions calculated according to paragraphs (o)(1), (o)(2)(ii), (o)(3)(iii), and (o)(4) of this section. (ii) Coating solids applied. If demonstrating compliance on the basis of organic HAP emission rate based on coating solids applied or emission of less than the calculated allowable organic HAP, the owner or operator must determine the coating solids content of each coating material applied during the month following the procedure in § 63.3360(d). (iii) Organic HAP emission rate based on coating solids applied. Calculate the organic HAP emission rate based on coating solids applied for each month using Equation 13. (iv) Organic HAP based on materials applied. Calculate the organic HAP PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 41311 emission rate based on material applied using Equation 14. (6) Compliance. The affected source is in compliance with the emission standards in § 63.3320(b) for the month if all operating parameters required to be monitored under paragraphs (o)(1) through (3) of this section were maintained at the values established under §§ 63.3350 and 63.3360 and one of the standards in paragraphs (o)(6)(i) through (iv) of this section were met. If operating parameter deviations occurred, the affected source is in compliance with the emission standards in § 63.3320(b) for the month if, assuming no control of emissions or by estimating the emissions using a control destruction efficiency curve for each 3hour deviation period, one of the standards in paragraphs (6)(i) through (iv) of this section were met. (i) The total mass of organic HAP emitted by the affected source based on coating solids applied is no more than 0.20 kg organic HAP per kg coating solids applied at an existing affected source and no more than 0.08 kg organic HAP per kg coating solids applied at a new affected source; or (ii) The total mass of organic HAP emitted by the affected source based on material applied is no more than 0.04 kg organic HAP per kg material applied at an existing affected source and no more than 0.016 kg organic HAP per kg material applied at a new affected source; or (iii) The total mass of organic HAP emitted by the affected source during the month is less than the calculated allowable organic HAP as determined using paragraph (m) of this section; or (iv) The total mass of organic HAP emitted by the affected source was not more than 5 percent of the total mass of organic HAP applied for the month at an existing affected source and no more than 2 percent of the total mass of organic HAP applied for the month at a new affected source. The total mass of organic HAP applied by the affected source in the month must be determined using Equation 10. (p) Intermittently-controlled and never-controlled work stations. If you have been expressly referenced to this paragraph by paragraph (o)(1)(ii), (o)(2)(ii)(B), or (o)(3)(iii)(B) of this section for calculation procedures to determine organic HAP emissions for your intermittently-controlled and never-controlled work stations, you must: (1) Determine the sum of the mass of all coating materials as-applied on intermittently-controlled work stations operating in bypass mode and the mass of all coating materials as-applied on E:\FR\FM\09JYR2.SGM 09JYR2 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 132 / Thursday, July 9, 2020 / Rules and Regulations lines for which you use the provisions of paragraph (o)(1)(ii) of this section, you must calculate the organic HAP emitted during the month using Equation 19 of this section: never-controlled work stations during the month. (2) Determine the sum of the mass of all coating materials as-applied on intermittently-controlled work stations operating in a controlled mode and the mass of all coating materials applied on always-controlled work stations during the month. (3) Liquid-liquid material balance compliance demonstration. For each web coating line or group of web coating Where: He = Total monthly organic HAP emitted, kg. p = Number of different coating materials applied in a month. Mci = Sum of the mass of coating material, i, as-applied on intermittently-controlled work stations operating in controlled mode and the mass of coating material, i, as-applied on always-controlled work stations, in a month, kg. Cahi = Monthly average, as-applied, organic HAP content of coating material, i, expressed as a mass fraction, kg/kg. Rv = Organic volatile matter collection and recovery efficiency, percent. MBi = Sum of the mass of coating material, i, as-applied on intermittently-controlled work stations operating in bypass mode and the mass of coating material, i, asapplied on never-controlled work stations, in a month, kg. Cahi = Monthly average, as-applied, organic HAP content of coating material, i, expressed as a mass fraction, kg/kg. Mvret = Mass of volatile matter retained in the coated web after curing or drying, or otherwise not emitted to the atmosphere, kg. The value of this term will be zero in all cases except where you choose to take into account the volatile matter (4) Performance test to determine capture efficiency and control device efficiency. For each web coating line or group of web coating lines for which you use the provisions of paragraph (o)(2)(ii)(B) or (o)(3)(iii)(B) of this section, you must calculate the organic HAP emitted during the month using Equation 20: Where: He = Total monthly organic HAP emitted, kg. p = Number of different coating materials applied in a month. Mci = Sum of the mass of coating material, i, as-applied on intermittently-controlled work stations operating in controlled mode and the mass of coating material, i, as-applied on always-controlled work stations, in a month, kg. Cahi = Monthly average, as-applied, organic HAP content of coating material, i, expressed as a mass fraction, kg/kg. R = Overall organic HAP control efficiency, percent. MBi = Sum of the mass of coating material, i, as-applied on intermittently-controlled work stations operating in bypass mode and the mass of coating material, i, asapplied on never-controlled work stations, in a month, kg. Cahi = Monthly average, as-applied, organic HAP content of coating material, i, expressed as a mass fraction, kg/kg. Mvret = Mass of volatile matter retained in the coated web after curing or drying, or otherwise not emitted to the atmosphere, kg. The value of this term will be zero in all cases except where you choose to take into account the volatile matter retained in the coated web or otherwise not emitted to the atmosphere for the compliance demonstration procedures in this section. capture system or more than one control device and only have always-controlled work stations, then you are in compliance with the emission standards in § 63.3320(b)(1) for the month if for each web coating line or group of web coating lines controlled by a common control device: (1) The volatile matter collection and recovery efficiency as determined by paragraphs (j)(1)(i), (iii), (v), and (vi) of this section is at least 95 percent at an existing affected source and at least 98 percent at a new affected source; or (2) The overall organic HAP control efficiency as determined by paragraphs (j)(2)(i) through (iv) of this section for each web coating line or group of web coating lines served by that control device and a common capture system is at least 95 percent at an existing affected source and at least 98 percent at a new affected source; or (3) The overall organic HAP control efficiency as determined by paragraphs (l)(1)(i) through (iii) and (l)(2)(i) of this section for each web coating line or group of web coating lines served by that control device and a common capture system is at least 95 percent at an existing affected source and at least 98 percent at a new affected source. (r) Mass-balance approach. As an alternative to § 63.3370(b) through (p), you may demonstrate monthly compliance using a mass-balance approach in accordance with this section, except for any month that you elect to meet the emission limitation in § 63.3320(b)(4). The mass-balance approach should be performed as follows: (1) Separately for each individual/ grouping(s) of lines, you must sum the mass of organic HAP emitted during the month and divide by the corresponding total mass of all organic HAP applied on the lines, or total mass of coating materials applied on the lines, or total mass of coating solids applied on the lines, for the same period, in accordance with the emission limitation that you have elected at § 63.3320(b)(1) through (3) for the month’s demonstration. You may also choose to use volatile organic content as a surrogate for organic HAP for the compliance demonstration in accordance with § 63.3360(d). You are required to include all emissions and inputs that occur during periods that each line or grouping of lines operates in accordance with the applicability criteria in § 63.3300. (2) You must include all of the organic HAP emitted by your individual/grouping(s) of lines, as follows. VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:54 Jul 08, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\09JYR2.SGM 09JYR2 ER09JY20.017</GPH> (q) Always-controlled work stations with more than one capture and control system. If you operate more than one retained in the coated web or otherwise not emitted to the atmosphere for the compliance demonstration procedures in this section. ER09JY20.016</GPH> jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES2 41312 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 132 / Thursday, July 9, 2020 / Rules and Regulations (i) You must record the mass of organic HAP or volatile organic content utilized at all work stations of all of your individually/grouping(s) of lines. You must additionally record the mass of all coating materials applied at these work stations if you are demonstrating compliance for the month with the emission limitation at § 63.3320(b)(2) (the ‘‘coating materials’’ option). You must additionally record the mass of all coating solids applied at these work stations if you are demonstrating compliance for the month with the emission limitation at § 63.3320(b)(3) (the ‘‘coating solids’’ option). (ii) You must assume that all of the organic HAP input to all nevercontrolled work stations is emitted, unless you have determined an emission factor in accordance with § 63.3360(g). (iii) For all always-controlled work stations, you must assume that all of the organic HAP or volatile organic content is emitted, less the reductions provided by the corresponding capture system and control device, in accordance with the most recently measured capture and destruction efficiencies, or in accordance with the measured mass of volatile organic compounds (VOC) recovered for the month (e.g., carbon control or condensers). You may account for organic HAP or volatile organic content retained in the coated web or otherwise not emitted if you have determined an emission factor in accordance with § 63.3360(g). (iv) For all intermittently-controlled work stations, you must assume that all of the organic HAP or volatile organic content is emitted during periods of no control. During periods of control, you must assume that all of the organic HAP or volatile organic content is emitted, less the reductions provided by the corresponding capture system and control device, in accordance with the most recently measured capture and destruction efficiencies, or in accordance with the measured mass of VOC recovered for the month (e.g., carbon control or condensers). You may account for organic HAP or volatile organic content retained in the coated web or otherwise not emitted if you have determined an emission factor in accordance with § 63.3360(g). (v) You must record the organic HAP or volatile organic content input to all work stations of your individual/ grouping(s) of lines and the mass of coating materials and/or solids applied, if applicable, and determine corresponding emissions during all periods of operation, including malfunctions or startups and shutdowns VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:54 Jul 08, 2020 Jkt 250001 of any web coating line or control device. (3) You are in compliance with the emission standards in § 63.3320(b) if each of your individual/grouping(s) of lines, meets one of the requirements in paragraphs (r)(3)(i) through (iii) of this section, as applicable. If operating parameter limit deviations occurred, including periods that the oxidizer control device(s), if any, operated at an average combustion temperature more than 50 degrees Fahrenheit below the temperature established in accordance with § 63.3360(e), or the 3-hour average temperature difference across the catalyst bed at no less than 80 percent of this average temperature differential and the catalytic oxidizer maintained a minimum temperature 50 degrees Fahrenheit above the catalyst’s ignition temperature, you are in compliance with the emission standards in § 63.3320(b) for the month, if assuming no control of emissions for each 3-hour deviation period (or in accordance with an alternate approved method), one of the requirements in paragraphs (r)(3)(i) through (iii) of this section was met. (i) The total mass of organic HAP emitted by the affected source based on HAP applied is no more than 0.05 kg organic HAP per kg HAP applied at an existing affected source and no more than 0.02 kg organic HAP per kg HAP applied at a new affected source; or (ii) The total mass of organic HAP emitted by the affected source based on coating solids applied is no more than 0.20 kg organic HAP per kg coating solids applied at an existing affected source and no more than 0.08 kg organic HAP per kg coating solids applied at a new affected source; or (iii) The total mass of organic HAP emitted by the affected source based on material applied is no more than 0.04 kg organic HAP per kg material applied at an existing affected source and no more than 0.016 kg organic HAP per kg material applied at a new affected source. (s) Non-HAP coating. You must demonstrate that all of the coatings applied at all of the web coating lines at the affected source have organic HAP contents below 0.1 percent by mass for OSHA-defined carcinogens as specified in section A.6.4 of appendix A to 29 CFR 1910.1200, and below 1.0 percent by mass for other organic HAP compounds using the procedures in § 63.3370(s)(1) through (3). (1) Determine the organic HAP mass fraction of each coating material ‘‘as purchased’’ by following one of the procedures in paragraphs § 63.3360(c)(1) through (3) and determine the organic HAP mass fraction of each coating PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 41313 material ‘‘as applied’’ by following the procedures in paragraph § 63.3360(c)(4). (2) Submit to your permitting authority a report certifying that all coatings applied at all of the web coating lines at your effected source are non-HAP coatings. (3) Maintain records of coating formulations used as required in § 63.3410(a)(1)(iii). (4) Resume reporting requirements if any of the coating formulations are modified to exceed the thresholds in § 63.3370(s) or new coatings which exceed the thresholds in paragraph (s) of this section are used. ■ 12. Section 63.3400 is amended by: ■ a. Revising paragraph (a) and paragraph (b) introductory text; ■ b. Revising paragraphs (c)(1)(ii) and (iv), (c)(2) introductory text, (c)(2)(v) and (vi), (e), and (f); ■ c. Redesignating paragraph (g) as paragraph (k) and revising newly redesignated (k) introductory text; and ■ d. Adding new paragraph (g) and paragraphs (h), (i), and (j). The revisions and additions read as follows: § 63.3400 What notifications and reports must I submit? (a) Reports. Each owner or operator of an affected source subject to this subpart must submit the reports specified in paragraphs (b) through (k) of this section to the Administrator. (b) Initial notifications. You must submit an initial notification as required by § 63.9(b), using the procedure in § 63.3400(h). * * * * * (c) * * * (1) * * * (ii) The first compliance report is due no later than July 31 or January 31, whichever date follows the end of the calendar half immediately following the compliance date that is specified for your affected source in § 63.3330. Prior to the electronic template being available in CEDRI for one year, the report must be postmarked or delivered by the aforementioned dates. After the electronic template has been available in CEDRI for 1 year, the next full report must be submitted electronically as described in paragraph (h) of this section. * * * * * (iv) Each subsequent compliance report must be submitted electronically no later than July 31 or January 31, whichever date is the first date following the end of the semiannual reporting period. * * * * * (2) Compliance report contents. The compliance report must contain the E:\FR\FM\09JYR2.SGM 09JYR2 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES2 41314 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 132 / Thursday, July 9, 2020 / Rules and Regulations information in paragraphs (c)(2)(i) through (viii) of this section: * * * * * (v) For each deviation from an emission limitation (emission limit or operating limit) that applies to you and that occurs at an affected source where you are not using a CMS to comply with the emission limitations in this subpart, the compliance report must contain the following information: (A) The total operating time of the web coating line(s) during the reporting period. (B) Information on the number, duration, and cause of deviations (including unknown cause), if applicable, and the corrective action taken. (C) An estimate of the quantity of each regulated pollutant emitted over the emission limits in § 63.3320 for each monthly period covered in the report if the source failed to meet an applicable emission limit of this subpart. (vi) For each deviation from an emission limit occurring at an affected source where you are using a CEMS or CPMS to comply with the emission limit in this subpart, you must include the following information: (A) The total operating time of the web coating line(s) during the reporting period. (B) The date and time that each CEMS and CPMS, if applicable, was inoperative except for zero (low-level) and high-level checks. (C) The date and time that each CEMS and CPMS, if applicable, was out-ofcontrol, including the information in § 63.8(c)(8). (D) The date and time that each deviation started and stopped, and whether each deviation occurred during a period of startup, shutdown, or malfunction or during another period. (E) A summary of the total duration (in hours) of each deviation during the reporting period and the total duration of each deviation as a percent of the total source operating time during that reporting period. (F) A breakdown of the total duration of the deviations during the reporting period into those that are due to startup, shutdown, control equipment problems, process problems, other known causes, and other unknown causes. (G) A summary of the total duration (in hours) of CEMS and/or CPMS downtime during the reporting period and the total duration of CEMS and/or CPMS downtime as a percent of the total source operating time during that reporting period. (H) A breakdown of the total duration of CEMS and/or CPMS downtime VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:54 Jul 08, 2020 Jkt 250001 during the reporting period into periods that are due to monitoring equipment malfunctions, non-monitoring equipment malfunctions, quality assurance/quality control calibrations, other known causes, and other unknown causes. (I) The date of the latest CEMS and/ or CPMS certification or audit. (J) A description of any changes in CEMS, CPMS, or controls since the last reporting period. (K) An estimate of the quantity of each regulated pollutant emitted over the emission limits in § 63.3320 for each monthly period covered in the report if the source failed to meet an applicable emission limit of this subpart. * * * * * (e) Notification of Compliance Status. You must submit a Notification of Compliance Status as specified in § 63.9(h). For affected sources that commence construction or reconstruction after September 19, 2019, the Notification of Compliance Status must be submitted electronically using the procedure in paragraph (h) of this section. For affected sources that commenced construction or reconstruction on or before September 19, 2019, the Notification of Compliance Status must be submitted electronically using the procedure in paragraph (h) starting July 9, 2021. (f) Performance test reports. You must submit performance test reports as specified in § 63.10(d)(2) if you are using a control device to comply with the emission standard and you have not obtained a waiver from the performance test requirement or you are not exempted from this requirement by § 63.3360(b). Catalyst activity test results are not required to be submitted but must be maintained onsite. Within 60 days after the date of completing each performance test required by this subpart, you must submit the results of the performance test following the procedures specified in paragraphs (f)(1) through (3) of this section. For affected sources that commence construction or reconstruction after September 19, 2019, the performance test reports must be submitted electronically using the procedure in paragraph (h) of this section. For affected sources that commenced construction or reconstruction on or before September 19, 2019, the performance test reports must be submitted electronically using the procedure in paragraph (h) starting July 9, 2021. (1) Data collected using test methods supported by EPA’s Electronic Reporting Tool (ERT) as listed on EPA’s ERT website (https://www.epa.gov/ PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 electronic-reporting-air-emissions/ electronic-reporting-tool-ert) at the time of the test. Submit the results of the performance test to EPA via CEDRI, which can be accessed through EPA’s Central Data Exchange (CDX) (https:// cdx.epa.gov/). The data must be submitted in a file format generated through the use of EPA’s ERT. Alternatively, you may submit an electronic file consistent with the extensible markup language (XML) schema listed on EPA’s ERT website. (2) Data collected using test methods that are not supported by EPA’s ERT as listed on EPA’s ERT website at the time of the test. The results of the performance test must be included as an attachment in the ERT or an alternate electronic file consistent with the XML schema listed on EPA’s ERT website. Submit the ERT generated package or alternative file to EPA via CEDRI. (3) Confidential business information (CBI). If you claim some of the information submitted under paragraph (f)(1) of this section is CBI, you must submit a complete file, including information claimed to be CBI, to EPA. The file must be generated through the use of EPA’s ERT or an alternate electronic file consistent with the XML schema listed on EPA’s ERT website. Submit the file on a compact disc, flash drive, or other commonly used electronic storage medium and clearly mark the medium as CBI. Mail the electronic medium to U.S. EPA/OAQPS/ CORE CBI Office, Attention: Group Leader, Measurement Policy Group, MD C404–02, 4930 Old Page Rd., Durham, NC 27703. The same file with the CBI omitted must be submitted to EPA via EPA’s CDX as described in paragraph (f)(1) of this section. (g) Performance evaluation reports. You must submit the results of performance evaluations within 60 days of completing each CMS performance evaluation (as defined in § 63.2) following the procedures specified in paragraphs (g)(1) through (3) of this section. For affected sources that commence construction or reconstruction after September 19, 2019, the performance evaluation reports must be submitted electronically using the procedure in paragraph (h) of this section. For affected sources that commenced construction or reconstruction on or before September 19, 2019, the performance evaluation reports must be submitted electronically using the procedure in paragraph (h) starting July 9, 2021. (1) Performance evaluations of CMS measuring relative accuracy test audit (RATA) pollutants that are supported by EPA’s ERT as listed on EPA’s ERT E:\FR\FM\09JYR2.SGM 09JYR2 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 132 / Thursday, July 9, 2020 / Rules and Regulations website at the time of the evaluation. Submit the results of the performance evaluation to EPA via CEDRI, which can be accessed through EPA’s CDX. The data must be submitted in a file format generated through the use of EPA’s ERT. Alternatively, you may submit an electronic file consistent with the XML schema listed on EPA’s ERT website. (2) Performance evaluations of CMS measuring RATA pollutants that are not supported by EPA’s ERT as listed on EPA’s ERT website at the time of the evaluation. The results of the performance evaluation must be included as an attachment in the ERT or an alternate electronic file consistent with the XML schema listed on EPA’s ERT website. Submit the ERT generated package or alternative file to EPA via CEDRI. (3) Confidential business information (CBI). If you claim some of the information submitted under paragraph (g)(1) of this section is CBI, you must submit a complete file, including information claimed to be CBI, to EPA. The file must be generated through the use of EPA’s ERT or an alternate electronic file consistent with the XML schema listed on EPA’s ERT website. Submit the file on a compact disc, flash drive, or other commonly used electronic storage medium and clearly mark the medium as CBI. Mail the electronic medium to U.S. EPA/OAQPS/ CORE CBI Office, Attention: Group Leader, Measurement Policy Group, MD C404–02, 4930 Old Page Rd., Durham, NC 27703. The same file with the CBI omitted must be submitted to EPA via EPA’s CDX as described in paragraph (g)(1) of this section. (h) Electronic reporting. If you are required to submit reports following the procedure specified in this paragraph, you must submit reports to EPA via CEDRI, which can be accessed through EPA’s CDX (https://cdx.epa.gov/). Initial notifications and notifications of compliance status must be submitted as portable document formats (PDF) to CEDRI using the attachment module of the ERT. You must use the semiannual compliance report template on the CEDRI website (https://www.epa.gov/ electronic-reporting-air-emissions/ compliance-and-emissions-datareporting-interface-cedri) for this subpart 1 year after it becomes available. The date report templates become available will be listed on the CEDRI website. The report must be submitted by the deadline specified in this subpart, regardless of the method in which the report is submitted. If you claim some of the information required to be submitted via CEDRI is CBI, submit a complete report, including VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:54 Jul 08, 2020 Jkt 250001 information claimed to be CBI to EPA. The report must be generated using the appropriate form on the CEDRI website. Submit the file on a compact disc, flash drive, or other commonly used electronic storage medium and clearly mark the medium as CBI. Mail the electronic medium to U.S. EPA/OAQPS/ CORE CBI Office, Attention: Group Leader, Measurement Policy Group, MD C404–02, 4930 Old Page Rd., Durham, NC 27703. The same file with the CBI omitted must be submitted to EPA via EPA’s CDX as described earlier in this paragraph. (i) Extension for CDX/CEDRI outage. If you are required to electronically submit a report through CEDRI in EPA’s CDX, you may assert a claim of EPA system outage for failure to timely comply with the reporting requirement. To assert a claim of EPA system outage, you must meet the requirements outlined in paragraphs (i)(1) through (7) of this section. (1) You must have been or will be precluded from accessing CEDRI and submitting a required report within the time prescribed due to an outage of either EPA’s CEDRI or CDX systems. (2) The outage must have occurred within the period of time beginning 5 business days prior to the date that the submission is due. (3) The outage may be planned or unplanned. (4) You must submit notification to the Administrator in writing as soon as possible following the date you first knew, or through due diligence should have known, that the event may cause or has caused a delay in reporting. (5) You must provide to the Administrator a written description identifying: (i) The date(s) and time(s) when CDX or CEDRI was accessed and the system was unavailable; (ii) A rationale for attributing the delay in reporting beyond the regulatory deadline to EPA system outage; (iii) Measures taken or to be taken to minimize the delay in reporting; and (iv) The date by which you propose to report, or if you have already met the reporting requirement at the time of the notification, the date you reported. (6) The decision to accept the claim of EPA system outage and allow an extension to the reporting deadline is solely within the discretion of the Administrator. (7) In any circumstance, the report must be submitted electronically as soon as possible after the outage is resolved. (j) Extension for force majeure events. If you are required to electronically submit a report through CEDRI in EPA’s PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 41315 CDX, you may assert a claim of force majeure for failure to timely comply with the reporting requirement. To assert a claim of force majeure, you must meet the requirements outlined in paragraphs (j)(1) through (5) of this section. (1) You may submit a claim if a force majeure event is about to occur, occurs, or has occurred or there are lingering effects from such an event within the period of time beginning five business days prior to the date the submission is due. For the purposes of this section, a force majeure event is defined as an event that will be or has been caused by circumstances beyond the control of the affected facility, its contractors, or any entity controlled by the affected facility that prevents you from complying with the requirement to submit a report electronically within the time period prescribed. Examples of such events are acts of nature (e.g., hurricanes, earthquakes, or floods), acts of war or terrorism, or equipment failure or safety hazard beyond the control of the affected facility (e.g., large scale power outage). (2) You must submit notification to the Administrator in writing as soon as possible following the date you first knew, or through due diligence should have known, that the event may cause or has caused a delay in reporting. (3) You must provide to the Administrator: (i) A written description of the force majeure event; (ii) A rationale for attributing the delay in reporting beyond the regulatory deadline to the force majeure event; (iii) Measures taken or to be taken to minimize the delay in reporting; and (iv) The date by which you propose to report, or if you have already met the reporting requirement at the time of the notification, the date you reported. (4) The decision to accept the claim of force majeure and allow an extension to the reporting deadline is solely within the discretion of the Administrator. (5) In any circumstance, the reporting must occur as soon as possible after the force majeure event occurs. (k) SSM reports. For affected sources that commenced construction or reconstruction before September 19, 2019, you must submit SSM reports as specified in § 63.10(d)(5), except that the provisions in subpart A of this part pertaining to startups, shutdowns, and malfunctions do not apply unless a control device is used to comply with this subpart. On and after, July 9, 2021, and for affected sources that commence construction or reconstruction after E:\FR\FM\09JYR2.SGM 09JYR2 41316 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 132 / Thursday, July 9, 2020 / Rules and Regulations September 19, 2019, this section is no longer relevant. * * * * * ■ 13. Section 63.3410 is revised to read as follows: § 63.3410 What records must I keep? (a) Each owner or operator of an affected source subject to this subpart must maintain the records specified in paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) of this section on a monthly basis in accordance with the requirements of § 63.10(b)(1): (1) Records specified in § 63.10(b)(2) of all measurements needed to demonstrate compliance with this standard as indicated in Table 2 to Subpart JJJJ of Part 63, including: (i) Continuous emission monitor data in accordance with the requirements of § 63.3350(d); (ii) Control device and capture system operating parameter data in accordance with the requirements of § 63.3350(c), (e), and (f); (iii) Organic HAP content data for the purpose of demonstrating compliance in accordance with the requirements of § 63.3360(c); (iv) Volatile matter and coating solids content data for the purpose of demonstrating compliance in accordance with the requirements of § 63.3360(d); (v) Overall control efficiency determination using capture efficiency and control device destruction or removal efficiency test results in accordance with the requirements of § 63.3360(e) and (f); (vi) Material usage, organic HAP usage, volatile matter usage, and coating solids usage and compliance demonstrations using these data in accordance with the requirements of § 63.3370(b), (c), and (d); and (vii) Emission factor development calculations and HAP content for (d) Records of results from the annual catalyst activity test, if applicable. (e) Any records required to be maintained by this part that are submitted electronically via EPA’s CEDRI may be maintained in electronic format. This ability to maintain electronic copies does not affect the requirement for facilities to make records, data, and reports available upon request to a delegated air agency or the EPA as part of an on-site compliance evaluation. ■ 14. Section 63.3420 is revised to read as follows: § 63.3420 What authorities may be delegated to the States? (a) In delegating implementation and enforcement authority to a state, local, or tribal agency under 40 CFR part 63, subpart E, the authorities contained in paragraph (b) of this section must be retained by the EPA Administrator and not transferred to a state, local, or tribal agency. (b) Authority which will not be delegated to state, local, or tribal agencies are listed in paragraphs (b)(1) and (2) of this section: (1) Approval of alternate test method for organic HAP content determination under § 63.3360(c). (2) Approval of alternate test method for volatile matter determination under § 63.3360(d). ■ 15. Table 1 to subpart JJJJ is revised to read as follows: Table 1 to Subpart JJJJ of Part 63— Operating Limits if Using Add-On Control Devices and Capture System If you are required to comply with operating limits by § 63.3321, you must comply with the applicable operating limits in the following table: For the following device: You must meet the following operating limit: And you must demonstrate continuous compliance with operating limits by: 1. Thermal oxidizer .............. a. The average combustion temperature in any 3-hour period must not fall more than 50 °F below the combustion temperature limit established according to § 63.3360(e)(3)(i). i. Collecting the combustion temperature data according to § 63.3350(e)(10); ii. Reducing the data to 3-hour block averages; and 2. Catalytic oxidizer .............. jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES2 coating materials used to develop the emission factor as needed for § 63.3360(g). (2) Records specified in § 63.10(c) for each CMS operated by the owner or operator in accordance with the requirements of § 63.3350(b), as indicated in Table 2 to Subpart JJJJ of Part 63. (b) Each owner or operator of an affected source subject to this subpart must maintain records of all liquidliquid material balances performed in accordance with the requirements of § 63.3370. The records must be maintained in accordance with the applicable requirements of § 63.10(b). (c) For each deviation from an operating limit occurring at an affected source, you must record the following information. (1) The total operating time the web coating line(s) controlled by the corresponding add-on control device and/or emission capture system during the reporting period. (2) Date, time, duration, and cause of the deviations. (3) If the facility determines by its monthly compliance demonstration, in accordance with § 63.3370, as applicable, that the source failed to meet an applicable emission limit of this subpart, you must record the following for the corresponding affected equipment: (i) Record an estimate of the quantity of HAP (or VOC if used a surrogate in accordance with § 63.3360(d)) emitted in excess of the emission limit for the month, and a description of the method used to estimate the emissions. (ii) Record actions taken to minimize emissions in accordance with § 63.3340(a), and any corrective actions taken to return the affected unit to its normal or usual manner of operation. a. The average temperature at the inlet to the catalyst bed in any 3-hour period must not fall more than 50 degrees Fahrenheit below the combustion temperature limit established according to § 63.3360(e)(3)(ii). b. The temperature rise across the catalyst bed must not fall below 80 percent of the limit established according to § 63.3360(e)(3)(ii), provided that the minimum temperature is always 50 degrees Fahrenheit above the catalyst’s ignition temperature. VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:54 Jul 08, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 iii. Maintain the 3-hour average combustion temperature at or above the temperature limit. i. Collecting the catalyst bed inlet temperature data according to § 63.3350(e)(10); ii. Reducing the data to 3-hour block averages; and iii. Maintain the 3-hour average catalyst bed inlet temperature at or above the temperature limit. i. Collecting the catalyst bed inlet and outlet temperature data according to § 63.3350(e)(10); ii. Reducing the data to 3-hour block averages; and iii. Maintain the 3-hour average temperature rise across the catalyst bed at or above the limit, and maintain the minimum temperature at least 50 degrees Fahrenheit above the catalyst’s ignition temperature E:\FR\FM\09JYR2.SGM 09JYR2 41317 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 132 / Thursday, July 9, 2020 / Rules and Regulations You must meet the following operating limit: 3. Emission capture system Submit monitoring plan to the Administrator that identifies operating parameters to be monitored according to § 63.3350(f). 16. Table 2 to subpart JJJJ is revised to read as follows: ■ jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES2 And you must demonstrate continuous compliance with operating limits by: For the following device: Applicable to subpart JJJJ § 63.1(a)(1)–(4) ................................ § 63.1(a)(5) ...................................... § 63.1(a)(6)–(8) ................................ § 63.1(a)(9) ...................................... § 63.1(a)(10)–(14) ............................ § 63.1(b)(1) ...................................... § 63.1(b)(2)–(3) ................................ § 63.1(c)(1) ...................................... § 63.1(c)(2) ...................................... § 63.1(c)(3) ...................................... § 63.1(c)(4) ...................................... § 63.1(c)(5) ...................................... § 63.1(d) .......................................... § 63.1(e) .......................................... § 63.2 ............................................... § 63.3(a)–(c) .................................... § 63.4(a)(1)–(3) ................................ § 63.4(a)(4) ...................................... § 63.4(a)(5) ...................................... § 63.4(b)–(c) .................................... § 63.5(a)(1)–(2) ................................ § 63.5(b)(1) ...................................... § 63.5(b)(2) ...................................... § 63.5(b)(3)–(6) ................................ § 63.5(c) ........................................... § 63.5(d) .......................................... § 63.5(e) .......................................... § 63.5(f) ........................................... § 63.6(a) .......................................... Yes. No .................................................. Yes. No .................................................. Yes. No .................................................. Yes. Yes. No .................................................. No .................................................. Yes. Yes. No .................................................. Yes. Yes ................................................. Yes. Yes. No .................................................. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. No .................................................. Yes. No .................................................. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes ................................................. § 63.6(b)(1)–(5) ................................ § 63.6(b)(6) ...................................... § 63.6(b)(7) ...................................... § 63.6(c)(1)–(2) ................................ § 63.6(c)(3)–(4) ................................ § 63.6(c)(5) ...................................... § 63.6(d) .......................................... § 63.6(e)(1)(i) ................................... No .................................................. No .................................................. Yes. Yes. No .................................................. Yes. No .................................................. Depends, see explanation ............. § 63.6(e)(1)(ii) .................................. Depends, see explanation ............. § 63.6(e)(1)(iii) ................................. § 63.6(e)(2) ...................................... § 63.6(e)(3) ...................................... Yes. No .................................................. Depends, see explanation ............. § 63.6(f)(1) ....................................... Depends, see explanation ............. § 63.6(f)(2)–(3) ................................. § 63.6(g) .......................................... § 63.6(h) .......................................... Yes. Yes. No .................................................. 16:54 Jul 08, 2020 Jkt 250001 according to the plan Table 2 to Subpart JJJJ of Part 63— Applicability of 40 CFR part 63 General Provisions to Subpart JJJJ You must comply with the applicable General Provisions requirements according to the following table: General provisions reference VerDate Sep<11>2014 Conduct monitoring (§ 63.3350(f)(3)). PO 00000 Frm 00043 Fmt 4701 Explanation Reserved. Reserved. Subpart JJJJ specifies applicability. Area sources are not subject to emission standards of subpart JJJJ. Reserved. Reserved. Additional definitions in subpart JJJJ. Reserved. Reserved. Reserved. Applies only when capture and control system is used to comply with the standard. § 63.3330 specifies compliance dates. Reserved. Reserved. Reserved. No, for new or reconstructed sources which commenced construction or reconstruction after September 19, 2019, see § 63.3340(a) for general duty requirement. Yes, for all other affected sources before July 9, 2021, and No thereafter, see § 63.3340(a) for general duty requirement. No, for new or reconstructed sources which commenced construction or reconstruction after September 19, 2019. Yes, for all other affected sources before July 9, 2021, and No thereafter. Reserved. No, for new or reconstructed sources which commenced or reconstruction after September 19, 2019. Yes, for fected sources before July 9, 2021, and No thereafter. No, for new or reconstructed sources which commenced or reconstruction after September 19, 2019. Yes, for fected sources before July 9, 2021, and No thereafter. construction all other afconstruction all other af- Subpart JJJJ does not require continuous opacity monitoring systems (COMS). Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\09JYR2.SGM 09JYR2 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES2 41318 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 132 / Thursday, July 9, 2020 / Rules and Regulations General provisions reference Applicable to subpart JJJJ § 63.6(i)(1)–(14) ............................... § 63.6(i)(15) ..................................... § 63.6(i)(16) ..................................... § 63.6(j) ............................................ § 63.7(a)–(d) .................................... § 63.7(e)(1) ...................................... § 63.7(e)(2)–(3) ................................ § 63.7(f)–(h) ..................................... § 63.8(a)(1)–(2) ................................ § 63.8(a)(3) ...................................... § 63.8(a)(4) ...................................... § 63.8(b) .......................................... § 63.8(c)(1) and § 63.8(c)(1)(i) ........ Yes. No .................................................. Yes. Yes. Yes. No .................................................. Yes. Yes. Yes. No .................................................. No .................................................. Yes. Depends, see explanation ............. § 63.8(c)(1)(ii) .................................. § 63.8(c)(1)(iii) ................................. Yes ................................................. Depends, see explanation ............. § 63.8(c)(2)–(3) ................................ § 63.8(c)(4) ...................................... Yes ................................................. No .................................................. § 63.8(c)(5) ...................................... § 63.8(c)(6)–(8) ................................ § 63.8(d)(1)–(2) ................................ No .................................................. Yes ................................................. Yes ................................................. § 63.8(d)(3) ...................................... § 63.8(e)–(f) ..................................... No .................................................. Yes ................................................. § 63.8(g) .......................................... § 63.9(a) .......................................... § 63.9(b)(1) ...................................... § 63.9(b)(2) ...................................... Yes ................................................. Yes. Yes. Yes ................................................. § 63.9(b)(3)–(5) ................................ § 63.9(c)–(e) .................................... § 63.9(f) ........................................... Yes. Yes. No .................................................. § 63.9(g) .......................................... § 63.9(h)(1)–(3) ................................ § 63.9(h)(4) ...................................... § 63.9(h)(5)–(6) ................................ § 63.9(i) ............................................ § 63.9(j) ............................................ § 63.10(a) ........................................ § 63.10(b)(1) .................................... § 63.10(b)(2)(i) ................................. Yes ................................................. Yes. No .................................................. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Depends, see explanation ............. § 63.10(b)(2)(ii) ................................ § 63.10(b)(2)(iii) ............................... § 63.10(b)(2)(iv)–(v) ......................... No .................................................. Yes ................................................. Depends, see explanation ............. § 63.10(b)(2)(vi)–(xiv) ...................... § 63.10(b)(3) .................................... § 63.10(c)(1) .................................... § 63.10(c)(2)–(4) .............................. § 63.10(c)(5)–(8) .............................. § 63.10(c)(9) .................................... § 63.10(c)(10)–(14) .......................... § 63.10(c)(15) .................................. Yes. Yes. Yes. No .................................................. Yes. No .................................................. Yes. Depends, see explanation ............. § 63.10(d)(1)–(2) .............................. § 63.10(d)(3) .................................... Yes. No .................................................. § 63.10(d)(4) .................................... Yes. VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:54 Jul 08, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00044 Fmt 4701 Explanation Reserved. See § 63.3360(e)(2). Reserved. Subpart JJJJ does not have monitoring requirements for flares. No, for new or reconstructed sources which commenced construction or reconstruction after September 19, 2019, see § 63.3340(a) for general duty requirement. Yes, for all other affected sources before July 9, 2021, and No thereafter, see § 63.3340(a) for general duty requirement. § 63.8(c)(1)(ii) only applies if you use capture and control systems. No, for new or reconstructed sources which commenced construction or reconstruction after September 19, 2019. Yes, for all other affected sources before July 9, 2021, and No thereafter. See § 63.3350(e)(10)(iv) for temperature sensor validation procedures § 63.3350 specifies the requirements for the operation of CMS for capture systems and add-on control devices at sources using these to comply. Subpart JJJJ does not require COMS. Provisions for COMS are not applicable. Refer to § 63.3350(e)(5) for CPMS quality control procedures to be included in the quality control program. § 63.3350(e)(5) specifies the program of corrective action. § 63.8(e)(2) does not apply to CPMS. § 63.8(f)(6) only applies if you use CEMS. Only applies if you use CEMS. Except § 63.3400(b)(1) requires submittal of initial notification for existing affected sources no later than 1 year before compliance date. Subpart JJJJ does not require opacity and visible emissions observations. Provisions for COMS are not applicable. Reserved. No, for new or reconstructed sources which commenced construction or reconstruction after September 19, 2019. Yes, for all other affected sources before July 9, 2021, and No thereafter. See § 63.3410 for recordkeeping of relevant information. § 63.10(b)(2)(iii) only applies if you use a capture and control system. No, for new or reconstructed sources which commenced construction or reconstruction after September 19, 2019. Yes, for all other affected sources before July 9, 2021, and No thereafter. Reserved. Reserved. No, for new or reconstructed sources which commenced construction or reconstruction after September 19, 2019. Yes, for all other affected sources before July 9, 2021, and No thereafter. Subpart JJJJ does not require opacity and visible emissions observations. Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\09JYR2.SGM 09JYR2 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 132 / Thursday, July 9, 2020 / Rules and Regulations General provisions reference Applicable to subpart JJJJ Explanation § 63.10(d)(5)(i) ................................. Depends, see explanation ............. § 63.10(d)(5)(ii) ................................ Depends, see explanation ............. § 63.10(e)(1)–(2) .............................. § 63.10(e)(3)–(4) .............................. Yes ................................................. No .................................................. No, for new or reconstructed sources which commenced construction or reconstruction after September 19, 2019. Yes, for all other affected sources before July 9, 2021, and No thereafter. See § 63.3400(c) for malfunction reporting requirements. No, for new or reconstructed sources which commenced construction or reconstruction after September 19, 2019. Yes, for all other affected sources before July 9, 2021, and No thereafter. See § 63.3400(c) for malfunction reporting requirements. Provisions for COMS are not applicable. Subpart JJJJ does not require opacity and visible emissions observations. § 63.10(f) ......................................... § 63.11 ............................................. § 63.12 ............................................. § 63.13 ............................................. § 63.14 ............................................. Yes. No .................................................. Yes. Yes. Yes ................................................. § 63.15 ............................................. § 63.16 ............................................. Yes. Yes. Subpart JJJJ does not specify use of flares for compliance. Subpart JJJJ includes provisions for alternative ASME and ASTM test methods that are incorporated by reference. [FR Doc. 2020–05854 Filed 7–8–20; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560–50–P jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES2 41319 VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:54 Jul 08, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00045 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 9990 E:\FR\FM\09JYR2.SGM 09JYR2

Agencies

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 132 (Thursday, July 9, 2020)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 41276-41319]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-05854]



[[Page 41275]]

Vol. 85

Thursday,

No. 132

July 9, 2020

Part II





Environmental Protection Agency





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





40 CFR Part 63





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

Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 132 / Thursday, July 9, 2020 / Rules 
and Regulations

[[Page 41276]]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 63

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2018-0416; FRL-10006-74-OAR]
RIN 20660-AU22


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

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action finalizes the residual risk and technology review 
(RTR) conducted for the Paper and Other Web Coating (POWC) source 
category regulated under national emission standards for hazardous air 
pollutants (NESHAP). The Agency is finalizing the proposed 
determination that risks due to emissions of air toxics are acceptable 
from this source category and that the current NESHAP provides an ample 
margin of safety to protect public health. Further, the U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) identified no new cost-effective 
controls under the technology review that would achieve significant 
further emissions reductions, and, thus, is finalizing the proposed 
determination that no revisions to the standards are necessary based on 
developments in practices, processes, or control technologies. In 
addition, the Agency is taking final action addressing startup, 
shutdown, and malfunction (SSM). These final amendments address 
emissions during SSM events, add a compliance demonstration equation 
that accounts for retained volatiles in the coated web; add repeat 
testing and electronic reporting requirements; and make technical and 
editorial changes. The EPA is making these amendments to improve the 
effectiveness of the NESHAP, and although these amendments are not 
expected to reduce emissions of hazardous air pollutants (HAP), they 
will improve monitoring, compliance, and implementation of the rule.

DATES: This final rule is effective on July 9, 2020. The incorporation 
by reference (IBR) of certain publications listed in the rule is 
approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of July 9, 2020. 
The IBR of certain other publications listed in the rule is approved by 
the Director of the Federal Register as of December 4, 2002.

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a docket for this action under 
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2018-0416. All documents in the docket are 
listed on the https://www.regulations.gov/ website. Although listed, 
some information is not publicly available, e.g., Confidential Business 
Information (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 form. Publicly available docket materials are available either 
electronically through https://www.regulations.gov/, or in hard copy at 
the EPA Docket Center, WJC West Building, Room Number 3334, 1301 
Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room hours of 
operation are 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Eastern Standard Time (EST), 
Monday through Friday. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room 
is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the Docket Center is 
(202) 566-1742.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For questions about this final action, 
contact Dr. Kelley Spence, Sector Policies and Programs Division (E143-
03), Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711; 
telephone number: (919) 541-3158; fax number: (919) 541-0516; and email 
address: [email protected]. For specific information regarding the 
risk modeling methodology, contact Mr. James Hirtz, Health and 
Environmental Impacts Division (C539-02), Office of Air Quality 
Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research 
Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711; telephone number: (919) 541-0881; 
fax number: (919) 541-0840; and email address: [email protected]. For 
information about the applicability of the NESHAP to a particular 
entity, contact Mr. John Cox, Office of Enforcement and Compliance 
Assurance, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, WJC South Building 
(Mail Code 2221A), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460; 
telephone number: (202) 564-1395; and email address: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 
    Preamble acronyms and abbreviations. The EPA uses 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:

ASME American Society of Mechanical Engineers
ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials
CAA Clean Air Act
CDX Central Data Exchange
CEDRI Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
ERT Electronic Reporting Tool
HAP hazardous air pollutant(s)
HI hazard index
IBR incorporation by reference
ICR Information Collection Request
km kilometer
MACT maximum achievable control technology
MIR maximum individual risk
NESHAP national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants
NSPS new source performance standards
NTTAA National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
OMB Office of Management and Budget
PDF portable document format
POWC paper and other web coating
ppm parts per million
ppmv parts per million by volume
PRA Paperwork Reduction Act
RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act
RTR residual risk and technology review
SSM startup, shutdown, and malfunction
the Court United States Court of Appeals for the District of 
Columbia Circuit
TOSHI target organ-specific hazard index
tpy tons per year
UMRA Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
URE unit risk estimate
U.S.C. United States Code
VCS voluntary consensus standards
VOC volatile organic compound(s)

    Background information. On September 19, 2019, the EPA proposed 
determinations regarding the POWC NESHAP RTR and proposed revisions to 
the NESHAP to address emissions during SSM events and improve 
monitoring, compliance, and implementation. In this action, the EPA is 
finalizing the proposed RTR determinations and additional revisions for 
the rule. The Agency summarizes the more significant comments we 
received regarding the proposed rule and provide our responses in this 
preamble. A summary of all other public comments on the proposal and 
the EPA's responses to those comments is available in the National 
Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Paper and Other Web 
Coating (40 CFR part 63, subpart JJJJ) Residual Risk and Technology 
Review, Final Amendments--Response to Public Comments on September 19, 
2019 Proposal, in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2018-0416. A ``track 
changes'' version of the regulatory language that incorporates the 
changes in this action is available in the docket.
    Organization of this document. The information in this preamble is 
organized as follows:

I. General Information
    A. Does this action apply to me?

[[Page 41277]]

    B. Where can I get a copy of this document and other related 
information?
    C. Judicial Review and Administrative Reconsideration
II. Background
    A. What is the statutory authority for this action?
    B. What is the POWC source category and how does the NESHAP 
regulate HAP emissions from the source category?
    C. What changes did we propose for the POWC source category in 
our September 19, 2019, proposal?
III. What is included in this final rule?
    A. What are the final rule amendments based on the risk review 
for the POWC source category?
    B. What are the final rule amendments based on the technology 
review for the POWC source category?
    C. What are the final rule amendments addressing emissions 
during periods of SSM?
    D. What other changes have been made to the NESHAP?
    E. What are the effective and compliance dates of the standards?
IV. What is the rationale for our final decisions and amendments for 
the POWC source category?
    A. Residual Risk Review for the POWC Source Category
    B. Technology Review for the POWC Source Category
    C. Revisions to the SSM Provisions for the POWC Source Category
    D. Method For Determining Volatile Organic Matter Retained in 
the Coated Web
    E. Periodic Performance Testing
    F. Electronic Reporting
    G. Temperature Sensor Validation
    H. Operating Parameter Clarification
    I. IBR Under 1 CFR part 51 for the POWC Source Category
    J. Technical and Editorial Changes
V. Summary of Cost, Environmental, and Economic Impacts and 
Additional Analyses Conducted
    A. What are the affected facilities?
    B. What are the air quality impacts?
    C. What are the cost impacts?
    D. What are the economic impacts?
    E. What are the benefits?
    F. What analysis of environmental justice did we conduct?
    G. What analysis of children's environmental health did we 
conduct?
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
    A. Executive Orders 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and 
Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
    B. Executive Order 13771: Reducing Regulation and Controlling 
Regulatory Costs
    C. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
    D. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
    E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
    F. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
    G. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With 
Indian Tribal Governments
    H. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From 
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
    I. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That 
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
    J. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) and 
1 CFR part 51
    K. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address 
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income 
Populations
    L. Congressional Review Act (CRA)

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

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

 Table 1--NESHAP and Industrial Source Categories Affected by This Final
                                 Action
------------------------------------------------------------------------
        NESHAP and source  category                NAICS \1\ code
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paper and Other Web Coating...............  322220, 322121, 326113,
                                             326112, 325992, 327993
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ North American Industry Classification System.

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

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

    In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of 
this final action will also be available on the internet. Following 
signature by the EPA Administrator, the EPA will post a copy of this 
final action at: https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/paper-and-other-web-coating-national-emission-standards-hazardous-0. 
Following publication in the Federal Register, the EPA will post the 
Federal Register version and key technical documents at this same 
website.
    Additional information is available on the RTR website at https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/risk-and-technology-review-national-emissions-standards-hazardous. This information 
includes an overview of the RTR program and links to project websites 
for the RTR source categories.

C. Judicial Review and Administrative Reconsideration

    Under Clean Air Act (CAA) section 307(b)(1), judicial review of 
this final action is available only by filing a petition for review in 
the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit 
(the Court) by September 8, 2020. Under CAA section 307(b)(2), the 
requirements established by this final rule may not be challenged 
separately in any civil or criminal proceedings brought by the EPA to 
enforce the requirements.
    Section 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA further provides that only an 
objection to a rule or procedure which was raised with reasonable 
specificity during the period for public comment (including any public 
hearing) may be raised during judicial review. This section also 
provides a mechanism for the EPA to reconsider the rule if the person 
raising an objection can demonstrate to the Administrator that it was 
impracticable to raise such objection within the period for public 
comment or if the grounds for such objection arose after the period for 
public comment (but within the time specified for judicial review) and 
if such objection is of central relevance to the outcome of the rule. 
Any person seeking to make such a demonstration should submit a 
Petition for Reconsideration to the Office of the Administrator, U.S. 
EPA, Room 3000, WJC South Building, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, 
Washington, DC 20460, with a copy to both the person(s) listed in the 
preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section, and the Associate 
General Counsel for the Air and Radiation Law Office, Office of General 
Counsel (Mail Code 2344A), U.S. EPA, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, 
Washington, DC 20460.

II. Background

A. What is the statutory authority for this action?

    Section 112 of the CAA establishes a two-stage regulatory process 
to address emissions of HAP from stationary sources. In the first 
stage, the Agency must identify categories of sources emitting one or 
more of the HAP listed in CAA section 112(b) and then promulgate 
technology-based NESHAP for those sources. ``Major sources'' are those 
that emit, or have the potential to emit, any single HAP at a rate of 
10 tons per year (tpy) or more, or 25 tpy or more of any combination of 
HAP. For major sources, these standards are commonly

[[Page 41278]]

referred to as maximum achievable control technology (MACT) standards 
and must reflect the maximum degree of emission reductions of HAP 
achievable (after considering cost, energy requirements, and non-air 
quality health and environmental impacts). In developing MACT 
standards, CAA section 112(d)(2) directs the EPA to consider the 
application of measures, processes, methods, systems, or techniques, 
including, but not limited to, those that reduce the volume of or 
eliminate HAP emissions through process changes, substitution of 
materials, or other modifications; enclose systems or processes to 
eliminate emissions; collect, capture, or treat HAP when released from 
a process, stack, storage, or fugitive emissions point; are design, 
equipment, work practice, or operational standards; or any combination 
of the above.
    For these MACT standards, the statute specifies certain minimum 
stringency requirements, which are referred to as MACT floor 
requirements, and which may not be based on cost considerations. See 
CAA section 112(d)(3). For new sources, the MACT floor cannot be less 
stringent than the emission control achieved in practice by the best-
controlled similar source. The MACT standards for existing sources can 
be less stringent than floors for new sources, but they cannot be less 
stringent than the average emission limitation achieved by the best-
performing 12 percent of existing sources in the category or 
subcategory (or the best-performing five sources for categories or 
subcategories with fewer than 30 sources). In developing MACT 
standards, the Agency must also consider control options that are more 
stringent than the floor under CAA section 112(d)(2). The EPA may 
establish standards more stringent than the floor, based on the 
consideration of the cost of achieving the emissions reductions, any 
non-air quality health and environmental impacts, and energy 
requirements.
    In the second stage of the regulatory process, the CAA requires the 
EPA to undertake two different analyses, which we refer to as the 
technology review and the residual risk review. Under the technology 
review, the EPA must review the technology-based standards and revise 
them ``as necessary (taking into account developments in practices, 
processes, and control technologies)'' no less frequently than every 8 
years, pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6). Under the residual risk 
review, the EPA must evaluate the risk to public health remaining after 
application of the technology-based standards and revise the standards, 
if necessary, to provide an ample margin of safety to protect public 
health or to prevent, taking into consideration costs, energy, safety, 
and other relevant factors, an adverse environmental effect. The 
residual risk review is required within 8 years after promulgation of 
the technology-based standards, pursuant to CAA section 112(f). In 
conducting the residual risk review, if the EPA determines that the 
current standards provide an ample margin of safety to protect public 
health, it is not necessary to revise the MACT standards pursuant to 
CAA section 112(f).\1\ For more information on the statutory authority 
for this rule, see 84 FR 49382 (September 19, 2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

B. What is the POWC source category and how does the NESHAP regulate 
HAP emissions From the source category?

    The EPA promulgated the POWC NESHAP on December 4, 2002 (67 FR 
72330). The standards are codified at 40 CFR part 63, subpart JJJJ. The 
POWC source category includes new and existing facilities that coat 
paper and other web substrates that are major sources of HAP emissions. 
For purposes of the regulation, a web is defined as a continuous 
substrate that is capable of being rolled at any point during the 
coating process. Further, a web coating line is any number of work 
stations, of which one or more applies a continuous layer of coating 
material along the entire width of a continuous web substrate or any 
portion of the width of the web substrate, and any associated curing/
drying equipment between an unwind (or feed) station and a rewind (or 
cutting) station. The source category covered by this NESHAP currently 
includes 168 facilities.
    Web coating operations covered by other NESHAP (i.e., Printing and 
Publishing, 40 CFR part 63, subpart KK; Magnetic Tape, 40 CFR part 63, 
subpart EE; Metal Coil Coating, 40 CFR part 63, subpart SSSS; Fabric 
Coating, 40 CFR part 63, subpart OOOO), and research and development 
lines are excluded from the requirements of 40 CFR part 63, subpart 
JJJJ. In addition, specific process exclusions include lithography, 
screen printing, letterpress, and narrow web flexographic printing.
    Facilities subject to the POWC NESHAP utilize low-solvent coatings, 
add-on controls, or a combination of both to meet the organic HAP 
emission limits, as described in the preamble to the proposed rule (84 
FR 49385, September 19, 2019). The NESHAP also includes various 
operating limits, initial and continuous compliance requirements, and 
recordkeeping and reporting requirements for the POWC source category. 
The EPA reviewed these requirements and are updating them as part of 
this action in conjunction with finalizing the RTR for this source 
category

C. What changes did we propose for the POWC source category in our 
September 19, 2019, proposal?

    On September 19, 2019, the EPA published a proposed rule in the 
Federal Register for the POWC NESHAP, 40 CFR part 63, subpart JJJJ, 
that took into consideration the RTR analyses. As discussed in the 
preamble to the proposed rule, the technology review did not identify 
any developments in practices, processes, or control technologies that 
were widely applicable to the industry that would significantly reduce 
HAP emissions, and, therefore, the Agency did not propose any changes 
to the NESHAP based on the technology review. Further, as discussed in 
the preamble to the proposed rule, the risk analysis indicated no 
changes to the NESHAP are necessary to reduce risk to an acceptable 
level, to provide an ample margin of safety to protect public health, 
or to prevent an adverse environmental effect. In addition to and 
separate from the proposed determinations based on our RTR analyses, 
the EPA proposed the following:
     Revisions to the SSM provisions of the NESHAP 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;
     a new compliance calculation to account for retained 
volatile organic content retained in the coated web;
     new periodic air emissions testing requirements for 
facilities that use non-recovery control devices;
     new reporting provisions requiring affected sources to 
electronically submit initial notifications, notification of compliance 
status, semiannual compliance reports, performance test reports, and 
performance evaluation reports;
     new temperature sensor validation requirements;
     operating parameter clarifications;

[[Page 41279]]

     IBR of several test methods; and
     technical and editorial changes to remove the Occupational 
Safety and Health Administration (OSHA)-defined carcinogens reference, 
clarify compliance demonstration options, clarify the definition of 
coating materials, add a web coating line usage threshold, add a 
printing activity exemption, clarify testing requirements, change 
applicability of sources using only non-HAP coatings, clarify oxidizer 
temperature monitoring compliance, and revise compliance report content 
requirements.

III. What is included in this final rule?

    This action is finalizing the EPA's determinations pursuant to the 
RTR provisions of CAA section 112 for the POWC source category. This 
action is also finalizing other changes to the NESHAP, including 
revisions to the SSM requirements; a compliance calculation to account 
for retained volatile organic content retained in the coated web; 
periodic testing requirements for add-on control devices; electronic 
submittal of initial notifications, notification of compliance status, 
semiannual compliance reports, performance test reports, and 
performance evaluation reports; temperature sensor validation 
requirements; operating parameter clarifications; IBR of several test 
methods; and various technical and editorial changes.

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

    The EPA proposed no changes to the POWC NESHAP based on the risk 
review conducted pursuant to CAA section 112(f). The EPA is finalizing 
the proposed determination that risks from the source category are 
acceptable, considering all of the health information and factors 
evaluated, and also considering risk estimation uncertainty. The Agency 
is also finalizing the proposed determination that revisions to the 
current standards are not necessary to reduce risk to an acceptable 
level, to provide an ample margin of safety to protect public health, 
or to prevent an adverse environmental effect. The EPA received no new 
data or other information during the public comment period that 
affected the proposed determinations. Therefore, the EPA is finalizing 
the proposed determination and making no revisions to the NESHAP based 
on the analyses conducted under CAA section 112(f), and we are 
readopting the standards.

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

    In the proposed rule, the EPA proposed to determine that there are 
no developments in practices, processes, and control technologies that 
warrant revisions to the MACT standards for this source category. The 
EPA received no new data or other information during the public comment 
period that affected our proposed determinations. Therefore, the EPA is 
finalizing the proposed determination and making no revisions to the 
MACT standards under CAA section 112(d)(6).

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

    The EPA proposed amendments to the POWC NESHAP to remove and revise 
provisions related to SSM. The EPA is finalizing the amendments, as 
proposed, with minor clarifications with this rulemaking. 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. As detailed in 
section IV.D of the preamble to the proposed rule (84 FR 49382, 
September 19, 2019), the amended POWC NESHAP requires that the 
standards apply at all times (see 40 CFR 63.3320(b)), consistent with 
the Court decision in Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F.3d 1019 (D.C. Cir. 
2008). In addition to eliminating the SSM exemption, the EPA has 
removed the requirement for sources to develop and maintain an SSM 
plan, as well as certain recordkeeping and reporting provisions related 
to the SSM exemption.
    The EPA is finalizing the SSM provisions as proposed without 
setting a separate standard for startup and shutdown as discussed in 
the preamble to the proposed rule in section IV.D. Further, the EPA is 
not finalizing standards for malfunctions. As discussed in the 
September 19, 2019, proposal, the EPA interprets CAA section 112 as not 
requiring emissions that occur during periods of malfunction to be 
factored into development of CAA section 112 standards, although the 
EPA has the discretion to set standards for malfunctions where 
feasible. For this action, it is unlikely that a malfunction would 
result in a violation of the standards, and no comments were submitted 
that would suggest otherwise. Refer to section IV.D of the preamble to 
the proposed rule for further discussion of the EPA's rationale for the 
decision not to set standards for malfunctions, as well as a discussion 
of the actions a source could take in the unlikely event that a source 
fails to comply with the applicable CAA section 112(d) standards as a 
result of a malfunction event.
    As explained in more detail below, the EPA is finalizing revisions 
to the General Provisions table to 40 CFR part 63, subpart JJJJ, to 
eliminate requirements that include rule language providing an 
exemption for periods of SSM. Additionally, the EPA is finalizing our 
proposal to eliminate language related to SSM that treats periods of 
startup and shutdown the same as periods of malfunction, as explained 
further below. Finally, the EPA is finalizing the proposed amendments 
to revise the reporting and recordkeeping requirements as they relate 
to malfunctions, as further described below. As discussed in the 
preamble to the proposed rule, these revisions are consistent with the 
requirement in 40 CFR 63.3320(b) that the standards apply at all times. 
Refer to sections IV.C of this preamble for a detailed discussion of 
these amendments.

D. What other changes have been made to the NESHAP?

    Other changes that have been made to the regulation include 
incorporation of a compliance calculation to account for retained 
volatile organic content retained in the coated web; periodic 
performance testing requirements; electronic submittal of initial 
notifications, notification of compliance status, semiannual compliance 
reports, performance test reports, and performance evaluation reports; 
temperature sensor validation requirements; operating parameter 
clarifications; IBR of several test methods; and various technical and 
editorial changes. The EPA's analyses and changes related to these 
issues are discussed below.
    Other changes to the NESHAP that do not fall into the categories in 
the previous section include:
     Method for determining volatile organic matter retained in 
the coated web. The EPA is finalizing the addition of an equation to 
account for volatile organic matter retained in the coated

[[Page 41280]]

web as discussed in section IV.D of this preamble.
     Periodic performance testing. The EPA is finalizing a 
periodic testing requirement for non-recovery add-on control devices to 
ensure continued compliance, as discussed in section IV.E of this 
preamble.
     Electronic reporting. The EPA is finalizing amendments to 
the reporting requirements to require electronic reporting for initial 
notifications, notifications of compliance status, semiannual 
compliance reports, performance test reports, and performance 
evaluation reports, as discussed in section IV.F of this preamble.
     Temperature sensor validation. The EPA is finalizing 
amendments to remove the temperature sensor calibration requirement and 
replace it with validation requirements to ensure continued compliance, 
as discussed in section IV.G of this preamble.
     Operating parameter clarification. The EPA is finalizing, 
as proposed, an operating parameter clarification, as discussed in 
section IV.H of this preamble.
     IBR under 1 CFR part 51. The EPA is finalizing the IBR of 
several test methods, as discussed in section IV.I of this preamble.
     Technical and editorial changes. The EPA is finalizing 
technical and editorial changes, as discussed in section IV.J of this 
preamble.

E. What are the effective and compliance dates of the standards?

    The revisions to the NESHAP being promulgated in this action are 
effective on July 9, 2020.\2\ The compliance date for affected existing 
facilities is 365 days after the effective date of the final rule, with 
the exception of electronic reporting of semiannual reports. Affected 
source owners and operators that commence construction or 
reconstruction after September 19, 2019, must comply with all 
requirements of the subpart, including the amendments being finalized 
with this action (except for the electronic reporting of semiannual 
reports), no later than the effective date of the final rule or upon 
startup, whichever is later. All affected sources must use the 
Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface (CEDRI) reporting 
template for semiannual reports for the subsequent semiannual reporting 
period after the form has been available in CEDRI for 1 year. All 
affected existing facilities must meet the current requirements of 40 
CFR part 63, subpart JJJJ until the applicable compliance date of the 
amended rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ This final action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 
U.S.C. 804(2), so the effective date of the final rule is the 
promulgation date as specified in CAA section 112(d)(10).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As explained in the preamble to the proposed rule, the EPA proposed 
a compliance period of 180 days for existing sources because the 
amendments would impact ongoing compliance requirements (84 FR 79406, 
September 19, 2019). Two significant amendments, the removal of the SSM 
exemption and the addition of electronic reporting, were determined to 
require additional time for changing reporting and recordkeeping 
systems. As stated in the preamble to the proposed rule, the EPA's 
experience with similar industries that are required to convert 
reporting mechanisms; 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; reliably employ electronic reporting; and 
convert logistics of reporting processes to different time-reporting 
parameters, shows that a time period of a minimum of 90 days, and more 
typically, 180 days, is generally necessary to successfully complete 
these changes. Our experience with similar industries further shows 
that owners or operators of this sort of regulated facility generally 
requires a time period of 180 days to read and understand the amended 
rule requirements; evaluate their operations to ensure that they can 
meet the standards during periods of startup and shutdown as defined in 
the rule, and make any necessary adjustments; adjust parameter 
monitoring and recording systems to accommodate revisions; and update 
their operations to reflect the revised requirements. The EPA 
recognizes the confusion that multiple compliance dates for individual 
requirements would create and the additional burden such an assortment 
of dates would impose.
    In the preamble to the proposed rule, the EPA solicited comment on 
whether the 180-day compliance period was reasonable and specifically 
requested sources provide information regarding the specific actions 
they would need to undertake to comply with the amended rule. The EPA 
also noted that information provided in response to this request for 
comment could result in changes to the proposed compliance date (84 FR 
49406, September 19, 2019). Comments were provided suggesting that 180 
days was not enough time to comply with the proposed changes and that a 
minimum of 365 days was needed. Commenters noted that tasks that would 
need to be completed during the compliance period were: Develop site-
specific implementation plan for changes to add-on control device 
requirements; review startup and shutdown procedures; reprogram 
electronic systems and automated alarms consistent with the removal of 
the SSM provisions; revise the oxidizer temperature operating limit; 
rework recordkeeping and reporting procedures and systems to match the 
new CEDRI form; develop and communicate guidance to ensure consistent 
implementation across a company's facilities; prepare permit 
applications; acquire new permits; and develop and provide training for 
facility staff on the amended requirements.
    The EPA reviewed the information provided by commenters regarding 
tasks needed to be completed during the compliance period and agrees 
that 180 days is not sufficient time, particularly for implementing the 
changes to add-on control device requirements and for reworking 
recordkeeping and reporting procedures to comply with the amendments, 
including the removal of the SSM exemption. This source category needs 
additional time for these changes because of the complexity of the 
compliance calculations and the potential for a large variety of 
products to be produced on the same equipment (which requires multiple 
startup and shutdown events on a regular basis). From our assessment of 
the time frame needed for compliance with the entirety of the revised 
requirements and considering the public comments received, the EPA 
considers a period of 365 days to be the most expeditious compliance 
period practicable for the POWC source category, and, thus, the EPA is 
finalizing that existing affected sources must be in compliance with 
all of the POWC NESHAP amended requirements within 365 days of the 
effective date.
    Additionally, comments were received from multiple commenters 
requesting more time to develop and train on the CEDRI semiannual 
reporting template. The Agency agrees with the commenters that more 
time is needed to accurately develop the template and to train facility 
staff on its use. As such, the EPA is finalizing that the electronic 
reporting template is not required to be used for semiannual reports 
until it has been available in CEDRI for 1 year. To prevent two 
separate reports for one semiannual reporting period, the Agency is 
finalizing that the reporting template should be used for the first 
full semiannual reporting period after the template has been available 
in CEDRI for 1 year. For example, if the template

[[Page 41281]]

becomes available in CEDRI on March 13, 2020, it would be used 
beginning with the report submitted for the July 2021-December 2021 
reporting period.

IV. What is the rationale for our final decisions and amendments for 
the POWC source category?

    For each issue, this section provides a description of what the EPA 
proposed and what the EPA is finalizing for the issue, a summary of key 
comments and responses, and the EPA's rationale for the final decisions 
and amendments. For all comments not discussed in this preamble, 
comment summaries and the EPA's responses can be found in the comment 
summary and response document available in the docket (Docket ID No. 
EPA-HQ-OAR-2018-0416).

A. Residual Risk Review for the POWC Source Category

1. What did we propose pursuant to CAA section 112(f) for the POWC 
source category?
    A residual risk analysis was conducted for the POWC source 
category. Details of the risk analysis can be found in section IV of 
the preamble to the proposed rule (84 FR 49382, September 19, 2019). 
The results of the risk analyses, and decisions on risk acceptability 
and ample margin of safety, as well as the results of the environmental 
risk screening assessment, are summarized here.
    For the POWC source category risk assessment conducted prior to 
proposal, the EPA estimated risks based on actual and allowable 
emissions from POWC surface coating operations. The risk results for 
the POWC source category indicate that both the actual and allowable 
inhalation cancer risks to the individual most exposed are at least 14 
times below the presumptive limit of acceptability of 100-in-1 million 
(i.e., 1-in-10 thousand). The residual risk assessment for the POWC 
source category \3\ estimated cancer incidence rate at 0.005 cases per 
year based on actual emissions. Approximately 4,300 people are exposed 
to a cancer risk equal to or above 1-in-1 million from the source 
category based upon actual emissions from 11 facilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Residual Risk Assessment for the Paper and Other Web Coating 
Source Category in Support of the 2020 Risk and Technology Review 
Final Rule, Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2018-0416.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The maximum chronic noncancer target organ-specific hazard index 
(TOSHI) due to inhalation exposures is less than 1 for actual and 
allowable emissions. The results of the acute screening analysis show 
that acute risks are below a level of concern for the source category 
considering the conservative assumptions used that err on the side of 
overestimating acute risk.
    Multipathway screen values are below a level of concern for both 
carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic persistent and bioaccumulative HAP as 
well as emissions of lead compounds. Maximum cancer and noncancer risks 
due to ingestion exposures using health-protective risk screening 
assumptions are below the presumptive limit of acceptability. The 
maximum estimated excess cancer risk is below 1-in-1 million and the 
maximum noncancer hazard quotient (HQ) for mercury is less than 1 based 
upon the Tier 1 farmer/fisher exposure scenario.
    The risk assessment for the POWC source category is contained in 
the report titled Residual Risk Assessment for the Paper and Other Web 
Coating Source Category in Support of the 2020 Risk and Technology 
Review Final Rule, which can be found in the docket for this action 
(Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2018-0416).
2. How did the risk review change for the POWC source category?
    Neither the risk assessment nor the Agency's determinations 
regarding risk acceptability, ample margin of safety, or adverse 
environmental effects for the POWC source category have changed since 
the proposal was published on September 19, 2019. Therefore, the EPA is 
finalizing the risk review as proposed with no changes (84 FR 49398, 
September 19, 2019).
3. What key comments did we receive on the risk review, and what are 
our responses?
    Comments were received regarding the risk assessment inputs the EPA 
used to conduct the POWC source category risk assessment. First, 
commenters noted that the acute emissions multipliers should be less 
than the value of 10 that the EPA used in its source category acute 
risk assessment. The EPA agrees with the commenters that an acute 
hourly multiplier of 10 likely over-estimates the emissions for this 
source category, however, we did not reanalyze acute risk for this 
final rulemaking because the risk values were already deemed acceptable 
using the multiplier of 10 for the proposal and would have been further 
reduced with a lower multiplier. Second, commenters noted that the 
EPA's risk assessment was ``very conservative and likely overstates 
both annual and short-term HAP emission rates'' because it used 
allowable emissions as actual emissions where no other data were 
available. The commenters are correct in their assessment that the EPA 
used allowable emissions as actual emissions when no other data were 
available to ensure that the risk analysis did not underestimate the 
risk posed by the source category. Because risk was acceptable using 
this conservative approach and would have been reduced further if 
actual emissions data had been available, the results of this approach 
further supports the EPA's conclusion.
    Additionally, comments were received regarding the risk assessment 
methods the EPA used to conduct the POWC source category risk 
assessment. Two commenters stated that the formaldehyde health value 
used in the risk assessment was not based on the best available 
science, and that the EPA should have used the value from the Chemical 
Industry Institute of Technology (CIIT) biologically-based dose-
response model. We disagree with the commenters that the EPA should 
have used the CIIT formaldehyde value because the EPA has a tiered 
prioritized list of appropriate health benchmark values for use in the 
residual risk assessment, and in general, the hierarchy places greater 
weight on the EPA-derived health benchmarks than those from other 
organizations. Even though the commenters claim the Integrated Risk 
Information System (IRIS) value the EPA used was too high (i.e., the 
value over-estimated risk), the EPA proposed, and is finalizing, that 
the risks from formaldehyde from this source category are acceptable.
    Comments were also received supporting the EPA's use of the 99th 
percentile concentration for modeling acute risk. Overall, the EPA 
received no comments or new information demonstrating a need for the 
Agency to reanalyze risk for the final rulemaking, and, therefore, the 
risk assessment conducted for the proposed rule was used to support the 
Agency's conclusions for the final rule.
    Additionally, the EPA received several comments supporting our 
conclusions relating to risk acceptability and that additional 
emissions reductions are not necessary to provide an ample margin of 
safety. One commenter opposed our acceptability determination because 
the EPA did not consider risk from emission sources from other source 
categories. The EPA has the discretion to conduct a facility-wide risk 
assessment which factors in emissions from process equipment outside of 
the source category. The Agency examines facility-wide risks to provide 
additional context for the source category risks. The development of 
facility-wide risk estimates provides

[[Page 41282]]

additional information about the potential cumulative risks in the 
vicinity of the source category emission units as one means of 
informing potential risk-based decisions about the source category in 
question. The Agency recognizes that, because these risk estimates were 
derived from facility-wide emission estimates which have not generally 
been subjected to the same level of engineering review as the source 
category emission estimates, they may be less certain than our risk 
estimates for the source category in question, but they remain 
important for providing context as long as their uncertainty is taken 
into consideration in the process.
    For detailed comment summaries regarding the residual risk review 
and the corresponding responses, see the memorandum in the docket, 
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Paper and 
Other Web Coating (40 CFR part 63, subpart JJJJ) Residual Risk and 
Technology Review, Final Amendments--Response to Public Comments on 
September 19, 2019 Proposal.
4. What is the rationale for our final approach and final decisions for 
the risk review?
    As noted in our proposal, the EPA sets standards under CAA section 
112(f)(2) using ``a two-step standard-setting approach, with an 
analytical first step to determine an `acceptable risk' that considers 
all health information, including risk estimation uncertainty, and 
includes a presumptive limit on maximum individual risk (MIR) of 
`approximately 1-in-10 thousand''' (see 54 FR 38045, September 14, 
1989). The EPA weighs all health risk factors in our risk acceptability 
determination, including the cancer MIR, cancer incidence, the maximum 
TOSHI, the maximum acute noncancer HQ, the extent of noncancer risks, 
the distribution of cancer and noncancer risks in the exposed 
population, and the risk estimation uncertainties.
    The EPA evaluated all of the comments on the risk review and 
determined that no changes to the review are needed. For the reasons 
explained in the proposal, the EPA determined that the risks from the 
POWC source category are acceptable, and the current standards provide 
an ample margin of safety to protect public health and prevent an 
adverse environmental effect. Therefore, pursuant to CAA section 
112(f)(2), the EPA is finalizing the residual risk review as proposed.

B. Technology Review for the POWC Source Category

1. What did we propose pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6) for the POWC 
source category?
    Pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6), the EPA proposed to conclude 
that no revisions to the current MACT standards for the POWC source 
category are necessary (84 FR 49382, September 19, 2019). As described 
in section III.B of the preamble to the proposed rule, the technology 
review focused on identifying developments in practices, processes, and 
control technologies for reduction of HAP emissions from POWC 
facilities. In conducting the technology review, the EPA searched for 
and reviewed information on practices, processes, and control 
technologies that were not considered during the development of the 
POWC NESHAP. The review included a search of the Reasonably Available 
Control Technology/Best Available Control Technology/Lowest Achievable 
Emission Rate (RACT/BACT/LAER) Clearinghouse database, reviews of title 
V permits for POWC facilities, site visits to facilities with POWC 
operations, and a review of relevant literature. We did not identify 
any developments in practices, processes, or control technologies that 
were widely applicable to the industry and would significantly reduce 
HAP emissions, and, therefore, the EPA did not propose any changes to 
the NESHAP based on the technology review. For more details on the 
technology review, see the Technology Review Analysis for the Paper and 
Other Web Coating Source Category memorandum, in the docket for this 
rulemaking (Docket ID Item No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2018-0416-0086).
2. How did the technology review change for the POWC source category?
    No new information was received to change the Agency's conclusions 
with respect to the technology review since the proposal was published 
on September 19, 2019. Therefore, the EPA is finalizing the proposed 
determination that no revisions to the NESHAP are necessary pursuant to 
CAA section 112(d)(6).
3. What key comments did we receive on the technology review, and what 
are our responses?
    The EPA received no comments that identified improved control 
technology, work practices, operational procedures, process changes, or 
pollution prevention approaches to reduce emissions in the category 
since promulgation of the current NESHAP. The EPA received multiple 
supportive comments on the proposed technology review. For detailed 
comment summaries regarding the technology review and the corresponding 
responses, see the memorandum in the docket, National Emission 
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Paper and Other Web Coating (40 
CFR part 63, subpart JJJJ) Residual Risk and Technology Review, Final 
Amendments--Response to Public Comments on September 19, 2019 Proposal.
4. What is the rationale for our final approach for the technology 
review?
    The technology review did not identify any changes in practices, 
processes, or control technologies that would reduce emissions in this 
category. The EPA did not identify any control equipment not previously 
identified; improvements to existing controls; work practices, process 
changes, or operational procedures not previously considered; or any 
new pollution prevention alternatives for this source category. We 
evaluated all of the comments on the technology review and determined 
that no changes to the review are needed, therefore, the EPA is 
finalizing the determination that no revisions to the NESHAP are 
necessary pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6). Additional details of our 
technology review can be found in the memorandum titled Technology 
Review Analysis for the Paper and Other Web Coating Source Category, in 
the docket for this rulemaking (Docket ID Item No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2018-
0416-0086).

C. Revisions to the SSM Provisions for the POWC Source Category

1. What did we propose pursuant to SSM provisions for the POWC source 
category?
    The EPA proposed amendments to the POWC NESHAP to remove provisions 
related to SSM that are not consistent with the requirement that the 
standards apply at all times. More information concerning the 
elimination of SSM provisions is in the preamble to the proposed rule 
(84 FR 49399-49402, September 19, 2019).
2. How did the revisions to the SSM provisions change for the POWC 
source category?
    The EPA is finalizing the SSM provisions as proposed with no 
changes.
3. What key comments did we receive on the SSM provisions, and what are 
our responses?
    The EPA received several comments related to the proposed removal 
of the

[[Page 41283]]

SSM provisions. One commenter believed that the EPA is not required to 
change the regulation to require sources to meet the emission standards 
at all times, including periods of SSM. The EPA disagrees with the 
commenter's assertion. The EPA believes the Sierra Club decision 
(Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F.3d 1019) held that emission limitations 
under CAA section 112 must apply continuously and meet minimum 
stringency requirements, even during periods of SSM. Consistent with 
this reading, the EPA proposed to remove the SSM exemption, and is 
finalizing the removal with this action. Other commenters were 
generally supportive of the SSM exemption removal and noted that it 
would likely have minimal impacts on regulated facilities. For detailed 
comment summaries regarding the removal of the SSM exemption and the 
corresponding responses, see the memorandum in the docket, National 
Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Paper and Other Web 
Coating (40 CFR part 63, subpart JJJJ) Residual Risk and Technology 
Review, Final Amendments--Response to Public Comments on September 19, 
2019 Proposal.
4. What is the rationale for our final approach and final decisions for 
the revisions to the SSM provisions?
    The rationale for each of the amendments the EPA is finalizing to 
address SSM is in the preamble to the proposed rule (84 FR 49399-49402, 
September 19, 2019). After evaluation of the comments received, the 
EPA's rationale for revisions to the SSM provisions has not changed 
since proposal and we are finalizing the approach for removing the SSM 
provisions as proposed.

D. Method for Determining Volatile Organic Matter Retained in the 
Coated Web

1. What did we propose?
    A portion of the HAP in coatings applied to paper and other web 
substrates may be retained in the web instead of being volatilized as 
air emissions. The existing NESHAP allows for the accounting of HAP 
retained in the coated web in 40 CFR 63.3360(g), but stakeholders 
indicated the requirement to ``develop a testing protocol to determine 
the mass of volatile matter retained . . . and submit this protocol to 
the Administrator for approval'' was vague and unworkable. As discussed 
in the preamble to the proposed rule (84 FR 49402, September 19, 2019), 
to provide clarity and reduce regulatory burden, the EPA proposed to 
incorporate the utilization of an emission factor to account for 
volatile organic matter retained in the coated web. As discussed in the 
preamble to the proposed rule, the EPA proposed new language to allow 
facilities to account for retained volatile organics in their 
compliance demonstration calculations without requiring the submittal 
of an alternative monitoring request to the EPA under the provisions of 
40 CFR 63.8(f).
2. What changed since proposal?
    Two changes have been made to the proposed provisions for 
determining volatile organic matter retained in the coated web. First, 
the EPA has clarified that ``retained in the web'' means ``retained in 
the coated web or otherwise not emitted.'' Second, the EPA has added 
additional flexibility to allow any EPA-approved method, manufacturer's 
emissions test data, or mass balance approach using modified EPA Method 
24 to be used to develop the emission factor.
3. What are the key comments and what are our responses?
    The EPA received comments from four commenters supporting the 
addition of the emission factor approach for determining the amount of 
volatile matter retained in the web. Commenters suggested that the EPA 
clarify that ``retained in the web'' means ``retained in the coated web 
or otherwise not emitted.'' The EPA agrees that this is an appropriate 
clarification and has revised the regulatory text accordingly.
    The EPA also received comments suggesting that we allow other 
methods for developing the emission factor to determine the amount of 
volatile organic matter retained. Commenters specifically requested the 
ability to use other EPA-approved test methods, manufacturer's 
emissions test data, or mass-balance type approaches using modified EPA 
Method 24. The EPA agrees that allowing the use of these methods would 
provide flexibility and still appropriately characterize emissions from 
the web coating process.
    For detailed comment summaries regarding the methods used to 
determine the volatile organic matter retained in the coated web and 
the corresponding responses, see the memorandum in the docket, National 
Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Paper and Other Web 
Coating (40 CFR part 63, subpart JJJJ) Residual Risk and Technology 
Review, Final Amendments--Response to Public Comments on September 19, 
2019 Proposal.
4. What is the rationale for our final approach to determining volatile 
matter retained in the coated web?
    The EPA reviewed the public comments and are finalizing the 
proposed method of determining the volatile organic material retained 
in the coated web with two changes as a result of public comment. The 
EPA is clarifying that ``retained in the web'' means ``retained in the 
coated web or otherwise not emitted'' in the regulatory text and is 
allowing for additional test methods for use in the development of the 
emission factor. Both of these changes provide regulatory clarity and 
flexibility, but still appropriately characterize emissions from the 
web coating process. The amendments add compliance flexibility and 
reduce regulatory burden but do not alter the emission standard. This 
approach quantifies emissions in a way that is representative of the 
actual emissions from the coating operations instead of assuming that 
all coating-HAP is emitted.

E. Periodic Performance Testing

1. What did we propose?
    The EPA proposed that facilities that use non-recovery control 
devices (e.g., thermal and catalytic oxidizers) must conduct periodic 
air emissions performance testing, with the first of the periodic 
performance tests to be conducted within 3 years of the effective date 
of the revised standards and thereafter every 5 years following the 
previous test. The EPA also proposed that facilities using the emission 
factor approach to account for volatile matter retained in the web must 
conduct periodic performance testing every 5 years to re-establish the 
emission factor.
2. What changed since proposal?
    The periodic performance testing requirements for catalytic 
oxidizers and those for emission factor development have changed since 
the September 2019 proposal in response to public comment. For 
catalytic oxidizers, commenters suggested that annual catalyst activity 
testing would be more indicative of oxidizer operation than 5-year 
inlet/outlet emissions testing. The EPA is therefore finalizing that 
catalytic oxidizers may do an annual catalyst activity test instead of 
the 5-year inlet/outlet emissions testing. The EPA is finalizing 
periodic performance testing requirements for thermal oxidizers as 
proposed (84 FR 49403, September 19, 2019). The EPA has clarified that 
the testing is only required for add-on control devices used to 
demonstrate

[[Page 41284]]

compliance with the POWC NESHAP. The EPA is not finalizing the 5-year 
requirement to re-establish emission factors used in determining the 
amount of volatile organics retained in the coated web for 40 CFR 
63.3360(g), but is finalizing a requirement that periodic performance 
testing be done if there is a change in coating formulation, operation 
conditions, or other change that could reasonably result in increased 
emissions since the time of the last test used to establish the 
emission factor.
3. What are the key comments and what are our responses?
    Comments were received both opposing and supporting the proposed 5-
year periodic emissions testing requirements. Commenters that opposed 
the requirements noted that oxidizers are not used continuously in the 
flexible packaging industry but only when compliant coatings are not 
used and stated that testing does not show any evidence of degradation 
in thermal oxidizers. Commenters noted that degradation may occur when 
a catalytic oxidizer is used to control a process using silicon-
containing coatings, but that a catalyst activity test would be more 
appropriate to determine performance. The EPA has reviewed these 
comments and is finalizing repeat emissions performance testing for 
catalytic oxidizers with the alternative to perform an annual catalyst 
activity test. The EPA is finalizing the periodic emissions performance 
test requirements for thermal oxidizers, as proposed. Both requirements 
can be found in 40 CFR 63.3360(a)(2).
    Commenters suggested that periodic performance testing for re-
establishment of emission factors, such as for reactive coatings, is 
not necessary in most cases and would be excessively burdensome and 
unnecessary, except if the product's formulation or its process 
conditions have changed in a way that would increase emissions. The EPA 
has reviewed the commenters concerns and agrees that repeat testing to 
re-establish emission factors for coatings used in the POWC industry 
every 5 years could be burdensome and is not finalizing this 
requirement in this action.
    Commenters requested clarification that the first periodic 
emissions performance test can be conducted within either 3 years of 
promulgation of the final amendments or within 60 months of the 
previous test, whichever is later, to ensure that any facility that has 
recently conducted a performance test will have the full 5 years 
between tests. The EPA intended that performance tests recently 
performed (within 3 years of promulgation of the final amendments) can 
count towards the first periodic testing requirements. Commenters also 
requested clarification if state-required volatile organic compound 
(VOC) performance testing or HAP performance testing performed for 
another MACT can count towards this requirement. The EPA agrees that 
both testing for VOC destruction efficiency and HAP destruction 
efficiency for another subpart are appropriate substitutions for the 
periodic testing requirements in the POWC NESHAP because these tests 
will demonstrate ongoing performance of the control device. Both of 
these issues have been clarified in 40 CFR 63.3330(a)(2).
    Commenters requested clarification that only control devices used 
to demonstrate compliance with the POWC NESHAP would need to be tested, 
and that VOC tests required by the state permitting authority could be 
used to meet the proposed requirements. The EPA agrees with the 
commenters that add-on control devices not used to demonstrate 
compliance with the POWC NESHAP (i.e., those used to demonstrate 
compliance with new source performance standards (NSPS) or state VOC 
requirements) are not required to be tested under the POWC NESHAP 
amendments. The EPA also agrees that VOC tests required by the state 
permitting authority could be used to meet the POWC repeat testing 
requirements. The EPA's proposal was not intended to impose duplicative 
testing requirements. Regulatory text has been amended throughout the 
NESHAP to state that the requirements for add-on control devices are 
only for those used to demonstrate compliance with 40 CFR 63.3320, and 
that VOC tests required by state permitting authorities can be used to 
meet the repeat performance testing requirements.
    For detailed comment summaries regarding the repeat testing 
provisions and the corresponding responses, see the memorandum in the 
docket, National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Paper 
and Other Web Coating (40 CFR part 63, subpart JJJJ) Residual Risk and 
Technology Review, Final Amendments--Response to Public Comments on 
September 19, 2019 Proposal.
4. What is the rationale for our final approach and final decisions for 
the periodic emissions testing requirement?
    Although ongoing monitoring of operating parameters is required by 
the existing POWC NESHAP, as the control device ages over time, the 
destruction efficiency of the control device can be compromised due to 
various factors. These factors are discussed in more detail in the 
memorandum titled Revised Periodic Testing of Control Devices Used to 
Comply with the Paper and Other Web Coating NESHAP, in the docket for 
this rulemaking (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2018-0416). After considering 
the comments discussed above and based on the need for vigilance in 
maintaining the control device equipment, the EPA is finalizing the 
requirement for periodic testing of thermal oxidizers once every 5 
years and the alternative of annual catalyst activity tests for 
catalytic oxidizers.

F. Electronic Reporting

1. What did we propose?
    The EPA proposed amendments to the POWC NESHAP to require owners 
and operators of POWC facilities to submit electronic copies of 
required performance test reports (40 CFR 63.3400(f)), performance 
evaluation reports (40 CFR 63.3400(g)), initial notifications (40 CFR 
63.3400(b)), notification of compliance status (40 CFR 63.3400(e)), and 
semiannual compliance reports (40 CFR 63.3400(c)) through the EPA's 
Central Data Exchange (CDX) using CEDRI. A description of the 
electronic data submission process is provided in the proposal (at 84 
FR 49403, September 19, 2019) and in the memorandum, Electronic 
Reporting Requirements for New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) and 
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) 
Rules, Docket ID Item No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2018-0416-0091. The proposed 
amendment replaces the previous rule requirement to submit the 
notifications and reports to the Administrator at the appropriate 
address listed in 40 CFR 63.13. This rule requirement does not affect 
submittals required by state air agencies as required by 40 CFR 63.13.
    For the performance test reports required in 40 CFR 63.3400(f), the 
amendments proposed required 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 \4\ at the time of the test be 
submitted in the format generated through the use of the ERT and that 
other performance test results be submitted in portable document format 
(PDF) using the attachment module of the ERT. Similarly, performance 
evaluation results of continuous monitoring systems (CMS)

[[Page 41285]]

measuring relative accuracy test audit pollutants that are supported by 
the ERT at the time of the test must be submitted in the format 
generated through the use of the ERT and other performance evaluation 
results be submitted in PDF using the attachment module of the ERT.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ https://www.epa.gov/electronic-reporting-air-emissions/electronic-reporting-tool-ert.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the proposed electronic submittal of initial notifications 
required in 40 CFR 63.3400(b), no specific form is available at this 
time, therefore, these notifications are required to be submitted in 
PDF using the attachment module of the ERT. For electronic submittal of 
notifications of compliance status reports required in 40 CFR 
63.3400(e), it was proposed that the final semiannual report template 
discussed above, would also contain the information required for the 
notification of compliance status report.
    For semiannual compliance reports required in 40 CFR 63.3400(c), 
the amendment proposed required that owners and operators use the final 
semiannual report template to submit information to CEDRI. The template 
will reside in CEDRI and was proposed to be used on and after 180 days 
past finalization of the amendments. The proposed template for these 
reports was included in the docket for public comment.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See POWC_Electronic_Reporting_Template.xlsx, available at 
Docket ID Item No. EPA-HQ-2018-0416-0165.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additionally, in the proposal, the EPA 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 
provided 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.
2. What changed since proposal?
    The EPA has changed the deadline to use the CEDRI semiannual 
reporting template to be 1 year after the template has been available 
in CEDRI, instead of the proposed 180 days after date of publication of 
the final rule. The EPA has also changed the electronic submittal of 
the notification of compliance status to be a PDF instead in the 
semiannual reporting template. No other changes have been made to the 
proposed requirement for owners and operators of POWC facilities to 
submit initial notifications, performance test reports, performance 
evaluation reports, and semiannual reports electronically using CEDRI.
3. What are the key comments and what are our responses?
    The EPA received one comment supporting the proposed amendment to 
require electronic reporting. The commenter, however, believed that the 
proposed force majeure language in 40 CFR 63.3400(j) should be removed 
so there is no exemption from reporting due to force majeure events. As 
explained in detail in the response-to-comments document, 40 CFR 
63.3400(j) does not provide an exemption to reporting, only a method 
for requesting an extension of the reporting deadline. The EPA has 
retained the proposed language in 40 CFR 63.3400(j) for the final rule.
    Commenters expressed concern about potential inconsistencies 
between the POWC electronic reporting requirements and state 
requirements of paper copies of reports for VOC and title V compliance. 
Commenters asked for clarification that the electronic reporting 
requirements replace the POWC title V compliance reporting, including 
timing. The Agency does not agree with the commenter's suggestion 
concerning potential inconsistencies between state requirements for 
paper reporting and federal requirements for VOC and title V permit 
compliance. State requirements developed under the state's own 
authorities are separate and apart from federal requirements developed 
for this rule. As individual federal rules establish applicable 
requirements--including electronic reporting--title V programs bundle 
those individual requirements, except for adding appropriate periodic 
monitoring when necessary, without change. Therefore, title V and the 
individual rule's electronic reporting requirements are the same.
    Commenters also asked for clarification that the transition to the 
new reporting methodology would apply to an entire reporting period 
instead of becoming effective in the middle of a reporting period, 
resulting in two different reports being prepared. The EPA's intent was 
not to require two different reports to be prepared for one reporting 
period. The EPA has clarified in this action that the reporting 
template should be used at the beginning of the first full reporting 
period after the template has been available in CEDRI for 1 year.
    Commenters expressed concern regarding the electronic reporting 
template and asked for more time to meet with the EPA to develop and 
understand the spreadsheet. Commenters also provided feedback on the 
spreadsheet. The EPA agrees that more time is needed to develop the 
template and to work with stakeholders to understand how to use the 
spreadsheet. As such, the EPA is changing the compliance date for using 
the spreadsheet template to be 1 year after the final template is 
available in CEDRI. The EPA will work with stakeholders to develop the 
spreadsheet and to provide training on CEDRI and how to complete the 
spreadsheet. Because the EPA intends to work with stakeholders to 
update the template in the future, it has not placed an updated version 
of the template in the docket for this rulemaking.
    For detailed comment summaries regarding electronic reporting and 
the corresponding responses, see the memorandum in the docket, National 
Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Paper and Other Web 
Coating (40 CFR part 63, subpart JJJJ) Residual Risk and Technology 
Review, Final Amendments--Response to Public Comments on September 19, 
2019 Proposal.
4. What is the rationale for our final approach and final decisions for 
the electronic reporting requirement?
    The EPA is finalizing, as proposed, the requirement that owners or 
operators of POWC facilities submit electronic copies of initial 
notifications, notifications of compliance status, performance test 
reports, performance evaluation reports, and semiannual compliance 
reports using CEDRI. The EPA is finalizing that the deadline to use the 
CEDRI semiannual reporting template is 1 year after the template has 
been available in CEDRI. The EPA is finalizing that the electronic 
submittal of the notice of compliance status should be in pdf form 
instead of the semiannual reporting template. The EPA is also 
finalizing, as proposed, provisions that allow facility owners or 
operators a process to request extensions for submitting electronic 
reports for circumstances beyond the control of the facility (i.e., for 
a possible outage in the CDX or CEDRI or for a force majeure event). 
The amendments 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

[[Page 41286]]

the EPA to assess and determine compliance; and will ultimately reduce 
burden on regulated facilities, delegated air agencies, and the EPA. 
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, Docket ID Item No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2018-0416-0165.

G. Temperature Sensor Validation

1. What did we propose?
    As discussed in the preamble to the proposed rule (84 FR 49382, 
September 19, 2019), at 40 CFR 63.3350(e)(9), the original POWC NESHAP 
required facilities to conduct an electronic calibration of the 
temperature monitoring device every 3 months or, if calibration could 
not be performed, replace the temperature sensor. Facilities subject to 
the standard have explained to the EPA that they are not aware of a 
temperature sensor manufacturer that provides procedures or protocols 
for conducting electronic calibration of temperature sensors. 
Facilities have reported that because they cannot calibrate their 
temperature sensors, the alternative is to replace them every 3 months. 
Industry representatives explained that this is burdensome and 
requested that an alternative approach to the current requirement in 40 
CFR 63.3350(e)(9) be considered.
    The EPA proposed to modify 40 CFR 63.3350(e) to allow multiple 
alternative approaches to temperature sensor validation. The first 
alternative allows the use of a National Institute of Standards and 
Technology (NIST) traceable temperature measurement device or simulator 
to confirm the accuracy of any temperature sensor placed into use for 
at least one quarterly period, where the accuracy of the temperature 
measurement must be within 2.5 percent of the temperature measured by 
the NIST traceable device or 5 degrees Fahrenheit, whichever is 
greater. The second alternative allows the temperature sensor 
manufacturer to certify the electrical properties of the temperature 
sensor. The third alternative codifies the common practice of replacing 
temperature sensors quarterly. The fourth alternative allows for the 
permanent installation of a redundant temperature sensor as close as 
practicable to the process temperature sensor. The redundant sensors 
must read within 25 degrees Fahrenheit of each other for thermal and 
catalytic oxidizers.
2. What changed since proposal?
    Comments were received on the temperature sensor validation 
amendments requesting clarification on the requirements. The EPA has 
clarified the requirements, as discussed below, in the final 
rulemaking.
3. What are the key comments and what are our responses?
    Commenters identified inconsistencies between 40 CFR 63.8 and the 
POWC NESHAP. Specifically, the commenters noted that the proposed 
amendments require ``validation'' whereas 40 CFR 63.8 requires 
``calibration.'' The EPA proposed to remove the term ``calibration'' 
from the POWC NESHAP because temperature sensors such as thermocouples 
do not typically have calibration procedures. To fix this 
inconsistency, the EPA is finalizing changes to Table 2 for the 40 CFR 
63.8(c)(3) entry to direct affected sources to 40 CFR 
63.3350(e)(10)(iv) for temperature sensor validation procedures in lieu 
of calibration requirements. Additionally, the EPA is finalizing 
changes to Table 2 for the 40 CFR 63.8(d)(1)-(2) entry to direct 
affected sources to 40 CFR 63.3350(e)(5) for continuous parameter 
monitoring system (CPMS) quality control procedures and to the 40 CFR 
63.8(d)(3) entry to state that it does not apply, because 40 CFR 
63.3350(e)(5) specifies the program of corrective action. Commenters 
also questioned whether Table 2 requires a notification of performance 
evaluation for temperature sensors under 40 CFR 63.8(e)(2). The EPA is 
also finalizing changes to Table 2 to clarify notifications are not 
required for temperature sensor validations.
    Commenters provided background information on thermocouple accuracy 
and calibrations and requested that the EPA adopt mechanical 
validations as an option to verify temperature sensor operation. These 
mechanical validations include visually inspecting the head and wiring 
of the device and monitoring the function/non-function of the device. 
Commenters explained that this type of validation is appropriate 
because thermocouples typically fail instead of drifting and becoming 
less accurate. In response to this comment, the EPA added mechanical 
validations as an option for verifying temperature sensor operation in 
the final rule.
    Similarly, commenters requested that the requirement in 40 CFR 
63.3350(e)(10)(vi) for quarterly inspection of all components for 
integrity and all electrical connections for continuity, oxidization, 
and galvanic corrosion be removed. Commenters noted that this 
requirement is redundant because electronic monitoring systems are 
designed to alert facility personnel if a signal from the temperature 
sensor is interrupted. The commenters suggested that the EPA simplify 
the requirement to include only a quarterly inspection of thermocouple 
components for proper connection and integrity and clarify that any 
such inspection only applies to the temperature sensor and not the 
entire oxidation system. The EPA did not intend to create redundant 
burden with the proposed requirements. The Agency agrees with the 
commenter and is requiring in the final rule a quarterly inspection of 
the thermocouple components or to continuously operate an electronic 
monitoring system designed to notify personnel if the temperature 
sensor signal is interrupted at 40 CFR 63.3350(e)(10)(vi).
    Commenters supported the proposed options for testing the accuracy 
of temperature sensors and requested clarification on whether the use 
of dual-sensor thermocouples or the use of multiple sensors in the 
oxidizer combustion chamber would meet the proposed requirements. The 
Agency has added a new subsection to clarify that these options would 
meet the finalized requirements. Additionally, the EPA reviewed the 
proposed temperature sensor validation regulatory text and determined 
that, as proposed, it was vague and sometimes inconsistent. For 
example, the proposed amendments said to validate the temperature 
sensor quarterly by following the applicable procedures in the 
manufacturer's owner's manual. The EPA received additional information 
and found that owner's manuals specified annual inspection procedures. 
Also as proposed, facilities would need to quarterly validate by 
permanently installing a redundant temperature sensor, which was vague 
and confusing to affected sources. The EPA has amended 40 CFR 
63.3350(e)(10)(iv) to clarify each option for verifying that a 
temperature sensor is operating properly and how frequently to perform 
the verification. The EPA is finalizing the following verification 
options:
     Semiannually compare the temperature sensor to a NIST 
traceable temperature measurement device;
     annually validate the temperature sensor by following 
applicable mechanical and electrical validation procedures in the 
manufacturer's owner's manual;
     annually request the temperature sensor manufacturer to 
certify or re-certify electromotive force;

[[Page 41287]]

     annually replace the temperature sensor with a new 
certified temperature sensor;
     permanently install a redundant temperature sensor as 
close as practicable to the process temperature sensor; or
     permanently install a temperature sensor with dual sensors 
to account for the possibility of failure.
    One commenter requested that the required accuracy of 2.5 percent 
at 40 CFR part 63.3350(e)(10)(iv)(A) apply equally at 40 CFR part 
63.3350(e)(10)(iv)(E) instead of 25 degrees Fahrenheit. The commenter 
was not aware of any reason to specify different levels of accuracy 
between the proposed validation methods. With this final action, the 
EPA has changed the 25 degrees Fahrenheit requirement in 40 CFR 
63.3350(e)(10)(iv)(E) to be 2.5 percent to be consistent with the 
requirements of 40 CFR 63.3350(e)(10)(iv)(A).
    Commenters also requested that the requirement to calibrate the 
chart recorder or data logger in section 40 CFR 63.3350(e)(10)(i) be 
removed because it is not feasible to calibrate either device, and most 
facilities now use an electronic signal to record temperature data for 
compliance purposes, not a chart recorder. The EPA agrees and has 
removed this statement from the regulatory text.
    For detailed comment summaries regarding the temperature sensor 
validation requirements and corresponding responses, see the memorandum 
in the docket, National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air 
Pollutants: Paper and Other Web Coating (40 CFR part 63, subpart JJJJ) 
Residual Risk and Technology Review, Final Amendments--Response to 
Public Comments on September 19, 2019 Proposal.
4. What is the rationale for our final approach and final decisions for 
the temperature senor calibration requirement?
    The EPA proposed modifications to 40 CFR 63.3350(e) to allow 
multiple alternative approaches to temperature sensor calibration to 
address concerns raised by affected facilities prior to proposal. After 
reviewing the public comments received, the Agency is clarifying the 
requirements in this final rulemaking, as discussed above. These 
amendments ensure that the temperature sensors are operating properly 
to demonstrate continuous compliance with the emission standards.

H. Operating Parameter Clarification

1. What did we propose?
    The EPA proposed to clarify language in 40 CFR 63.3370 which 
previously implied all deviations in operating parameters result in 
non-compliance with the standard. Specifically, the EPA proposed at 40 
CFR 63.3370(k)(5) to clarify that each 3-hour average operating 
parameter that is outside of the operating limit range established 
during a performance test should be assumed to have zero control and 
all HAP must be assumed to be emitted for that period in the monthly 
compliance calculation.
2. What changed since proposal?
    The EPA is finalizing the clarification that a deviation from a 3-
hour average operating parameter is not a deviation of the standard, 
unless the emission limitations for the month in which the deviation 
occurred are exceeded. Based on public comment, the EPA has also added 
the option in 40 CFR 63.3370(k)(5) for a facility to develop a control 
destruction efficiency curve for use in determining compliance instead 
of assuming zero control for all deviations. The EPA has also added 
minor clarifications as discussed below.
3. What are the key comments and what are our responses?
    Commenters supported the EPA's proposed clarification that 
deviations in operating parameters are not automatically indicative of 
non-compliance with the POWC standard. Commenters also stated that a 
deviation from a 3-hour operating limit does not indicate non-
compliance because the standard is based on a monthly average. The EPA 
agrees that the intent of the clarification was for operating 
parameters of add-on control devices only, as the requirement was 
placed in 40 CFR 63.3370(k)(5) which only applies to add-on control 
devices and not coating lines using compliant coatings.
    Several commenters disagreed with the EPA's proposal that each 3-
hour average operating parameter that is outside of the operating limit 
range established during a performance test should be assumed to have 
``zero control.'' Commenters asserted that there was no scientific 
basis for this assumption and indicated that if a performance test 
performed well above the minimum required destruction efficiency, 
dropping below the established temperature may have no effect on the 
destruction efficiency. Commenters recommended that the EPA allow 
facilities to develop a control curve based on test data or engineering 
data that documents the level of control achieved at temperatures lower 
than the performance test established temperature. The EPA has 
considered the commenters' suggestion and have added the option to 
develop a control curve for add-on control devices at 40 CFR 
63.3360(e)(4). Facilities must work with their permitting authority to 
develop the control curve.
    For detailed comment summaries regarding the operating parameter 
clarification and responses, see the memorandum in the docket, National 
Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Paper and Other Web 
Coating (40 CFR part 63, subpart JJJJ) Residual Risk and Technology 
Review, Final Amendments--Response to Public Comments on September 19, 
2019 Proposal.
4. What is the rationale for our final approach and final decisions for 
the operating parameter clarification?
    Operating parameters were established in the original POWC NESHAP 
to aid in determining compliance, but operating parameters were not 
intended to constitute a violation of the emission standard. For 
example, one 3-hour average regenerative thermal oxidizer firebox 
temperature below the setpoint established during the stack test would 
not necessarily indicate a violation of the POWC emission standard for 
the month, but it is a deviation of the operating parameter limit. The 
EPA is finalizing, as proposed, language to clarify this distinction 
with minor changes based on public comment.

I. IBR Under 1 CFR Part 51 for the POWC NESHAP

1. What did we propose?
    In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA proposed to 
incorporate by reference the following voluntary consensus standards 
(VCS) into 40 CFR 63.14:
     ASTM D2369-10 (Reapproved 2015)\e\, Standard Test Method 
for Volatile Content of Coatings, IBR approved for 40 CFR 63.3360(c).
     ASTM D2697-03 (Reapproved 2014), Standard Test Method for 
Volume Nonvolatile Matter in Clear or Pigmented Coatings, IBR approved 
for 40 CFR 63.3360(c).
     ASTM 3960-98, Standard Practice for Determining Volatile 
Organic Compound (VOC) Content of Paints and Related Coatings, IBR 
approved for 40 CFR 63.3360(d).
     ASTM D6093-97, (Reapproved 2016), Standard Test Method for 
Percent

[[Page 41288]]

Volume Nonvolatile Matter in Clear or Pigmented Coatings Using a Helium 
Gas Pycnometer, IBR approved for 40 CFR 63.3360(c).
     ASTM D2111-10 (Reapproved 2015), Standard Test Methods for 
Specific Gravity of Halogenated Organic Solvents and Their Admixtures, 
IBR approved for 40 CFR 63.3360(c).
     ASTM D1963-85 (Reapproved 1996), Standard Test Method for 
Specific Gravity of Drying Oils, Varnishes, Resins, and Related 
Materials at 25/25[deg]C (Withdrawn 2004), IBR approved for 40 CFR 
63.3360(c).
2. What changed since proposal?
    No changes to the proposed IBR were made since publication of the 
proposal (84 FR 49405, September 19, 2019).
3. What are the key comments and what are our responses?
    No comments were received on the proposed IBR of the standards into 
40 CFR 63.14.
4. What is the rationale for our final approach and final decisions for 
the IBR under 1 CFR part 51?
    In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is 
finalizing, as proposed, the IBR of the documents listed in section 
IV.I.1 of this preamble.

J. Technical and Editorial Changes

1. Removal of OSHA-Defined Carcinogens Reference
a. What did we propose?
    The EPA proposed to amend sections 40 CFR 63.3360(c)(1)(i) and (3), 
which describe how to demonstrate initial compliance with the emission 
limitations using the compliant material option, to remove references 
to OSHA-defined carcinogens as specified in 29 CFR 1910.1200(d)(4). The 
reference to OSHA-defined carcinogens as specified in 29 CFR 
1910.1200(d)(4) is intended to specify which compounds must be included 
in calculating total organic HAP content of a coating material if they 
are present at 0.1 percent or greater by mass. The Agency proposed to 
remove this reference because 29 CFR 1910.1200(d)(4) has been amended 
and no longer readily defines which compounds are carcinogens. The EPA 
proposed to replace the references to OSHA-defined carcinogens and 29 
CFR 1910.1200(d)(4) with a list (in proposed new Table 3 to Subpart 
JJJJ of Part 63--List of Hazardous Air Pollutants That Must Be Counted 
Relative to Determining Coating HAP Content if Present at 0.1 Percent 
or More By Mass) 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.
b. What changed since proposal?
    The EPA has changed the approach for the removal of the reference 
to 29 CFR 1910.1200(d)(4) based on public comment. The EPA is not 
finalizing the proposed Table 3 to 40 CFR part 63, subpart JJJJ, and is 
finalizing a reference to appendix A to 29 CFR 1910.1200 where 29 CFR 
1910.1200(d)(4) was previously referenced.
c. What are the key comments and what are our responses?
    Multiple commenters asked that the EPA delete the proposed Table 3 
to 40 CFR part 63, subpart JJJJ, and modify the proposed methodology 
for determining the HAP content of coatings. Commenters pointed out 
that 29 CFR 1910.1200(d)(4) was not a list, but a list of references 
for manufacturers and importers to use to classify chemicals. 
Commenters asked that the POWC NESHAP reference the current OSHA Safety 
Data Sheets (SDS) rule (29 CFR 1910.1200) instead of adding a static 
list in the form of the proposed Table 3 to 40 CFR part 63, subpart 
JJJJ. The EPA agrees the commenters' suggestion is a more-streamlined 
solution for updating the OSHA reference and is not finalizing the 
table in the final rule and has added the reference to appendix A to 29 
CFR 1910.1200.
    For detailed comment summaries regarding the OSHA-defined 
carcinogens reference and the corresponding responses, see the 
memorandum in the docket, National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air 
Pollutants: Paper and Other Web Coating (40 CFR Part 63, Subpart JJJJ) 
Residual Risk and Technology Review, Final Amendments--Response to 
Public Comments on September 19, 2019 Proposal.
d. What is the rationale for our final approach?
    The EPA has reviewed the comments received regarding the removal of 
the OSHA-defined carcinogens language and agrees that appendix A to 29 
CFR 1910.1200 is an appropriate replacement for the outdated 29 CFR 
1910.1200(d)(4) reference. Given that the OSHA language that the POWC 
proposal sought to replace is in appendix A, for the final POWC 
amendment the EPA is finalizing the regulatory text at 40 CFR 
63.3360(c)(1)(i) to be as follows:
    (i) Include each organic HAP determined to be present at greater 
than or equal to 0.1 mass percent for Occupational Safety and Health 
Administration (OSHA)-defined carcinogens as specified in section A.6.4 
of appendix A to 29 CFR 1910.1200 and greater than or equal to 1.0 mass 
percent for other organic HAP compounds.
2. Clarification of Compliance Demonstration Options
a. What did we propose?
    The EPA proposed an introductory paragraph and a new subsection to 
clarify the compliance demonstration requirements in 40 CFR 63.3370. As 
originally promulgated, it was not clear that compliance can be 
demonstrated based on individual web coating lines, groups of web 
coating lines, or all of the web coating lines located at an affected 
facility. An introductory paragraph to 40 CFR 63.3370 was proposed to 
clarify the intent that compliance can be demonstrated across the web 
coating lines in a facility by grouping them or treating them 
individually or a combination of both. Additionally, a new subsection 
40 CFR 63.3370(r) was proposed to clarify that compliance with the 
subpart can be demonstrated using a mass-balance approach. While the 
compliance calculations included in 40 CFR 63.3370(b)-(p) are thorough, 
there are instances where variables in the equations are not needed, 
resulting in confusion by the regulated facilities and the regulating 
agencies as to what is required to demonstrate compliance. The mass-
balance approach proposed in 40 CFR 63.3370(r) clarifies the original 
intent of the rule.
b. What changed since proposal?
    The EPA received comments suggesting minor edits to the proposed 
language regarding the mass-balance compliance demonstration approach 
and has incorporated these edits, as appropriate, as discussed below. 
No changes were made to the introductory paragraph to 40 CFR 63.3370 
and the EPA is finalizing this section, as proposed, in this action.
c. What are the key comments and what are our responses?
    Commenters expressed support for the proposed clarification that 
compliance can be demonstrated across multiple lines. Commenters also 
felt that this clarification reduces the potential for inconsistent 
regulatory interpretations by sources and permitting agencies and makes 
the POWC NESHAP consistent with other coating rules. The EPA 
acknowledges the commenters' support and is finalizing the 
clarification, as proposed.

[[Page 41289]]

    Commenters noted that the EPA incorrectly stated procedures for 
demonstrating compliance by mass-balance at 40 CFR 63.3370(r)(1)--the 
mass of HAP emitted during the month should be divided by the mass 
applied according to any of the procedures listed in 40 CFR 
63.3320(b)(1)-(3). Commenters also suggested additional regulatory text 
revisions to be consistent with proposed edits to other sections. The 
EPA has reviewed these comments and agrees with the commenters 
suggested edits to correct the mass-balance calculation and has done so 
in this rulemaking.
    For detailed comment summaries regarding the clarification of the 
compliance demonstration options and the corresponding responses, see 
the memorandum in the docket, National Emission Standards for Hazardous 
Air Pollutants: Paper and Other Web Coating (40 CFR Part 63, Subpart 
JJJJ) Residual Risk and Technology Review, Final Amendments--Response 
to Public Comments on September 19, 2019 Proposal.
d. What is the rationale for our final approach?
    The EPA proposed, and is finalizing, amendments to the regulatory 
text to clarify that compliance can be demonstrated based on individual 
web coating lines, groups of web coating lines, or all of the web 
coating lines located at an affected facility. The EPA is finalizing 
corrections to the mass balance calculation. Additionally, the EPA 
proposed, and is finalizing, a new subsection in 40 CFR 63.3370(r) to 
clarify the intent of the rule as a mass-balance approach of 
demonstrating compliance. The clarification to the compliance 
demonstration options were made to help reduce confusion among 
regulated entities and regulating authorities.
3. Clarification of Coating Materials Definition
a. What did we propose?
    The EPA proposed to revise the coating material definition in 40 
CFR 63.3310 to clarify that coating materials are liquid or semi-liquid 
materials. Additionally, the EPA proposed to revise the web coating 
line definition to clarify that coating materials are liquid or semi-
liquid.
b. What changed since proposal?
    The EPA has clarified in the definition of coating materials to 
include hot melt adhesives and other hot melt materials.
c. What are the key comments and what are our responses?
    Commenters supported the EPA's proposed clarifications to the 
definition of coating materials and further suggested that the EPA 
revise the definition to ensure that it is not incorrectly interpreted 
to exclude hot melt adhesives or coatings. The EPA agrees with the 
commenters and hot melt materials are included in the revised 
regulatory text in 40 CFR 63.3310 to reflect this.
    For detailed comment summaries regarding the coating materials 
definition and the corresponding responses, see the memorandum in the 
docket, National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Paper 
and Other Web Coating (40 CFR Part 63, Subpart JJJJ) Residual Risk and 
Technology Review, Final Amendments--Response to Public Comments on 
September 19, 2019 Proposal.
d. What is the rationale for our final approach?
    The EPA is finalizing, as proposed, revisions to the coating 
material definition in 40 CFR 63.3310 to clarify that coating materials 
are liquid or semi-liquid materials and revisions to the web coating 
line definition to clarify that coating materials are liquid or semi-
liquid. The EPA is also finalizing the clarification that hot melt 
materials are included in the definition and that vapor deposition and 
dry abrasive materials deposited onto a coated surface area are 
excluded from the definition. These revisions will improve regulatory 
clarity by confirming that the weight of solid materials should not be 
accounted for in the compliance demonstration calculations, and that 
vapor-deposition coating is not covered by this subpart.
4. Addition of Web Coating Line Usage Threshold
a. What did we propose?
    The EPA proposed to add a usage threshold to 40 CFR 63.3300(h), 
similar to that in 40 CFR part 63, subpart OOOO, that requires a web 
coating line that coats both paper and another substrate, such as 
fabric, to comply with the subpart that corresponds to the predominate 
activity conducted. The EPA proposed to define predominant activity to 
be 90 percent of the mass of substrate coated during the compliance 
period. For example, a web coating line that coats 90 percent or more 
of a paper substrate, and 10 percent or less of a fabric substrate, 
would be subject to this subpart and not 40 CFR part 63, subpart OOOO.
b. What changed since proposal?
    Since proposal, the EPA has clarified that the predominant activity 
should be determined on a calendar year basis.
c. What are the key comments and what are our responses?
    Commenters supported usage thresholds for converting lines that 
coat both paper and another substrate. Commenters noted that the usage 
of the term ``affected source'' in the proposal appears to be 
inconsistent with the example because the POWC NESHAP is the collection 
of all web coating lines. Additionally, commenters thought the term 
compliance period could be interpreted to require a facility performing 
different types of coating to determine which NESHAP applies on a 
monthly basis. Commenters requested that the EPA clarify these issues. 
The EPA agrees with the commenters and have edited the regulatory text 
to clarify that predominant activity must be determined on a calendar 
year basis.
    For detailed comment summaries regarding the web coating line 
threshold and the corresponding responses, see the memorandum in the 
docket, National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Paper 
and Other Web Coating (40 CFR Part 63, Subpart JJJJ) Residual Risk and 
Technology Review, Final Amendments--Response to Public Comments on 
September 19, 2019 Proposal.
d. What is the rationale for our final approach?
    The EPA reviewed the public comments and added clarifying language 
to the proposed usage threshold. This language was added to promote 
regulatory certainty and reduce burden from sources that could be 
subject to multiple NESHAP.
5. Addition of Printing Activity Exemption
a. What did we propose?
    The EPA proposed to add a printing activity exemption to 40 CFR 
63.3300(i) which allows for modified web coating lines already subject 
to this subpart to continue to demonstrate compliance with this 
subpart, in lieu of demonstrating compliance with 40 CFR part 63, 
subpart KK (Printing and Publishing NESHAP).
b. What changed since proposal?
    The EPA has clarified the language in the printing activity 
exemption to allow for existing and modified lines to be

[[Page 41290]]

subject to the POWC NESHAP in lieu of 40 CFR part 63, subpart KK.
c. What are the key comments and what are our responses?
    Multiple commenters supported the EPA's proposed printing activity 
exemption to allow for modified POWC lines already subject to the POWC 
NESHAP to continue to demonstrate compliance with 40 CFR part 63, 
subpart JJJJ in lieu of demonstrating compliance with 40 CFR part 63, 
subpart KK. Commenters suggested that this exemption also apply to 
existing sources as well as modified sources (e.g., for POWC web 
coating lines that already have a product and packaging rotogravure 
print station and/or a wide-web flexographic print station). The 
commenter noted that, as written, if during a single month the line 
exceeds 5 percent of the total mass of materials applied at the print 
station, the line applicability would permanently change to the 
Printing and Publishing NESHAP. The EPA agrees with the commenters and 
has clarified the regulatory text in this action, as appropriate.
    For detailed comment summaries regarding the printing activity 
exemption and the corresponding responses, see the memorandum in the 
docket, National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Paper 
and Other Web Coating (40 CFR Part 63, Subpart JJJJ) Residual Risk and 
Technology Review, Final Amendments--Response to Public Comments on 
September 19, 2019 Proposal.
d. What is the rationale for our final approach?
    In this rulemaking, the EPA is finalizing a printing activity 
exemption to 40 CFR 63.3300(i) which allows for modified and existing 
web coating lines already subject to this subpart to continue to 
demonstrate compliance with this subpart, in lieu of demonstrating 
compliance with 40 CFR part 63, subpart KK (i.e., the Printing and 
Publishing NESHAP). This exemption will reduce regulatory burden 
without resulting in increased emissions.
6. Clarification of Testing Requirements
a. What did we propose?
    The EPA proposed to remove the ``by compound'' statement in 40 CFR 
63.3320(b)(4) to clarify that the standard is 20 parts per million by 
volume (ppmv) for the total of organic HAP emitted, not 20 ppmv for 
each individual HAP emitted. This is consistent with the test methods 
used in this subpart, which test for total HAP concentration.
b. What changed since proposal?
    The EPA is finalizing the removal of ``by compound'' in 40 CFR 
63.3220(b)(4) to clarify that the 20 ppmv standard applies to the total 
of organic HAP emitted, not to each individual HAP. As part of our 
review, the EPA found four additional instances of ``by compound'' in 
40 CFR 63.3370(a)(5), (f), (f)(3), and (f)(3)(iii) that also needed to 
be removed.
c. What are the key comments and what are our responses?
    Commenters supported the EPA's proposal to remove ``by compound'' 
in 40 CFR 63.3220(b)(4) to clarify that the 20 ppmv standard applies to 
the total of organic HAP emitted, not to each individual HAP.
d. What is the rationale for our final approach?
    The removal of ``by compound'' makes the POWC NESHAP consistent 
with the test methods referenced in the subpart, as they test for total 
HAP concentration, not individual HAP compounds.
7. Applicability to Sources Using Only Non-HAP Coatings
a. What did we propose?
    The EPA requested comment on changing the applicability of the POWC 
NESHAP to exclude sources that only use non-HAP coatings but are 
located at a major source to reduce regulatory burden. As identified 
during the development of the risk modeling input file and discussed in 
section III.C of the preamble to the proposed rule (84 FR 49406, 
September 19, 2019), some facilities that utilize only non-HAP coatings 
are subject to the POWC NESHAP because they perform web coating 
operations and are a major source because of non-POWC source category 
emissions. For example, a non-HAP coating line used to produce paper 
towel cores may be located at an integrated pulp and paper facility 
that is a major source because of emissions from the pulping 
operations. This facility would be required to comply with the 
requirements of 40 CFR part 63, subpart JJJJ, even though the coatings 
used contain no HAP, and, therefore, no HAP are emitted from the web 
coating lines.
b. What changed since proposal?
    The EPA received supportive comments regarding the change of 
applicability to sources using only non-HAP coatings. The Agency has 
reviewed the public comments and, instead of changing the applicability 
of the subpart, is finalizing an exemption for reporting requirements 
for these sources.
c. What are the key comments and what are our responses?
    Commenters supported the EPA's proposal to reduce regulatory burden 
by excluding sources that are located at a major source of HAP but do 
not use coatings that contain HAP for the POWC emission sources. 
Commenters stated that the change will reduce regulatory burden without 
increasing emissions and could incentivize sources to convert to non-
HAP coatings to avoid applicability of the POWC NESHAP, resulting in 
emissions reductions. Commenters further suggested that the exclusion 
is a logical step under the EPA's efforts to reduce regulatory burden 
and is similar in key aspects to the rulemaking to rescind the EPA's 
``once in, always in'' policy. Commenters suggested that the EPA 
clarify that all of the subject coating lines at the facility must use 
non-HAP coatings to qualify for the exclusion. The EPA has reviewed 
these comments and has added regulatory text exempting sources that 
only use non-HAP coatings on all of the subject web coating lines at 
the facility from on-going compliance reporting requirements.
    For detailed comment summaries regarding applicability to sources 
only using non-HAP coatings and the corresponding responses, see the 
memorandum in the docket, National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air 
Pollutants: Paper and Other Web Coating (40 CFR Part 63, Subpart JJJJ) 
Residual Risk and Technology Review, Final Amendments--Response to 
Public Comments on September 19, 2019 Proposal.
d. What is the rationale for our final approach?
    The EPA requested comment on changing the applicability of sources 
using only non-HAP coatings and received comments supporting the 
change. The EPA is finalizing an exemption to on-going reporting 
requirements for these sources as it will reduce regulatory burden 
without increasing emissions.
8. Oxidizer Temperature Monitoring
a. What did we propose?
    The EPA proposed to add language to recognize that thermal 
oxidizers can demonstrate compliance with the standard as long as the 
3-hour average firebox temperature does not drop lower

[[Page 41291]]

than 50 degrees Fahrenheit below the average combustion temperature 
established during the performance test to promote consistency between 
the Pressure Sensitive Tape and Label Surface Coating Operations NSPS 
(40 CFR part 60, subpart RR) and the POWC NESHAP, as well as to account 
for temperature swings due to startup and/or shutdown of web coating 
lines.
b. What changed since proposal?
    The EPA has made minor clarifications to the regulatory text to 
promote consistency throughout the subpart and has added similar 
language for catalytic oxidizers.
c. What are the key comments and what are our responses?
    Commenters were supportive of the EPA's proposed language for 
thermal oxidizers and requested that it be included for catalytic 
oxidizers as well. Additionally, commenters noted that the Pressure 
Sensitive Tape and Label Surface Coating Operations NSPS allows for 
setting the minimum temperature drop across the catalyst bed at 80 
percent of the average temperature difference during the most recent 
performance test and requested that this language be added to promote 
consistency between the two rules. The Agency has reviewed the 
commenters suggestions and agree that it is appropriate to add the 
temperature language for catalytic oxidizers. To ensure complete 
combustion, the EPA also added a requirement that the catalyst's 
minimum temperature must always be 50 degrees Fahrenheit above the 
catalyst's ignition temperature.
    Commenters also suggested edits to promote consistency throughout 
the subpart as it relates to the temperature language. The EPA has 
reviewed these suggestions and made edits to the regulatory text in 
this action, as appropriate.
    For detailed comment summaries regarding the oxidizer temperature 
monitoring requirements and the corresponding responses, see the 
memorandum in the docket, National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air 
Pollutants: Paper and Other Web Coating (40 CFR Part 63, Subpart JJJJ) 
Residual Risk and Technology Review, Final Amendments--Response to 
Public Comments on September 19, 2019 Proposal.
d. What is the rationale for our final approach?
    The EPA proposed to add language to recognize that thermal 
oxidizers can demonstrate compliance with the standard as long as the 
3-hour average firebox temperature does not drop lower than 50 degrees 
Fahrenheit below the average combustion temperature established during 
the performance test to promote consistency between the Pressure 
Sensitive Tape and Label Surface Coating Operations NSPS and the POWC 
NESHAP, as well as to account for temperature swings due to startup 
and/or shutdown of web coating lines. After reviewing the public 
comments, the EPA has added the same requirements to catalytic 
oxidizers. In addition, the EPA has added language similar to that in 
the Pressure Sensitive Tape and Label Surface Coating Operations NSPS 
to allow for setting the minimum temperature drop across the catalyst 
bed at 80 percent of the average temperature difference during the most 
recent performance test. To ensure complete combustion, the EPA also 
added a requirement that the catalyst's minimum temperature must always 
be 50 degrees Fahrenheit above the catalyst's ignition temperature.
9. Compliance Report Content
a. What did we propose?
    The EPA proposed new reporting requirements at 40 CFR 63.3400(c)(2) 
that would require facilities to record data for failures to meet an 
applicable standard, estimate the quantity of each regulated pollutant 
over any emission limit and a description of the method used, and 
document any actions taken to minimize emissions.
b. What changed since proposal?
    The EPA has revised the compliance report content requirements in 
40 CFR 63.3400(c)(2) to clarify what should be reported.
c. What are the key comments and what are our responses?
    Commenters noted that the new reporting requirements should be 
eliminated because they go beyond the General Provisions at 40 CFR 
63.10 and, because compliance is determined monthly, short deviations 
are not likely to cause excess emissions. Commenters further noted that 
the proposed additions are not relevant to a rule where compliance is 
not demonstrated on a short-term basis. The EPA has reviewed the 
commenters concerns and agree that the language is not appropriate for 
40 CFR part 63, subpart JJJJ. The EPA has revised the requirements in 
40 CFR 63.3400(c)(2) to clarify what is required to be reported and has 
also revised the requirements in 40 CFR 63.3410(c) to clarify what 
records should be maintained.
    Additionally, while the EPA was reviewing the report content 
requirements, it became clear that the requirements were confusing as 
to what should be reported for facilities using compliant coatings 
versus facilities using add-on controls. The EPA has clarified that 40 
CFR 63.3400(c)(2)(v) applies to facilities using only compliant 
coatings (i.e., those that do not use a CMS). The EPA also clarified 
that 40 CFR 63.3400(c)(2)(vi) applies to facilities that have add-on 
control devices (i.e., those that use a CPMS or a continuous emission 
monitoring system). These amendments should improve regulatory clarity.
    For detailed comment summaries regarding compliance report content 
and the corresponding responses, see the memorandum in the docket, 
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Paper and 
Other Web Coating (40 CFR Part 63, Subpart JJJJ) Residual Risk and 
Technology Review, Final Amendments--Response to Public Comments on 
September 19, 2019 Proposal.
d. What is the rationale for our final approach?
    The EPA proposed new reporting requirements at 40 CFR 63.3400(c)(2) 
that would require facilities to record data for failures to meet an 
applicable standard, estimate the quantity of each regulated pollutant 
over any emission limit and a description of the method used, and 
document any actions taken to minimize emissions to be consistent with 
recent RTR rulemakings. After reviewing the comments received during 
the public comment period, as well as the regulatory language, it was 
determined that these requirements were not appropriate for 40 CFR part 
63, subpart JJJJ because compliance is demonstrated on a monthly basis 
and therefore these requirements are not being finalized. In response 
to comments, amendments were added to the compliance report contents 
section to clarify what should be reported and by whom.
10. Other Amendments
    The following additional changes were proposed that address 
technical and editorial corrections:
     Revised the references to the other NESHAP in 40 CFR 
63.3300 to clarify the appropriate subparts;
     revised 40 CFR 3350(c) to clarify that bypass valves on 
always-controlled work stations should be monitored;
     revised 40 CFR 63.3350(e)(4) to clarify 3-hour averages 
should be block averages, consistent with the requirements in Table 1 
to Subpart JJJJ of Part 63;

[[Page 41292]]

     revised the monitoring requirements section in 40 CFR 
63.3360 to clarify what constitutes representative conditions;
     revised the recordkeeping requirements section in 40 CFR 
63.3410 to include the requirement to show continuous compliance after 
effective date of regulation;
     revised the terminology in the delegation of authority 
section in 40 CFR 63.3420 to match the definitions in 40 CFR 63.90;
     revised the General Provisions applicability table (Table 
2 to Subpart JJJJ of Part 63) to provide more detail and to make it 
align with those sections of the General Provisions that have been 
amended or reserved over time; and
     renumbered the equations throughout the subpart for 
regulatory clarity.
    No comments were received on these other amendments and, therefore, 
the EPA is finalizing them as proposed.

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

A. What are the affected facilities?

    The POWC source category includes any facility that is located at a 
major source and is engaged in the coating of paper, plastic film, 
metallic foil, and other web surfaces. All the coating lines at a 
subject facility are defined as one affected source. Any new source 
means any affected source for which construction or reconstruction was 
commenced after the date the EPA first proposed regulations 
establishing a NESHAP applicable to the source (i.e., for the POWC 
source category, September 13, 2000). An existing source means any 
source other than a new source. Generally, an additional line at an 
existing facility is considered part of the existing affected source. 
New affected sources are new lines installed at new facilities or at a 
facility with no prior POWC operations.
    There are currently 168 facilities in the United States that are 
subject to the POWC NESHAP. The EPA is aware of one new affected source 
that is under construction that will be subject to the POWC NESHAP in 
the future. The EPA is not aware of any other facilities that are under 
construction or are planned to be constructed which would be considered 
``new facilities'' under the POWC NESHAP.

B. What are the air quality impacts?

    At the current level of control, estimated emissions of total HAP 
are approximately 3,870 tpy. Compared to pre-MACT levels, this 
represents a significant reduction of HAP for the category. When the 
POWC NESHAP was finalized in 2002, the EPA estimated the annual 
baseline HAP emissions from the source category to be approximately 
42,000 tpy (67 FR 72331, December 4, 2002).
    The amendments will require all 168 major sources with equipment 
subject to the POWC NESHAP to operate without the SSM exemption. 
Eliminating the SSM exemption will reduce emissions by requiring 
facilities to meet the applicable standard during SSM periods; however, 
the EPA is unable to quantify the specific emission reductions 
associated with eliminating the exemption. The requirement for repeat 
performance testing once every 5 years for thermal oxidizers and the 
alternative of annual catalyst activity testing for catalytic oxidizers 
will ensure that the control device is operating correctly and may 
reduce emissions, but no method for accurately estimating such 
emissions reduction is available.
    Indirect or secondary air emissions impacts are impacts that would 
result from the increased electricity usage associated with the 
operation of control devices (i.e., increased secondary emissions of 
criteria pollutants from power plants). Energy impacts consist of the 
electricity and steam needed to operate control devices and other 
equipment that would be required under this final rule. The EPA expects 
no secondary air emissions impacts or energy impacts from this 
rulemaking.
    For further information, see the memorandum titled Revised Cost, 
Environmental, and Energy Impacts of Regulatory Options for the Paper 
and Other Web Coatings Risk and Technology Review, in the docket for 
this action (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2018-0416).

C. What are the cost impacts?

    Startup and shutdown are considered normal operations for most 
facilities subject to the POWC NESHAP. The EPA does not believe 
removing the SSM exemption will result in additional incurred costs.
    As discussed in detail in the memorandum titled Revised Cost, 
Environmental, and Energy Impacts of Regulatory Options for the Paper 
and Other Web Coatings Risk and Technology Review, it is estimated that 
65 oxidizers will have to perform repeat performance testing. Fifty 
eight of these 65 are thermal oxidizers, and 3 are catalytic oxidizers. 
For costing purposes, it was assumed that repeat emissions performance 
testing will be performed every 5 years on the thermal oxidizers, and 
annual catalyst activity testing will be conducted on the catalytic 
oxidizers. The estimated cost for an inlet-outlet EPA Method 25A 
performance test (with electronic reporting of results) is $28,000 per 
test and the estimated cost for annual catalyst activity testing is 
$1,000, for an estimated nationwide cost of $1,750,000 (2018$) every 5 
years. The electronic reporting requirement is not expected to require 
any additional labor hours to prepare, compared to the paper semi-
annual compliance reports that are already prepared. Therefore, the 
costs associated with the electronic reporting requirement are zero.

D. What are the economic impacts?

    The economic impact analysis is designed to inform decision makers 
about the potential economic consequences of a regulatory action. To 
assess the potential impact, the largest cost expected to be 
experienced in any 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 final revisions to the POWC NESHAP, the 168 affected 
facilities are owned by 91 different parent companies, and the total 
costs associated with the final requirements range from less than 
0.000001 to 3 percent of annual sales revenue per ultimate owner. These 
costs are not expected to result in a significant market impact, 
regardless of whether they are passed on to the purchaser or absorbed 
by the firms.
    The EPA also prepared a small business screening assessment to 
determine whether any of the identified affected entities are small 
entities, as defined by the U.S. Small Business Administration. Twenty-
nine of the facilities potentially affected by the final revisions to 
the POWC NESHAP are small entities. However, the costs associated with 
the final requirements for the affected small entities range from 
0.0003 to 3 percent of annual sales revenues per ultimate owner; there 
is one facility with costs of 1.4 percent and one facility with costs 
of 3 percent of annual sales revenues per ultimate owner. Therefore, 
there are no significant economic impacts on a substantial number of 
small entities from these final amendments.

E. What are the benefits?

    Because these final amendments are not considered economically 
significant, as defined by Executive Order 12866, and because we did 
not estimate emission reductions associated with the

[[Page 41293]]

final revisions, the EPA did not estimate any benefits from reducing 
emissions.

F. What analysis of environmental justice did we conduct?

    Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994) establishes 
federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision 
directs federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and 
permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission 
by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high 
and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs, 
policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income 
populations in the United States.
    To examine the potential for any environmental justice issues that 
might be associated with the source category, the EPA performed a 
demographic analysis, which is an assessment of risk to individual 
demographic groups of the populations living within 5 kilometers (km) 
and within 50 km of the facilities. In the analysis, the EPA evaluated 
the distribution of HAP-related cancer and noncancer risk from the POWC 
source category across different social, demographic, and economic 
groups within the populations living near facilities identified as 
having the highest risks.\6\ The methodology and the results of the 
demographic analysis are presented in a technical report, Risk and 
Technology Review--Analysis of Demographic Factors for Populations 
Living Near Paper and Other Web Coating Facilities, available in the 
docket for this action (Docket ID Item No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2018-0416-0088). 
These results, for various demographic groups, are based on the 
estimated risk from actual emissions levels for the population living 
within 50 km of the facilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 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 2 times the poverty level, and linguistically isolated 
people.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The results of the POWC source category demographic analysis 
indicate that emissions from the source category expose approximately 
4,300 people to a cancer risk at or above 1-in-1 million and no one is 
exposed to a chronic noncancer TOSHI greater than 1. The specific 
demographic results indicate that the percentage of the population 
potentially impacted by emissions is greater than its corresponding 
national percentage for the white population (86 percent for the source 
category compared to 62 percent nationwide) and for the below-poverty-
level population (17 percent compared to 14 percent nationwide).
    The risks due to HAP emissions from this source category are low 
for all populations. Furthermore, the EPA does not expect this final 
rule to achieve significant reductions in HAP emissions. Therefore, the 
EPA concludes that this final rule will not have disproportionately 
high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority or 
low-income populations because it does not affect the level of 
protection provided to human health or the environment. However, this 
final rule will provide additional benefits to these demographic groups 
by improving the monitoring, compliance, and implementation of the 
NESHAP.

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

    The EPA does not believe the environmental health or safety risks 
addressed by this action present a disproportionate risk to children. 
The results of the POWC source category demographic analysis indicate 
that emissions from the source category expose approximately 4,300 
people to a cancer risk at or above 1-in-1 million and no one is 
exposed to a chronic noncancer TOSHI greater than 1. The distribution 
of the population with risks above 1-in-1 million is 20 percent for 
ages 0 to 17, 62 percent for ages 18 to 64, and 17 percent for ages 65 
and up. Children ages 0 to 17 constitute 23 percent of the population 
nationwide. Therefore, the analysis shows that actual emissions from 40 
CFR part 63, subpart JJJJ facilities have a slightly smaller impact on 
children ages 0 to 17. This action's health and risk assessments are 
contained in sections III and IV of the preamble to the proposed rule 
and further documented in the risk report titled Residual Risk 
Assessment for the Paper and Other Web Source Category in Support of 
the 2020 Risk and Technology Review Final Rule, which can be found in 
the docket for this action (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2018-0416).

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

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

A. Executive 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 the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) 
for review.

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

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

C. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

    The information collection activities in this proposed rule have 
been submitted for approval to OMB under the PRA. The Information 
Collection Request (ICR) document that the EPA prepared has been 
assigned EPA ICR number 1951.09, OMB Control No. 2060-0511. You can 
find a copy of the ICR in the docket for this rule, and it is briefly 
summarized here. The information collection requirements are not 
enforceable until OMB approves them.
    The POWC NESHAP applies to existing facilities and new POWC 
facilities. In general, all NESHAP standards require initial 
notifications, notifications of compliance status, performance tests, 
performance evaluation reports, and periodic reports by the owners/
operators of the affected facilities. They are also required to 
maintain records of the occurrence and duration of any malfunction in 
the operation of an affected facility, or any period during which the 
monitoring system is inoperative. These notifications, reports, and 
records are essential in determining compliance, and are required of 
all affected facilities subject to NESHAP. This information is being 
collected to assure compliance with 40 CFR part 63, subpart JJJJ.
    Respondents/affected entities: POWC facilities.
    Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (40 CFR Part 63, 
Subpart JJJJ).
    Estimated number of respondents: 170.
    Frequency of response: Initially, occasionally, and semiannually.
    Total estimated burden: 17,300 hours (per year). Burden is defined 
at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).
    Total estimated cost: $2,735,000 (per year), includes $765,000 
annualized capital and operation and maintenance costs.
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required 
to

[[Page 41294]]

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. When OMB approves 
this ICR, the Agency will announce that approval in the Federal 
Register and publish a technical amendment to 40 CFR part 9 to display 
the OMB control number for the approved information collection 
activities contained in this final rule.

D. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

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

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

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

F. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

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

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

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

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

    This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is 
not economically significant as defined in Executive Order 12866, and 
because the EPA does not believe the environmental health risks or 
safety risks addressed by this action present a disproportionate risk 
to children. This action's health and risk assessments are contained in 
sections III and IV of this preamble and further documented in the risk 
report titled Residual Risk Assessment for the Paper and Other Web 
Source Category in Support of the 2020 Risk and Technology Review Final 
Rule, which can be found in the docket for this action (Docket ID No. 
EPA-HQ-OAR-2018-0416).

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

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

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

    This action involves technical standards. The EPA is finalizing the 
following six VCS as alternatives to EPA Method 24 and is incorporating 
them by reference for the first time in the finalized amendments:
     ASTM D2369-10 (Reapproved 2015)\e\, ``Standard Test Method 
for Volatile Content of Coatings.'' This test method describes a 
procedure used for the determination of the weight percent volatile 
content of solvent-borne and waterborne coatings.
     ASTM D2697-03 (Reapproved 2014), ``Standard Test Method 
for Volume Nonvolatile Matter in Clear or Pigmented Coatings.'' This 
test method is applicable to the determination of the volume of 
nonvolatile matter in coatings.
     ASTM D3960-98, ``Standard Practice for Determining 
Volatile Organic Compound (VOC) Content of Paints and Related 
Coatings.'' This test method is used for the measurement of the VOC 
content of solvent borne and waterborne paints and related coatings. 
This method is an acceptable alternative to EPA Method 24 because the 
regulation allows for the use of VOC content as a surrogate for HAP.
     ASTM D6093-97 (Reapproved 2016), ``Standard Test Method 
for Percent Volume Nonvolatile Matter in Clear or Pigmented Coatings 
Using a Helium Gas Pycnometer.'' This test method is used for the 
determination of the percent volume nonvolatile matter in clear and 
pigmented coatings.
     ASTM D2111-10 (Reapproved 2015), ``Standard Test Methods 
for Specific Gravity of Halogenated Organic Solvents and Their 
Admixtures.'' This test method is used for the determination of the 
specific gravity of halogenated organic solvents and solvent 
admixtures.
     ASTM D1963-85 (Reapproved 1996), ``Standard Test Method 
for Specific Gravity of Drying Oils, Varnishes, Resins, and Related 
Materials at 25[deg] C.'' This test method is used for the 
determination of the specific gravity of drying oils, varnishes, alkyd 
resins, fatty acids, and related materials. This method is an 
acceptable alternative to EPA Method 24 for density only and may not be 
valid for all coatings and is valid at the designated temperature (25 
degrees Celsius). This standard was withdrawn in 2004 with no 
replacement; there is no later version.
    These standards are reasonably available from the American Society 
for Testing and Materials (ASTM), 100 Barr Harbor Drive, Post Office 
Box C700, West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959. See https://www.astm.org/.
    While the EPA has identified another 19 VCS as being potentially 
applicable to this NESHAP, we have decided not to use these VCS in this 
rulemaking. The use of these VCS would not be practical due to lack of 
equivalency, documentation, validation date, and other important 
technical and policy considerations. See the memorandum titled 
Voluntary Consensus Standard Results for National Emission Standards 
for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Paper and Other Web Coating, in the 
docket for this rule for the reasons for these determinations (Docket 
ID Item No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2018-0416-0068).
    The revised regulatory text references ANSI/ASME PTC 19.10-1981 (40 
CFR 63.3360) and ASTM D5087-02 (40 CFR 63.3165). These standards were 
previously approved for this section. That approval continues without 
change.
    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.

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

[[Page 41295]]

contained in section V.F of this preamble and the technical report, 
Risk and Technology Review--Analysis of Demographic Factors for 
Populations Living Near Paper and Other Web Coating Facilities, which 
is available in the docket for this action (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2018-0416).

L. Congressional Review Act (CRA)

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

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63

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

    Dated: March 11, 2020.
Andrew R. Wheeler,
Administrator.

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

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

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

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

Subpart A--General Provisions

0
2. Section 63.14 is amended by:
0
a. Redesignating paragraphs (h)(49) through (114) as (h)(51) through 
(116) and paragraphs (h)(18) through (48) as (h)(19) through (49), 
respectively;
0
b. Adding new paragraphs (h)(18) and (50); and
0
c. Revising newly redesignated paragraphs (h)(21), (26), (30), and 
(80).
    The additions and revisions read as follows:


Sec.  63.14   Incorporations by reference.

* * * * *
    (h) * * *
    (18) ASTM D1963-85 (Reapproved 1996), Standard Test Method for 
Specific Gravity of Drying Oils, Varnishes, Resins, and Related 
Materials at 25/25[deg]C, approved November 29, 1985, IBR approved for 
Sec.  63.3360(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.  
63.3360(c), 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), 63.3360(c), 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), 
appendix A to subpart PPPP, 63.4741(a), 63.4941(a) and (b), and 
63.4961(j).
* * * * *
    (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), 63.3360(c), 
63.3941(b), 63.4141(b), 63.4741(a) and (b), and 63.4941(b).
* * * * *
    (50) ASTM 3960-98, Standard Practice for Determining Volatile 
Organic Compound (VOC) Content of Paints and Related Coatings, approved 
November 10, 1998, IBR approved for Sec.  63.3360(c).
* * * * *
    (80) 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), 63.3360(c), 63.3941(b), 63.4141(b), 63.4741(a) 
and (b), and 63.4941(b).
* * * * *

Subpart JJJJ--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air 
Pollutants: Paper and Other Web Coating

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


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

    The affected source subject to this subpart is the collection of 
all web coating lines at your facility. This includes web coating lines 
engaged in the coating of metal webs that are used in flexible 
packaging, and web coating lines engaged in the coating of fabric 
substrates for use in pressure sensitive tape and abrasive materials. 
Web coating lines specified in paragraphs (a) through (g) of this 
section are not part of the affected source of this subpart.
    (a) Any web coating line that is stand-alone equipment under 
subpart KK of this part (National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air 
Pollutants (NESHAP) for the Printing and Publishing Industry) which the 
owner or operator includes in the affected source under subpart KK.
    (b) Any web coating line that is a product and packaging 
rotogravure or wide-web flexographic press under subpart KK of this 
part (NESHAP for the Printing and Publishing Industry) which is 
included in the affected source under subpart KK.
* * * * *
    (d) Any web coating line subject to subpart EE of this part (NESHAP 
for Magnetic Tape Manufacturing Operations).
    (e) Any web coating line subject to subpart SSSS of this part 
(NESHAP for Surface Coating of Metal Coil).
    (f) Any web coating line subject to subpart OOOO of this part 
(NESHAP for the Printing, Coating, and Dyeing of Fabrics and Other 
Textiles). This includes any web coating line that coats both a paper 
or other web substrate and a fabric or other textile substrate, except 
for a fabric substrate used for pressure sensitive tape and abrasive 
materials.
* * * * *
    (h) Any web coating line that coats both paper or a web, and 
another substrate such as fabric, may comply with the subpart of this 
part that applies to the predominant activity conducted on the affected 
source. Predominant activity for this subpart is 90 percent of the mass 
of substrate coated during the compliance period. For example, a web 
coating line that coats 90 percent or more of a paper substrate, and 10 
percent or less of a fabric or other textile substrate, would be 
subject to this subpart and not subpart OOOO of this part. You may use 
data for any reasonable time period of at least one year in determining 
the relative amount of coating activity, as long as they are expected 
to represent the way the source will continue to operate in the future. 
You must demonstrate and document the predominant activity annually.
    (i) Any web coating line subject to this part that is modified to 
include printing activities, may continue to demonstrate compliance 
with this part, in lieu of demonstrating compliance with subpart KK of 
this part. Any web coating line with product and packaging rotogravure 
print station(s) and/or a wide-web flexographic print station(s) that 
is subject to this subpart may elect to continue demonstrating 
compliance with this subpart in lieu of subpart KK of this part, if the 
mass of the materials applied to the line's print station(s) in

[[Page 41296]]

a month ever exceed 5 percent of the total mass of materials applied 
onto the line during the same period.
    (j) If all of the subject web coating lines at your facility 
utilize non-HAP coatings, you can become exempt from the reporting 
requirements of this subpart, provided you submit a one-time report as 
required in Sec.  63.3370(s) to your permitting authority documenting 
the use of only non-HAP coatings.

0
4. Section 63.3310 is amended by revising the definitions of ``coating 
material(s)'' and ``web coating line'' to read as follows:


Sec.  63.3310   What definitions are used in this subpart?

* * * * *
    Coating material(s) means all liquid or semi-liquid materials 
(including the solids fraction of those materials as applied), such as 
inks, varnishes, adhesives (including hot melt adhesives or other hot 
melt materials), primers, solvents, reducers, and other materials 
applied to a substrate via a web coating line. Materials used to form a 
substrate or applied via vapor deposition, and dry abrasive materials 
deposited on top of a coated web, are not considered coating materials.
* * * * *
    Web coating line means any number of work stations, of which one or 
more applies a continuous layer of liquid or semi-liquid coating 
material across the entire width or any portion of the width of a web 
substrate, and any associated curing/drying equipment between an unwind 
or feed station and a rewind or cutting station.
* * * * *

0
5. Section 63.3320 is amended by revising paragraphs (b) introductory 
text and (b)(4) to read as follows:
    The revisions read as follows:


Sec.  63.3320   What emission standards must I meet?

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

0
6. Section 63.3321 is amended by revising paragraph (a) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  63.3321   What operating limits must I meet?

    (a) For any web coating line or group of web coating lines for 
which you use add-on control devices to demonstrate compliance with the 
emission standards in Sec.  63.3320, unless you use a solvent recovery 
system and conduct a liquid-liquid material balance, you must meet the 
operating limits specified in Table 1 to this subpart or according to 
paragraph (b) of this section. These operating limits apply to emission 
capture systems and control devices used to demonstrate compliance with 
this subpart, and you must establish the operating limits during the 
performance test according to the requirements in Sec.  63.3360(e)(3). 
You must meet the operating limits at all times after you establish 
them.
* * * * *

0
7. Section 63.3330 is revised to read as follows:


Sec.  63.3330   When must I comply?

    (a) For affected sources which commenced construction or 
reconstruction prior to September 19, 2019, you must comply as follows:
    (1) Before July 9, 2021, the affected coating operation(s) must be 
in compliance with the applicable emission limit in Sec.  63.3320 at 
all times, except during periods of SSM. On and after July 9, 2021, the 
affected coating operation(s) must be in compliance with the applicable 
emission limit in Sec.  63.3320 at all times, including periods of SSM.
    (2) A periodic emissions performance test must be performed by July 
9, 2023, or within 60 months of the previous test, whichever is later, 
and subsequent tests no later than 60 months thereafter, as required in 
Sec.  63.3360. Performance testing for HAP or VOC destruction 
efficiency required by state agencies can be used to meet this 
requirement.
    (3) After July 9, 2021, you must electronically submit initial 
notifications, notifications of compliance status, performance 
evaluation reports, and performance test reports, as required in Sec.  
63.3400. Semiannual compliance reports must be submitted electronically 
for the first full semiannual compliance period after the template has 
been available in the Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface 
(CEDRI) for 1 year.
    (b) For new affected sources which commenced construction or 
reconstruction after September 19, 2019, you must comply as indicated 
in paragraphs (b)(1) through (3) of this section. Existing affected 
sources which have undergone reconstruction as defined in Sec.  63.2 
are subject to the requirements for new affected sources. The costs 
associated with the purchase and installation of air pollution control 
equipment are not considered in determining whether the existing 
affected source has been reconstructed. Additionally, the costs of 
retrofitting and replacing of equipment that is installed specifically 
to comply with this subpart are not considered reconstruction costs.
    (1) The coating operation(s) must be in compliance with the 
applicable emission limit in Sec.  63.3320 at all times, including 
periods of SSM, starting July 9, 2020, or immediately upon startup, 
whichever is later.
    (2) You must complete any initial performance test required in 
Sec.  63.3360 within the time limits specified in Sec.  63.7(a)(2), and 
subsequent tests no later than 60 months thereafter.
    (3) You must electronically submit initial notifications, 
notifications of compliance status, performance evaluation reports, and 
performance test reports as required in Sec.  63.3400 starting July 9, 
2020, or immediately upon startup, whichever is later. Semiannual 
compliance reports must be submitted electronically for the first full 
semiannual compliance period after the template has been available in 
CEDRI for 1 year.

0
8. Section 63.3340 is revised to read as follows:


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

    (a) Before July 9, 2021, for each existing source for which 
construction or reconstruction commenced on or before September 19, 
2019, you must be in compliance with the emission limits and operating 
limits in this subpart at all times, except during periods of SSM. On 
and after July 9, 2021, for each such source you must be in compliance 
with the emission limits and operating limits in this subpart at all 
times. For new and reconstructed sources for which construction or 
reconstruction commenced after September 19, 2019, you must be in 
compliance with the emission limits and operating limits in this 
subpart at all times, starting July 9, 2020, or immediately upon 
startup, whichever is later.
    (b) For affected sources as of September 19, 2019, before July 9, 
2021, 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

[[Page 41297]]

and after July 9, 2021, for such sources and on July 9, 2020, or 
immediately upon startup, whichever is later, for new or reconstructed 
affected sources, you must always operate and maintain your affected 
source, including associated air pollution control equipment and 
monitoring equipment, in a manner consistent with safety and good air 
pollution control practices for minimizing emissions. The general duty 
to minimize emissions does not require the owner or operator to make 
any further efforts to reduce emissions if levels required by the 
applicable standard have been achieved. Determination of whether a 
source is operating in compliance with operation and maintenance 
requirements will be based on information available to the 
Administrator which may include, but is not limited to, monitoring 
results, review of operation and maintenance procedures, review of 
operation and maintenance records, and inspection of the source.
    (c) You must conduct each performance test required by Sec.  
63.3360 according to the requirements in Sec.  63.3360(e)(2) and under 
the conditions in this section unless you obtain a waiver of the 
performance test according to the provisions in Sec.  63.7(h).
    (1) Representative coating operation operating conditions. You must 
conduct the performance test under representative operating conditions 
for the coating operation. Operations during periods of startup, 
shutdown, and nonoperation do not constitute representative conditions. 
You may not conduct performance tests during periods of malfunction. 
You must record the process information that is necessary to document 
operating conditions during the test and explain why the conditions 
represent normal operation. Upon request, you shall make available to 
the Administrator such records as may be necessary to determine the 
conditions of performance tests.
    (2) Representative emission capture system and add-on control 
device operating conditions. You must conduct the performance test when 
the emission capture system and add-on control device are operating at 
a representative flow rate, and the add-on control device is operating 
at a representative inlet concentration. Representative conditions 
exclude periods of startup and shutdown. You may not conduct 
performance tests during periods of malfunction. You must record 
information that is necessary to document emission capture system and 
add-on control device operating conditions during the test and explain 
why the conditions represent normal operation.
    (d) Table 2 to this subpart specifies the provisions of subpart A 
of this part that apply if you are subject to subpart JJJJ.

0
9. Section 63.3350 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraphs (b), (c) introductory text, (d)(1)(iii), (e) 
introductory text, and (e)(2) and (4);
0
b. Redesignating paragraphs (e)(5) through (10) as paragraphs (e)(6) 
through (11);
0
c. Adding new paragraph (e)(5); and
0
d. Revising newly redesignated paragraph (e)(10).
    The revisions and addition read as follows:


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

* * * * *
    (b) Following the date on which the initial or periodic performance 
test of a control device is completed to demonstrate continuing 
compliance with the standards, you must monitor and inspect each 
capture system and each control device used to comply with Sec.  
63.3320. You must install and operate the monitoring equipment as 
specified in paragraphs (c) and (f) of this section.
    (c) Bypass and coating use monitoring. If you own or operate web 
coating lines with intermittently-controlled work stations, you must 
monitor bypasses of the control device and the mass of each coating 
material applied at the work station during any such bypass. If using a 
control device for complying with the requirements of this subpart, you 
must demonstrate that any coating material applied on a never-
controlled work station or an intermittently-controlled work station 
operated in bypass mode is allowed in your compliance demonstration 
according to Sec.  63.3370(o) and (p). The bypass monitoring must be 
conducted using at least one of the procedures in paragraphs (c)(1) 
through (4) of this section for each work station and associated dryer.
* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (iii) You must have valid data from at least 90 percent of the 
hours when the process is operated. Invalid or missing data should be 
reported as a deviation in the semiannual compliance report.
* * * * *
    (e) Continuous parameter monitoring system (CPMS). If you are using 
a control device to comply with the emission standards in Sec.  
63.3320, you must install, operate, and maintain each CPMS specified in 
paragraphs (e)(10) and (11) and (f) of this section according to the 
requirements in paragraphs (e)(1) through (9) of this section. You must 
install, operate, and maintain each CPMS specified in paragraph (c) of 
this section according to paragraphs (e)(5) through (8) of this 
section.
* * * * *
    (2) You must have valid data from at least 90 percent of the hours 
when the process operated.
* * * * *
    (4) You must determine the block 3-hour average of all recorded 
readings for each operating period. To calculate the average for each 
3-hour averaging period, you must have at least two of three of the 
hourly averages for that period using only average values that are 
based on valid data (i.e., not from out-of-control periods).
    (5) Except for temperature sensors, you must develop a quality 
control program that must contain, at a minimum, a written protocol 
that describes the procedures for each of the operations in Sec.  
63.3350(e)(5)(i) through (vi). The owner or operator shall keep these 
written procedures on record for the life of the affected source or 
until the affected source is no longer subject to the provisions of 
this part, to be made available for inspection, upon request, by the 
Administrator. If the performance evaluation plan is revised, the owner 
or operator shall keep previous (i.e., superseded) versions of the 
performance evaluation plan on record to be made available for 
inspection, upon request, by the Administrator, for a period of 5 years 
after each revision to the plan. For temperature sensors, you must 
follow the requirements in Sec.  63.3350(e)(10).
    (i) Initial and any subsequent calibration of the continuous 
monitoring system (CMS);
    (ii) Determination and adjustment of the calibration drift of the 
CMS;
    (iii) Preventative maintenance of the CMS, including spare parts 
inventory;
    (iv) Data recording, calculations, and reporting;
    (v) Accuracy audit procedures, including sampling and analysis 
methods; and
    (vi) Program of corrective action for a malfunctioning CMS.
* * * * *
    (10) Oxidizer. If you are using an oxidizer to comply with the 
emission standards of this subpart, you must comply with paragraphs 
(e)(10)(i) through (vi) of this section.
    (i) Install, maintain, and operate temperature monitoring equipment 
according to the manufacturer's specifications.

[[Page 41298]]

    (ii) For an oxidizer other than a catalytic oxidizer, install, 
operate, and maintain a temperature monitoring device equipped with a 
continuous recorder. The device must be capable of monitoring 
temperature with an accuracy of 1 percent of the 
temperature being monitored in degrees Fahrenheit or 1.8 
degrees Fahrenheit, whichever is greater. The temperature sensor must 
be installed in the combustion chamber at a location in the combustion 
zone.
    (iii) For a catalytic oxidizer, install, operate, and maintain a 
temperature monitoring device equipped with a continuous recorder. The 
device must be capable of monitoring temperature with an accuracy of 
1 percent of the temperature being monitored in degrees 
Fahrenheit or 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit, whichever is greater. 
The temperature sensor must be installed in the vent stream at the 
nearest feasible point to the inlet and outlet of the catalyst bed. 
Calculate the temperature rise across the catalyst.
    (iv) For temperature sensors, you must develop a quality control 
program that must contain, at a minimum, a written protocol that 
describes the procedures for verifying that the temperature sensor is 
operating properly using at least one of the methods in paragraph 
(e)(10)(iv)(A), (B), (C), (D), (E), or (F) of this section. The owner 
or operator shall keep these written procedures on record for the life 
of the affected source or until the affected source is no longer 
subject to the provisions of this part, to be made available for 
inspection, upon request, by the Administrator:
    (A) Semiannually, compare measured readings to a National Institute 
of Standards and Technology (NIST) traceable temperature measurement 
device or simulate a typical operating temperature using a NIST 
traceable temperature simulation device. When the temperature 
measurement device method is used, the sensor of the calibrated device 
must be placed as close as practicable to the process sensor, and both 
devices must be subjected to the same environmental conditions. The 
accuracy of the temperature measured must be 2.5 percent of the 
temperature measured by the NIST traceable device or 5 degrees 
Fahrenheit whichever is greater.
    (B) Annually validate the temperature sensor by following 
applicable mechanical and electrical validation procedures in the 
manufacturer owner's manual.
    (C) Annually request the temperature sensor manufacturer to certify 
or re-certify electromotive force (electrical properties) of the 
thermocouple.
    (D) Annually replace the temperature sensor with a new certified 
temperature sensor in lieu of validation.
    (E) Permanently install a redundant temperature sensor as close as 
practicable to the process temperature sensor. The sensors must yield a 
reading within 2.5 percent of each other for thermal oxidizers and 
catalytic oxidizers.
    (F) Permanently install a temperature sensor with dual sensors to 
account for the possibility of failure.
    (v) Conduct the validation checks in paragraph (e)(10)(iv)(A), (B), 
or (C) of this section any time the temperature sensor exceeds the 
manufacturer's specified maximum operating temperature range or install 
a new temperature sensor.
    (vi) At least quarterly, inspect temperature sensor components for 
proper connection and integrity or continuously operate an electronic 
monitoring system designed to notify personnel if the signal from the 
temperature sensor is interrupted.
* * * * *

0
10. Section 63.3360 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraphs (a), (b), (c)(1)(i), and (c)(2) through (4), 
(d)(1) through (3), and (e)(1) through (3);
0
b. Adding paragraph (e)(4); and
0
c. Revising the paragraphs (f) introductory text and (g).
    The revisions and addition read as follows:


Sec.  63.3360   What performance tests must I conduct?

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

------------------------------------------------------------------------
   If you control organic HAP on any
  individual web coating  line or any
     group of web coating lines to                  You must:
    demonstrate  compliance with the
 emission limits in Sec.   63.3320 by:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) Limiting organic HAP or volatile     Determine the organic HAP or
 matter content of coatings.              volatile matter and coating
                                          solids content of coating
                                          materials according to
                                          procedures in paragraphs (c)
                                          and (d) of this section. If
                                          applicable, determine the mass
                                          of volatile matter retained in
                                          the coated web or otherwise
                                          not emitted to the atmosphere
                                          according to paragraph (g) of
                                          this section.
(2) Using a capture and control system.  (i) Initially, conduct a
                                          performance test for each
                                          capture and control system to
                                          determine: The destruction or
                                          removal efficiency of each
                                          control device other than
                                          solvent recovery according to
                                          Sec.   63.3360(e), and the
                                          capture efficiency of each
                                          capture system according to
                                          Sec.   63.3360(f). If
                                          applicable, determine the mass
                                          of volatile matter retained in
                                          the coated web or otherwise
                                          not emitted to the atmosphere
                                          according to Sec.
                                          63.3360(g).
                                         (ii) Perform a periodic test
                                          once every 5 years for each
                                          thermal oxidizer to determine
                                          the destruction or removal
                                          efficiency according to Sec.
                                          63.3360(e). If applicable,
                                          determine the mass of volatile
                                          matter retained in the coated
                                          web or otherwise not emitted
                                          to the atmosphere according to
                                          Sec.   63.3360(g).
                                         (iii) Either perform a periodic
                                          test once every 5 years for
                                          each catalytic oxidizer to
                                          determine the destruction or
                                          removal efficiency according
                                          to Sec.   63.3360(e) OR
                                          perform a catalyst activity
                                          test annually on each
                                          catalytic oxidizer to ensure
                                          that the catalyst is
                                          performing properly according
                                          to Sec.
                                          63.3360(e)(3)(ii)(D)(1). If
                                          applicable, determine the mass
                                          of volatile matter retained in
                                          the coated web or otherwise
                                          not emitted to the atmosphere
                                          according to Sec.
                                          63.3360(g).
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (b) Control Device. If you are using a control device to comply 
with the emission standards in Sec.  63.3320, you are not required to 
conduct a performance test to demonstrate compliance if one or more of 
the criteria in paragraphs (b)(1) through (3) of this section are met.
    (1) The control device is equipped with continuous emission 
monitoring systems (CEMS) for determining inlet and outlet total 
organic volatile matter concentration and meeting the requirements of 
Performance Specification 6, 8, or 9 in Appendix B to 40 CFR Part 60 
and capture efficiency

[[Page 41299]]

has been determined in accordance with the requirements of this subpart 
such that an overall organic HAP control efficiency can be calculated, 
and the CEMS are used to demonstrate continuous compliance in 
accordance with Sec.  63.3350; or
    (2) You have met the requirements of Sec.  63.7(h) (for waiver of 
performance testing); or
    (3) The control device is a solvent recovery system and you comply 
by means of a monthly liquid-liquid material balance.
    (c) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (i) Include each organic HAP determined to be present at greater 
than or equal to 0.1 mass percent for Occupational Safety and Health 
Administration (OSHA)-defined carcinogens as specified in section A.6.4 
of appendix A to 29 CFR 1910.1200 and greater than or equal to 1.0 mass 
percent for other organic HAP compounds.
* * * * *
    (2) Method 24. For coatings, determine the volatile organic content 
as mass fraction of nonaqueous volatile matter and use it as a 
substitute for organic HAP using Method 24 of appendix A-7 to 40 CFR 
part 60. The Method 24 determination may be performed by the 
manufacturer of the coating and the results provided to you. One of the 
voluntary consensus standards in paragraphs (c)(2)(i) through (v) of 
this section may be used as an alternative to using Method 24.
    (i) ASTM D1963-85 (Reapproved 1996), (incorporated by reference, 
see Sec.  63.14);
    (ii) ASTM D2111-10 (Reapproved 2015), (incorporated by reference, 
see Sec.  63.14);
    (iii) ASTM D2369-10 (Reapproved 2015)\e\, (incorporated by 
reference, see Sec.  63.14);
    (iv) ASTM D2697-03 (Reapproved 2014), (incorporated by reference, 
see Sec.  63.14); and
    (v) ASTM D6093-97 (Reapproved 2016), (incorporated by reference, 
see Sec.  63.14).
    (3) Formulation data. You may use formulation data to determine the 
organic HAP mass fraction of a coating material. Formulation data may 
be provided to the owner or operator by the manufacturer of the 
material. In the event of an inconsistency between Method 311 (appendix 
A to this part) test data and a facility's formulation data, and the 
Method 311 test value is higher, the Method 311 data will govern. 
Formulation data may be used provided that the information represents 
all organic HAP present at a level equal to or greater than 0.1 percent 
for OSHA-defined carcinogens as specified in section A.6.4 of appendix 
A to 29 CFR 1910.1200 and equal to or greater than 1.0 percent for 
other organic HAP compounds in any raw material used.
    (4) As-applied organic HAP mass fraction. If the as-purchased 
coating material is applied to the web without any solvent or other 
material added, then the as-applied organic HAP mass fraction is equal 
to the as-purchased organic HAP mass fraction. Otherwise, the as-
applied organic HAP mass fraction must be calculated using Equation 4 
of Sec.  63.3370.
    (d) * * *
    (1) Method 24. You may determine the volatile organic and coating 
solids mass fraction of each coating applied using Method 24 (appendix 
A-7 to 40 CFR part 60). The Method 24 determination may be performed by 
the manufacturer of the material and the results provided to you. When 
using volatile organic compound content as a surrogate for HAP, you may 
also use ASTM D3960-98, (incorporated by reference, see Sec.  63.14) as 
an alternative to Method 24. If these values cannot be determined using 
either of these methods, you must submit an alternative technique for 
determining their values for approval by the Administrator.
    (2) Formulation data. You may determine the volatile organic 
content and coating solids content of a coating material based on 
formulation data and may rely on volatile organic content data provided 
by the manufacturer of the material. In the event of any inconsistency 
between the formulation data and the results of Method 24 of appendix 
A-7 to 40 CFR part 60 and the Method 24 results are higher, the results 
of Method 24 will govern.
    (3) As-applied volatile organic content and coating solids content. 
If the as-purchased coating material is applied to the web without any 
solvent or other material added, then the as-applied volatile organic 
content is equal to the as-purchased volatile content and the as-
applied coating solids content is equal to the as-purchased coating 
solids content. Otherwise, the as-applied volatile organic content must 
be calculated using Equation 5 to Sec.  63.3370(c)(4) and the as-
applied coating solids content must be calculated using Equation 6 to 
Sec.  63.3370(d).
    (e) * * *
    (1) Initial performance test. An initial performance test to 
establish the destruction or removal efficiency of the control device 
used to comply with the emission standards in Sec.  63.3320 must be 
conducted such that control device inlet and outlet testing is 
conducted simultaneously, and the data are reduced in accordance with 
the test methods and procedures in paragraphs (e)(1)(i) through (ix) of 
this section. You must conduct three test runs as specified in Sec.  
63.7(e)(3), and each test run must last at least 1 hour.
    (i) Method 1 or 1A of appendix A-1 to 40 CFR part 60 must be used 
for sample and velocity traverses to determine sampling locations.
    (ii) Method 2, 2A, 2C, 2D, or 2F of appendix A-1 to 40 CFR part 60, 
or Method 2G of appendix A-2 to 40 CFR part 60 must be used to 
determine gas volumetric flow rate.
    (iii) Method 3, 3A, or 3B of appendix A-2 to 40 CFR part 60 must be 
used for gas analysis to determine dry molecular weight. You may also 
use as an alternative to Method 3B the manual method for measuring the 
oxygen, carbon dioxide, and carbon monoxide content of exhaust gas in 
ANSI/ASME PTC 19.10-1981 Part 10, (incorporated by reference, see Sec.  
63.14).
    (iv) Method 4 of appendix A-3 to 40 CFR part 60 must be used to 
determine stack gas moisture.
    (v) Methods for determining the gas volumetric flow rate, dry 
molecular weight, and stack gas moisture must be performed, as 
applicable, during each test run.
    (vi) Method 25 or 25A of appendix A-7 to 40 CFR part 60 must be 
used to determine total gaseous non-methane organic matter 
concentration. Use the same test method for both the inlet and outlet 
measurements which must be conducted simultaneously. You must submit 
notice of the intended test method to the Administrator for approval 
along with notification of the performance test required under Sec.  
63.7(b). You must use Method 25A if any of the conditions described in 
paragraphs (e)(1)(vi)(A) through (D) of this section apply to the 
control device.
    (A) The control device is not an oxidizer.
    (B) The control device is an oxidizer but an exhaust gas volatile 
organic matter concentration of 50 ppmv or less is required to comply 
with the emission standards in Sec.  63.3320; or
    (C) The control device is an oxidizer but the volatile organic 
matter concentration at the inlet to the control system and the 
required level of control are such that they result in exhaust gas 
volatile organic matter concentrations of 50 ppmv or less; or
    (D) The control device is an oxidizer but because of the high 
efficiency of the control device the anticipated volatile organic 
matter concentration at the

[[Page 41300]]

control device exhaust is 50 ppmv or less, regardless of inlet 
concentration.
    (vii) Except as provided in Sec.  63.7(e)(3), each performance test 
must consist of three separate runs with each run conducted for at 
least 1 hour under the conditions that exist when the affected source 
is operating under normal operating conditions. For the purpose of 
determining volatile organic compound concentrations and mass flow 
rates, the average of the results of all the runs will apply.
    (viii) Volatile organic matter mass flow rates must be determined 
for each run specified in paragraph (e)(1)(vii) of this section using 
Equation 1:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR09JY20.023

Where:

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

    (ix) For each run, emission control device destruction or removal 
efficiency must be determined using Equation 2:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR09JY20.000

Where:

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

    (x) The control device destruction or removal efficiency is 
determined as the average of the efficiencies determined in the test 
runs and calculated in Equation 2.
    (2) Process information. You must record such process information 
as may be necessary to determine the conditions in existence at the 
time of the performance test. Representative conditions exclude periods 
of startup and shutdown. You may not conduct performance tests during 
periods of malfunction. You must record the process information that is 
necessary to document operating conditions during the test and include 
in such record an explanation to support that such conditions represent 
normal operation. Upon request, you shall make available to the 
Administrator such records as may be necessary to determine the 
conditions of performance tests.
    (3) Operating limits. If you are using one or more add-on control 
device other than a solvent recovery system for which you conduct a 
liquid-liquid material balance to comply with the emission standards in 
Sec.  63.3320, you must establish the applicable operating limits 
required by Sec.  63.3321. These operating limits apply to each add-on 
emission control device, and you must establish the operating limits 
during the performance test required by paragraph (e) of this section 
according to the requirements in paragraphs (e)(3)(i) and (ii) of this 
section.
    (i) Thermal oxidizer. If your add-on control device is a thermal 
oxidizer, establish the operating limits according to paragraphs 
(e)(3)(i)(A) and (B) of this section.
    (A) During the performance test, 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.
    (B) Use the data collected during the performance test to calculate 
and record the average combustion temperature maintained during the 
performance test. Maintain the 3-hour average combustion temperature no 
more than 50 degrees Fahrenheit lower than this average combustion 
temperature.
    (ii) Catalytic oxidizer. If your add-on control device is a 
catalytic oxidizer, establish the operating limits according to 
paragraphs (e)(3)(ii)(A) and (B) or paragraphs (e)(3)(ii)(C) and (D) of 
this section.
    (A) During the performance test, 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.
    (B) 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. Maintain the 3-hour average combustion 
temperature no more than 50 degrees Fahrenheit lower than this average 
combustion temperature or maintain the 3-hour average temperature 
difference across the catalyst bed at no less than 80 percent of this 
average temperature differential, provided that the minimum temperature 
is always 50 degrees Fahrenheit above the catalyst's ignition 
temperature.
    (C) As an alternative to monitoring the temperature difference 
across the catalyst bed, you may monitor the temperature at the inlet 
to the catalyst bed and implement a site-specific inspection and 
maintenance plan for your catalytic oxidizer as specified in paragraph 
(e)(3)(ii)(D) 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. Use the 
data collected during the performance test to calculate and record the 
average temperature just before the catalyst bed during the performance 
test. Maintain the 3-hour average combustion temperature no more than 
50 degrees Fahrenheit lower than this average combustion temperature.
    (D) You must develop and implement an inspection and maintenance 
plan for your catalytic oxidizer(s) for which you elect to monitor 
according to paragraph (e)(3)(ii)(C) of this section. The plan must 
address, at a minimum, the elements specified in paragraphs 
(e)(3)(ii)(D)(1) through (3) of this section.

[[Page 41301]]

    (1) Annual sampling and analysis of the catalyst activity (i.e., 
conversion efficiency) following the manufacturer's or catalyst 
supplier's recommended procedures,
    (2) Monthly inspection of the oxidizer system including the burner 
assembly and fuel supply lines for problems, and
    (3) Annual internal and monthly external visual inspection of the 
catalyst bed to check for channeling, abrasion, and settling. If 
problems are found, you must take corrective action consistent with the 
manufacturer's recommendations and conduct a new performance test to 
determine destruction efficiency in accordance with this section.
    (4) Control Destruction Efficiency Curve Development. If you are 
using one or more add-on control devices other than a solvent recovery 
system for which you conduct a liquid-liquid material balance to comply 
with the emission standards in Sec.  63.3320, you may establish a 
control destruction efficiency curve for use in estimating emissions 
that occur during deviations of the 3-hour operating parameters. This 
curve can be generated using test data or manufacturer's data that 
specifically documents the level of control at varying temperatures for 
your control device.
    (f) Capture efficiency. If you demonstrate compliance by meeting 
the requirements of Sec.  63.3370(f), (g), (h), (i), (j)(2), (l), 
(o)(2) or (3), or (q), you must determine capture efficiency using the 
procedures in paragraph (f)(1), (2), or (3) of this section, as 
applicable.
* * * * *
    (g) Volatile matter retained in the coated web or otherwise not 
emitted to the atmosphere. You may choose to take into account the mass 
of volatile matter retained in the coated web after curing or drying or 
otherwise not emitted to the atmosphere when determining compliance 
with the emission standards in Sec.  63.3320. If you choose this 
option, you must develop a site- and product-specific emission factor 
(EF) and determine the amount of volatile matter retained in the coated 
web or otherwise not emitted using Equation 3 to Sec.  63.3360(g)(1). 
The EF must be developed by conducting a performance test using an 
approved EPA test method, or alternative approved by the Administrator 
by obtaining the average of a three-run test. You may additionally use 
manufacturer's emissions test data (as long as it replicates the 
facility's coating formulation and operating conditions), or a mass-
balance type approach using a modified Method 24 (including ASTM D5403-
93 for radiation-cureable coatings). The EF should equal the proportion 
of the mass of volatile organics emitted to the mass of volatile 
organics in the coating materials evaluated. You may use the EF in your 
compliance calculations only for periods that the work station(s) was 
(were) used to make the product, or a similar product, corresponding to 
that produced during the performance test. You must develop a separate 
EF for each group of different products that you choose to utilize an 
EF for calculating emissions by conducting a separate performance test 
for that group of products. You must conduct a periodic performance 
test to re-establish the EF if there is a change in coating 
formulation, operating conditions, or other change that could 
reasonably be expected to increase emissions since the time of the last 
test that was used to establish the EF.
    (1) Calculate the mass of volatile organics retained in the coated 
web or otherwise not emitted for the month from each group of similar 
products using Equation 3:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR09JY20.018

Where:

Mvret = Mass of volatile matter retained in the coated 
web after curing or drying, or otherwise not emitted to the 
atmosphere, kg.
Cvi = Volatile organic content of coating material, i, 
expressed as a mass fraction, kg/kg.
Mi = Mass of as-purchased coating material, i, applied in 
a month, kg.
q = Number of different materials added to the coating material.
Cvij = Volatile organic content of material, j, added to 
as-purchased coating material, i, expressed as a mass fraction, kg/
kg.
Mij = Mass of material, j, added to as-purchased coating 
material, i, in a month, kg.
EFi = Volatile organic matter site- and product-specific 
emission factor (three-run average determined from performance 
testing, evaluated as proportion of mass volatile organics emitted 
to mass of volatile organics in the coatings used during the 
performance test).

    (2) [Reserved]
* * * * *

0
11. Section 63.3370 is amended by:
0
a. Adding introductory text;
0
b. Revising paragraphs (a), (c)(1)(ii), (c)(2)(i) and (ii), (c)(3) and 
(4), and (d);
0
c. Redesignating paragraphs (e) through (p) as paragraphs (f) through 
(q);
0
d. Adding new paragraph (e);
0
e. Revising newly redesignated paragraphs (f) through (m) and (o) 
though (q); and
0
f. Adding paragraphs (r) and (s).
    The additions and revisions read as follows:


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

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

------------------------------------------------------------------------
 If you choose to demonstrate        Then you must        To accomplish
        compliance by:             demonstrate that:          this:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) Use of ``as-purchased''     (i) Each coating        Follow the
 compliant coating materials.    material used at an     procedures set
                                 existing affected       out in Sec.
                                 source does not         63.3370(b).
                                 exceed 0.04 kg
                                 organic HAP per kg
                                 coating material, and
                                 each coating material
                                 used at a new
                                 affected source does
                                 not exceed 0.016 kg
                                 organic HAP per kg
                                 coating material as-
                                 purchased; or.

[[Page 41302]]

 
                                (ii) Each coating       Follow the
                                 material used at an     procedures set
                                 existing affected       out in Sec.
                                 source does not         63.3370(b).
                                 exceed 0.2 kg organic
                                 HAP per kg coating
                                 solids, and each
                                 coating material used
                                 at a new affected
                                 source does not
                                 exceed 0.08 kg
                                 organic HAP per kg
                                 coating solids as-
                                 purchased.
(2) Use of ``as-applied''       (i) Each coating        Follow the
 compliant coating materials.    material used at an     procedures set
                                 existing affected       out in Sec.
                                 source does not         63.3370(c)(1).
                                 exceed 0.04 kg          Use either
                                 organic HAP per kg      Equation 4 or 5
                                 coating material, and   of Sec.
                                 each coating material   63.3370 to
                                 used at a new           determine
                                 affected source does    compliance with
                                 not exceed 0.016 kg     Sec.
                                 organic HAP per kg      63.3320(b)(2)
                                 coating material as-    in accordance
                                 applied; or.            with Sec.
                                                         63.3370(c)(5)(i
                                                         ).
                                (ii) Each coating       Follow the
                                 material used at an     procedures set
                                 existing affected       out in Sec.
                                 source does not         63.3370(c)(2).
                                 exceed 0.2 kg organic   Use Equations 6
                                 HAP per kg coating      and 7 of Sec.
                                 solids, and each        63.3370 to
                                 coating material used   determine
                                 at a new affected       compliance with
                                 source does not         Sec.
                                 exceed 0.08 kg          63.3320(b)(3)
                                 organic HAP per kg      in accordance
                                 coating solids as-      with Sec.
                                 applied; or.            63.3370(c)(5)(i
                                                         ).
                                (iii) Monthly average   Follow the
                                 of all coating          procedures set
                                 materials used at an    out in Sec.
                                 existing affected       63.3370(c)(3).
                                 source does not         Use Equation 8
                                 exceed 0.04 kg          of Sec.
                                 organic HAP per kg      63.3370 to
                                 coating material, and   determine
                                 monthly average of      compliance with
                                 all coating materials   Sec.
                                 used at a new           63.3320(b)(2)
                                 affected source does    in accordance
                                 not exceed 0.016 kg     with Sec.
                                 organic HAP per kg      63.3370(c)(5)(i
                                 coating material as-    i).
                                 applied on a monthly
                                 average basis; or.
                                (iv) Monthly average    Follow the
                                 of all coating          procedures set
                                 materials used at an    out in Sec.
                                 existing affected       63.3370(c)(4).
                                 source does not         Use Equation 9
                                 exceed 0.2 kg organic   of Sec.
                                 HAP per kg coating      63.3370 to
                                 solids, and monthly     determine
                                 average of all          compliance with
                                 coating materials       Sec.
                                 used at a new           63.3320(b)(3)
                                 affected source does    in accordance
                                 not exceed 0.08 kg      with Sec.
                                 organic HAP per kg      63.3370(c)(5)(i
                                 coating solids as-      i).
                                 applied on a monthly
                                 average basis.
(3) Tracking total monthly      Total monthly organic   Follow the
 organic HAP applied.            HAP applied does not    procedures set
                                 exceed the calculated   out in Sec.
                                 limit based on          63.3370(d).
                                 emission limitations.   Show that total
                                                         monthly HAP
                                                         applied
                                                         (Equation 10 of
                                                         Sec.   63.3370)
                                                         is less than
                                                         the calculated
                                                         equivalent
                                                         allowable
                                                         organic HAP
                                                         (Equation 17 or
                                                         18 of Sec.
                                                         63.3370).
(4) Accounting for volatile     A site- and product-    Follow the
 matter retained in the coated   specific emission       procedures set
 web or otherwise not emitted.   factor was              out in Sec.
                                 appropriately           63.3360(g) and
                                 established for the     Sec.
                                 group of products for   63.3370(e)
                                 which the site- and
                                 product-specific
                                 emission factor was
                                 used in the
                                 compliance
                                 calculations.
(5) Use of a capture system     (i) Overall organic     Follow the
 and control device.             HAP control             procedures set
                                 efficiency is equal     out in Sec.
                                 to 95 percent at an     63.3370(f) to
                                 existing affected       determine
                                 source and 98 percent   compliance with
                                 at a new affected       Sec.
                                 source on a monthly     63.3320(b)(1)
                                 basis; or oxidizer      according to
                                 outlet organic HAP      Sec.
                                 concentration is no     63.3370(j) if
                                 greater than 20 ppmv    using a solvent
                                 and capture             recovery
                                 efficiency is 100       device, or Sec.
                                 percent; or operating     63.3370(k) if
                                 parameters are          using a control
                                 continuously            device and
                                 monitored; or.          CPMS, or Sec.
                                                         63.3370(l) if
                                                         using an
                                                         oxidizer.
                                (ii) Overall organic    Follow the
                                 HAP emission rate       procedures set
                                 does not exceed 0.2     out in Sec.
                                 kg organic HAP per kg   63.3370(g) to
                                 coating solids for an   determine
                                 existing affected       compliance with
                                 source or 0.08 kg       Sec.
                                 organic HAP per kg      63.3320(b)(3)
                                 coating solids for a    according to
                                 new affected source     Sec.
                                 on a monthly average    63.3370(j) if
                                 as-applied basis;.      using a solvent
                                                         recovery
                                                         device, or Sec.
                                                           63.3370(l) if
                                                         using an
                                                         oxidizer.
                                (iii) Overall organic   Follow the
                                 HAP emission rate       procedures set
                                 does not exceed 0.04    out in Sec.
                                 kg organic HAP per kg   63.3370(h) to
                                 coating material for    determine
                                 an existing affected    compliance with
                                 source or 0.016 kg      Sec.
                                 organic HAP per kg      63.3320(b)(2)
                                 coating material for    according to
                                 a new affected source   Sec.
                                 on a monthly average    63.3370(j) if
                                 as-applied basis; or.   using a solvent
                                                         recovery
                                                         device, or Sec.
                                                           63.3370(l) if
                                                         using an
                                                         oxidizer.
                                (iv) Overall organic    Follow the
                                 HAP emission rate       procedures set
                                 does not exceed the     out in Sec.
                                 calculated limit        63.3370(i).
                                 based on emission       Show that the
                                 limitations.            monthly organic
                                                         HAP emission
                                                         rate is less
                                                         than the
                                                         calculated
                                                         equivalent
                                                         allowable
                                                         organic HAP
                                                         emission rate
                                                         (Equation 17 or
                                                         18 of Sec.
                                                         63.3370).
                                                         Calculate the
                                                         monthly organic
                                                         HAP emission
                                                         rate according
                                                         to Sec.
                                                         63.3370(j) if
                                                         using a solvent
                                                         recovery
                                                         device, or Sec.
                                                           63.3370(l) if
                                                         using an
                                                         oxidizer.

[[Page 41303]]

 
(6) Use of multiple capture     (i) Overall organic     Follow the
 and/or control devices.         HAP control             procedures set
                                 efficiency is equal     out in Sec.
                                 to 95 percent at an     63.3370(f) to
                                 existing affected       determine
                                 source and 98 percent   compliance with
                                 at a new affected       Sec.
                                 source on a monthly     63.3320(b)(1)
                                 basis; or.              according to
                                                         Sec.
                                                         63.3370(f)(1)
                                                         or (2).
                                (ii) Average            Follow the
                                 equivalent organic      procedures set
                                 HAP emission rate       out in Sec.
                                 does not exceed 0.2     63.3370(g) to
                                 kg organic HAP per kg   determine
                                 coating solids for an   compliance with
                                 existing affected       Sec.
                                 source or 0.08 kg       63.3320(b)(3)
                                 organic HAP per kg      according to
                                 coating solids for a    Sec.
                                 new affected source     63.3370(o).
                                 on a monthly average
                                 as-applied basis; or.
                                (iii) Average           Follow the
                                 equivalent organic      procedures set
                                 HAP emission rate       out in Sec.
                                 does not exceed 0.04    63.3370(h) to
                                 kg organic HAP per kg   determine
                                 coating material for    compliance with
                                 an existing affected    Sec.
                                 source or 0.016 kg      63.3320(b)(2)
                                 organic HAP per kg      according to
                                 coating material for    Sec.
                                 a new affected source   63.3370(o).
                                 on a monthly average
                                 as-applied basis; or.
                                (iv) Average            Follow the
                                 equivalent organic      procedures set
                                 HAP emission rate       out in Sec.
                                 does not exceed the     63.3370(i).
                                 calculated limit        Show that the
                                 based on emission       monthly organic
                                 limitations.            HAP emission
                                                         rate is less
                                                         than the
                                                         calculated
                                                         equivalent
                                                         allowable
                                                         organic HAP
                                                         emission rate
                                                         (Equation 17 or
                                                         18 of Sec.
                                                         63.3370)
                                                         according to
                                                         Sec.
                                                         63.3370(o).
(7) Use of a combination of     (i) Average equivalent  Follow the
 compliant coatings and          organic HAP emission    procedures set
 control devices.                rate does not exceed    out in Sec.
                                 0.2 kg organic HAP      63.3370(g) to
                                 per kg coating solids   determine
                                 for an existing         compliance with
                                 affected source or      Sec.
                                 0.08 kg organic HAP     63.3320(b)(3)
                                 per kg coating solids   according to
                                 for a new affected      Sec.
                                 source on a monthly     63.3370(o).
                                 average as-applied
                                 basis; or.
                                (ii) Average            Follow the
                                 equivalent organic      procedures set
                                 HAP emission rate       out in Sec.
                                 does not exceed 0.04    63.3370(h) to
                                 kg organic HAP per kg   determine
                                 coating material for    compliance with
                                 an existing affected    Sec.
                                 source or 0.016 kg      63.3320(b)(2)
                                 organic HAP per kg      according to
                                 coating material for    Sec.
                                 a new affected source   63.3370(o).
                                 on a monthly average
                                 as-applied basis; or.
                                (iii) Average           Follow the
                                 equivalent organic      procedures set
                                 HAP emission rate       out in Sec.
                                 does not exceed the     63.3370(i).
                                 calculated limit        Show that the
                                 based on emission       monthly organic
                                 limitations.            HAP emission
                                                         rate is less
                                                         than the
                                                         calculated
                                                         equivalent
                                                         allowable
                                                         organic HAP
                                                         emission rate
                                                         (Equation 17 or
                                                         18 of Sec.
                                                         63.3370)
                                                         according to
                                                         Sec.
                                                         63.3370(o).
(8) Use of non-HAP coatings...  All coatings for all    Follow the
                                 coating lines at an     procedures set
                                 affected source have    out in Sec.
                                 organic HAP contents    63.3370(s).
                                 below 0.1 percent by
                                 mass for OSHA-defined
                                 carcinogens as
                                 specified in section
                                 A.6.4 of appendix A
                                 to 29 CFR 1910.1200,
                                 and below 1.0 percent
                                 by mass for other
                                 organic HAP compounds.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (ii) Calculate the as-applied organic HAP content of each coating 
material using Equation 4:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR09JY20.001

Where:

Cahi = Monthly average, as-applied, organic HAP content 
of coating material, i, expressed as a mass fraction, kg/kg.
Chi = Organic HAP content of coating material, i, as-
purchased, expressed as a mass fraction, kg/kg.
Mi = Mass of as-purchased coating material, i, applied in 
a month, kg.
q = number of different materials added to the coating material.
Chij = Organic HAP content of material, j, added to as-
purchased coating material, i, expressed as a mass fraction, kg/kg.
Mij = Mass of material, j, added to as-purchased coating 
material, i, in a month, kg. or calculate the as-applied volatile 
organic content of each coating material using Equation 5:

[[Page 41304]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR09JY20.002

Where:

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

    (2) * * *
    (i) Determine the as-applied coating solids content of each coating 
material following the procedure in Sec.  63.3360(d). You must 
calculate the as-applied coating solids content of coating materials 
which are reduced, thinned, or diluted prior to application, using 
Equation 6:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR09JY20.003

Where:

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

    (ii) Calculate the as-applied organic HAP to coating solids ratio 
using Equation 7:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR09JY20.004

Where:

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

    (3) Monthly average organic HAP content of all coating materials 
as-applied is less than the mass percent limit (Sec.  63.3320(b)(2)). 
Demonstrate that the monthly average as-applied organic HAP content of 
all coating materials applied at an existing affected source is less 
than 0.04 kg organic HAP per kg of coating material applied, and all 
coating materials applied at a new affected source are less than 0.016 
kg organic HAP per kg of coating material applied, as determined by 
Equation 8:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR09JY20.005

Where:

HL = Monthly average, as-applied, organic HAP content of 
all coating materials applied, expressed as kg organic HAP per kg of 
coating material applied, kg/kg.
p = Number of different coating materials applied in a month.
Chi = Organic HAP content of coating material, i, as-
purchased, expressed as a mass fraction, kg/kg.
Mi = Mass of as-purchased coating material, i, applied in 
a month, kg.
q = Number of different materials added to the coating material.
Chij = Organic HAP content of material, j, added to as-
purchased coating material, i, expressed as a mass fraction, kg/kg.
Mij = Mass of material, j, added to as-purchased coating 
material, i, in a month, kg.
Mvret = Mass of volatile matter retained in the coated 
web after curing or drying, or otherwise not emitted to the 
atmosphere,

[[Page 41305]]

kg. The value of this term will be zero in all cases except where 
you choose to take into account the volatile matter retained in the 
coated web or otherwise not emitted to the atmosphere for the 
compliance demonstration procedures in Sec.  63.3370.

    (4) Monthly average organic HAP content of all coating materials 
as-applied is less than the mass fraction of coating solids limit 
(Sec.  63.3320(b)(3)). Demonstrate that the monthly average as-applied 
organic HAP content on the basis of coating solids applied of all 
coating materials applied at an existing affected source is less than 
0.20 kg organic HAP per kg coating solids applied, and all coating 
materials applied at a new affected source are less than 0.08 kg 
organic HAP per kg coating solids applied, as determined by Equation 9:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR09JY20.006

Where:

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

* * * * *
    (d) Monthly allowable organic HAP applied. Demonstrate that the 
total monthly organic HAP applied as determined by Equation 10 is less 
than the calculated equivalent allowable organic HAP as determined by 
Equation 17 or 18 in paragraph (m) of this section:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR09JY20.007

Where:

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

    (e) Accounting for volatile matter retained in the coated web or 
otherwise not emitted. If you choose to use the equation in Sec.  
63.3360(g) to take into account volatile organic matter that is 
retained in the coated web or otherwise not emitted, you must identify 
each group of similar products that can utilize each site- and product-
specific emission factor. Details regarding the test methods and 
calculations are provided in Sec.  63.3360(g).
    (f) Capture and control to reduce emissions to no more than 
allowable limit (Sec.  63.3320(b)(1)). Operate a capture system and 
control device and demonstrate an overall organic HAP control 
efficiency of at least 95 percent at an existing affected source and at 
least 98 percent at a new affected source for each month, or operate a 
capture system and oxidizer so that an outlet organic HAP concentration 
of no greater than 20 ppmv on a dry basis is achieved as long as the 
capture efficiency is 100 percent as detailed in Sec.  63.3320(b)(4). 
Unless one of the cases described in paragraph (f)(1), (2), or (3) of 
this section applies to the affected source, you must either 
demonstrate compliance in accordance with the procedure in paragraph 
(i) of this section when emissions from the affected source are 
controlled by a solvent recovery device, or the procedure in paragraph 
(l) of this section when emissions are controlled by an oxidizer or 
demonstrate compliance for a web coating line by operating each capture 
system and each control device and continuous parameter monitoring 
according to the procedures in paragraph (k) of this section.
    (1) If the affected source has only always-controlled work stations 
and operates more than one capture system or more than one control 
device, you must demonstrate compliance in accordance with the 
provisions of either paragraph (o) or (q) of this section.
    (2) If the affected source operates one or more never-controlled 
work stations or one or more intermittently-controlled work stations, 
you must demonstrate compliance in accordance with the provisions of 
paragraph (o) of this section.
    (3) An alternative method of demonstrating compliance with Sec.  
63.3320(b)(1) is the installation of a PTE around the web coating line 
that

[[Page 41306]]

achieves 100 percent capture efficiency and ventilation of all organic 
HAP emissions from the total enclosure to an oxidizer with an outlet 
organic HAP concentration of no greater than 20 ppmv on a dry basis. If 
this method is selected, you must demonstrate compliance by following 
the procedures in paragraphs (f)(3)(i) and (ii) of this section. 
Compliance is determined according to paragraph (f)(3)(iii) of this 
section.
    (i) Demonstrate that a total enclosure is installed. An enclosure 
that meets the requirements in Sec.  63.3360(f)(1) will be considered a 
total enclosure.
    (ii) Determine the organic HAP concentration at the outlet of your 
total enclosure using the procedures in paragraph (f)(3)(ii)(A) or (B) 
of this section.
    (A) Determine the control device efficiency using Equation 2 of 
Sec.  63.3360 and the applicable test methods and procedures specified 
in Sec.  63.3360(e).
    (B) Use a CEMS to determine the organic HAP emission rate according 
to paragraphs (j)(2)(i) through (x) of this section.
    (iii) You are in compliance if the installation of a total 
enclosure is demonstrated and the organic HAP concentration at the 
outlet of the incinerator is demonstrated to be no greater than 20 ppmv 
on a dry basis.
    (g) Capture and control to achieve mass fraction of coating solids 
applied limit (Sec.  63.3320(b)(3)). Operate a capture system and 
control device and limit the organic HAP emission rate from an existing 
affected source to no more than 0.20 kg organic HAP emitted per kg 
coating solids applied, and from a new affected source to no more than 
0.08 kg organic HAP emitted per kg coating solids applied as determined 
on a monthly average as-applied basis. If the affected source operates 
more than one capture system, more than one control device, one or more 
never-controlled work stations, or one or more intermittently-
controlled work stations, then you must demonstrate compliance in 
accordance with the provisions of paragraph (o) of this section. 
Otherwise, you must demonstrate compliance following the procedure in 
paragraph (j) of this section when emissions from the affected source 
are controlled by a solvent recovery device or the procedure in 
paragraph (l) of this section when emissions are controlled by an 
oxidizer.
    (h) Capture and control to achieve mass fraction limit (Sec.  
63.3320(b)(2)). Operate a capture system and control device and limit 
the organic HAP emission rate to no more than 0.04 kg organic HAP 
emitted per kg coating material applied at an existing affected source, 
and no more than 0.016 kg organic HAP emitted per kg coating material 
applied at a new affected source as determined on a monthly average as-
applied basis. If the affected source operates more than one capture 
system, more than one control device, one or more never-controlled work 
stations, or one or more intermittently-controlled work stations, then 
you must demonstrate compliance in accordance with the provisions of 
paragraph (o) of this section. Otherwise, you must demonstrate 
compliance following the procedure in paragraph (j) of this section 
when emissions from the affected source are controlled by a solvent 
recovery device or the procedure in paragraph (l) of this section when 
emissions are controlled by an oxidizer.
    (i) Capture and control to achieve allowable emission rate. Operate 
a capture system and control device and limit the monthly organic HAP 
emissions to less than the allowable emissions as calculated in 
accordance with paragraph (m) of this section. If the affected source 
operates more than one capture system, more than one control device, 
one or more never-controlled work stations, or one or more 
intermittently-controlled work stations, then you must demonstrate 
compliance in accordance with the provisions of paragraph (o) of this 
section. Otherwise, the owner or operator must demonstrate compliance 
following the procedure in paragraph (j) of this section when emissions 
from the affected source are controlled by a solvent recovery device or 
the procedure in paragraph (l) of this section when emissions are 
controlled by an oxidizer.
    (j) Solvent recovery device compliance demonstration. If you use a 
solvent recovery device to control emissions, you must show compliance 
by following the procedures in either paragraph (j)(1) or (2) of this 
section:
    (1) Liquid-liquid material balance. Perform a monthly liquid-liquid 
material balance as specified in paragraphs (j)(1)(i) through (v) of 
this section and use the applicable equations in paragraphs (j)(1)(vi) 
through (ix) of this section to convert the data to units of the 
selected compliance option in paragraphs (f) through (i) of this 
section. Compliance is determined in accordance with paragraph 
(j)(1)(x) of this section.
    (i) Determine the mass of each coating material applied on the web 
coating line or group of web coating lines controlled by a common 
solvent recovery device during the month.
    (ii) If demonstrating compliance on the basis of organic HAP 
emission rate based on coating solids applied, organic HAP emission 
rate based on coating material applied, or emission of less than the 
calculated allowable organic HAP, determine the organic HAP content of 
each coating material as-applied during the month following the 
procedure in Sec.  63.3360(c).
    (iii) Determine the volatile organic content of each coating 
material as-applied during the month following the procedure in Sec.  
63.3360(d).
    (iv) If demonstrating compliance on the basis of organic HAP 
emission rate based on coating solids applied or emission of less than 
the calculated allowable organic HAP, determine the coating solids 
content of each coating material applied during the month following the 
procedure in Sec.  63.3360(d).
    (v) Determine and monitor the amount of volatile organic matter 
recovered for the month according to the procedures in Sec.  
63.3350(d).
    (vi) Recovery efficiency. Calculate the volatile organic matter 
collection and recovery efficiency using Equation 11:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR09JY20.008

Where:

Rv = Organic volatile matter collection and recovery 
efficiency, percent.
Mvr = Mass of volatile matter recovered in a month, kg.
Mvret = Mass of volatile matter retained in the coated 
web after curing or drying, or otherwise not emitted to the 
atmosphere, kg. The value of this term will be zero in all cases 
except where you choose to take into account the volatile matter

[[Page 41307]]

retained in the coated web or otherwise not emitted to the 
atmosphere for the compliance demonstration procedures in this 
section.
p = Number of different coating materials applied in a month.
Cvi = Volatile organic content of coating material, i, 
expressed as a mass fraction, kg/kg.
Mi = Mass of as-purchased coating material, i, applied in 
a month, kg.
q = Number of different materials added to the coating material.
Cvij = Volatile organic content of material, j, added to 
as-purchased coating material, i, expressed as a mass fraction, kg/
kg.
Mij = Mass of material, j, added to as-purchased coating 
material, i, in a month, kg.

(vii) Organic HAP emitted. Calculate the organic HAP emitted during the 
month using Equation 12:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR09JY20.009

Where:

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

    (viii) Organic HAP emission rate based on coating solids applied. 
Calculate the organic HAP emission rate based on coating solids applied 
using Equation 13:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR09JY20.010

Where:

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

    (ix) Organic HAP emission rate based on coating materials applied. 
Calculate the organic HAP emission rate based on coating material 
applied using Equation 14:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR09JY20.011

Where:

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

    (x) You are in compliance with the emission standards in Sec.  
63.3320(b) if:
    (A) The volatile organic matter collection and recovery efficiency 
is 95 percent or greater at an existing affected source and 98 percent 
or greater at a new affected source; or
    (B) The organic HAP emission rate based on coating solids applied 
is no more than 0.20 kg organic HAP per kg coating solids applied at an 
existing affected source and no more than 0.08 kg organic HAP per kg 
coating solids applied at a new affected source; or
    (C) The organic HAP emission rate based on coating material applied 
is no more than 0.04 kg organic HAP per kg coating material applied at 
an existing affected source and no more than 0.016 kg organic HAP per 
kg coating material applied at a new affected source; or
    (D) The organic HAP emitted during the month is less than the 
calculated allowable organic HAP as determined using paragraph (m) of 
this section.
    (2) Continuous emission monitoring of capture system and control 
device performance. Demonstrate initial compliance through a 
performance test on capture efficiency and continuing compliance 
through continuous emission monitors and continuous monitoring of 
capture system operating parameters following the procedures in 
paragraphs (j)(2)(i) through (vii) of this

[[Page 41308]]

section. Use the applicable equations specified in paragraphs 
(j)(2)(viii) through (x) of this section to convert the monitoring and 
other data into units of the selected compliance option in paragraphs 
(f) through (i) of this section. Compliance is determined in accordance 
with paragraph (j)(2)(xi) of this section.
    (i) Control device efficiency. Continuously monitor the gas stream 
entering and exiting the control device to determine the total organic 
volatile matter mass flow rate (e.g., by determining the concentration 
of the vent gas in grams per cubic meter and the volumetric flow rate 
in cubic meters per second such that the total organic volatile matter 
mass flow rate in grams per second can be calculated) such that the 
control device efficiency of the control device can be calculated for 
each month using Equation 2 of Sec.  63.3360.
    (ii) Capture efficiency monitoring. Whenever a web coating line is 
operated, continuously monitor the operating parameters established in 
accordance with Sec.  63.3350(f) to ensure capture efficiency.
    (iii) Determine the percent capture efficiency in accordance with 
Sec.  63.3360(f).
    (iv) Control efficiency. Calculate the overall organic HAP control 
efficiency achieved for each month using Equation 15:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR09JY20.012

Where:

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

    (v) If demonstrating compliance on the basis of organic HAP 
emission rate based on coating solids applied, organic HAP emission 
rate based on coating materials applied, or emission of less than the 
calculated allowable organic HAP, determine the mass of each coating 
material applied on the web coating line or group of web coating lines 
controlled by a common control device during the month.
    (vi) If demonstrating compliance on the basis of organic HAP 
emission rate based on coating solids applied, organic HAP emission 
rate based on coating material applied, or emission of less than the 
calculated allowable organic HAP, determine the organic HAP content of 
each coating material as-applied during the month following the 
procedure in Sec.  63.3360(c).
    (vii) If demonstrating compliance on the basis of organic HAP 
emission rate based on coating solids applied or emission of less than 
the calculated allowable organic HAP, determine the coating solids 
content of each coating material as-applied during the month following 
the procedure in Sec.  63.3360(d).
    (viii) Organic HAP emitted. Calculate the organic HAP emitted 
during the month for each month using Equation 16:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR09JY20.013

Where:

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

    (ix) Organic HAP emission rate based on coating solids applied. 
Calculate the organic HAP emission rate based on coating solids applied 
using Equation 13 of this section.
    (x) Organic HAP emission rate based on coating materials applied. 
Calculate the organic HAP emission rate based on coating material 
applied using Equation 14 of this section.
    (xi) Compare actual performance to the performance required by 
compliance option. The affected source is in compliance with the 
emission standards in Sec.  63.3320(b) for each month if the capture 
system is operated such that the average capture system operating 
parameter is greater than or less than (as appropriate) the operating 
parameter value established in accordance with Sec.  63.3350(f); and
    (A) The organic volatile matter collection and recovery efficiency 
is 95 percent or greater at an existing affected source and 98 percent 
or greater at a new affected source; or
    (B) The organic HAP emission rate based on coating solids applied 
is no more than 0.20 kg organic HAP per kg coating solids applied at an 
existing affected source and no more than 0.08 kg organic HAP per kg 
coating solids applied at a new affected source; or
    (C) The organic HAP emission rate based on coating material applied 
is no more than 0.04 kg organic HAP per kg coating material applied at 
an existing affected source and no more than 0.016 kg organic HAP per 
kg coating material applied at a new affected source; or
    (D) The organic HAP emitted during the month is less than the 
calculated allowable organic HAP as determined using paragraph (m) of 
this section.
    (k) Capture and control system compliance demonstration procedures 
using a CPMS. If you use an add-on control device, you must demonstrate 
initial compliance for each capture system and each control device 
through performance tests and demonstrate continuing compliance through 
continuous monitoring of capture system and control device operating 
parameters as specified in paragraphs (k)(1) through (3) of this 
section. Compliance is determined in accordance with paragraph (k)(4) 
or (k)(5) of this section.
    (1) Determine the control device destruction or removal efficiency 
using

[[Page 41309]]

the applicable test methods and procedures in Sec.  63.3360(e).
    (2) Determine the emission capture efficiency in accordance with 
Sec.  63.3360(f).
    (3) Whenever a web coating line is operated, continuously monitor 
the operating parameters established according to Sec.  63.3350(e) and 
(f).
    (4) No operating limit deviations. You are in compliance with the 
emission standards in Sec.  63.3320(b) if the thermal oxidizer is 
operated such that the average combustion temperature does not fall 
more than 50 degrees Fahrenheit below the temperature established in 
accordance with Sec.  63.3360(e)(3)(i) for each 3-hour period or if the 
catalytic oxidizer is operating such that the three-hour average 
temperature difference across the bed does not fall more than 80 
percent of the average temperature established in accordance with Sec.  
63.3360(e)(3)(ii) and the minimum temperature is always 50 degrees 
Fahrenheit above the catalyst's ignition temperature, or the catalytic 
oxidizer average combustion temperature does not fall more than 50 
[deg]F below the temperature established in accordance with Sec.  
63.3360(e)(3)(ii) for each 3-hour period, and the capture system 
operating parameter is operated at an average value greater than or 
less than (as appropriate) the operating parameter value established in 
accordance with Sec.  63.3350(f); and
    (i) The overall organic HAP control efficiency is 95 percent or 
greater at an existing affected source and 98 percent or greater at a 
new affected source; or
    (ii) The organic HAP emission rate based on coating solids applied 
is no more than 0.20 kg organic HAP per kg coating solids applied at an 
existing affected source and no more than 0.08 kg organic HAP per kg 
coating solids applied at a new affected source; or
    (iii) The organic HAP emission rate based on coating material 
applied is no more than 0.04 kg organic HAP per kg coating material 
applied at an existing affected source and no more than 0.016 kg 
organic HAP per kg coating material applied at a new affected source; 
or
    (iv) The organic HAP emitted during the month is less than the 
calculated allowable organic HAP as determined using paragraph (m) of 
this section.
    (5) Operating limit deviations. If one or more operating limit 
deviations occurred during the monthly averaging period, compliance 
with the emission standards in Sec.  63.3320(b) is determined by either 
assuming no control of emissions or by estimating the emissions using a 
control destruction efficiency curve during each 3-hour period that was 
a deviation. You are in compliance with the emission standards in Sec.  
63.3320(b) if, including the periods of deviations:
    (i) The overall organic HAP control efficiency is 95 percent or 
greater at an existing affected source and 98 percent or greater at a 
new affected source; or
    (ii) The organic HAP emission rate based on coating solids applied 
is no more than 0.20 kg organic HAP per kg coating solids applied at an 
existing affected source and no more than 0.08 kg organic HAP per kg 
coating solids applied at a new affected source; or
    (iii) The organic HAP emission rate based on coating material 
applied is no more than 0.04 kg organic HAP per kg coating material 
applied at an existing affected source and no more than 0.016 kg 
organic HAP per kg coating material applied at a new affected source; 
or
    (iv) The organic HAP emitted during the month is less than the 
calculated allowable organic HAP as determined using paragraph (m) of 
this section.
    (l) Oxidizer compliance demonstration procedures. If you use an 
oxidizer to control emissions to comply with this subpart, you must 
show compliance by following the procedures in paragraph (l)(1) of this 
section. Use the applicable equations specified in paragraph (l)(2) of 
this section to convert the monitoring and other data into units of the 
selected compliance option in paragraph (f) through (i) of this 
section. Compliance is determined in accordance with paragraph (l)(3) 
or (l)(4) of this section.
    (1) Demonstrate initial compliance through performance tests of 
capture efficiency and control device efficiency and continuing 
compliance through continuous monitoring of capture system and control 
device operating parameters as specified in paragraphs (l)(1)(i) 
through (vi) of this section:
    (i) Determine the oxidizer destruction efficiency using the 
procedure in Sec.  63.3360(e).
    (ii) Determine the capture system capture efficiency in accordance 
with Sec.  63.3360(f).
    (iii) Capture and control efficiency monitoring. Whenever a web 
coating line is operated, continuously monitor the operating parameters 
established in accordance with Sec.  63.3350(e) and (f) to ensure 
capture and control efficiency.
    (iv) If demonstrating compliance on the basis of organic HAP 
emission rate based on coating solids applied, organic HAP emission 
rate based on coating materials applied, or emission of less than the 
calculated allowable organic HAP, determine the mass of each coating 
material applied on the web coating line or group of web coating lines 
controlled by a common oxidizer during the month.
    (v) If demonstrating compliance on the basis of organic HAP 
emission rate based on coating solids applied, organic HAP emission 
rate based on coating material applied, or emission of less than the 
calculated allowable organic HAP, determine the organic HAP content of 
each coating material as-applied during the month following the 
procedure in Sec.  63.3360(c).
    (vi) If demonstrating compliance on the basis of organic HAP 
emission rate based on coating solids applied or emission of less than 
the calculated allowable organic HAP, determine the coating solids 
content of each coating material applied during the month following the 
procedure in Sec.  63.3360(d).
    (2) Convert the information obtained under paragraph (q)(1) of this 
section into the units of the selected compliance option using the 
calculation procedures specified in paragraphs (l)(2)(i) through (iv) 
of this section.
    (i) Control efficiency. Calculate the overall organic HAP control 
efficiency achieved using Equation 15.
    (ii) Organic HAP emitted. Calculate the organic HAP emitted during 
the month using Equation 16.
    (iii) Organic HAP emission rate based on coating solids applied. 
Calculate the organic HAP emission rate based on coating solids applied 
for each month using Equation 13.
    (iv) Organic HAP emission rate based on coating materials applied. 
Calculate the organic HAP emission rate based on coating material 
applied using Equation 14.
    (3) No operating limit deviations. You are in compliance with the 
emission standards in Sec.  63.3320(b) if the oxidizer is operated such 
that the average combustion temperature does not fall more than 50 
degrees Fahrenheit below the temperature established in accordance with 
Sec.  63.3360(e)(3)(i) for each 3-hour period, or the catalytic 
oxidizer average combustion temperature does not fall more than 50 
degrees Fahrenheit below the temperature established in accordance with 
Sec.  63.3360(e)(3)(ii) for each 3-hour period or the temperature 
difference across the bed does not fall more than 80 percent of the 
average temperature established in accordance with Sec.  
63.3360(e)(3)(ii) and the minimum temperature is always 50 degrees 
Fahrenheit above the catalyst's ignition temperature, and the capture 
system operating parameter is operated at an average value greater than 
or less than (as appropriate) the operating parameter value established 
in accordance with Sec.  63.3350(f); and

[[Page 41310]]

    (i) The overall organic HAP control efficiency is 95 percent or 
greater at an existing affected source and 98 percent or greater at a 
new affected source; or
    (ii) The organic HAP emission rate based on coating solids applied 
is no more than 0.20 kg organic HAP per kg coating solids applied at an 
existing affected source and no more than 0.08 kg organic HAP per kg 
coating solids applied at a new affected source; or
    (iii) The organic HAP emission rate based on coating material 
applied is no more than 0.04 kg organic HAP per kg coating material 
applied at an existing affected source and no more than 0.016 kg 
organic HAP per kg coating material applied at a new affected source; 
or
    (iv) The organic HAP emitted during the month is less than the 
calculated allowable organic HAP as determined using paragraph (m) of 
this section.
    (4) Operating limit deviations. If one or more operating limit 
deviations occurred during the monthly averaging period, compliance 
with the emission standards in Sec.  63.3320(b) is determined by 
assuming no control of emissions or by estimating the emissions using a 
control destruction efficiency curve during each 3-hour period that was 
a deviation. You are in compliance with the emission standards in Sec.  
63.3320(b) if, including the periods of deviation:
    (i) The overall organic HAP control efficiency is 95 percent or 
greater at an existing affected source and 98 percent or greater at a 
new affected source; or
    (ii) The organic HAP emission rate based on coating solids applied 
is no more than 0.20 kg organic HAP per kg coating solids applied at an 
existing affected source and no more than 0.08 kg organic HAP per kg 
coating solids applied at a new affected source; or
    (iii) The organic HAP emission rate based on coating material 
applied is no more than 0.04 kg organic HAP per kg coating material 
applied at an existing affected source and no more than 0.016 kg 
organic HAP per kg coating material applied at a new affected source; 
or
    (iv) The organic HAP emitted during the month is less than the 
calculated allowable organic HAP as determined using paragraph (m) of 
this section.
    (m) Monthly allowable organic HAP emissions. This paragraph 
provides the procedures and calculations for determining monthly 
allowable organic HAP emissions for use in demonstrating compliance in 
accordance with paragraph (d), (i), (j)(1)(x)(D), (j)(2)(xi)(D), or 
(l)(3)(iv) of this section. You will need to determine the amount of 
coating material applied at greater than or equal to 20 mass percent 
coating solids and the amount of coating material applied at less than 
20 mass percent coating solids. The allowable organic HAP limit is then 
calculated based on coating material applied at greater than or equal 
to 20 mass percent coating solids complying with 0.2 kg organic HAP per 
kg coating solids at an existing affected source or 0.08 kg organic HAP 
per kg coating solids at a new affected source, and coating material 
applied at less than 20 mass percent coating solids complying with 4 
mass percent organic HAP at an existing affected source and 1.6 mass-
percent organic HAP at a new affected source as follows:
    (1) Determine the as-purchased mass of each coating material 
applied each month.
    (2) Determine the as-purchased coating solids content of each 
coating material applied each month in accordance with Sec.  
63.3360(d)(1).
    (3) Determine the as-purchased mass fraction of each coating 
material which was applied at 20 mass percent or greater coating solids 
content on an as-applied basis.
    (4) Determine the total mass of each solvent, diluent, thinner, or 
reducer added to coating materials which were applied at less than 20 
mass percent coating solids content on an as-applied basis each month.
    (5) Calculate the monthly allowable organic HAP emissions using 
Equation 17 for an existing affected source:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR09JY20.014

Where:

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


or Equation 18 for a new affected source:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR09JY20.015

Where:

Ha = Monthly allowable organic HAP emissions, kg.
p = Number of different coating materials applied in a month.
Mi = Mass of as-purchased coating material, i, applied in 
a month, kg.
Gi = Mass fraction of each coating material, i, which was 
applied at 20 mass percent or greater coating solids content, on an 
as-applied basis, kg/kg.
Csi = Coating solids content of coating material, i, 
expressed as a mass fraction, kg/kg.
q = Number of different materials added to the coating material.
MLj = Mass of non-coating-solids-containing coating 
material, j, added to coating-solids-containing coating materials 
which were applied at less than 20 mass percent coating solids 
content, on an as-applied basis, in a month, kg.
* * * * *
    (o) Combinations of capture and control. If you operate more than 
one capture system, more than one control device, one or more never-
controlled work stations, or one or more intermittently-controlled work 
stations,

[[Page 41311]]

you must calculate organic HAP emissions according to the procedures in 
paragraphs (o)(1) through (4) of this section, and use the calculation 
procedures specified in paragraph (o)(5) of this section to convert the 
monitoring and other data into units of the selected control option in 
paragraphs (f) through (i) of this section. Use the procedures 
specified in paragraph (o)(6) of this section to demonstrate 
compliance.
    (1) Solvent recovery system using liquid-liquid material balance 
compliance demonstration. If you choose to comply by means of a liquid-
liquid material balance for each solvent recovery system used to 
control one or more web coating lines, you must determine the organic 
HAP emissions for those web coating lines controlled by that solvent 
recovery system either:
    (i) In accordance with paragraphs (j)(1)(i) through (iii) and (v) 
through (vii) of this section, if the web coating lines controlled by 
that solvent recovery system have only always-controlled work stations; 
or
    (ii) In accordance with paragraphs (j)(1)(ii), (iii), (v), and (vi) 
and (p) of this section, if the web coating lines controlled by that 
solvent recovery system have one or more never-controlled or 
intermittently-controlled work stations.
    (2) Solvent recovery system using performance test compliance 
demonstration and CEMS. To demonstrate compliance through an initial 
test of capture efficiency, continuous monitoring of a capture system 
operating parameter, and a CEMS on each solvent recovery system used to 
control one or more web coating lines, you must:
    (i) For each capture system delivering emissions to that solvent 
recovery system, monitor the operating parameter established in 
accordance with Sec.  63.3350(f) to ensure capture system efficiency; 
and
    (ii) Determine the organic HAP emissions for those web coating 
lines served by each capture system delivering emissions to that 
solvent recovery system either:
    (A) In accordance with paragraphs (j)(2)(i) through (iii), (v), 
(vi), and (viii) of this section, if the web coating lines served by 
that capture and control system have only always-controlled work 
stations; or
    (B) In accordance with paragraphs (j)(2)(i) through (iii), (vi), 
and (p) of this section, if the web coating lines served by that 
capture and control system have one or more never-controlled or 
intermittently-controlled work stations.
    (3) Oxidizer. To demonstrate compliance through performance tests 
of capture efficiency and control device efficiency, continuous 
monitoring of capture system, and CPMS for control device operating 
parameters for each oxidizer used to control emissions from one or more 
web coating lines, you must:
    (i) Monitor the operating parameter in accordance with Sec.  
63.3350(e) to ensure control device efficiency; and
    (ii) For each capture system delivering emissions to that oxidizer, 
monitor the operating parameter established in accordance with Sec.  
63.3350(f) to ensure capture efficiency; and
    (iii) Determine the organic HAP emissions for those web coating 
lines served by each capture system delivering emissions to that 
oxidizer either:
    (A) In accordance with paragraphs (l)(1)(i) through (vi) of this 
section, if the web coating lines served by that capture and control 
system have only always-controlled work stations; or
    (B) In accordance with paragraphs (l)(1)(i) through (iii), (v), and 
(p) of this section, if the web coating lines served by that capture 
and control system have one or more never-controlled or intermittently-
controlled work stations.
    (4) Uncontrolled coating lines. If you own or operate one or more 
uncontrolled web coating lines, you must determine the organic HAP 
applied on those web coating lines using Equation 10. The organic HAP 
emitted from an uncontrolled web coating line is equal to the organic 
HAP applied on that web coating line.
    (5) Convert the information obtained under paragraphs (o)(1) 
through (4) of this section into the units of the selected compliance 
option using the calculation procedures specified in paragraphs 
(o)(5)(i) through (iv) of this section.
    (i) Organic HAP emitted. Calculate the organic HAP emissions for 
the affected source for the month by summing all organic HAP emissions 
calculated according to paragraphs (o)(1), (o)(2)(ii), (o)(3)(iii), and 
(o)(4) of this section.
    (ii) Coating solids applied. If demonstrating compliance on the 
basis of organic HAP emission rate based on coating solids applied or 
emission of less than the calculated allowable organic HAP, the owner 
or operator must determine the coating solids content of each coating 
material applied during the month following the procedure in Sec.  
63.3360(d).
    (iii) Organic HAP emission rate based on coating solids applied. 
Calculate the organic HAP emission rate based on coating solids applied 
for each month using Equation 13.
    (iv) Organic HAP based on materials applied. Calculate the organic 
HAP emission rate based on material applied using Equation 14.
    (6) Compliance. The affected source is in compliance with the 
emission standards in Sec.  63.3320(b) for the month if all operating 
parameters required to be monitored under paragraphs (o)(1) through (3) 
of this section were maintained at the values established under 
Sec. Sec.  63.3350 and 63.3360 and one of the standards in paragraphs 
(o)(6)(i) through (iv) of this section were met. If operating parameter 
deviations occurred, the affected source is in compliance with the 
emission standards in Sec.  63.3320(b) for the month if, assuming no 
control of emissions or by estimating the emissions using a control 
destruction efficiency curve for each 3-hour deviation period, one of 
the standards in paragraphs (6)(i) through (iv) of this section were 
met.
    (i) The total mass of organic HAP emitted by the affected source 
based on coating solids applied is no more than 0.20 kg organic HAP per 
kg coating solids applied at an existing affected source and no more 
than 0.08 kg organic HAP per kg coating solids applied at a new 
affected source; or
    (ii) The total mass of organic HAP emitted by the affected source 
based on material applied is no more than 0.04 kg organic HAP per kg 
material applied at an existing affected source and no more than 0.016 
kg organic HAP per kg material applied at a new affected source; or
    (iii) The total mass of organic HAP emitted by the affected source 
during the month is less than the calculated allowable organic HAP as 
determined using paragraph (m) of this section; or
    (iv) The total mass of organic HAP emitted by the affected source 
was not more than 5 percent of the total mass of organic HAP applied 
for the month at an existing affected source and no more than 2 percent 
of the total mass of organic HAP applied for the month at a new 
affected source. The total mass of organic HAP applied by the affected 
source in the month must be determined using Equation 10.
    (p) Intermittently-controlled and never-controlled work stations. 
If you have been expressly referenced to this paragraph by paragraph 
(o)(1)(ii), (o)(2)(ii)(B), or (o)(3)(iii)(B) of this section for 
calculation procedures to determine organic HAP emissions for your 
intermittently-controlled and never-controlled work stations, you must:
    (1) Determine the sum of the mass of all coating materials as-
applied on intermittently-controlled work stations operating in bypass 
mode and the mass of all coating materials as-applied on

[[Page 41312]]

never-controlled work stations during the month.
    (2) Determine the sum of the mass of all coating materials as-
applied on intermittently-controlled work stations operating in a 
controlled mode and the mass of all coating materials applied on 
always-controlled work stations during the month.
    (3) Liquid-liquid material balance compliance demonstration. For 
each web coating line or group of web coating lines for which you use 
the provisions of paragraph (o)(1)(ii) of this section, you must 
calculate the organic HAP emitted during the month using Equation 19 of 
this section:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR09JY20.016

Where:

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

    (4) Performance test to determine capture efficiency and control 
device efficiency. For each web coating line or group of web coating 
lines for which you use the provisions of paragraph (o)(2)(ii)(B) or 
(o)(3)(iii)(B) of this section, you must calculate the organic HAP 
emitted during the month using Equation 20:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR09JY20.017

Where:

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

    (q) Always-controlled work stations with more than one capture and 
control system. If you operate more than one capture system or more 
than one control device and only have always-controlled work stations, 
then you are in compliance with the emission standards in Sec.  
63.3320(b)(1) for the month if for each web coating line or group of 
web coating lines controlled by a common control device:
    (1) The volatile matter collection and recovery efficiency as 
determined by paragraphs (j)(1)(i), (iii), (v), and (vi) of this 
section is at least 95 percent at an existing affected source and at 
least 98 percent at a new affected source; or
    (2) The overall organic HAP control efficiency as determined by 
paragraphs (j)(2)(i) through (iv) of this section for each web coating 
line or group of web coating lines served by that control device and a 
common capture system is at least 95 percent at an existing affected 
source and at least 98 percent at a new affected source; or
    (3) The overall organic HAP control efficiency as determined by 
paragraphs (l)(1)(i) through (iii) and (l)(2)(i) of this section for 
each web coating line or group of web coating lines served by that 
control device and a common capture system is at least 95 percent at an 
existing affected source and at least 98 percent at a new affected 
source.
    (r) Mass-balance approach. As an alternative to Sec.  63.3370(b) 
through (p), you may demonstrate monthly compliance using a mass-
balance approach in accordance with this section, except for any month 
that you elect to meet the emission limitation in Sec.  63.3320(b)(4). 
The mass-balance approach should be performed as follows:
    (1) Separately for each individual/grouping(s) of lines, you must 
sum the mass of organic HAP emitted during the month and divide by the 
corresponding total mass of all organic HAP applied on the lines, or 
total mass of coating materials applied on the lines, or total mass of 
coating solids applied on the lines, for the same period, in accordance 
with the emission limitation that you have elected at Sec.  
63.3320(b)(1) through (3) for the month's demonstration. You may also 
choose to use volatile organic content as a surrogate for organic HAP 
for the compliance demonstration in accordance with Sec.  63.3360(d). 
You are required to include all emissions and inputs that occur during 
periods that each line or grouping of lines operates in accordance with 
the applicability criteria in Sec.  63.3300.
    (2) You must include all of the organic HAP emitted by your 
individual/grouping(s) of lines, as follows.

[[Page 41313]]

    (i) You must record the mass of organic HAP or volatile organic 
content utilized at all work stations of all of your individually/
grouping(s) of lines. You must additionally record the mass of all 
coating materials applied at these work stations if you are 
demonstrating compliance for the month with the emission limitation at 
Sec.  63.3320(b)(2) (the ``coating materials'' option). You must 
additionally record the mass of all coating solids applied at these 
work stations if you are demonstrating compliance for the month with 
the emission limitation at Sec.  63.3320(b)(3) (the ``coating solids'' 
option).
    (ii) You must assume that all of the organic HAP input to all 
never-controlled work stations is emitted, unless you have determined 
an emission factor in accordance with Sec.  63.3360(g).
    (iii) For all always-controlled work stations, you must assume that 
all of the organic HAP or volatile organic content is emitted, less the 
reductions provided by the corresponding capture system and control 
device, in accordance with the most recently measured capture and 
destruction efficiencies, or in accordance with the measured mass of 
volatile organic compounds (VOC) recovered for the month (e.g., carbon 
control or condensers). You may account for organic HAP or volatile 
organic content retained in the coated web or otherwise not emitted if 
you have determined an emission factor in accordance with Sec.  
63.3360(g).
    (iv) For all intermittently-controlled work stations, you must 
assume that all of the organic HAP or volatile organic content is 
emitted during periods of no control. During periods of control, you 
must assume that all of the organic HAP or volatile organic content is 
emitted, less the reductions provided by the corresponding capture 
system and control device, in accordance with the most recently 
measured capture and destruction efficiencies, or in accordance with 
the measured mass of VOC recovered for the month (e.g., carbon control 
or condensers). You may account for organic HAP or volatile organic 
content retained in the coated web or otherwise not emitted if you have 
determined an emission factor in accordance with Sec.  63.3360(g).
    (v) You must record the organic HAP or volatile organic content 
input to all work stations of your individual/grouping(s) of lines and 
the mass of coating materials and/or solids applied, if applicable, and 
determine corresponding emissions during all periods of operation, 
including malfunctions or startups and shutdowns of any web coating 
line or control device.
    (3) You are in compliance with the emission standards in Sec.  
63.3320(b) if each of your individual/grouping(s) of lines, meets one 
of the requirements in paragraphs (r)(3)(i) through (iii) of this 
section, as applicable. If operating parameter limit deviations 
occurred, including periods that the oxidizer control device(s), if 
any, operated at an average combustion temperature more than 50 degrees 
Fahrenheit below the temperature established in accordance with Sec.  
63.3360(e), or the 3-hour average temperature difference across the 
catalyst bed at no less than 80 percent of this average temperature 
differential and the catalytic oxidizer maintained a minimum 
temperature 50 degrees Fahrenheit above the catalyst's ignition 
temperature, you are in compliance with the emission standards in Sec.  
63.3320(b) for the month, if assuming no control of emissions for each 
3-hour deviation period (or in accordance with an alternate approved 
method), one of the requirements in paragraphs (r)(3)(i) through (iii) 
of this section was met.
    (i) The total mass of organic HAP emitted by the affected source 
based on HAP applied is no more than 0.05 kg organic HAP per kg HAP 
applied at an existing affected source and no more than 0.02 kg organic 
HAP per kg HAP applied at a new affected source; or
    (ii) The total mass of organic HAP emitted by the affected source 
based on coating solids applied is no more than 0.20 kg organic HAP per 
kg coating solids applied at an existing affected source and no more 
than 0.08 kg organic HAP per kg coating solids applied at a new 
affected source; or
    (iii) The total mass of organic HAP emitted by the affected source 
based on material applied is no more than 0.04 kg organic HAP per kg 
material applied at an existing affected source and no more than 0.016 
kg organic HAP per kg material applied at a new affected source.
    (s) Non-HAP coating. You must demonstrate that all of the coatings 
applied at all of the web coating lines at the affected source have 
organic HAP contents below 0.1 percent by mass for OSHA-defined 
carcinogens as specified in section A.6.4 of appendix A to 29 CFR 
1910.1200, and below 1.0 percent by mass for other organic HAP 
compounds using the procedures in Sec.  63.3370(s)(1) through (3).
    (1) Determine the organic HAP mass fraction of each coating 
material ``as purchased'' by following one of the procedures in 
paragraphs Sec.  63.3360(c)(1) through (3) and determine the organic 
HAP mass fraction of each coating material ``as applied'' by following 
the procedures in paragraph Sec.  63.3360(c)(4).
    (2) Submit to your permitting authority a report certifying that 
all coatings applied at all of the web coating lines at your effected 
source are non-HAP coatings.
    (3) Maintain records of coating formulations used as required in 
Sec.  63.3410(a)(1)(iii).
    (4) Resume reporting requirements if any of the coating 
formulations are modified to exceed the thresholds in Sec.  63.3370(s) 
or new coatings which exceed the thresholds in paragraph (s) of this 
section are used.

0
12. Section 63.3400 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraph (a) and paragraph (b) introductory text;
0
b. Revising paragraphs (c)(1)(ii) and (iv), (c)(2) introductory text, 
(c)(2)(v) and (vi), (e), and (f);
0
c. Redesignating paragraph (g) as paragraph (k) and revising newly 
redesignated (k) introductory text; and
0
d. Adding new paragraph (g) and paragraphs (h), (i), and (j).
    The revisions and additions read as follows:


Sec.  63.3400   What notifications and reports must I submit?

    (a) Reports. Each owner or operator of an affected source subject 
to this subpart must submit the reports specified in paragraphs (b) 
through (k) of this section to the Administrator.
    (b) Initial notifications. You must submit an initial notification 
as required by Sec.  63.9(b), using the procedure in Sec.  63.3400(h).
* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (ii) The first compliance report is due no later than July 31 or 
January 31, whichever date follows the end of the calendar half 
immediately following the compliance date that is specified for your 
affected source in Sec.  63.3330. Prior to the electronic template 
being available in CEDRI for one year, the report must be postmarked or 
delivered by the aforementioned dates. After the electronic template 
has been available in CEDRI for 1 year, the next full report must be 
submitted electronically as described in paragraph (h) of this section.
* * * * *
    (iv) Each subsequent compliance report must be submitted 
electronically no later than July 31 or January 31, whichever date is 
the first date following the end of the semiannual reporting period.
* * * * *
    (2) Compliance report contents. The compliance report must contain 
the

[[Page 41314]]

information in paragraphs (c)(2)(i) through (viii) of this section:
* * * * *
    (v) For each deviation from an emission limitation (emission limit 
or operating limit) that applies to you and that occurs at an affected 
source where you are not using a CMS to comply with the emission 
limitations in this subpart, the compliance report must contain the 
following information:
    (A) The total operating time of the web coating line(s) during the 
reporting period.
    (B) Information on the number, duration, and cause of deviations 
(including unknown cause), if applicable, and the corrective action 
taken.
    (C) An estimate of the quantity of each regulated pollutant emitted 
over the emission limits in Sec.  63.3320 for each monthly period 
covered in the report if the source failed to meet an applicable 
emission limit of this subpart.
    (vi) For each deviation from an emission limit occurring at an 
affected source where you are using a CEMS or CPMS to comply with the 
emission limit in this subpart, you must include the following 
information:
    (A) The total operating time of the web coating line(s) during the 
reporting period.
    (B) The date and time that each CEMS and CPMS, if applicable, was 
inoperative except for zero (low-level) and high-level checks.
    (C) The date and time that each CEMS and CPMS, if applicable, was 
out-of-control, including the information in Sec.  63.8(c)(8).
    (D) The date and time that each deviation started and stopped, and 
whether each deviation occurred during a period of startup, shutdown, 
or malfunction or during another period.
    (E) A summary of the total duration (in hours) of each deviation 
during the reporting period and the total duration of each deviation as 
a percent of the total source operating time during that reporting 
period.
    (F) A breakdown of the total duration of the deviations during the 
reporting period into those that are due to startup, shutdown, control 
equipment problems, process problems, other known causes, and other 
unknown causes.
    (G) A summary of the total duration (in hours) of CEMS and/or CPMS 
downtime during the reporting period and the total duration of CEMS 
and/or CPMS downtime as a percent of the total source operating time 
during that reporting period.
    (H) A breakdown of the total duration of CEMS and/or CPMS downtime 
during the reporting period into periods that are due to monitoring 
equipment malfunctions, non-monitoring equipment malfunctions, quality 
assurance/quality control calibrations, other known causes, and other 
unknown causes.
    (I) The date of the latest CEMS and/or CPMS certification or audit.
    (J) A description of any changes in CEMS, CPMS, or controls since 
the last reporting period.
    (K) An estimate of the quantity of each regulated pollutant emitted 
over the emission limits in Sec.  63.3320 for each monthly period 
covered in the report if the source failed to meet an applicable 
emission limit of this subpart.
* * * * *
    (e) Notification of Compliance Status. You must submit a 
Notification of Compliance Status as specified in Sec.  63.9(h). For 
affected sources that commence construction or reconstruction after 
September 19, 2019, the Notification of Compliance Status must be 
submitted electronically using the procedure in paragraph (h) of this 
section. For affected sources that commenced construction or 
reconstruction on or before September 19, 2019, the Notification of 
Compliance Status must be submitted electronically using the procedure 
in paragraph (h) starting July 9, 2021.
    (f) Performance test reports. You must submit performance test 
reports as specified in Sec.  63.10(d)(2) if you are using a control 
device to comply with the emission standard and you have not obtained a 
waiver from the performance test requirement or you are not exempted 
from this requirement by Sec.  63.3360(b). Catalyst activity test 
results are not required to be submitted but must be maintained onsite. 
Within 60 days after the date of completing each performance test 
required by this subpart, you must submit the results of the 
performance test following the procedures specified in paragraphs 
(f)(1) through (3) of this section. For affected sources that commence 
construction or reconstruction after September 19, 2019, the 
performance test reports must be submitted electronically using the 
procedure in paragraph (h) of this section. For affected sources that 
commenced construction or reconstruction on or before September 19, 
2019, the performance test reports must be submitted electronically 
using the procedure in paragraph (h) starting July 9, 2021.
    (1) Data collected using test methods supported by EPA's Electronic 
Reporting Tool (ERT) as listed on EPA's ERT website (https://www.epa.gov/electronic-reporting-air-emissions/electronic-reporting-tool-ert) at the time of the test. Submit the results of the 
performance test to EPA via CEDRI, which can be accessed through EPA's 
Central Data Exchange (CDX) (https://cdx.epa.gov/). The data must be 
submitted in a file format generated through the use of EPA's ERT. 
Alternatively, you may submit an electronic file consistent with the 
extensible markup language (XML) schema listed on EPA's ERT website.
    (2) Data collected using test methods that are not supported by 
EPA's ERT as listed on EPA's ERT website at the time of the test. The 
results of the performance test must be included as an attachment in 
the ERT or an alternate electronic file consistent with the XML schema 
listed on EPA's ERT website. Submit the ERT generated package or 
alternative file to EPA via CEDRI.
    (3) Confidential business information (CBI). If you claim some of 
the information submitted under paragraph (f)(1) of this section is 
CBI, you must submit a complete file, including information claimed to 
be CBI, to EPA. The file must be generated through the use of EPA's ERT 
or an alternate electronic file consistent with the XML schema listed 
on EPA's ERT website. Submit the file on a compact disc, flash drive, 
or other commonly used electronic storage medium and clearly mark the 
medium as CBI. Mail the electronic medium to U.S. EPA/OAQPS/CORE CBI 
Office, Attention: Group Leader, Measurement Policy Group, MD C404-02, 
4930 Old Page Rd., Durham, NC 27703. The same file with the CBI omitted 
must be submitted to EPA via EPA's CDX as described in paragraph (f)(1) 
of this section.
    (g) Performance evaluation reports. You must submit the results of 
performance evaluations within 60 days of completing each CMS 
performance evaluation (as defined in Sec.  63.2) following the 
procedures specified in paragraphs (g)(1) through (3) of this section. 
For affected sources that commence construction or reconstruction after 
September 19, 2019, the performance evaluation reports must be 
submitted electronically using the procedure in paragraph (h) of this 
section. For affected sources that commenced construction or 
reconstruction on or before September 19, 2019, the performance 
evaluation reports must be submitted electronically using the procedure 
in paragraph (h) starting July 9, 2021.
    (1) Performance evaluations of CMS measuring relative accuracy test 
audit (RATA) pollutants that are supported by EPA's ERT as listed on 
EPA's ERT

[[Page 41315]]

website at the time of the evaluation. Submit the results of the 
performance evaluation to EPA via CEDRI, which can be accessed through 
EPA's CDX. The data must be submitted in a file format generated 
through the use of EPA's ERT. Alternatively, you may submit an 
electronic file consistent with the XML schema listed on EPA's ERT 
website.
    (2) Performance evaluations of CMS measuring RATA pollutants that 
are not supported by EPA's ERT as listed on EPA's ERT website at the 
time of the evaluation. The results of the performance evaluation must 
be included as an attachment in the ERT or an alternate electronic file 
consistent with the XML schema listed on EPA's ERT website. Submit the 
ERT generated package or alternative file to EPA via CEDRI.
    (3) Confidential business information (CBI). If you claim some of 
the information submitted under paragraph (g)(1) of this section is 
CBI, you must submit a complete file, including information claimed to 
be CBI, to EPA. The file must be generated through the use of EPA's ERT 
or an alternate electronic file consistent with the XML schema listed 
on EPA's ERT website. Submit the file on a compact disc, flash drive, 
or other commonly used electronic storage medium and clearly mark the 
medium as CBI. Mail the electronic medium to U.S. EPA/OAQPS/CORE CBI 
Office, Attention: Group Leader, Measurement Policy Group, MD C404-02, 
4930 Old Page Rd., Durham, NC 27703. The same file with the CBI omitted 
must be submitted to EPA via EPA's CDX as described in paragraph (g)(1) 
of this section.
    (h) Electronic reporting. If you are required to submit reports 
following the procedure specified in this paragraph, you must submit 
reports to EPA via CEDRI, which can be accessed through EPA's CDX 
(https://cdx.epa.gov/). Initial notifications and notifications of 
compliance status must be submitted as portable document formats (PDF) 
to CEDRI using the attachment module of the ERT. You must use the 
semiannual compliance report template on the CEDRI website (https://www.epa.gov/electronic-reporting-air-emissions/compliance-and-emissions-data-reporting-interface-cedri) for this subpart 1 year after 
it becomes available. The date report templates become available will 
be listed on the CEDRI website. The report must be submitted by the 
deadline specified in this subpart, regardless of the method in which 
the report is submitted. If you claim some of the information required 
to be submitted via CEDRI is CBI, submit a complete report, including 
information claimed to be CBI to EPA. The report must be generated 
using the appropriate form on the CEDRI website. Submit the file on a 
compact disc, flash drive, or other commonly used electronic storage 
medium and clearly mark the medium as CBI. Mail the electronic medium 
to U.S. EPA/OAQPS/CORE CBI Office, Attention: Group Leader, Measurement 
Policy Group, MD C404-02, 4930 Old Page Rd., Durham, NC 27703. The same 
file with the CBI omitted must be submitted to EPA via EPA's CDX as 
described earlier in this paragraph.
    (i) Extension for CDX/CEDRI outage. If you are required to 
electronically submit a report through CEDRI in EPA's CDX, you may 
assert a claim of EPA system outage for failure to timely comply with 
the reporting requirement. To assert a claim of EPA system outage, you 
must meet the requirements outlined in paragraphs (i)(1) through (7) of 
this section.
    (1) You must have been or will be precluded from accessing CEDRI 
and submitting a required report within the time prescribed due to an 
outage of either EPA's CEDRI or CDX systems.
    (2) The outage must have occurred within the period of time 
beginning 5 business days prior to the date that the submission is due.
    (3) The outage may be planned or unplanned.
    (4) You must submit notification to the Administrator in writing as 
soon as possible following the date you first knew, or through due 
diligence should have known, that the event may cause or has caused a 
delay in reporting.
    (5) You must provide to the Administrator a written description 
identifying:
    (i) The date(s) and time(s) when CDX or CEDRI was accessed and the 
system was unavailable;
    (ii) A rationale for attributing the delay in reporting beyond the 
regulatory deadline to EPA system outage;
    (iii) Measures taken or to be taken to minimize the delay in 
reporting; and
    (iv) The date by which you propose to report, or if you have 
already met the reporting requirement at the time of the notification, 
the date you reported.
    (6) The decision to accept the claim of EPA system outage and allow 
an extension to the reporting deadline is solely within the discretion 
of the Administrator.
    (7) In any circumstance, the report must be submitted 
electronically as soon as possible after the outage is resolved.
    (j) Extension for force majeure events. If you are required to 
electronically submit a report through CEDRI in EPA's CDX, you may 
assert a claim of force majeure for failure to timely comply with the 
reporting requirement. To assert a claim of force majeure, you must 
meet the requirements outlined in paragraphs (j)(1) through (5) of this 
section.
    (1) You may submit a claim if a force majeure event is about to 
occur, occurs, or has occurred or there are lingering effects from such 
an event within the period of time beginning five business days prior 
to the date the submission is due. For the purposes of this section, a 
force majeure event is defined as an event that will be or has been 
caused by circumstances beyond the control of the affected facility, 
its contractors, or any entity controlled by the affected facility that 
prevents you from complying with the requirement to submit a report 
electronically within the time period prescribed. Examples of such 
events are acts of nature (e.g., hurricanes, earthquakes, or floods), 
acts of war or terrorism, or equipment failure or safety hazard beyond 
the control of the affected facility (e.g., large scale power outage).
    (2) You must submit notification to the Administrator in writing as 
soon as possible following the date you first knew, or through due 
diligence should have known, that the event may cause or has caused a 
delay in reporting.
    (3) You must provide to the Administrator:
    (i) A written description of the force majeure event;
    (ii) A rationale for attributing the delay in reporting beyond the 
regulatory deadline to the force majeure event;
    (iii) Measures taken or to be taken to minimize the delay in 
reporting; and
    (iv) The date by which you propose to report, or if you have 
already met the reporting requirement at the time of the notification, 
the date you reported.
    (4) The decision to accept the claim of force majeure and allow an 
extension to the reporting deadline is solely within the discretion of 
the Administrator.
    (5) In any circumstance, the reporting must occur as soon as 
possible after the force majeure event occurs.
    (k) SSM reports. For affected sources that commenced construction 
or reconstruction before September 19, 2019, you must submit SSM 
reports as specified in Sec.  63.10(d)(5), except that the provisions 
in subpart A of this part pertaining to startups, shutdowns, and 
malfunctions do not apply unless a control device is used to comply 
with this subpart. On and after, July 9, 2021, and for affected sources 
that commence construction or reconstruction after

[[Page 41316]]

September 19, 2019, this section is no longer relevant.
* * * * *

0
13. Section 63.3410 is revised to read as follows:


Sec.  63.3410   What records must I keep?

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

0
14. Section 63.3420 is revised to read as follows:


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

    (a) In delegating implementation and enforcement authority to a 
state, local, or tribal agency under 40 CFR part 63, subpart E, the 
authorities contained in paragraph (b) of this section must be retained 
by the EPA Administrator and not transferred to a state, local, or 
tribal agency.
    (b) Authority which will not be delegated to state, local, or 
tribal agencies are listed in paragraphs (b)(1) and (2) of this 
section:
    (1) Approval of alternate test method for organic HAP content 
determination under Sec.  63.3360(c).
    (2) Approval of alternate test method for volatile matter 
determination under Sec.  63.3360(d).

0
15. Table 1 to subpart JJJJ is revised to read as follows:

Table 1 to Subpart JJJJ of Part 63--Operating Limits if Using Add-On 
Control Devices and Capture System

    If you are required to comply with operating limits by Sec.  
63.3321, you must comply with the applicable operating limits in the 
following table:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        And you must
                                You must meet the        demonstrate
  For the following device:    following operating       continuous
                                     limit:            compliance with
                                                    operating limits by:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Thermal oxidizer.........  a. The average        i. Collecting the
                               combustion            combustion
                               temperature in any    temperature data
                               3-hour period must    according to Sec.
                               not fall more than    63.3350(e)(10);
                               50 [deg]F below the  ii. Reducing the
                               combustion            data to 3-hour
                               temperature limit     block averages; and
                               established
                               according to Sec.
                               63.3360(e)(3)(i).
                                                    iii. Maintain the 3-
                                                     hour average
                                                     combustion
                                                     temperature at or
                                                     above the
                                                     temperature limit.
2. Catalytic oxidizer.......  a. The average        i. Collecting the
                               temperature at the    catalyst bed inlet
                               inlet to the          temperature data
                               catalyst bed in any   according to Sec.
                               3-hour period must    63.3350(e)(10);
                               not fall more than   ii. Reducing the
                               50 degrees            data to 3-hour
                               Fahrenheit below      block averages; and
                               the combustion
                               temperature limit
                               established
                               according to Sec.
                               63.3360(e)(3)(ii).
                                                    iii. Maintain the 3-
                                                     hour average
                                                     catalyst bed inlet
                                                     temperature at or
                                                     above the
                                                     temperature limit.
                              b. The temperature    i. Collecting the
                               rise across the       catalyst bed inlet
                               catalyst bed must     and outlet
                               not fall below 80     temperature data
                               percent of the        according to Sec.
                               limit established     63.3350(e)(10);
                               according to Sec.    ii. Reducing the
                               63.3360(e)(3)(ii),    data to 3-hour
                               provided that the     block averages; and
                               minimum temperature  iii. Maintain the 3-
                               is always 50          hour average
                               degrees Fahrenheit    temperature rise
                               above the             across the catalyst
                               catalyst's ignition   bed at or above the
                               temperature.          limit, and maintain
                                                     the minimum
                                                     temperature at
                                                     least 50 degrees
                                                     Fahrenheit above
                                                     the catalyst's
                                                     ignition
                                                     temperature

[[Page 41317]]

 
3. Emission capture system..  Submit monitoring     Conduct monitoring
                               plan to the           according to the
                               Administrator that    plan (Sec.
                               identifies            63.3350(f)(3)).
                               operating
                               parameters to be
                               monitored according
                               to Sec.
                               63.3350(f).
------------------------------------------------------------------------


0
16. Table 2 to subpart JJJJ is revised to read as follows:

Table 2 to Subpart JJJJ of Part 63--Applicability of 40 CFR part 63 
General Provisions to Subpart JJJJ

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

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  Applicable to
 General provisions reference      subpart JJJJ         Explanation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec.   63.1(a)(1)-(4).........  Yes..............
Sec.   63.1(a)(5).............  No...............  Reserved.
Sec.   63.1(a)(6)-(8).........  Yes..............
Sec.   63.1(a)(9).............  No...............  Reserved.
Sec.   63.1(a)(10)-(14).......  Yes..............
Sec.   63.1(b)(1).............  No...............  Subpart JJJJ
                                                    specifies
                                                    applicability.
Sec.   63.1(b)(2)-(3).........  Yes..............
Sec.   63.1(c)(1).............  Yes..............
Sec.   63.1(c)(2).............  No...............  Area sources are not
                                                    subject to emission
                                                    standards of subpart
                                                    JJJJ.
Sec.   63.1(c)(3).............  No...............  Reserved.
Sec.   63.1(c)(4).............  Yes..............
Sec.   63.1(c)(5).............  Yes..............
Sec.   63.1(d)................  No...............  Reserved.
Sec.   63.1(e)................  Yes..............
Sec.   63.2...................  Yes..............  Additional
                                                    definitions in
                                                    subpart JJJJ.
Sec.   63.3(a)-(c)............  Yes..............
Sec.   63.4(a)(1)-(3).........  Yes..............
Sec.   63.4(a)(4).............  No...............  Reserved.
Sec.   63.4(a)(5).............  Yes..............
Sec.   63.4(b)-(c)............  Yes..............
Sec.   63.5(a)(1)-(2).........  Yes..............
Sec.   63.5(b)(1).............  Yes..............
Sec.   63.5(b)(2).............  No...............  Reserved.
Sec.   63.5(b)(3)-(6).........  Yes..............
Sec.   63.5(c)................  No...............  Reserved.
Sec.   63.5(d)................  Yes..............
Sec.   63.5(e)................  Yes..............
Sec.   63.5(f)................  Yes..............
Sec.   63.6(a)................  Yes..............  Applies only when
                                                    capture and control
                                                    system is used to
                                                    comply with the
                                                    standard.
Sec.   63.6(b)(1)-(5).........  No...............  Sec.   63.3330
                                                    specifies compliance
                                                    dates.
Sec.   63.6(b)(6).............  No...............  Reserved.
Sec.   63.6(b)(7).............  Yes..............
Sec.   63.6(c)(1)-(2).........  Yes..............
Sec.   63.6(c)(3)-(4).........  No...............  Reserved.
Sec.   63.6(c)(5).............  Yes..............
Sec.   63.6(d)................  No...............  Reserved.
Sec.   63.6(e)(1)(i)..........  Depends, see       No, for new or
                                 explanation.       reconstructed
                                                    sources which
                                                    commenced
                                                    construction or
                                                    reconstruction after
                                                    September 19, 2019,
                                                    see Sec.
                                                    63.3340(a) for
                                                    general duty
                                                    requirement. Yes,
                                                    for all other
                                                    affected sources
                                                    before July 9, 2021,
                                                    and No thereafter,
                                                    see Sec.
                                                    63.3340(a) for
                                                    general duty
                                                    requirement.
Sec.   63.6(e)(1)(ii).........  Depends, see       No, for new or
                                 explanation.       reconstructed
                                                    sources which
                                                    commenced
                                                    construction or
                                                    reconstruction after
                                                    September 19, 2019.
                                                    Yes, for all other
                                                    affected sources
                                                    before July 9, 2021,
                                                    and No thereafter.
Sec.   63.6(e)(1)(iii)........  Yes..............
Sec.   63.6(e)(2).............  No...............  Reserved.
Sec.   63.6(e)(3).............  Depends, see       No, for new or
                                 explanation.       reconstructed
                                                    sources which
                                                    commenced
                                                    construction or
                                                    reconstruction after
                                                    September 19, 2019.
                                                    Yes, for all other
                                                    affected sources
                                                    before July 9, 2021,
                                                    and No thereafter.
Sec.   63.6(f)(1).............  Depends, see       No, for new or
                                 explanation.       reconstructed
                                                    sources which
                                                    commenced
                                                    construction or
                                                    reconstruction after
                                                    September 19, 2019.
                                                    Yes, for all other
                                                    affected sources
                                                    before July 9, 2021,
                                                    and No thereafter.
Sec.   63.6(f)(2)-(3).........  Yes..............
Sec.   63.6(g)................  Yes..............
Sec.   63.6(h)................  No...............  Subpart JJJJ does not
                                                    require continuous
                                                    opacity monitoring
                                                    systems (COMS).

[[Page 41318]]

 
Sec.   63.6(i)(1)-(14)........  Yes..............
Sec.   63.6(i)(15)............  No...............  Reserved.
Sec.   63.6(i)(16)............  Yes..............
Sec.   63.6(j)................  Yes..............
Sec.   63.7(a)-(d)............  Yes..............
Sec.   63.7(e)(1).............  No...............  See Sec.
                                                    63.3360(e)(2).
Sec.   63.7(e)(2)-(3).........  Yes..............
Sec.   63.7(f)-(h)............  Yes..............
Sec.   63.8(a)(1)-(2).........  Yes..............
Sec.   63.8(a)(3).............  No...............  Reserved.
Sec.   63.8(a)(4).............  No...............  Subpart JJJJ does not
                                                    have monitoring
                                                    requirements for
                                                    flares.
Sec.   63.8(b)................  Yes..............
Sec.   63.8(c)(1) and Sec.      Depends, see       No, for new or
 63.8(c)(1)(i).                  explanation.       reconstructed
                                                    sources which
                                                    commenced
                                                    construction or
                                                    reconstruction after
                                                    September 19, 2019,
                                                    see Sec.
                                                    63.3340(a) for
                                                    general duty
                                                    requirement. Yes,
                                                    for all other
                                                    affected sources
                                                    before July 9, 2021,
                                                    and No thereafter,
                                                    see Sec.
                                                    63.3340(a) for
                                                    general duty
                                                    requirement.
Sec.   63.8(c)(1)(ii).........  Yes..............  Sec.   63.8(c)(1)(ii)
                                                    only applies if you
                                                    use capture and
                                                    control systems.
Sec.   63.8(c)(1)(iii)........  Depends, see       No, for new or
                                 explanation.       reconstructed
                                                    sources which
                                                    commenced
                                                    construction or
                                                    reconstruction after
                                                    September 19, 2019.
                                                    Yes, for all other
                                                    affected sources
                                                    before July 9, 2021,
                                                    and No thereafter.
Sec.   63.8(c)(2)-(3).........  Yes..............  See Sec.
                                                    63.3350(e)(10)(iv)
                                                    for temperature
                                                    sensor validation
                                                    procedures
Sec.   63.8(c)(4).............  No...............  Sec.   63.3350
                                                    specifies the
                                                    requirements for the
                                                    operation of CMS for
                                                    capture systems and
                                                    add-on control
                                                    devices at sources
                                                    using these to
                                                    comply.
Sec.   63.8(c)(5).............  No...............  Subpart JJJJ does not
                                                    require COMS.
Sec.   63.8(c)(6)-(8).........  Yes..............  Provisions for COMS
                                                    are not applicable.
Sec.   63.8(d)(1)-(2).........  Yes..............  Refer to Sec.
                                                    63.3350(e)(5) for
                                                    CPMS quality control
                                                    procedures to be
                                                    included in the
                                                    quality control
                                                    program.
Sec.   63.8(d)(3).............  No...............  Sec.   63.3350(e)(5)
                                                    specifies the
                                                    program of
                                                    corrective action.
Sec.   63.8(e)-(f)............  Yes..............  Sec.   63.8(e)(2)
                                                    does not apply to
                                                    CPMS. Sec.
                                                    63.8(f)(6) only
                                                    applies if you use
                                                    CEMS.
Sec.   63.8(g)................  Yes..............  Only applies if you
                                                    use CEMS.
Sec.   63.9(a)................  Yes..............
Sec.   63.9(b)(1).............  Yes..............
Sec.   63.9(b)(2).............  Yes..............  Except Sec.
                                                    63.3400(b)(1)
                                                    requires submittal
                                                    of initial
                                                    notification for
                                                    existing affected
                                                    sources no later
                                                    than 1 year before
                                                    compliance date.
Sec.   63.9(b)(3)-(5).........  Yes..............
Sec.   63.9(c)-(e)............  Yes..............
Sec.   63.9(f)................  No...............  Subpart JJJJ does not
                                                    require opacity and
                                                    visible emissions
                                                    observations.
Sec.   63.9(g)................  Yes..............  Provisions for COMS
                                                    are not applicable.
Sec.   63.9(h)(1)-(3).........  Yes..............
Sec.   63.9(h)(4).............  No...............  Reserved.
Sec.   63.9(h)(5)-(6).........  Yes..............
Sec.   63.9(i)................  Yes..............
Sec.   63.9(j)................  Yes..............
Sec.   63.10(a)...............  Yes..............
Sec.   63.10(b)(1)............  Yes..............
Sec.   63.10(b)(2)(i).........  Depends, see       No, for new or
                                 explanation.       reconstructed
                                                    sources which
                                                    commenced
                                                    construction or
                                                    reconstruction after
                                                    September 19, 2019.
                                                    Yes, for all other
                                                    affected sources
                                                    before July 9, 2021,
                                                    and No thereafter.
Sec.   63.10(b)(2)(ii)........  No...............  See Sec.   63.3410
                                                    for recordkeeping of
                                                    relevant
                                                    information.
Sec.   63.10(b)(2)(iii).......  Yes..............  Sec.
                                                    63.10(b)(2)(iii)
                                                    only applies if you
                                                    use a capture and
                                                    control system.
Sec.   63.10(b)(2)(iv)-(v)....  Depends, see       No, for new or
                                 explanation.       reconstructed
                                                    sources which
                                                    commenced
                                                    construction or
                                                    reconstruction after
                                                    September 19, 2019.
                                                    Yes, for all other
                                                    affected sources
                                                    before July 9, 2021,
                                                    and No thereafter.
Sec.   63.10(b)(2)(vi)-(xiv)..  Yes..............
Sec.   63.10(b)(3)............  Yes..............
Sec.   63.10(c)(1)............  Yes..............
Sec.   63.10(c)(2)-(4)........  No...............  Reserved.
Sec.   63.10(c)(5)-(8)........  Yes..............
Sec.   63.10(c)(9)............  No...............  Reserved.
Sec.   63.10(c)(10)-(14)......  Yes..............
Sec.   63.10(c)(15)...........  Depends, see       No, for new or
                                 explanation.       reconstructed
                                                    sources which
                                                    commenced
                                                    construction or
                                                    reconstruction after
                                                    September 19, 2019.
                                                    Yes, for all other
                                                    affected sources
                                                    before July 9, 2021,
                                                    and No thereafter.
Sec.   63.10(d)(1)-(2)........  Yes..............
Sec.   63.10(d)(3)............  No...............  Subpart JJJJ does not
                                                    require opacity and
                                                    visible emissions
                                                    observations.
Sec.   63.10(d)(4)............  Yes..............

[[Page 41319]]

 
Sec.   63.10(d)(5)(i).........  Depends, see       No, for new or
                                 explanation.       reconstructed
                                                    sources which
                                                    commenced
                                                    construction or
                                                    reconstruction after
                                                    September 19, 2019.
                                                    Yes, for all other
                                                    affected sources
                                                    before July 9, 2021,
                                                    and No thereafter.
                                                    See Sec.
                                                    63.3400(c) for
                                                    malfunction
                                                    reporting
                                                    requirements.
Sec.   63.10(d)(5)(ii)........  Depends, see       No, for new or
                                 explanation.       reconstructed
                                                    sources which
                                                    commenced
                                                    construction or
                                                    reconstruction after
                                                    September 19, 2019.
                                                    Yes, for all other
                                                    affected sources
                                                    before July 9, 2021,
                                                    and No thereafter.
                                                    See Sec.
                                                    63.3400(c) for
                                                    malfunction
                                                    reporting
                                                    requirements.
Sec.   63.10(e)(1)-(2)........  Yes..............  Provisions for COMS
                                                    are not applicable.
Sec.   63.10(e)(3)-(4)........  No...............  Subpart JJJJ does not
                                                    require opacity and
                                                    visible emissions
                                                    observations.
Sec.   63.10(f)...............  Yes..............
Sec.   63.11..................  No...............  Subpart JJJJ does not
                                                    specify use of
                                                    flares for
                                                    compliance.
Sec.   63.12..................  Yes..............
Sec.   63.13..................  Yes..............
Sec.   63.14..................  Yes..............  Subpart JJJJ includes
                                                    provisions for
                                                    alternative ASME and
                                                    ASTM test methods
                                                    that are
                                                    incorporated by
                                                    reference.
Sec.   63.15..................  Yes..............
Sec.   63.16..................  Yes..............
------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2020-05854 Filed 7-8-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P

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