[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 212 (Friday, November 1, 2019)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 58936-59030]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-18345]
[[Page 58935]]
Vol. 84
Friday,
No. 212
November 1, 2019
Part III
Environmental Protection Agency
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
40 CFR Part 63
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Surface
Coating of Automobiles and Light-Duty Trucks; Surface Coating of
Miscellaneous Metal Parts and Products; Surface Coating of Plastic
Parts and Products; Surface Coating of Large Appliances; Printing,
Coating, and Dyeing of Fabrics and Other Textiles; and Surface Coating
of Metal Furniture Residual Risk and Technology Reviews; Proposed Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 84 , No. 212 / Friday, November 1, 2019 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 58936]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 63
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0314, EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0312, EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0313, EPA-
HQ-OAR-2017-0670, EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0668, EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0669; FRL-9998-
77-OAR]
RIN 2060-AT49 and RIN 2060-AT72
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Surface
Coating of Automobiles and Light-Duty Trucks; Surface Coating of
Miscellaneous Metal Parts and Products; Surface Coating of Plastic
Parts and Products; Surface Coating of Large Appliances; Printing,
Coating, and Dyeing of Fabrics and Other Textiles; and Surface Coating
of Metal Furniture Residual Risk and Technology Reviews
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing
amendments to address the results of the residual risk and technology
reviews (RTR) that the EPA is required to conduct in accordance with
the Clean Air Act (CAA) with regard to the National Emissions Standards
for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for the Surface Coating of
Automobiles and Light-Duty Trucks (ALDT), the NESHAP for the Surface
Coating of Miscellaneous Metal Parts and Products (MMPP), and the
NESHAP for the Surface Coating of Plastic Parts and Products (PPP). The
EPA is proposing to find the risks due to emissions of air toxics from
these source categories under the current standards are acceptable and
the standards provide an ample margin of safety to protect public
health. We are proposing no revisions to the numerical emission limits
based on these analyses. The EPA is proposing to amend provisions
addressing emissions during periods of startup, shutdown, and
malfunction (SSM); to amend provisions regarding electronic reporting
of performance test results; to amend provisions regarding monitoring
requirements; and to make miscellaneous clarifying and technical
corrections. This notice also proposes technical corrections to the
NESHAP for Surface Coating of Large Appliances; NESHAP for Printing,
Coating, and Dyeing of Fabrics and Other Textiles; and NESHAP for
Surface Coating of Metal Furniture.
DATES:
Comments. Comments must be received on or before December 16, 2019.
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), comments on the information
collection provisions are best assured of consideration if the Office
of Management and Budget (OMB) receives a copy of your comments on or
before December 2, 2019.
Public hearing. If anyone contacts us requesting a public hearing
on or before November 6, 2019, we will hold a hearing. Additional
information about the hearing, if requested, will be published in a
subsequent Federal Register document and posted at https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/surface-coating-automobiles-and-light-duty-trucks-national-emission, https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/surface-coating-miscellaneous-metal-parts-and-products-national and https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/surface-coating-plastic-parts-and-products-national-emission. See
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for information on requesting and registering
for a public hearing.
ADDRESSES: You may send comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0314 for 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 63, subpart
IIII, Automobiles and Light-Duty Trucks; Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0312 for 40 CFR part 63, subpart MMMM, Surface Coating of Miscellaneous
Metal Parts and Products; Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0313 for 40 CFR
part 63, subpart PPPP, Surface Coating of Plastic Parts and Products;
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0668 for 40 CFR part 63, subpart OOOO,
Printing Coating, and Dyeing of Fabrics and Other Textiles; EPA-HQ-OAR-
2017-0669 for 40 CFR part 63, subpart RRRR, Surface Coating of Metal
Furniture; Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0670, for 40 CFR part 63
subpart NNNN for Surface Coating of Large Appliances by any of the
following methods:
Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov/
(our preferred method). Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments.
Email: [email protected]. Include Docket ID No. EPA-
HQ-OAR-2019-0312, EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0313, EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0314, HQ-OAR-
2017-0668, EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0669, or EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0670 (specify the
applicable docket number) in the subject line of the message.
Fax: (202) 566-9744. Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0312, EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0313, or EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0314, HQ-OAR-2017-
0668, EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0669, or EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0670 (specify the
applicable docket number).
Mail: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Docket
Center, Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0312, EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0313, or
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0314, HQ-OAR-2017-0668, EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0669, or EPA-
HQ-OAR-2017-0670 (specify the applicable docket number), Mail Code
28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20460.
Hand/Courier Delivery: EPA Docket Center, WJC West
Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20004.
The Docket Center's hours of operation are 8:30 a.m.-4:30 p.m., Monday-
Friday (except federal holidays).
Instructions: All submissions received must include the applicable
Docket ID No. for this rulemaking. Comments received may be posted
without change to https://www.regulations.gov/, including any personal
information provided. For detailed instructions on sending comments and
additional information on the rulemaking process, see the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION section of this document.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For questions about this proposed
action for the Surface Coating of Miscellaneous Metal Parts and
Products (MMPP) NESHAP, the Surface Coating of Plastic Parts and
Products (PPP) NESHAP, and the technical corrections to the NESHAP for
Surface Coating of Large Appliances contact Ms. Kim Teal, Minerals and
Manufacturing Group, Sector Policies and Programs Division (D243-04),
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711;
telephone number: (919) 541-5580; fax number: (919) 541-4991; and email
address: [email protected]. For questions about the proposed action for
the Surface Coating of Automobiles and Light-Duty Trucks (ALDT) NESHAP
and the technical corrections to the NESHAP for Surface Coating of
Metal Furniture contact Ms. J. Kaye Whitfield, Minerals and
Manufacturing Group, Sector Policies and Programs Division (D243-04),
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711;
telephone number: (919) 541-2509; fax number: (919) 541-4991; and email
address: [email protected]. For questions about the technical
corrections to the Printing, Coating, and Dyeing of Fabrics and Other
Textiles contact Ms. Paula
[[Page 58937]]
Hirtz, Minerals and Manufacturing Group, Sector Policies and Programs
Division (D243-04), Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
27711; telephone number: (919) 541-2618; fax number: (919) 541-4991;
and email address: [email protected]. For specific information
regarding the risk modeling methodology, contact Mr. Chris Sarsony,
Health and Environmental Impacts Division (C539-02), Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711; telephone number: (919)
541-4843; fax number: (919) 541-0840; and email address:
[email protected]. For information about the applicability of any
of these NESHAP to a particular entity, contact Mr. John Cox, Office of
Enforcement and Compliance Assurance, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, EPA WJC South Building (Mail Code 2227A), 1200 Pennsylvania
Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: (202) 564-1395; and
email address: [email protected]. For questions about monitoring and
testing requirements, contact Mr. Muntasir Ali, Measurement Policy
Group, Sector Policies and Programs Division (D221-01), Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711; telephone number: (919)
541-0833; fax number: (919) 541-4991; and email address:
[email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Public hearing. Please contact Ms. Nancy Perry at (919) 541-5628 or
by email at [email protected] to request a public hearing, to
register to speak at the public hearing, or to inquire as to whether a
public hearing will be held.
Docket. The EPA has established three separate dockets for these
rulemakings. Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0314 has been established
for 40 CFR part 63, subpart IIII, Surface Coating of Automobiles and
Light-Duty Trucks. Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0312 has been
established for 40 CFR part 63, subpart MMMM, Surface Coating of
Miscellaneous Metal Parts and Products. EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0313 has been
established for 40 CFR part 63, subpart PPPP, Surface Coating of
Plastic Parts and Products. In addition, docket numbers for the
technical corrections have been established: Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2017-0670 for 40 CFR part 63, subpart NNNN, Surface Coating of Large
Appliances; Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0669 for 40 CFR part 63,
subpart RRRR, Surface Coating of Metal Furniture; and Docket ID No.
EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0668 for 40 CFR part 63, subpart OOOO, Printing,
Coating, and Dyeing of Fabrics and Other Textiles. All documents in the
dockets are listed in Regulations.gov. Although listed, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted
by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is
not placed on the internet and will be publicly available only in hard
copy. Publicly available docket materials are available either
electronically in Regulations.gov or in hard copy at the EPA Docket
Center, Room 3334, WJC West Building, 1301 Constitution Avenue NW,
Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30
p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone
number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone
number for the EPA Docket Center is (202) 566-1742.
The dockets related to the technical corrections to the NESHAP for
Surface Coating of Large Appliances, the NESHAP for Printing, Coating,
and Dyeing of Fabrics and Other Textiles, and the NESHAP for Surface
Coating of Metal Furniture are discussed in section II.E of this
preamble.
Instructions. Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0314 for 40 CFR part 63, subpart IIII, Surface Coating of
Automobiles and Light-Duty Trucks, Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0312
for 40 CFR part 63, subpart MMMM, Surface Coating of Miscellaneous
Metal Parts and Products, or Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0313 for 40
CFR part 63, subpart PPPP, Surface Coating of Plastic Parts and
Products, as applicable to your comments. Direct your comments for the
technical corrections to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0670 for 40 CFR
part 63, subpart NNNN, Surface Coating of Large Appliances; Docket ID
No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0669 for 40 CFR part 63, subpart RRRR, Surface
Coating of Metal Furniture; and Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0668 for
40 CFR part 63, subpart OOOO, Printing, Coating, and Dyeing of Fabrics
and Other Textiles. The EPA's policy is that all comments received will
be included in the public docket without change and may be made
available online at https://www.regulations.gov/, including any
personal information provided, unless the comment includes information
claimed to be CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted
by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or
otherwise protected through https://www.regulations.gov/ or email. This
type of information should be submitted by mail as discussed below.
The EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket.
Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a
written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment
and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA
will generally not consider comments or comment contents located
outside of the primary submission (i.e., on the Web, cloud, or other
file sharing system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA
public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions,
and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.
The https://www.regulations.gov/ website allows you to submit your
comment anonymously, which means the EPA will not know your identity or
contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment.
If you send an email comment directly to the EPA without going through
https://www.regulations.gov/, your email address will be automatically
captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the
public docket and made available on the internet. If you submit an
electronic comment, the EPA recommends that you include your name and
other contact information in the body of your comment and with any
digital storage media you submit. If the EPA cannot read your comment
due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification,
the EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files
should not include special characters or any form of encryption and be
free of any defects or viruses. For additional information about the
EPA's public docket, visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at https://www.epa.gov/dockets.
Submitting CBI. Do not submit information containing CBI to the EPA
through https://www.regulations.gov/ or email. Clearly mark the part or
all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information on
any digital storage media that you mail to the EPA, mark the outside of
the digital storage media as CBI and then identify electronically
within the digital storage media the specific information that is
claimed as CBI. In addition to one complete version of the comments
that includes information claimed as CBI, you must submit a copy of the
[[Page 58938]]
comments that does not contain the information claimed as CBI directly
to the public docket through the procedures outlined in Instructions
above. If you submit any digital storage media that does not contain
CBI, mark the outside of the digital storage media clearly that it does
not contain CBI. Information not marked as CBI will be included in the
public docket and the EPA's electronic public docket without prior
notice. Information marked as CBI will not be disclosed except in
accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. Send or deliver
information identified as CBI only to the following address: OAQPS
Document Control Officer (C404-02), OAQPS, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711,
Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0314 for 40 CFR part 63,
subpart IIII, Surface Coating of Automobiles and Light-Duty Trucks
(ALDT Docket); Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0312 for 40 CFR part 63,
subpart MMMM, Surface Coating of Miscellaneous Metal Parts and Products
(MMPP Docket); and Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0313 for 40 CFR part
63, subpart PPPP, Surface Coating of Plastic Parts and Products (PPP
Docket), as applicable.
Preamble acronyms and abbreviations. We use multiple acronyms and
terms in this preamble. While this list may not be exhaustive, to ease
the reading of this preamble and for reference purposes, the EPA
defines the following terms and acronyms here:
ACA American Coatings Association
AEGL acute exposure guideline level
AERMOD air dispersion model used by the HEM-3 model
ALDT automobile and light-duty truck
BACT best available control technology
CAA Clean Air Act
CalEPA California EPA
CBI Confidential Business Information
CDX Central Data Exchange
CEDRI Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface
CEMS continuous emissions monitoring systems
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
ECHO Enforcement and Compliance History Online
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
EPFP extreme performance fluoropolymer
ERPG emergency response planning guideline
ERT Electronic Reporting Tool
GACT generally available control technology
gal gallon
HAP hazardous air pollutant(s)
HCl hydrochloric acid
HEM-3 Human Exposure Model
HF hydrogen fluoride
HI hazard index
HQ hazard quotient
IBR incorporation by reference
ICAC Institute of Clean Air Companies
IRIS Integrated Risk Information System
kg kilogram
km kilometer
LAER lowest achievable emission rate
lb pound
MACT maximum achievable control technology
MIBK methyl isobutyl ketone
MIR maximum individual risk
MMPP miscellaneous metal parts and products
NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards
NAICS North American Industry Classification System
NEI National Emission Inventory
NESHAP national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants
NSR New Source Review
NTTAA National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
OAQPS Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
OMB Office of Management and Budget
OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration
PB-HAP hazardous air pollutants known to be persistent and bio-
accumulative in the environment
PDF portable document format
POM polycyclic organic matter
PPP plastic parts and products
PRA Paperwork Reduction Act
PTE permanent total enclosure
RACT reasonably available control technology
RBLC RACT/BACT/LAER Clearinghouse
REL reference exposure level
RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act
RfC reference concentration
RfD reference dose
RTO regenerative thermal oxidizer
RTR residual risk and technology review
SAB Science Advisory Board
SSM startup, shutdown, and malfunction
TOSHI target organ-specific hazard index
tpy tons per year
UF uncertainty factor
[micro]g/m\3\ micrograms per cubic meter
UMRA Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
URE unit risk estimate
VCS voluntary consensus standards
VOC volatile organic compounds
Organization of this document. The information in this preamble is
organized as follows:
I. General Information
A. Does this action apply to me?
B. Where can I get a copy of this document and other related
information?
II. Background
A. What is the statutory authority for this action?
B. What are the source categories and how do the current NESHAP
regulate their HAP emissions?
C. What data collection activities were conducted to support
this action?
D. What other relevant background information and data are
available?
III. Analytical Procedures and Decision-Making
A. How do we consider risk in our decision-making?
B. How do we perform the technology review?
C. How did we estimate post-MACT risks posed by these source
categories?
IV. Analytical Results and Proposed Decisions
A. What are the analytical results and proposed decisions for
the surface coating of automobiles and light-duty trucks source
category?
B. What are the analytical results and proposed decisions for
the MMPP source category?
C. What are the analytical results and proposed decisions for
the Surface Coating of Plastic Parts and Products source category?
D. Proposed Corrections to Earlier Subparts.
V. Summary of Cost, Environmental, and Economic Impacts
A. What are the affected sources?
B. What are the air quality impacts?
C. What are the cost impacts?
D. What are the economic impacts?
E. What are the benefits?
VI. Request for Comments
VII. Submitting Data Corrections
VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and
Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
B. Executive Order 13771: Reducing Regulations and Controlling
Regulatory Costs
C. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
D. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
F. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
G. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With
Indian Tribal Governments
H. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
I. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
J. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) and
1 CFR Part 51
K. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations
I. General Information
A. Does this action apply to me?
Table 1 of this preamble lists the NESHAP and associated regulated
industrial source categories that are the subject of this proposal.
Table 1 is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide
for readers regarding the entities that this proposed action is likely
to affect. The proposed standards, once promulgated, will be directly
applicable to the affected sources. Federal, state, local, and tribal
government entities would not be affected by this proposed action. As
[[Page 58939]]
defined in the Initial List of Categories of Sources Under Section
112(c)(1) of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 (see 57 FR 31576,
July 16, 1992) and Documentation for Developing the Initial Source
Category List, Final Report (see EPA-450/3-91-030, July 1992), the
Surface Coating of Automobiles and Light-Duty Trucks (ALDT) source
category includes any facility that is a major source of hazardous air
pollutants (HAP) and is engaged in the surface coating of new
automobile or new light-duty truck bodies or body parts for new
automobiles or new light-duty trucks. We estimate that 43 major source
facilities engaged in surface coating of automobiles and light-duty
trucks would be subject to this proposal. The MMPP source category
includes any facility engaged in the surface coating of miscellaneous
metal parts and products that is a major source of HAP emissions.
Miscellaneous metal parts and products include, but are not limited to,
metal components of the following types of products as well as the
products themselves: Motor vehicle parts and accessories; bicycles and
sporting goods; recreational vehicles; extruded aluminum structural
components; railroad cars; heavy-duty trucks; medical equipment; lawn
and garden equipment; electronic equipment; magnet wire; steel drums;
industrial machinery; metal pipes; and numerous other industrial,
household, and consumer products. We estimate that 368 major source
facilities engaged in surface coating of miscellaneous metal parts and
products would be subject to this proposal. The PPP source category
includes any facility engaged in the surface coating of plastic parts
or products that is a major source of HAP emissions. Plastic parts and
products include, but are not limited to, plastic components of the
following types of products as well as the products themselves: Motor
vehicle parts and accessories for automobiles, trucks, recreational
vehicles; sporting and recreational goods; toys; business machines;
laboratory and medical equipment; and household and other consumer
products. We estimate that 125 major source facilities engaged in
plastic parts and products surface coating would be subject to this
proposal.
Table 1--NESHAP, Industrial and Government Sources Affected by This
Proposed Action
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulated entities
NESHAP source category NAICS code \1\ \2\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Surface Coating of Automobiles 336111, 336112, Automobile and light-
and Light-Duty Trucks. 336211. duty truck assembly
plants, producers of
automobile and light-
duty truck bodies.
Surface Coating of 335312, 336111, Automobile parts
Miscellaneous Metal Parts and 336211, 336312, (engine parts,
Products. 33632, 33633, vehicle parts and
33634, 33637, accessories, brakes,
336399. axles, etc.).
331316, 331524, Extruded aluminum,
332321, 332323. architectural
components, rod, and
tubes.
33312, 333611, Heavy equipment
333618. (tractors, earth
moving machinery).
332312, 332722, Job shops (making any
332813, 332991, of the products from
332999, 334119, the miscellaneous
336413, 339999. metal parts and
products segments).
33612, 336211.... Large trucks and
buses.
331319, 331422, Magnet wire.
335929.
332311........... Prefabricated metal
buildings, carports,
docks, dwellings,
greenhouses, panels
for buildings.
33242, 81131, Metal drums, kegs,
322214, 326199, pails, shipping
331513, 332439. containers.
331111, 33121, Metal pipe and
331221, 331511. foundry (plate,
tube, rods, nails,
spikes, etc.).
33651, 336611, Rail transportation
482111. (brakes, engines,
freight cars,
locomotives.
3369, 331316, Recreational vehicles
336991, 336211, (motorcycles, motor
336112, 336213, homes, semitrailers,
336214, 336399. truck trailers).
326291, 326299... Rubber to metal
products (engine
mounts, rubberized
tank tread, harmonic
balancers.
332311, 332312... Structural steel
(joists, railway
bridge sections,
highway bridge
sections).
336212, 336999, Miscellaneous
33635, 56121, transportation
8111. 56211. related equipment
and parts.
Surface Coating of Plastic 337214........... Office furniture,
Parts and Products. 32614, 32615..... except wood.
Plastic foam products
(e.g., pool floats,
wrestling mats, life
jackets).
326199........... Plastic products not
elsewhere classified
(e.g., name plates,
coin holders,
storage boxes,
license plate
housings, cosmetic
caps, cup holders).
333313........... Office machines.
33422............ Radio and television
broadcasting and
communications
equipment (e.g.,
cellular
telephones).
336211........... Motor vehicle body
manufacturing.
336399........... Motor vehicle parts
and accessories.
336212........... Truck trailer
manufacturing.
336213........... Motor home
manufacturing.
336214........... Travel trailer and
camper
manufacturing.
336999........... Transportation
equipment not
elsewhere classified
(e.g., snowmobile
hoods, running
boards, tractor body
panels, personal
watercraft parts).
339111, 339112... Medical equipment and
supplies.
33992............ Sporting and athletic
goods.
33995............ Signs and advertising
specialties.
[[Page 58940]]
339999........... Manufacturing
industries not
elsewhere classified
(e.g., bezels,
consoles, panels,
lenses).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ North American Industry Classification System.
\2\ Regulated entities means major source facilities that apply surface
coatings to these parts or products.
B. Where can I get a copy of this document and other related
information?
In addition to being available in the dockets for this action, an
electronic copy of this proposed action is available on the internet.
Following signature by the EPA Administrator, the EPA will post a copy
of this proposed action at https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/surface-coating-automobiles-and-light-duty-trucks-national-emission, https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/surface-coating-miscellaneous-metal-parts-and-products-national, and https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/surface-coating-plastic-parts-and-products-national-emission. Following publication in the
Federal Register, the EPA will post the Federal Register version of the
proposal and key technical documents at these same websites.
Information on the overall RTR program is available at https://www3.epa.gov/ttn/atw/rrisk/rtrpg.html.
A redline version of the regulatory language that incorporates the
proposed changes in this action are available in the Automobiles and
Light-Duty Trucks, the Metal Parts and Products, and the Plastic Parts
and Products Dockets (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0314, Docket ID No.
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0312, and Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0313,
respectively).
II. Background
A. What is the statutory authority for this action?
The statutory authority for this action is provided by sections 112
and 301 of the CAA, as amended (42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.).\1\ Section 112
of the CAA establishes a two-stage regulatory process to develop
standards for emissions of HAP from stationary sources. Generally, the
first stage involves establishing technology-based standards and the
second stage involves evaluating those standards that are based on
maximum achievable control technology (MACT) to determine whether
additional standards are needed to further address any remaining risk
associated with HAP emissions. This second stage is commonly referred
to as the ``residual risk review.'' In addition to the residual risk
review, the CAA also requires the EPA to review standards set under CAA
section 112 every 8 years to determine if there are ``developments in
practices, processes, or control technologies'' that may be appropriate
to incorporate into the standards. This review is commonly referred to
as the ``technology review.'' When the two reviews are combined into a
single rulemaking, it is commonly referred to as the ``risk and
technology review.'' The discussion that follows identifies the most
relevant statutory sections and briefly explains the contours of the
methodology used to implement these statutory requirements. A more
comprehensive discussion appears in the document titled CAA Section 112
Risk and Technology Reviews: Statutory Authority and Methodology, in
the dockets for each subpart in this rulemaking (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0314 for Automobiles and Light-Duty Trucks, Docket ID No. EPA-
HQ-OAR-2019-0312 for Miscellaneous Metal Parts and Products, and Docket
ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0313 for Plastic Parts and Products).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ In addition, section 301 of the CAA provides general
authority for the Administrator to ``prescribe such regulations as
are necessary to carry out his functions'' under the CAA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the first stage of the CAA section 112 standard setting process,
the EPA promulgates technology-based standards under CAA section112(d)
for categories of sources identified as emitting one or more of the HAP
listed in CAA section 112(b). Sources of HAP emissions are either major
sources or area sources, and CAA section 112 establishes different
requirements for major source standards and area source standards.
``Major sources'' are those that emit or have the potential to emit 10
tons per year (tpy) or more of a single HAP or 25 tpy or more of any
combination of HAP. All other sources are ``area sources.'' For major
sources, CAA section 112(d) provides that the technology-based NESHAP
must reflect the maximum degree of emission reductions of HAP
achievable (after considering cost, energy requirements, and non-air
quality health and environmental impacts). These standards are commonly
referred to as MACT standards. CAA section 112(d)(3) also establishes a
minimum control level for MACT standards, known as the MACT ``floor.''
The EPA must also consider control options that are more stringent than
the floor. Standards more stringent than the floor are commonly
referred to as beyond-the-floor standards. In certain instances, as
provided in CAA section 112(h), the EPA may set work practice standards
where it is not feasible to prescribe or enforce a numerical emission
standard. For area sources, CAA section 112(d)(5) gives the EPA
discretion to set standards based on generally available control
technologies or management practices (GACT standards) in lieu of MACT
standards.
The second stage in standard-setting focuses on identifying and
addressing any remaining (i.e., ``residual'') risk according to CAA
section 112(f). For source categories subject to MACT standards,
section 112(f)(2) of the CAA requires the EPA to determine whether
promulgation of additional standards is needed to provide an ample
margin of safety to protect public health or to prevent an adverse
environmental effect. Section 112(d)(5) of the CAA provides that this
residual risk review is not required for categories of area sources
subject to GACT standards. Section 112(f)(2)(B) of the CAA further
expressly preserves the EPA's use of the two-step approach for
developing standards to address any residual risk and the Agency's
interpretation of ``ample margin of safety'' developed in the National
Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Benzene Emissions
from Maleic Anhydride Plants, Ethylbenzene/Styrene Plants, Benzene
Storage Vessels, Benzene Equipment Leaks, and Coke By-Product Recovery
Plants (Benzene NESHAP) (54 FR 38044, September 14, 1989). The EPA
notified Congress in the Risk Report that the Agency intended to use
the Benzene NESHAP approach in making CAA section 112(f) residual risk
determinations (EPA-453/R-99-001, p. ES-11). The EPA subsequently
adopted this approach in its residual risk determinations and the
United States Court of Appeals for the District of
[[Page 58941]]
Columbia Circuit (the Court) upheld the EPA's interpretation that CAA
section 112(f)(2) incorporates the approach established in the Benzene
NESHAP. See NRDC v. EPA, 529 F.3d 1077, 1083 (D.C. Cir. 2008).
The approach incorporated into the CAA and used by the EPA to
evaluate residual risk and to develop standards under CAA section
112(f)(2) is a two-step approach. In the first step, the EPA determines
whether risks are acceptable. This determination ``considers all health
information, including risk estimation uncertainty, and includes a
presumptive limit on maximum individual lifetime [cancer] risk (MIR)
\2\ of approximately [1-in-10 thousand] [i.e., 100-in-1 million].'' 54
FR 38045, September 14, 1989. If risks are unacceptable, the EPA must
determine the emissions standards necessary to bring risks to an
acceptable level without considering costs. In the second step of the
approach, the EPA considers whether the emissions standards provide an
ample margin of safety to protect public health ``in consideration of
all health information, including the number of persons at risk levels
higher than approximately [1-in-1 million], as well as other relevant
factors, including costs and economic impacts, technological
feasibility, and other factors relevant to each particular decision.''
Id. The EPA must promulgate emission standards necessary to provide an
ample margin of safety to protect public health or determine that the
standards being reviewed provide an ample margin of safety without any
revisions. After conducting the ample margin of safety analysis, we
consider whether a more stringent standard is necessary to prevent,
taking into consideration costs, energy, safety, and other relevant
factors, an adverse environmental effect.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Although defined as ``maximum individual risk,'' MIR refers
only to cancer risk. MIR, one metric for assessing cancer risk, is
the estimated risk if an individual were exposed to the maximum
level of a pollutant for a lifetime.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CAA section 112(d)(6) separately requires the EPA to review
standards promulgated under CAA section 112 and revise them ``as
necessary (taking into account developments in practices, processes,
and control technologies)'' no less frequently than every 8 years. In
conducting this review, which we call the ``technology review,'' the
EPA is not required to recalculate the MACT floor. Natural Resources
Defense Council (NRDC) v. EPA, 529 F.3d 1077, 1084 (D.C. Cir. 2008).
Association of Battery Recyclers, Inc. v. EPA, 716 F.3d 667 (D.C. Cir.
2013). The EPA may consider cost in deciding whether to revise the
standards pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6).
B. What are the source categories and how do the current NESHAP
regulate their HAP emissions?
1. What is the surface coating of automobiles and light-duty trucks
source category and how does the current NESHAP regulate its HAP
emissions?
a. Source Category Description
The NESHAP for the ALDT source category was promulgated on April
26, 2004 (69 FR 22602), and is codified at 40 CFR part 63, subpart
IIII. Technical corrections and clarifying amendments were promulgated
on December 22, 2006 (71 FR 76922) and April 24, 2007 (72 FR 20227).
The ALDT NESHAP applies to any coating operations which apply topcoats
to new automobile or new light-duty truck bodies or body parts for new
automobiles or new light-duty trucks and/or coatings to new other motor
vehicle bodies or body parts for new other motor vehicles; parts
intended for use in new automobiles, new light-duty trucks, or new
other motor vehicles; or aftermarket repair or replacement parts for
automobiles, light-duty trucks, or other motor vehicles; and the
affected source is located at a facility that is a major source, is
located at a major source, or is part of a major source of emissions of
HAP (40 CFR 63.3081). The ALDT NESHAP (40 CFR 63.3176) defines an
``automobile'' as ``a motor vehicle designed to carry up to eight
passengers, excluding vans, sport utility vehicles, and motor vehicles
designed primarily to transport light loads of property,'' and ``light-
duty truck'' as ``vans, sport utility vehicles, and motor vehicles
designed primarily to transport light loads of property with gross
vehicle weight rating of 8,500 lbs [pounds] or less.''
The ALDT NESHAP defines a ``coating'' as ``a material that is
applied to a substrate for decorative, protective or functional
purposes. Such materials include, but are not limited to, paints,
sealants, caulks, inks, adhesives, primers, deadeners, and maskants.
Decorative, protective, or functional materials that consist only of
protective oils for metal, acids, bases, or any combination of these
substances are not considered coatings for the purposes of this
subpart.'' (40 CFR 63.3176).
The ALDT NESHAP does not apply to a surface coating operation that
is subject to any other NESHAP as of June 25, 2004, except when a
source chooses to comply with the ALDT NESHAP instead of the MMPP
NESHAP (40 CFR part 63, subpart MMMM) or the PPP NESHAP (40 CFR part
63, subpart PPPP). (40 CFR 63.3082(c).)
Based on our search of the National Emission Inventory (NEI)
(www.epa.gov/air-emissions-inventories/national-emissions-inventory-nei) and the EPA's Enforcement and Compliance History Online (ECHO)
database (echo.epa.gov) and a review of active air emissions permits,
we estimate that 43 facilities are subject to the ALDT NESHAP. A
complete list of facilities subject to the ALDT NESHAP is available in
Table 1 of Appendix 10 to the memorandum titled Residual Risk
Assessment for the Surface Coating of Automobiles and Light-duty Trucks
Source Category in Support of the 2019 Risk and Technology Review
Proposed Rule (hereafter referred to as the Automobiles and Light-Duty
Trucks Risk Assessment Report), in the ALDT Docket (Docket ID No. EPA-
HQ-OAR-2019-0314).
b. HAP Emission Sources
The primary HAP emitted from ALDT surface coating operations are
organic HAP and included toluene, xylene, glycol ethers, methyl
isobutyl ketone (MIBK), ethyl benzene, and methanol. The HAP emissions
are from coating application and drying and curing ovens in the ALDT
surface coating operations. Some emissions occur from the cleaning of
spray booths and equipment. In most cases, HAP emissions from surface
preparation, storage and handling are relatively small (i.e., not
quantifiable) for this source category.
Inorganic (metal) HAP emissions were considered in the development
of the ALDT NESHAP and the EPA determined that, although very low
levels of emissions were reported in coatings, no inorganic HAP are
emitted. Based on data obtained during development of the 2004 proposed
NESHAP (67 FR 78612, December 24, 2002), some coatings in the ALDT
source category reported emissions of inorganic HAP that likely were
not emitted due to coating application techniques used. Instead, the
2004 proposed NESHAP found that the inorganic HAP components of the
coatings mostly remained as solids in the dry coating film on the parts
being coated, were collected by the circulating water under the spray
booth floor grates, or were deposited on the walls, floor, and grates
of the spray booths and other equipment in which they are applied. More
recent data from the 2011 NEI data, used to inform this RTR, show total
reported source category inorganic HAP emissions of 0.008 tpy from
antimony, chromium, manganese, and nickel, and no reported emissions of
inorganic HAP in thinners or cleaning
[[Page 58942]]
materials. (See Appendix 1 to the Automobiles and Light-Duty Trucks
Risk Assessment Report, in the ALDT Docket). Based on feedback from
industry and information gleaned from EPA site visits, facilities in
the ALDT source category employ high-efficiency spray equipment
(including robotic spraying) to minimize the overall amount of coating
used, thereby reducing inorganic HAP emissions further. Therefore, we
conclude that, although inorganic HAP are reported components of
coatings, no inorganic HAP are emitted.
c. Current NESHAP Requirements for Control of HAP
The NESHAP specifies numerical limits for the organic HAP emissions
from both existing sources and new or reconstructed sources. These
emissions limits are established for each of several process groupings
at the source including (1) electrodeposition primer, primer-surfacer,
topcoat, final repair, glass bonding primer, and glass bonding adhesive
operations plus all coatings and thinners, except for deadener
materials and for adhesive and sealer materials that are not components
of glass bonding systems, used in coating operations; (2) primer-
surfacer, topcoat, final repair, glass bonding primer, and glass
bonding adhesive operation plus all coatings and thinners, except for
deadener materials and for adhesive and sealer materials that are not
components of glass bonding systems, used in coating operations; (3)
adhesives and sealers, other than glass bonding adhesive materials; and
(4) deadener materials.
The specific organic HAP emission limits are summarized in Table 2
of the memorandum titled Technology Review for Surface Coating
Operations in the Automobiles and Light-Duty Trucks Source Category in
the ALDT Docket.
Compliance with the ALDT NESHAP emission limits can be achieved
using several different options, including a compliant material option,
an emission rate without add-on controls option (averaging option), and
an emission rate with add-on controls option. For bake ovens used to
cure electrodeposition primers, an alternative is to capture the
emissions and duct them to a control device having a destruction or
removal efficiency of at least 95 percent. For any coating operation(s)
on which the facility uses the compliant material option or the
emission rate without add-on controls option, the facility is not
required to meet any work practice standards. Facilities that have
multiple paint lines may choose to group operations from two or more
paint lines together, or to make a separate grouping of the operations
from individual paint lines. Operating limits may apply for facilities
that use an emission capture and control system to reduce emissions.
If the facility uses the emission rate with add-on controls option,
they must develop and implement a work practice plan to minimize
organic HAP emissions from all processes associated with the coating
operations (i.e., storage; mixing and conveying of coatings; thinners;
cleaning materials; and waste materials). The plan must specify
practices and procedures to ensure that a set of minimum work practices
specified in the NESHAP are implemented. The facility must also comply
with site-specific operating limits for the emission capture and
control system.
2. What is the surface coating of miscellaneous metal parts and
products source category and how does the current NESHAP regulate its
HAP emissions?
a. Source Category Description
The MMPP NESHAP was promulgated on January 2, 2004 (69 FR 130), and
is codified at 40 CFR part 63, subpart MMMM. A technical correction to
the final rule was published on April 26, 2004 (69 FR 22602) and
December 22, 2006 (71 FR 76922). The MMPP NESHAP applies to owners or
operators of metal parts and products surface coating operations at
facilities that are major sources of HAP.
Miscellaneous metal parts and products include, but are not limited
to, metal components of the following types of products as well as the
products themselves: motor vehicle parts and accessories, bicycles and
sporting goods, recreational vehicles, extruded aluminum structural
components, railroad cars, heavy-duty trucks, medical equipment, lawn
and garden equipment, electronic equipment, magnet wire, steel drums,
industrial machinery, metal pipes, and numerous other industrial,
household, and consumer products. The MMPP NESHAP (40 CFR 63. 3881(c))
does not apply to the surface coating or coating operations that meet
the applicability criteria of eleven other surface coating NESHAP,
e.g., surface coating of metal components of wood furniture (subpart JJ
of 40 CFR part 63), surface coating of metal components of large
appliances (subpart NNNN of 40 CFR part 63), and surface coating of
metal components of automobiles and light-duty trucks (subpart IIII of
40 CFR part 63).
Based on our search of the NEI and the EPA's ECHO database and a
review of active air emission permits, we estimate that 368 facilities
are subject to the MMPP NESHAP. A list of facilities we identified as
subject to the MMPP NESHAP is available in Table 1 to Appendix 10 to
the memorandum titled Residual Risk Assessment for the Surface Coating
of Miscellaneous Metal Parts and Products Source Category in Support of
the 2019 Risk and Technology Review Proposed Rule (hereafter referred
to as the Miscellaneous Metal Parts and Products Risk Assessment
Report), in the MMPP Docket (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0312).
b. HAP Emission Sources
The primary HAP emitted from MMPP surface coating operations are
organic HAP and include xylenes, toluene, glycol ethers, ethyl benzene,
MIBK, methanol, ethylene glycol, and dimethyl phthalate. The majority
of organic HAP emissions can be attributed to the application, drying,
and curing of coatings.
Inorganic HAP emissions were considered in the development of the
MMPP NESHAP and the EPA determined that inorganic HAP emissions would
be very low based on the coating application techniques in place at the
time of the rule development. Based on information reported in survey
responses during the development of the proposal for the 2004 NESHAP,
inorganic HAP, including chromium, cobalt, lead, and manganese
compounds, are components of some coatings used by this source
category. Inorganic HAP in the coatings would only have the potential
to be emitted if they were spray-applied, but the inorganic HAP would
be either deposited on the part being coated as part of the surface
coating, on the walls and floors of the spray booth, or captured by the
spray booth filters (typically either a dry fabric filter or a water-
wash filter system). No inorganic HAP were documented in thinners or
cleaning materials. Emissions would be further reduced by the use of
high efficiency spray equipment, often combined with robotic spraying,
that minimize the amount of coating that is sprayed. For more detailed
information please see the emissions memorandum in Appendix 1 to the
Miscellaneous Metal Parts and Products Risk Assessment Report, in the
MMPP Docket.
In response to comments on the 2004 proposed NESHAP,\3\ the EPA
argued
[[Page 58943]]
that given the combination of very low usage of coatings containing
inorganic HAP in this source category, and the current and expected
continued use of controls (dry filters and waterwash systems on spray
booths and high efficiency equipment) to reduce overspray emissions,
the EPA believed that levels of inorganic HAP emissions did not warrant
federal regulation because those regulations would not be expected to
result in additional emissions reduction.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Surface Coating of Miscellaneous Metal Parts and Products,
Summary of Public Comments and Responses on Proposed Rule. August
2003. EPA-453/R-03-008; p. 83.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
c. Current NESHAP Requirements for Control of HAP
The MMPP NESHAP establishes the organic HAP emissions limits for
new and existing sources. The final rule contains five subcategories:
(1) General use coating, (2) high performance coating, (3) magnet wire
coating, (4) rubber-to-metal coating, and (5) extreme performance
fluoropolymer coating (EPFP).
Compliance can be demonstrated with using a variety of compliance
options including, (1) a compliant coatings option, where all coatings
used have organic HAP contents that individually meet the organic HAP
emissions limit, and all thinners and cleaning materials contain no
organic HAP; (2) an emission rate without add-on controls option, where
the organic HAP emission rate, calculated as a rolling 12-month
emission rate and determined on a monthly basis, is equal to or less
than the organic HAP emissions limit; or (3) an emission rate with add-
on controls option, where the organic HAP emission rate, calculated as
a rolling 12-month emissions rate and determined on a monthly basis,
taking into account the emissions reduction achieved through the use of
one or more emissions capture and control devices, is equal to or less
than the organic HAP emissions limit. A facility using the add-on
control option must also comply with work practice standards to
minimize organic HAP emissions from the storage, mixing, and conveying
of coatings, thinners, cleaning materials, and waste materials
associated with the coating operation(s) and must also comply with
operating limits for the emissions capture systems and add-on control
devices.
If a facility's surface coating operations meet the applicability
criteria of more than one of the coating subcategories in the MMPP
NESHAP, the facility may comply separately with each emissions limit or
comply using one of the following options:
If general use coating or magnet wire coating constitute
90 percent or more of the surface coating activity at the facility
(i.e., it is the predominant activity), then the facility can comply
with that one emissions limit for all surface coating at the facility.
The facility can comply with a facility-specific emissions
limit calculated on the basis of the applicable emissions limits and
the amount of coating activity performed in each coating subcategory,
where activity is measured as the volume of coating solids used.
The specific organic HAP emission limits for each coating
subcategory and the operating limits are summarized in Tables 4 and 5
of the memorandum titled Technology Review for Surface Coating
Operations in the Miscellaneous Metal Parts and Products Category.
3. What is the surface coating of plastic parts and products source
category and how does the current NESHAP regulate its HAP emissions?
a. Source Category Description
The NESHAP for the PPP source category was promulgated on April 19,
2004 (69 FR 20968), and is codified at 40 CFR part 63, subpart PPPP.
Technical corrections to the final rule were published on December 22,
2006 (71 FR 76922) and April 24, 2007 (72 FR 20227). The PPP NESHAP
applies to owners or operators of PPP surface coating operations at
facilities that are major sources of HAP. Plastic parts and products
include, but are not limited to, plastic components of the following
types of products as well as the products themselves: Motor vehicle
parts and accessories for automobiles, trucks, recreational vehicles;
sporting and recreational goods; toys; business machines; laboratory
and medical equipment; and household and other consumer products. The
PPP NESHAP (40 CFR 63. 4481(c)) does not apply to the surface coating
or coating operations of items that meet the applicability criteria of
eleven other surface coating NESHAP, e.g., surface coating of plastic
components of wood furniture (subpart JJ of 40 CFR part 63), surface
coating of plastic components of large appliances (subpart NNNN of 40
CFR part 63), and surface coating of plastic components of automobiles
and light-duty trucks (subpart IIII of 40 CFR part 63).
Based on our search of the NEI and the EPA's ECHO database and a
review of active air emission permits, we estimate that 125 facilities
are subject to the PPP NESHAP. A list of facilities we identified as
subject to the PPP NESHAP is available in Table 1 to Appendix 10 to the
memorandum titled Residual Risk Assessment for the Surface Coating of
Plastic Parts and Products Source Category in Support of the 2019 Risk
and Technology Review Proposed Rule (hereafter referred to as the
Plastic Parts and Products Risk Assessment Report), in the PPP Docket
(Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0313).
b. HAP Emission Sources
The primary HAP emitted from PPP surface coating operations are
organic HAP and, based on the 2011 NEI, include xylene, toluene, MIBK,
ethylbenzene, styrene, glycol ethers, and methanol, in order of
decreasing emissions. These compounds account for about 96 percent of
the nationwide HAP emissions from this source category, based on an
analysis of the NEI.
No inorganic HAP are currently associated with the coatings used in
this source category, based on the data in the NEI.
c. Current NESHAP Requirements for Control of HAP
The PPP NESHAP specifies numerical emission limits for existing
sources and for new and reconstructed sources for organic HAP
emissions. The final rule contains four subcategories: (1) General use
coating, (2) thermoplastic olefin coating, (3) automotive lamp coating,
and (4) assembled on-road vehicle coating.
Compliance can be demonstrated with a variety of compliance options
including, (1) a compliant material option, where the HAP content of
each coating used is less than or equal to the applicable organic HAP
emissions limit and each thinner, additive, and cleaning material uses
no organic HAP; (2) an emission rate without add-on controls option,
where the organic HAP emission rate, calculated as a rolling 12-month
emission rate and determined on a monthly basis, is equal to or less
than the organic HAP emissions limit; or (3) an emission rate with add-
on controls option, where the organic HAP emission rate, calculated as
a rolling 12-month emissions rate and determined on a monthly basis,
taking into account the emissions reduction achieved through the use of
one or more emissions capture and control devices, is equal to or less
than the organic HAP emissions limit. A facility using the add-on
control option must also comply with work practice standards to
minimize organic HAP emissions from the storage, mixing, and conveying
of coatings, thinners, cleaning materials, and waste materials
associated with the coating operation(s) and must also comply with
[[Page 58944]]
operating limits for the emissions capture systems and add-on control
devices.
The specific organic HAP emission limits for each coating
subcategory are summarized in Table 2 of the memorandum titled
Technology Review for Surface Coating Operations in the Plastic Parts
and Products Category.
C. What data collection activities were conducted to support this
action?
For the risk modeling portion of these RTRs, the EPA used data from
the 2011 and 2014 NEI. The NEI is a database that contains information
about sources that emit criteria air pollutants, their precursors, and
HAP. The database includes estimates of annual air pollutant emissions
from point, nonpoint, and mobile sources in the 50 states, the District
of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands. The EPA collects this
information and releases an updated version of the NEI database every 3
years. The NEI includes data necessary for conducting risk modeling,
including annual HAP emissions estimates from individual emission
points at facilities and the related emissions release parameters. We
used NEI emissions and supporting data as the primary data to develop
the model input files for the risk assessments for each of these three
source categories. Detailed information on the development of the
modeling file for the ALDT source category can be found in Appendix 1
to the Automobiles and Light-Duty Trucks Risk Assessment Report, in the
ALDT Docket (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0314). Detailed information
on the development of the modeling file for the MMPP source category
can be found in Appendix 1 to the Miscellaneous Metal Parts and
Products Risk Assessment Report, in the MMPP Docket (Docket ID No. EPA-
HQ-OAR-2019-0312). Detailed information on the development of the
modeling file for the PPP source category can be found in Appendix 1 to
the Plastic Parts and Products Risk Assessment Report, in the PPP
Docket (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0313).
For each risk modeling and technology review portion of these three
RTRs, we also gathered data from facility construction and operating
permits regarding emission points, air pollution control devices, and
process operations. We collected permits and supporting documentation
from state permitting authorities through state-maintained online
databases for many, but not all, of the facilities in each source
category. The facility permits were also used to confirm that the
facilities were major sources of HAP and were subject to the NESHAP
that are the subject of these risk assessments. In certain cases, we
contacted industry associations and facility owners or operators to
confirm and clarify the sources of emissions that were reported in the
NEI.
For the technology review portion of these RTRs, we also used
information from the EPA's ECHO database as a tool to identify which
facilities were potentially subject to the NESHAP. The ECHO database
provides integrated compliance and enforcement information for
approximately 800,000 regulated facilities nationwide. Using the search
feature in ECHO, the EPA identified facilities that could potentially
be subject to each of these three NESHAP. We then reviewed operating
permits for these facilities, when available, to confirm that they were
major sources of HAP with emission sources subject to these NESHAP. For
many sources in the MMPP source category in the rubber-to-metal bonding
and the high-performance coating subcategories, we also reviewed recent
semi-annual compliance reports to confirm the compliance option they
were using and the emission rates they were achieving.
Also, for the technology reviews, we collected information from the
reasonably available control technology (RACT), best available control
technology (BACT), and lowest achievable emission rate (LAER)
determinations in the EPA's RACT/BACT/LAER Clearinghouse (RBLC).\4\
This database contains case-specific information on air pollution
technologies that have been required to reduce the emissions of air
pollutants from stationary sources. Under the EPA's New Source Review
(NSR) program, an NSR permit must be obtained if a facility is planning
new construction that increases the air emissions of any regulated NSR
pollutant at or above 100 or 250 tpy (could be a lower threshold
depending upon nonattainment severity) or a modification that results
in a significant emissions increase and a significant net emissions
increase of any regulated NSR pollutant (``significant'' emissions
increase is defined in the NSR regulations and is pollutant-specific,
ranging from less than 1 pound (lb) to 100 tpy of the applicable
regulated NSR pollutant). This central database promotes the sharing of
information among permitting agencies and aids in case-by-case
determinations for NSR permits. We examined information contained in
the RBLC to determine what technologies are currently used for these
surface coating operations to reduce air emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ https://www.epa.gov/catc/ractbactlaer-clearinghouse-rblc-basic-information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additional information about these data collection activities for
the technology reviews is contained in the technology review memoranda
titled Technology Review for Surface Coating Operations in the
Automobiles and Light-Duty Trucks Category, July 2019 (hereafter
referred to as the Automobiles and Light-Duty Trucks Technology Review
Memo), Technology Review for the Surface Coating Miscellaneous Metal
Parts and Products Source Category, July 2019 (hereafter referred to as
the Miscellaneous Metal Parts and Products Technology Review Memo), and
Technology Review for Surface Coating Operations in the Plastic Parts
and Products Category, July 2019 (hereafter referred to as the Plastic
Parts and Products Technology Review Memo), available in the respective
ALDT, MMPP, and PPP Dockets.
D. What other relevant background information and data are available?
As part of the technology review for the ALDT, the MMPP, and the
PPP NESHAP source categories, we reviewed information available in the
American Coatings Association's (ACA) Industry Market Analysis, 9th
Edition (2014--2019).\5\ The ACA Industry Market Analysis provided
information on trends in coatings technology that can affect emissions
from the ALDT, the MMPP, and the PPP source categories. Additional
details regarding our review of these information sources are contained
in the Automobiles and Light-Duty Trucks Technology Review Memo,
Miscellaneous Metal Parts and Products Technology Review Memo, and the
Plastic Parts and Products Technology Review Memo, available in the
respective ALDT, MMPP, and PPP Dockets.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Prepared for the ACA, Washington, DC, by The ChemQuest
Group, Inc., Cincinnati, Ohio. 2015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
III. Analytical Procedures and Decision-Making
In this section, we describe the analyses performed to support the
proposed decisions for the RTRs and other issues addressed in this
proposal.
A. How do we consider risk in our decision-making?
As discussed in section II.A of this preamble and in the Benzene
NESHAP, in evaluating and developing standards under CAA section
112(f)(2), we apply a two-step approach to determine
[[Page 58945]]
whether or not risks are acceptable and to determine if the standards
provide an ample margin of safety to protect public health. As
explained in the Benzene NESHAP, ``the first step judgment on
acceptability cannot be reduced to any single factor'' and, thus,
``[t]he Administrator believes that the acceptability of risk under
section 112 is best judged on the basis of a broad set of health risk
measures and information.'' 54 FR 38046, September 14, 1989. Similarly,
with regard to the ample margin of safety determination, ``the Agency
again considers all of the health risk and other health information
considered in the first step. Beyond that information, additional
factors relating to the appropriate level of control will also be
considered, including cost and economic impacts of controls,
technological feasibility, uncertainties, and any other relevant
factors.'' Id.
The Benzene NESHAP approach provides flexibility regarding factors
the EPA may consider in making determinations and how the EPA may weigh
those factors for each source category. The EPA conducts a risk
assessment that provides estimates of the MIR posed by the HAP
emissions from each source in the source category, the hazard index
(HI) for chronic exposures to HAP with the potential to cause noncancer
health effects, and the hazard quotient (HQ) for acute exposures to HAP
with the potential to cause noncancer health effects.\6\ The assessment
also provides estimates of the distribution of cancer risks within the
exposed populations, cancer incidence, and an evaluation of the
potential for adverse environmental effects. The scope of EPA's risk
analysis is consistent with EPA's response to comments on our policy
under the Benzene NESHAP where the EPA explained that:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ The MIR is defined as the cancer risk associated with a
lifetime of exposure at the highest concentration of HAP where
people are likely to live. The HQ is the ratio of the potential HAP
exposure concentration to the noncancer dose-response value; the HI
is the sum of HQs for HAP that affect the same target organ or organ
system.
``[t]he policy chosen by the Administrator permits consideration of
multiple measures of health risk. Not only can the MIR figure be
considered, but also incidence, the presence of non-cancer health
effects, and the uncertainties of the risk estimates. In this way,
the effect on the most exposed individuals can be reviewed as well
as the impact on the general public. These factors can then be
weighed in each individual case. This approach complies with the
Vinyl Chloride mandate that the Administrator ascertain an
acceptable level of risk to the public by employing his expertise to
assess available data. It also complies with the Congressional
intent behind the CAA, which did not exclude the use of any
particular measure of public health risk from the EPA's
consideration with respect to CAA section 112 regulations, and
thereby implicitly permits consideration of any and all measures of
health risk which the Administrator, in his judgment, believes are
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
appropriate to determining what will `protect the public health'.''
See 54 FR 38057, September 14, 1989. Thus, the level of the MIR is only
one factor to be weighed in determining acceptability of risks. The
Benzene NESHAP explained that ``an MIR of approximately one in 10
thousand should ordinarily be the upper end of the range of
acceptability. As risks increase above this benchmark, they become
presumptively less acceptable under CAA section 112, and would be
weighed with the other health risk measures and information in making
an overall judgment on acceptability. Or, the Agency may find, in a
particular case, that a risk that includes MIR less than the
presumptively acceptable level is unacceptable in the light of other
health risk factors.'' Id. at 38045. In other words, risks that include
an MIR above 100-in-1 million may be determined to be acceptable, and
risks with an MIR below that level may be determined to be
unacceptable, depending on all of the available health information.
Similarly, with regard to the ample margin of safety analysis, the EPA
stated in the Benzene NESHAP that: ``EPA believes the relative weight
of the many factors that can be considered in selecting an ample margin
of safety can only be determined for each specific source category.
This occurs mainly because technological and economic factors (along
with the health-related factors) vary from source category to source
category.'' Id. at 38061. We also consider the uncertainties associated
with the various risk analyses, as discussed earlier in this preamble,
in our determinations of acceptability and ample margin of safety.
The EPA notes that it has not considered certain health information
to date in making residual risk determinations. At this time, we do not
attempt to quantify those HAP risks that may be associated with
emissions from other facilities that do not include the source
categories under review, mobile source emissions, natural source
emissions, persistent environmental pollution, or atmospheric
transformation in the vicinity of the sources in the categories.
The EPA understands the potential importance of considering an
individual's total exposure to HAP in addition to considering exposure
to HAP emissions from the source category and facility. We recognize
that such consideration may be particularly important when assessing
noncancer risks, where pollutant-specific exposure health reference
levels (e.g., reference concentrations (RfCs) are based on the
assumption that thresholds exist for adverse health effects. For
example, the EPA recognizes that, although exposures attributable to
emissions from a source category or facility alone may not indicate the
potential for increased risk of adverse noncancer health effects in a
population, the exposures resulting from emissions from the facility in
combination with emissions from all of the other sources (e.g., other
facilities) to which an individual is exposed may be sufficient to
result in increased risk of adverse noncancer health effects. In May
2010, the Science Advisory Board (SAB) advised the EPA ``that RTR
assessments will be most useful to decision makers and communities if
results are presented in the broader context of aggregate and
cumulative risks, including background concentrations and contributions
from other sources in the area.'' \7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Recommendations of the SAB Risk and Technology Review
Methods Panel are provided in their report, which is available at:
http://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/
4AB3966E263D943A8525771F00668381/$File/EPA-SAB-10-007-unsigned.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In response to the SAB recommendations, the EPA is incorporating
cumulative risk analyses into its RTR risk assessments, including those
reflected in this proposal. The Agency is (1) conducting facility-wide
assessments, which include source category emission points, as well as
other emission points within the facilities; (2) combining exposures
from multiple sources in the same category that could affect the same
individuals; and (3) for some persistent and bioaccumulative
pollutants, analyzing the ingestion route of exposure. In addition, the
RTR risk assessments have always considered aggregate cancer risk from
all carcinogens and aggregate noncancer HQs from all noncarcinogens
affecting the same target organ system.
Although we are interested in placing source category and facility-
wide HAP risks in the context of total HAP risks from all sources
combined in the vicinity of each source, we are concerned about the
uncertainties of doing so. Estimates of total HAP risk from emission
sources other than those that we have studied in depth during this RTR
review would have significantly greater associated uncertainties than
the source category or
[[Page 58946]]
facility-wide estimates. Such aggregate or cumulative assessments would
compound those uncertainties, making the assessments too unreliable.
B. How do we perform the technology review?
Our technology reviews focus on the identification and evaluation
of developments in practices, processes, and control technologies that
have occurred since the MACT standards were promulgated. Where we
identify such developments, we analyze their technical feasibility,
estimated costs, energy implications, and non-air environmental
impacts. We also consider the emission reductions associated with
applying each development. This analysis informs our decision of
whether it is ``necessary'' to revise the emissions standards. In
addition, we consider the appropriateness of applying controls to new
sources versus retrofitting existing sources. For this exercise, we
consider any of the following to be a ``development'':
Any add-on control technology or other equipment that was
not identified and considered during development of the original MACT
standards;
Any improvements in add-on control technology or other
equipment (that were identified and considered during development of
the original MACT standards) that could result in additional emissions
reduction;
Any work practice or operational procedure that was not
identified or considered during development of the original MACT
standards;
Any process change or pollution prevention alternative
that could be broadly applied to the industry and that was not
identified or considered during development of the original MACT
standards; and
Any significant changes in the cost (including cost
effectiveness) of applying controls (including controls the EPA
considered during the development of the original MACT standards).
In addition to reviewing the practices, processes, and control
technologies that were considered at the time we originally developed
the NESHAPs (i.e., the 2004 ALDT NESHAP; the 2004 MMPP NESHAP; and the
2004 PPP NESHAP), we review a variety of data sources in our
investigation of potential practices, processes, or controls that may
have not been considered for each of the three source categories during
development of the NESHAP. Among the sources we reviewed were the
NESHAP for various industries that were promulgated after the MACT
standards being reviewed in this action (e.g., NESHAP for Paint
Stripping and Miscellaneous Surface Coating Operations at Area Sources
(40 CFR part 63, subpart HHHHHH)). We also reviewed the results of
other technology reviews for other surface coating source categories
since the promulgation of the NESHAPs (e.g., the technology reviews
conducted for the Shipbuilding and Ship Repair (Surface Coating) NESHAP
(40 CFR part 63, subpart II) and the Wood Furniture Manufacturing
Operations NESHAP (40 CFR part 63, subpart JJ)). We reviewed the
regulatory requirements and/or technical analyses associated with these
regulatory actions to identify any practices, processes, and control
technologies considered in these efforts that could be applied to
emission sources in the ALDT, the MMPP, and the PPP source categories,
as well as the costs, non-air impacts, and energy implications
associated with the use of these technologies. Finally, we reviewed
information from other sources, such as state and/or local permitting
agency databases and industry-specific market analyses and trade
journals, to research advancements in add-on controls and lower HAP
technology for coatings and solvents. For a more detailed discussion of
our methods for performing these technology reviews, refer to the
Automobiles and Light-Duty Trucks Technology Review Memo, the
Miscellaneous Metal Parts and Products Technology Review Memo and the
Plastic Parts and Products Technology Review Memo, available in the
respective ALDT, MMPP, and PPP Dockets.
C. How do we estimate post-MACT risks posed by these source categories?
In this section, we provide a complete description of the types of
analyses that we generally perform during the risk assessment process.
In some cases, we do not perform a specific analysis because it is not
relevant. For example, in the absence of emissions of HAP known to be
persistent and bioaccumulative in the environment (PB-HAP), we would
not perform a multipathway exposure assessment. Where we do not perform
an analysis, we state that we do not and provide the reason. While we
present all of our risk assessment methods, we only present risk
assessment results for the analyses actually conducted (see the
presentation of results in sections IV.A.1, IV.B.1, and IV.C.1 of this
preamble).
The EPA conducted risk assessments that provide estimates of the
MIR for cancer posed by the HAP emissions from each source in each
source category, the HI for chronic exposures to HAP with the potential
to cause noncancer health effects, and the HQ for acute exposures to
HAP with the potential to cause noncancer health effects. The
assessments also provide estimates of the distribution of cancer risks
within the exposed populations, cancer incidence, and an evaluation of
the potential for adverse environmental effects. The seven sections
that follow this paragraph describe how we estimated emissions and
conducted the risk assessments. The ALDT, MMPP, and PPP Dockets contain
the respective Automobiles and Light-Duty Trucks Risk Assessment
Report, Miscellaneous Metal Parts and Products Risk Assessment Report
and the Plastic Parts and Products Risk Assessment Report, which
provide more information on the risk assessment inputs and models. The
methods used to assess risks (as described in the seven primary steps
below) are consistent with those peer-reviewed by a panel of the EPA's
SAB in 2009 \8\ and described in the SAB review report issued in 2010.
They are also consistent with the key recommendations contained in that
report.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ U.S. EPA SAB. Risk and Technology Review (RTR) Risk
Assessment Methodologies: For Review by the EPA's Science Advisory
Board with Case Studies--MACT I Petroleum Refining Sources and
Portland Cement Manufacturing, June 2009. EPA-452/R-09-0006. https://www3.epa.gov/airtoxics/rrisk/rtrpg.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. How did we estimate actual emissions and identify the emissions
release characteristics?
The actual emissions and the emission release characteristics for
each facility were obtained primarily from either the 2011 NEI or the
2014 NEI. Most data were obtained from the 2011 NEI, unless the 2014
NEI included HAP data for emission units or processes for which the
2011 NEI included only volatile organic compounds (VOC) or particulate
matter. In some cases, the industry association or the specific
facilities were contacted to confirm emissions that appeared to be
outliers, that were otherwise inconsistent with our understanding of
the industry, or that were associated with high risk values in our
initial risk screening analyses. When appropriate, emission values and
release characteristics were revised based on these facility contacts,
and these changes were documented. Additional information on the
development of the modeling file for each source category, including
the development of the actual emissions estimates and emissions release
characteristics, can be found in Appendix 1 to the Automobiles and
[[Page 58947]]
Light-Duty Trucks Risk Assessment Report, in the ALDT Docket; in
Appendix 1 to the Miscellaneous Metal Parts and Products Risk
Assessment Report, in the MMPP Docket; and Appendix 1 to the Plastic
Parts and Products Risk Assessment Report, in the PPP Docket.
2. How did we estimate MACT-allowable emissions?
The available emissions data in the RTR emissions dataset include
estimates of the mass of HAP emitted during a specified annual time
period. These ``actual'' emission levels are often lower than the
emission levels allowed under the requirements of the current MACT
standards. The emissions level allowed to be emitted under the MACT
standards is referred to as the ``MACT-allowable'' emissions level. We
discussed the use of both MACT-allowable and actual emissions in the
final Coke Oven Batteries RTR (70 FR 19998-19999, April 15, 2005) and
in the proposed and final Hazardous Organic NESHAP RTRs (71 FR 34428,
June 14, 2006, and 71 FR 76609, December 21, 2006, respectively). In
those actions, we noted that assessing the risks at the MACT-allowable
level is inherently reasonable since these risks reflect the maximum
level facilities could emit and still comply with national emission
standards. We also explained that it is reasonable to consider actual
emissions, where such data are available, in both steps of the risk
analysis, in accordance with the Benzene NESHAP approach. (54 FR 38044,
September 14, 1989.)
For the ALDT, MMPP, and PPP source categories, the EPA calculated
allowable emissions by developing source category-specific multipliers
of 1.1 for Automobiles and Light-duty Trucks and 1.2 for both
Miscellaneous Metal Parts and Plastic Parts and Products. These
multipliers were applied to the current emissions for each category to
estimate the allowable emissions. The multipliers were based on
information obtained from the facility operating permits and industry
information.
For details on how the EPA estimated the MACT allowable emissions
for the ALDT source category, please see Appendix 1 to the Automobiles
and Light-Duty Trucks Risk Assessment Report, in the ALDT Docket
(Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0314). For details on how the EPA
calculated the MACT allowable emissions for the MMPP source category,
please see Appendix 1 to the Miscellaneous Metal Parts and Products
Risk Assessment Report, in the MMPP Docket (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0312). For details on how the EPA calculated the MACT allowable
emissions for the PPP source category, please see Appendix 1 to the
Plastic Parts and Products Risk Assessment Report, in the PPP Docket
(Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0313).
3. How do we conduct dispersion modeling, determine inhalation
exposures, and estimate individual and population inhalation risks?
Both long-term and short-term inhalation exposure concentrations
and health risks from the source categories addressed in this proposal
were estimated using the Human Exposure Model (HEM-3).\9\ The HEM-3
performs three primary risk assessment activities: (1) Conducting
dispersion modeling to estimate the concentrations of HAP in ambient
air, (2) estimating long-term and short-term inhalation exposures to
individuals residing within 50 kilometers (km) of the modeled sources,
and (3) estimating individual and population-level inhalation risks
using the exposure estimates and quantitative dose-response
information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ For more information about HEM-3, go to https://www.epa.gov/fera/risk-assessment-and-modeling-human-exposure-model-hem.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
a. Dispersion Modeling
The air dispersion model AERMOD, used by the HEM-3 model, is one of
the EPA's preferred models for assessing air pollutant concentrations
from industrial facilities.\10\ To perform the dispersion modeling and
to develop the preliminary risk estimates, HEM-3 draws on three data
libraries. The first is a library of meteorological data, which is used
for dispersion calculations. This library includes 1 year (2016) of
hourly surface and upper air observations from 824 meteorological
stations, selected to provide coverage of the U.S. and Puerto Rico. A
second library of U.S. Census Bureau census block \11\ internal point
locations and populations provides the basis of human exposure
calculations (U.S. Census, 2010). In addition, for each census block,
the census library includes the elevation and controlling hill height,
which are also used in dispersion calculations. A third library of
pollutant-specific dose-response values is used to estimate health
risks. These are discussed below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ U.S. EPA. Revision to the Guideline on Air Quality Models:
Adoption of a Preferred General Purpose (Flat and Complex Terrain)
Dispersion Model and Other Revisions (70 FR 68218, November 9,
2005).
\11\ A census block is the smallest geographic area for which
census statistics are tabulated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
b. Risk From Chronic Exposure to HAP
In developing the risk assessment for chronic exposures, we use the
estimated annual average ambient air concentrations of each HAP emitted
by each source in the source categories. The HAP air concentrations at
each nearby census block centroid located within 50 km of the facility
are a surrogate for the chronic inhalation exposure concentration for
all the people who reside in that census block. A distance of 50 km is
consistent with both the analysis supporting the 1989 Benzene NESHAP
(54 FR 38044, September 14, 1989) and the limitation of Gaussian
dispersion modules, including AERMOD.
For each facility we calculate the MIR as the cancer risk
associated with a continuous lifetime (24 hours per day, 7 days per
week, 52 weeks per year, for a 70-year period) exposure to the maximum
concentration at the centroid of each inhabited census block. We
calculate individual cancer risk by multiplying the estimated lifetime
exposure to the ambient concentration of each HAP (in micrograms per
cubic meter ([micro]g/m\3\)) by its unit risk estimate (URE). The URE
is an upper bound estimate of an individual's probability of
contracting cancer over a lifetime of exposure to a concentration of 1
microgram of the pollutant per cubic meter of air. For residual risk
assessments, we generally use UREs from the EPA's Integrated Risk
Information System (IRIS). For carcinogenic pollutants without IRIS
values, we look to other reputable sources of cancer dose-response
values, often using California EPA (CalEPA) UREs, where available. In
cases where new, scientifically credible dose-response values have been
developed in a manner consistent with EPA guidelines and have undergone
a peer review process similar to that used by the EPA, we may use such
dose-response values in place of, or in addition to, other values, if
appropriate. The pollutant-specific dose-response values used to
estimate health risk are available at https://www.epa.gov/fera/dose-response-assessment-assessing-health-risks-associated-exposure-hazardous-air-pollutants.
To estimate individual lifetime cancer risks associated with
exposure to HAP emissions from each facility in the source category, we
sum the risks for each of the carcinogenic HAP \12\ emitted
[[Page 58948]]
by the modeled facility. We estimate cancer risk at every census block
within 50 km of every facility in the source category. The MIR is the
highest individual lifetime cancer risk estimated for any of those
census blocks. In addition to calculating the MIR, we estimate the
distribution of individual cancer risks for the source category by
summing the number of individuals within 50 km of the sources whose
estimated risk falls within a specified risk range. We also estimate
annual cancer incidence by multiplying the estimated lifetime cancer
risk at each census block by the number of people residing in that
block, summing results for all of the census blocks, and then dividing
this result by a 70-year lifetime.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ The EPA's 2005 Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment
classifies carcinogens as: ``carcinogenic to humans,'' ``likely to
be carcinogenic to humans,'' and ``suggestive evidence of
carcinogenic potential.'' These classifications also coincide with
the terms ``known carcinogen, probable carcinogen, and possible
carcinogen,'' respectively, which are the terms advocated in the
EPA's Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment, published in 1986
(51 FR 33992, September 24, 1986). In August 2000, the document,
Supplemental Guidance for Conducting Health Risk Assessment of
Chemical Mixtures (EPA/630/R-00/002), was published as a supplement
to the 1986 document. Copies of both documents can be obtained from
https://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/risk/recordisplay.cfm?deid=20533&CFID=70315376&CFTOKEN=71597944. Summing
the risk of these individual compounds to obtain the cumulative
cancer risk is an approach that was recommended by the EPA's SAB in
their 2002 peer review of the EPA's National Air Toxics Assessment
(NATA) titled NATA--Evaluating the National-scale Air Toxics
Assessment 1996 Data--an SAB Advisory, available at https://
yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/
214C6E915BB04E14852570CA007A682C/$File/ecadv02001.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To assess the risk of noncancer health effects from chronic
exposure to HAP, we calculate either an HQ or a target organ-specific
hazard index (TOSHI). We calculate an HQ when a single noncancer HAP is
emitted. Where more than one noncancer HAP is emitted, we sum the HQ
for each of the HAP that affects a common target organ or target organ
system to obtain a TOSHI. The HQ is the estimated exposure divided by
the chronic noncancer dose-response value, which is a value selected
from one of several sources. The preferred chronic noncancer dose-
response value is the EPA RfC, defined as ``an estimate (with
uncertainty spanning perhaps an order of magnitude) of a continuous
inhalation exposure to the human population (including sensitive
subgroups) that is likely to be without an appreciable risk of
deleterious effects during a lifetime'' (https://iaspub.epa.gov/sor_internet/registry/termreg/searchandretrieve/glossariesandkeywordlists/search.do?details=&vocabName=IRIS%20Glossary). In cases where an RfC
from the EPA's IRIS is not available or where the EPA determines that
using a value other than the RfC is appropriate, the chronic noncancer
dose-response value can be a value from the following prioritized
sources, which define their dose-response values similarly to the EPA:
(1) The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR)
Minimum Risk Level (https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/mrls/index.asp); (2) the
CalEPA Chronic Reference Exposure Level (REL) (https://oehha.ca.gov/air/crnr/notice-adoption-air-toxics-hot-spots-program-guidance-manual-preparation-health-risk-0); or (3) as noted above, a scientifically
credible dose-response value that has been developed in a manner
consistent with the EPA guidelines and has undergone a peer review
process similar to that used by the EPA. The pollutant-specific dose-
response values used to estimate health risks are available at https://www.epa.gov/fera/dose-response-assessment-assessing-health-risks-associated-exposure-hazardous-air-pollutants.
c. Risk From Acute Exposure to HAP That May Cause Health Effects Other
Than Cancer
For each HAP for which appropriate acute inhalation dose-response
values are available, the EPA also assesses the potential health risks
due to acute exposure. For these assessments, the EPA makes
conservative assumptions about emission rates, meteorology, and
exposure location. In this proposed rulemaking, as part of our efforts
to continually improve our methodologies to evaluate the risks that HAP
emitted from categories of industrial sources pose to human health and
the environment,\13\ we are revising our treatment of meteorological
data to use reasonable worst-case air dispersion conditions in our
acute risk screening assessments instead of worst-case air dispersion
conditions. This revised treatment of meteorological data and the
supporting rationale are described in more detail in Automobiles and
Light-Duty Trucks Risk Assessment Report, the Miscellaneous Metal Parts
and Products Risk Assessment Report, and the Plastic Parts and Products
Risk Assessment Report, and in Appendix 5 of the report: Technical
Support Document for Acute Risk Screening Assessment. We will be
applying this revision in RTR rulemakings proposed on or after June 3,
2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ See, e.g., U.S. EPA. ``Screening Methodologies to Support
Risk and Technology Reviews (RTR): A Case Study Analysis'' (Draft
Report, May 2017. https://www3.epa.gov/ttn/atw/rrisk/rtrpg.html).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To assess the potential acute risk to the maximally exposed
individual, we use the peak hourly emission rate for each emission
point,\14\ reasonable worst-case air dispersion conditions (i.e., 99th
percentile), and the point of highest off-site exposure. Specifically,
we assume that peak emissions from the source category and reasonable
worst-case air dispersion conditions co-occur and that a person is
present at the point of maximum exposure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ In the absence of hourly emission data, we develop
estimates of maximum hourly emission rates by multiplying the
average actual annual emissions rates by a factor to account for
variability. This is documented in the Automobiles and Light-Duty
Trucks Risk Assessment Report, the Miscellaneous Metal Parts and
Products Risk Assessment Report, and the Plastic Parts and Products
Risk Assessment Report and in Appendix 5 of the report: Technical
Support Document for Acute Risk Screening Assessment. These
documents are available in the ALDT Docket, the MMPP Docket, and the
PPP Docket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To characterize the potential health risks associated with
estimated acute inhalation exposures to a HAP, we generally use
multiple acute dose-response values, including acute RELs, acute
exposure guideline levels (AEGLs), and emergency response planning
guidelines (ERPG) for 1-hour exposure durations, if available, to
calculate acute HQs. The acute HQ is calculated by dividing the
estimated acute exposure concentration by the acute dose-response
value. For each HAP for which acute dose-response values are available,
the EPA calculates acute HQs.
An acute REL is defined as ``the concentration level at or below
which no adverse health effects are anticipated for a specified
exposure duration.'' \15\ Acute RELs are based on the most sensitive,
relevant, adverse health effect reported in the peer-reviewed medical
and toxicological literature. They are designed to protect the most
sensitive individuals in the population through the inclusion of
margins of safety. Because margins of safety are incorporated to
address data gaps and uncertainties, exceeding the REL does not
automatically indicate an adverse health impact. AEGLs represent
threshold exposure limits for the general public and are applicable to
emergency exposures ranging from 10 minutes to 8 hours.\16\ They are
guideline levels for
[[Page 58949]]
``once-in-a-lifetime, short-term exposures to airborne concentrations
of acutely toxic, high-priority chemicals.'' Id. at 21. The AEGL-1 is
specifically defined as ``the airborne concentration (expressed as ppm
(parts per million) or mg/m\3\ (milligrams per cubic meter)) of a
substance above which it is predicted that the general population,
including susceptible individuals, could experience notable discomfort,
irritation, or certain asymptomatic nonsensory effects. However, the
effects are not disabling and are transient and reversible upon
cessation of exposure.'' The document also notes that ``Airborne
concentrations below AEGL-1 represent exposure levels that can produce
mild and progressively increasing but transient and nondisabling odor,
taste, and sensory irritation or certain asymptomatic, nonsensory
effects.'' Id. AEGL-2 are defined as ``the airborne concentration
(expressed as parts per million or milligrams per cubic meter) of a
substance above which it is predicted that the general population,
including susceptible individuals, could experience irreversible or
other serious, long-lasting adverse health effects or an impaired
ability to escape.'' Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ CalEPA issues acute RELs as part of its Air Toxics Hot
Spots Program, and the 1-hour and 8-hour values are documented in
Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Risk Assessment Guidelines, Part I, The
Determination of Acute Reference Exposure Levels for Airborne
Toxicants, which is available at https://oehha.ca.gov/air/general-info/oehha-acute-8-hour-and-chronic-reference-exposure-level-rel-summary.
\16\ National Academy of Sciences, 2001. Standing Operating
Procedures for Developing Acute Exposure Levels for Hazardous
Chemicals, page 2. Available at https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-09/documents/sop_final_standing_operating_procedures_2001.pdf. Note that the
National Advisory Committee for Acute Exposure Guideline Levels for
Hazardous Substances ended in October 2011, but the AEGL program
continues to operate at the EPA and works with the National
Academies to publish final AEGLs (https://www.epa.gov/aegl).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ERPGs are ``developed for emergency planning and are intended as
health-based guideline concentrations for single exposures to
chemicals.'' \17\ Id. at 1. The ERPG-1 is defined as ``the maximum
airborne concentration below which it is believed that nearly all
individuals could be exposed for up to 1 hour without experiencing
other than mild transient adverse health effects or without perceiving
a clearly defined, objectionable odor.'' Id. at 2. Similarly, the ERPG-
2 is defined as ``the maximum airborne concentration below which it is
believed that nearly all individuals could be exposed for up to one
hour without experiencing or developing irreversible or other serious
health effects or symptoms which could impair an individual's ability
to take protective action.'' Id. at 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ ERPGS Procedures and Responsibilities. March 2014. American
Industrial Hygiene Association. Available at: https://www.aiha.org/get-involved/AIHAGuidelineFoundation/EmergencyResponsePlanningGuidelines/Documents/ERPG%20Committee%20Standard%20Operating%20Procedures%20%20-%20March%202014%20Revision%20%28Updated%2010-2-2014%29.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
An acute REL for 1-hour exposure durations is typically lower than
its corresponding AEGL-1 and ERPG-1. Even though their definitions are
slightly different, AEGL-1s are often the same as the corresponding
ERPG-1s, and AEGL-2s are often equal to ERPG-2s. The maximum HQs from
our acute inhalation screening risk assessment typically result when we
use the acute REL for a HAP. In cases where the maximum acute HQ
exceeds 1, we also report the HQ based on the next highest acute dose-
response value (usually the AEGL-1 and/or the ERPG-1).
For these source categories, we did not have short-term emissions
data; therefore, we developed source category-specific factors based on
information about each industry. We request comment on our assumptions
regarding hour-to-hour variation in emissions and our methods of
calculating the multiplier for estimating the peak 1-hour emissions for
each source category and any additional information that could help
refine our approach.
The ALDT process is a continuous (non-batch) coating application
and curing process which results in consistent emission rates. The
sources in this category dip and spray-apply coatings onto the surface
of the vehicle. The sources employ the use of various compliance
options, which include the use of compliant coatings, averaging among
coatings to meet the emission limits, and the use of add-on controls by
facilities that cannot use the first two options. We expect that the
hourly variations in emissions from these processes during routine
operations to be minimal. Thus, applying the default multiplier of 10
to estimate the worst-case hourly emission rate is not reasonable for
this category. We expect that minimal variations in emissions occur due
to variations in the organic HAP content of the coatings. We calculated
acute emissions by developing a source category-specific multiplier of
1.2 that was applied to the actual annual emissions, which were then
divided by the total number of hours in a year (8,760 hours). A further
discussion of why this factor was chosen can be found in Appendix 1 to
the Automobiles and Light-Duty Trucks Risk Assessment Report in the
ALDT Docket.
Similarly, for the MMPP source category, we expect to see minimal
hour-to-hour variation in emissions during routine operations because
coating operations dip or spray-apply coating onto the surface of metal
parts and products in a continuous coating process. Thus, the default
multiplier of 10 to estimate the worst-case hourly emission rate is not
reasonable for this category. We expect that minimal variation in
emissions occur due to variations in the organic HAP content of the
coatings from batch to batch. We calculated acute emissions by
developing a source category-specific multiplier of 1.2 that was
applied to the actual annual emissions, which were then divided by the
total number of hours in a year (8,760 hours). A further discussion of
why this factor was chosen can be found in Appendix 1 to the
Miscellaneous Metal Parts and Products Risk Assessment Report in the
MMPP Docket.
For the PPP source category, we expect to see minimal hour-to-hour
variation in emissions during routine operations because coating
operations spray-apply coating onto the surface of plastic parts and
products in a continuous coating process. Thus, the default multiplier
of 10 to estimate the worst-case hourly emission rate is not reasonable
for this category. We expect that minimal variation in emissions occur
due to variations in the organic HAP content of the coatings from batch
to batch. We calculated acute emissions by developing a source
category-specific multiplier of 1.2 that was applied to the actual
annual emissions, which were then divided by the total number of hours
in a year (8,760 hours). A further discussion of why this factor was
chosen can be found in Appendix 1 to the Plastic Parts and Products
Risk Assessment Report in the PPP Docket.
In our acute inhalation screening risk assessment, acute impacts
are deemed negligible for HAP where acute HQs are less than or equal to
1, and no further analysis is performed for these HAP. In cases where
an acute HQ from the screening step is greater than 1, we assess the
site-specific data to ensure that the acute HQ is at an off-site
location. For the three source categories in this action, the acute
data refinements consisted of plotting the HEM-3 polar grid results for
each HAP with an acute HQ value greater than 1 on aerial photographs of
the facilities. We then assessed whether the highest acute HQs were
off-site and at locations that may be accessible to the public (e.g.,
roadways and public buildings). These refinements are discussed more
fully in the Automobiles and Light-Duty Trucks, Miscellaneous Metal
Parts and Products, and Plastic Parts and Products Risk Assessment
Reports, available in the respective ALDT, MMPP, and PPP Dockets.
[[Page 58950]]
4. How do we conduct the multipathway exposure and risk screening
assessment?
The EPA conducts a tiered screening assessment examining the
potential for significant human health risks due to exposures via
routes other than inhalation (i.e., ingestion). We first determine
whether any sources in the source categories emitted any HAP known to
be persistent and bioaccumulative in the invironment, as identified in
the EPA's Air Toxics Risk Assessment Library (see Volume 1, Appendix D,
at https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2013-08/documents/volume_1_reflibrary.pdf).
For the ALDT source category, we identified emissions of lead. In
evaluating the potential multipathway risk from emissions of lead
compounds, rather than developing a screening threshold emission rate,
we compare maximum estimated chronic inhalation exposure concentrations
to the level of the current National Ambient Air Quality Standard
(NAAQS) for lead (0.15 [micro]g/m\3\).\18\ Values below the level of
the primary (health-based) lead NAAQS are considered to have a low
potential for multipathway risk. For additional discussion of the
multipathway screening results for this source category see section
IV.A of this preamble and the Automobiles and Light-Duty Trucks Risk
Assessment Report in the ALDT Docket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ In doing so, the EPA notes that the legal standard for a
primary NAAQS--that a standard is requisite to protect public health
and provide an adequate margin of safety (CAA section 109(b))--
differs from the CAA section 112(f) standard (requiring, among other
things, that the standard provide an ``ample margin of safety to
protect public health''). However, the primary lead NAAQS is a
reasonable measure of determining risk acceptability (i.e., the
first step of the Benzene NESHAP analysis) since it is designed to
protect the most susceptible group in the human population--
children, including children living near major lead emitting
sources. 73 FR 67002/3; 73 FR 67000/3; 73 FR 67005/1. In addition,
applying the level of the primary lead NAAQS at the risk
acceptability step is conservative, since that primary lead NAAQS
reflects an adequate margin of safety.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the MMPP source category, we identified emissions of arsenic,
cadmium, and lead, so we proceeded to the next step of the evaluation.
Except for lead, the human health risk screening assessment for PB-HAP
consists of three progressive tiers. In a Tier 1 screening assessment,
we determine whether the magnitude of the facility-specific emissions
of PB-HAP warrants further evaluation to characterize human health risk
through ingestion exposure. To facilitate this step, we use previously
developed screening threshold emission rates for several PB-HAP that
are based on a hypothetical upper-end screening exposure scenario
developed for use in conjunction with the EPA's Total Risk Integrated
Methodology.Fate, Transport, and Ecological Exposure (TRIM.FaTE) model.
The PB-HAP with screening threshold emission rates are arsenic
compounds, cadmium compounds, chlorinated dibenzodioxins and furans,
mercury compounds, and polycyclic organic matter (POM). Based on the
EPA estimates of toxicity and bioaccumulation potential, the pollutants
above represent a conservative list for inclusion in multipathway risk
assessments for RTR rules. (See Volume 1, Appendix D at https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2013-08/documents/volume_1_reflibrary.pdf.) In this assessment, we compare the facility-
specific emission rates of these PB-HAP to the screening threshold
emission rates for each PB-HAP to assess the potential for significant
human health risks via the ingestion pathway. We call this application
of the TRIM.FaTE model the Tier 1 screening assessment. The ratio of a
facility's actual emission rate to the Tier 1 screening threshold
emission rate is a ``screening value.''
We derive the Tier 1 screening threshold emission rates for these
PB-HAP (other than lead compounds) to correspond to a maximum excess
lifetime cancer risk of 1-in-1 million (i.e., for arsenic compounds,
polychlorinated dibenzodioxins and furans and POM) or, for HAP that
cause noncancer health effects (i.e., cadmium compounds and mercury
compounds), a maximum HQ of 1. If the emission rate of any one PB-HAP
or combination of carcinogenic PB-HAP in the Tier 1 screening
assessment exceeds the Tier 1 screening threshold emission rate for any
facility (i.e., the screening value is greater than 1), we conduct a
second screening assessment, which we call the Tier 2 screening
assessment (ingestion rates are decoupled into separate upper-bound
ingestion rates for the fisher, farmer, and gardener scenarios). Since,
the PB-HAP emissions did not exceed the Tier 1 multipathway screening
value of 1, the Tier 2 multipathway screen was not conducted.
In evaluating the potential multipathway risk from emissions of
lead compounds, rather than developing a screening threshold emission
rate, we compare maximum estimated chronic inhalation exposure
concentrations to the level of the current National Ambient Air Quality
Standard (NAAQS) for lead.\19\ Values below the level of the primary
(health-based) lead NAAQS are considered to have a low potential for
multipathway risk.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ In doing so, the EPA notes that the legal standard for a
primary NAAQS--that a standard is requisite to protect public health
and provide an adequate margin of safety (CAA section 109(b))--
differs from the CAA section 112(f) standard (requiring, among other
things, that the standard provide an ``ample margin of safety to
protect public health''). However, the primary lead NAAQS is a
reasonable measure of determining risk acceptability (i.e., the
first step of the Benzene NESHAP analysis) since it is designed to
protect the most susceptible group in the human population--
children, including children living near major lead emitting
sources. 73 FR 67002/3; 73 FR 67000/3; 73 FR 67005/1. In addition,
applying the level of the primary lead NAAQS at the risk
acceptability step is conservative, since that primary lead NAAQS
reflects an adequate margin of safety.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For additional discussion of the multipathway screening results for
this source category see section IV.B of this preamble and the
Miscellaneous Metal Parts and Products Risk Assessment Report in the
MMPP Docket.
For the PPP source category, we did not identify emissions of any
PB-HAP. Therefore, further evaluation of multipathway risk was not
conducted for the PPP source category.
5. How do we conduct the environmental risk screening assessment?
a. Adverse Environmental Effects, Environmental HAP, and Ecological
Benchmarks
The EPA conducts a screening assessment to examine the potential
for adverse environmental effects as required under section
112(f)(2)(A) of the CAA. Section 112(a)(7) of the CAA defines ``adverse
environmental effect'' as ``any significant and widespread adverse
effect, which may reasonably be anticipated, to wildlife, aquatic life,
or other natural resources, including adverse impacts on populations of
endangered or threatened species or significant degradation of
environmental quality over broad areas.''
The EPA focuses on eight HAP, which are referred to as
``environmental HAP,'' in its screening assessment: Six PB-HAP and two
acid gases. The PB-HAP included in the screening assessment are arsenic
compounds, cadmium compounds, dioxins/furans, polycyclic organic matter
(POM), mercury (both inorganic mercury and methyl mercury), and lead
compounds. The acid gases included in the screening assessment are
hydrochloric acid (HCl) and hydrogen fluoride (HF).
HAP that persist and bioaccumulate are of particular environmental
concern because they accumulate in the soil, sediment, and water. The
acid gases, HCl and HF, were included due to their
[[Page 58951]]
well-documented potential to cause direct damage to terrestrial plants.
In the environmental risk screening assessment, we evaluate the
following four exposure media: Terrestrial soils, surface water bodies
(includes water-column and benthic sediments), fish consumed by
wildlife, and air. Within these four exposure media, we evaluate nine
ecological assessment endpoints, which are defined by the ecological
entity and its attributes. For PB-HAP (other than lead), both
community-level and population-level endpoints are included. For acid
gases, the ecological assessment evaluated is terrestrial plant
communities.
An ecological benchmark represents a concentration of HAP that has
been linked to a particular environmental effect level. For each
environmental HAP, we identified the available ecological benchmarks
for each assessment endpoint. We identified, where possible, ecological
benchmarks at the following effect levels: Probable effect levels,
lowest-observed-adverse-effect level, and no-observed-adverse-effect
level. In cases where multiple effect levels were available for a
particular PB-HAP and assessment endpoint, we use all of the available
effect levels to help us to determine whether ecological risks exist
and, if so, whether the risks could be considered significant and
widespread.
For further information on how the environmental risk screening
assessment was conducted, including a discussion of the risk metrics
used, how the environmental HAP were identified, and how the ecological
benchmarks were selected, see Appendix 9 of the Automobiles and Light-
Duty Trucks Risk Assessment Report, the Miscellaneous Metal Parts and
Products Risk Assessment Report, and the Plastic Parts and Products
Risk Assessment Report, in the respective ALDT, MMPP and PPP Dockets.
b. Environmental Risk Screening Methodology
For the environmental risk screening assessment, the EPA first
determined whether any facilities in the ALDT, MMPP, and PPP source
categories emitted any of the environmental HAP. For the ALDT source
category, we identified emissions of lead, HCl and HF. For the MMPP
source category, we identified emissions of arsenic, cadmium, lead and
HCl. For the PPP source category, we did not identify emissions of any
environmental HAP.
Because the environmental HAP evaluated are emitted by at least one
facility in the ALDT source category and the MMPP source category, we
proceeded to the second step of the evaluation for each of these source
categories.
c. PB-HAP Methodology
The environmental screening assessment includes six PB-HAP, arsenic
compounds, cadmium compounds, dioxins/furans, POM, mercury (both
inorganic mercury and methyl mercury), and lead compounds. With the
exception of lead, the environmental risk screening assessment for PB-
HAP consists of three tiers. The first tier of the environmental risk
screening assessment uses the same health-protective conceptual model
that is used for the Tier 1 human health screening assessment.
TRIM.FaTE model simulations were used to back-calculate Tier 1
screening threshold emission rates. The screening threshold emission
rates represent the emission rate in tons of pollutant per year that
results in media concentrations at the facility that equal the relevant
ecological benchmark. To assess emissions from each facility in the
category, the reported emission rate for each PB-HAP was compared to
the Tier 1 screening threshold emission rate for that PB-HAP for each
assessment endpoint and effect level. If emissions from a facility do
not exceed the Tier 1 screening threshold emission rate, the facility
``passes'' the screening assessment, and, therefore, is not evaluated
further under the screening approach. If emissions from a facility
exceed the Tier 1 screening threshold emission rate, we evaluate the
facility further in Tier 2.
In Tier 2 of the environmental screening assessment, the screening
threshold emission rates are adjusted to account for local meteorology
and the actual location of lakes in the vicinity of facilities that did
not pass the Tier 1 screening assessment. For soils, we evaluate the
average soil concentration for all soil parcels within a 7.5-km radius
for each facility and PB-HAP. For the water, sediment, and fish tissue
concentrations, the highest value for each facility for each pollutant
is used. If emission concentrations from a facility do not exceed the
Tier 2 screening threshold emission rate, the facility ``passes'' the
screening assessment and typically is not evaluated further. If
emissions from a facility exceed the Tier 2 screening threshold
emission rate, we evaluate the facility further in Tier 3.
In Tier 3 of the environmental screening assessment, we examine the
suitability of the lakes around the facilities to support life and
remove those that are not suitable (e.g., lakes that have been filled
in or are industrial ponds), adjust emissions for plume-rise, and
conduct hour-by-hour time-series assessments. If these Tier 3
adjustments to the screening threshold emission rates still indicate
the potential for an adverse environmental effect (i.e., facility
emission rate exceeds the screening threshold emission rate), we may
elect to conduct a more refined assessment using more site-specific
information. If, after additional refinement, the facility emission
rate still exceeds the screening threshold emission rate, the facility
may have the potential to cause an adverse environmental effect.
To evaluate the potential for an adverse environmental effect from
lead, we compared the average modeled air concentrations (from HEM-3)
of lead around each facility in the source category to the level of the
secondary NAAQS for lead. The secondary lead NAAQS is a reasonable
means of evaluating environmental risk because it is set to provide
substantial protection against adverse welfare effects which can
include ``effects on soils, water, crops, vegetation, man-made
materials, animals, wildlife, weather, visibility and climate, damage
to and deterioration of property, and hazards to transportation, as
well as effects on economic values and on personal comfort and well-
being.''
d. Acid Gas Environmental Risk Methodology
The environmental screening assessment for acid gases evaluates the
potential phytotoxicity and reduced productivity of plants due to
chronic exposure to HCl and HF. The environmental risk screening
methodology for acid gases is a single-tier screening assessment that
compares modeled ambient air concentrations (from AERMOD) to the
ecological benchmarks for each acid gas. To identify potential adverse
environmental effects (as defined in section 112(a)(7) of the CAA) from
emissions of HCl and HF, we evaluate the following metrics: The size of
the modeled area around each facility that exceeds the ecological
benchmark for each acid gas, in units of acres and squared kilometers;
the percentage of the modeled area around each facility that exceeds
the ecological benchmark for each acid gas; and the area-weighted
average screening value around each facility (calculated by dividing
the area-weighted average concentration over the 50-km modeling domain
by the ecological benchmark for each acid gas). For further information
on the environmental screening assessment approach, see Appendix 9 of
the
[[Page 58952]]
Automobiles and Light-Duty Trucks Risk Assessment Report, the
Miscellaneous Metal Parts and Products Risk Assessment Report, and the
Plastic Parts and Products Risk Assessment Report, in the ALDT Docket,
the MMPP Docket, and the PPP Docket, respectively.
6. How did we conduct facility-wide assessments?
To put the source category risks in context, we typically examine
the risks from the entire ``facility,'' where the facility includes all
HAP-emitting operations within a contiguous area and under common
control. In other words, we examine the HAP emissions not only from the
source category emission points of interest, but also emissions of HAP
from all other emission sources at the facility for which we have data.
For each of these three source categories, we conducted the facility-
wide assessment using a dataset compiled from the 2014 NEI. The source
category records of that NEI dataset were removed, evaluated, and
updated as described in section II.C of this preamble: ``What data
collection activities were conducted to support this action?'' Once a
quality assured source category dataset was available, it was placed
back with the remaining records from the NEI for that facility. The
facility-wide file was then used to analyze risks due to the inhalation
of HAP that are emitted ``facility-wide'' for the populations residing
within 50 km of each facility, consistent with the methods used for the
source category analysis described above. For these facility-wide risk
analyses, the modeled source category risks were compared to the
facility-wide risks to determine the portion of the facility-wide risks
that could be attributed to the source categories addressed in this
proposal. We also specifically examined the facility that was
associated with the highest estimate of risk and determined the
percentage of that risk attributable to the source category of
interest. The Automobiles and Light-Duty Trucks Risk Assessment Report,
Miscellaneous Metal Parts and Products Risk Assessment Report, and
Plastic Parts and Products Risk Assessment Report, available in the
respective dockets for this action, provide the methodology and results
of the facility-wide analyses, including all facility-wide risks and
the percentage of source category contribution to facility-wide risks.
7. How did we consider uncertainties in risk assessment?
Uncertainty and the potential for bias are inherent in all risk
assessments, including those performed for this proposal. Although
uncertainty exists, we believe that our approach, which used
conservative tools and assumptions, ensures that our decisions are
health and environmentally protective. A brief discussion of the
uncertainties in the RTR emissions datasets, dispersion modeling,
inhalation exposure estimates, and dose-response relationships follows
below. Also included are those uncertainties specific to our acute
screening assessments, multipathway screening assessments, and our
environmental risk screening assessments. A more thorough discussion of
these uncertainties is included in the Automobiles and Light-Duty
Trucks Risk Assessment Report, Miscellaneous Metal Parts and Products
Risk Assessment Report, and Plastic Parts and Products Risk Assessment
Report, available in the respective dockets for this action. If a
multipathway site-specific assessment was performed for any of these
source categories, a full discussion of the uncertainties associated
with that assessment can be found in Appendix 11 of that document,
Site-Specific Human Health Multipathway Residual Risk Assessment
Report.
a. Uncertainties in the RTR Emissions Datasets
Although the development of the RTR emissions datasets involved
quality assurance/quality control processes, the accuracy of emissions
values will vary depending on the source of the data, the degree to
which data are incomplete or missing, the degree to which assumptions
made to complete the datasets are accurate, errors in emission
estimates, and other factors. The emission estimates considered in this
analysis generally are annual totals for certain years, and they do not
reflect short-term fluctuations during the course of a year or
variations from year to year. The estimates of peak hourly emission
rates for the acute effects screening assessment were based on an
emission adjustment factor applied to the average annual hourly
emission rates, which are intended to account for emission fluctuations
due to normal facility operations.
b. Uncertainties in Dispersion Modeling
We recognize there is uncertainty in ambient concentration
estimates associated with any model, including the EPA's recommended
regulatory dispersion model, AERMOD. In using a model to estimate
ambient pollutant concentrations, the user chooses certain options to
apply. For RTR assessments, we select some model options that have the
potential to overestimate ambient air concentrations (e.g., not
including plume depletion or pollutant transformation). We select other
model options that have the potential to underestimate ambient impacts
(e.g., not including building downwash). Other options that we select
have the potential to either under- or overestimate ambient levels
(e.g., meteorology and receptor locations). On balance, considering the
directional nature of the uncertainties commonly present in ambient
concentrations estimated by dispersion models, the approach we apply in
the RTR assessments should yield unbiased estimates of ambient HAP
concentrations. We also note that the selection of meteorology dataset
location could have an impact on the risk estimates. As we continue to
update and expand our library of meteorological station data used in
our risk assessments, we expect to reduce this variability.
c. Uncertainties in Inhalation Exposure Assessment
Although every effort is made to identify all of the relevant
facilities and emission points, as well as to develop accurate
estimates of the annual emission rates for all relevant HAP, the
uncertainties in our emission inventory likely dominate the
uncertainties in the exposure assessment. Some uncertainties in our
exposure assessment include human mobility, using the centroid of each
census block, assuming lifetime exposure, and assuming only outdoor
exposures. For most of these factors, there is neither an under nor
overestimate when looking at the maximum individual risk or the
incidence, but the shape of the distribution of risks may be affected.
With respect to outdoor exposures, actual exposures may not be as high
if people spend time indoors, especially for very reactive pollutants
or larger particles. For all factors, we reduce uncertainty when
possible. For example, with respect to census-block centroids, we
analyze large blocks using aerial imagery and adjust locations of the
block centroids to better represent the population in the blocks. We
also add additional receptor locations where the population of a block
is not well represented by a single location.
d. Uncertainties in Dose-Response Relationships
There are uncertainties inherent in the development of the dose-
response values used in our risk assessments for cancer effects from
chronic exposures and noncancer effects from both chronic and acute
exposures. Some
[[Page 58953]]
uncertainties are generally expressed quantitatively, and others are
generally expressed in qualitative terms. We note, as a preface to this
discussion, a point on dose-response uncertainty that is stated in the
EPA's 2005 Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment; namely, that
``the primary goal of EPA actions is protection of human health;
accordingly, as an Agency policy, risk assessment procedures, including
default options that are used in the absence of scientific data to the
contrary, should be health protective'' (the EPA's 2005 Guidelines for
Carcinogen Risk Assessment, page 1-7). This is the approach followed
here as summarized in the next paragraphs.
Cancer UREs used in our risk assessments are those that have been
developed to generally provide an upper bound estimate of risk.\20\
That is, they represent a ``plausible upper limit to the true value of
a quantity'' (although this is usually not a true statistical
confidence limit). In some circumstances, the true risk could be as low
as zero; however, in other circumstances the risk could be greater.\21\
Chronic noncancer RfC and reference dose (RfD) values represent chronic
exposure levels that are intended to be health-protective levels. To
derive dose-response values that are intended to be ``without
appreciable risk,'' the methodology relies upon an uncertainty factor
(UF) approach,\22\ which considers uncertainty, variability, and gaps
in the available data. The UFs are applied to derive dose-response
values that are intended to protect against appreciable risk of
deleterious effects.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ IRIS glossary (https://ofmpub.epa.gov/sor_internet/registry/termreg/searchandretrieve/glossariesandkeywordlists/search.do?details=&glossaryName=IRIS%20Glossary).
\21\ An exception to this is the URE for benzene, which is
considered to cover a range of values, each end of which is
considered to be equally plausible, and which is based on maximum
likelihood estimates.
\22\ See A Review of the Reference Dose and Reference
Concentration Processes, U.S. EPA, December 2002, and Methods for
Derivation of Inhalation Reference Concentrations and Application of
Inhalation Dosimetry, U.S. EPA, 1994.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Many of the UFs used to account for variability and uncertainty in
the development of acute dose-response values are quite similar to
those developed for chronic durations. Additional adjustments are often
applied to account for uncertainty in extrapolation from observations
at one exposure duration (e.g., 4 hours) to derive an acute dose-
response value at another exposure duration (e.g., 1 hour). Not all
acute dose-response values are developed for the same purpose, and care
must be taken when interpreting the results of an acute assessment of
human health effects relative to the dose-response value or values
being exceeded. Where relevant to the estimated exposures, the lack of
acute dose-response values at different levels of severity should be
factored into the risk characterization as potential uncertainties.
Uncertainty also exists in the selection of ecological benchmarks
for the environmental risk screening assessment. We established a
hierarchy of preferred benchmark sources to allow selection of
benchmarks for each environmental HAP at each ecological assessment
endpoint. We searched for benchmarks for three effect levels (i.e., no-
effects level, threshold-effect level, and probable effect level), but
not all combinations of ecological assessment/environmental HAP had
benchmarks for all three effect levels. Where multiple effect levels
were available for a particular HAP and assessment endpoint, we used
all of the available effect levels to help us determine whether risk
exists and whether the risk could be considered significant and
widespread.
Although we make every effort to identify appropriate human health
effect dose-response values for all pollutants emitted by the sources
in this risk assessment, some HAP emitted by these source categories
are lacking dose-response assessments. Accordingly, these pollutants
cannot be included in the quantitative risk assessment, which could
result in quantitative estimates understating HAP risk. To help to
alleviate this potential underestimate, where we conclude similarity
with a HAP for which a dose-response value is available, we use that
value as a surrogate for the assessment of the HAP for which no value
is available. To the extent use of surrogates indicates appreciable
risk, we may identify a need to increase priority for an IRIS
assessment for that substance. We additionally note that, generally
speaking, HAP of greatest concern due to environmental exposures and
hazard are those for which dose-response assessments have been
performed, reducing the likelihood of understating risk. Further, HAP
not included in the quantitative assessment are assessed qualitatively
and considered in the risk characterization that informs the risk
management decisions, including consideration of HAP reductions
achieved by various control options.
For a group of compounds that are unspeciated (e.g., glycol
ethers), we conservatively use the most protective dose-response value
of an individual compound in that group to estimate risk. Similarly,
for an individual compound in a group (e.g., ethylene glycol diethyl
ether) that does not have a specified dose-response value, we also
apply the most protective dose-response value from the other compounds
in the group to estimate risk.
e. Uncertainties in Acute Inhalation Screening Assessments
In addition to the uncertainties highlighted above, there are
several factors specific to the acute exposure assessment that the EPA
conducts as part of the risk review under section 112 of the CAA. The
accuracy of an acute inhalation exposure assessment depends on the
simultaneous occurrence of independent factors that may vary greatly,
such as hourly emissions rates, meteorology, and the presence of a
person. In the acute screening assessment that we conduct under the RTR
program, we assume that peak emissions from the source category and
reasonable worst-case air dispersion conditions (i.e., 99th percentile)
co-occur. We then include the additional assumption that a person is
located at this point at the same time. Together, these assumptions
represent a reasonable worst-case actual exposure scenario. In most
cases, it is unlikely that a person would be located at the point of
maximum exposure during the time when peak emissions and reasonable
worst-case air dispersion conditions occur simultaneously.
f. Uncertainties in the Multipathway and Environmental Risk Screening
Assessments
The ALDT source category emits PB-HAP (lead) and environmental HAP
(lead, HF and HCl); therefore, further evaluation of multipathway risk
and an environmental risk screening was conducted. The MMPP source
category emits PB-HAP (arsenic, cadmium, and lead) and environmental
HAP (arsenic, cadmium, lead, HF, and HCl); therefore, an environmental
risk screening was conducted for this source category. The PPP source
category in this action does not emit any PB-HAP or environmental HAP;
therefore, further evaluation of multipathway risk and an environmental
risk screening was not conducted for this source category.
For each source category, we generally rely on site-specific levels
of PB-HAP or environmental HAP emissions to determine whether a refined
assessment of the impacts from multipathway exposures is necessary or
whether it is necessary to perform an environmental screening
assessment.
[[Page 58954]]
This determination is based on the results of a three-tiered screening
assessment that relies on the outputs from models--TRIM.FaTE and
AERMOD--that estimate environmental pollutant concentrations and human
exposures for five PB-HAP (dioxins, POM, mercury, cadmium, and arsenic)
and two acid gases (HF and HCl). For lead, we use AERMOD to determine
ambient air concentrations, which are then compared to the secondary
NAAQS standard for lead. Two important types of uncertainty associated
with the use of these models in RTR risk assessments and inherent to
any assessment that relies on environmental modeling are model
uncertainty and input uncertainty.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ In the context of this discussion, the term ``uncertainty''
as it pertains to exposure and risk encompasses both variability in
the range of expected inputs and screening results due to existing
spatial, temporal, and other factors, as well as uncertainty in
being able to accurately estimate the true result.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Model uncertainty concerns whether the model adequately represents
the actual processes (e.g., movement and accumulation) that might occur
in the environment. For example, does the model adequately describe the
movement of a pollutant through the soil? This type of uncertainty is
difficult to quantify. However, based on feedback received from
previous the EPA SAB reviews and other reviews, we are confident that
the models used in the screening assessments are appropriate and state-
of-the-art for the multipathway and environmental screening risk
assessments conducted in support of RTR.
Input uncertainty is concerned with how accurately the models have
been configured and parameterized for the assessment at hand. For Tier
1 of the multipathway and environmental screening assessments, we
configured the models to avoid underestimating exposure and risk. This
was accomplished by selecting upper-end values from nationally
representative datasets for the more influential parameters in the
environmental model, including selection and spatial configuration of
the area of interest, lake location and size, meteorology, surface
water, soil characteristics, and structure of the aquatic food web. We
also assume an ingestion exposure scenario and values for human
exposure factors that represent reasonable maximum exposures.
For the environmental screening assessment for acid gases, we
employ a single-tiered approach. We use the modeled air concentrations
and compare those with ecological benchmarks.
For all tiers of the multipathway and environmental screening
assessments, our approach to addressing model input uncertainty is
generally cautious. We choose model inputs from the upper end of the
range of possible values for the influential parameters used in the
models, and we assume that the exposed individual exhibits ingestion
behavior that would lead to a high total exposure. This approach
reduces the likelihood of not identifying high risks for adverse
impacts.
Despite the uncertainties, when individual pollutants or facilities
do not exceed screening threshold emission rates (i.e., screen out), we
are confident that the potential for adverse multipathway impacts on
human health is very low. On the other hand, when individual pollutants
or facilities do exceed screening threshold emission rates, it does not
mean that impacts are significant, only that we cannot rule out that
possibility and that a refined assessment for the site might be
necessary to obtain a more accurate risk characterization for the
source category.
The EPA evaluates the following HAP in the multipathway and/or
environmental risk screening assessments, where applicable: Arsenic,
cadmium, dioxins/furans, lead, mercury (both inorganic and methyl
mercury), POM, HCl, and HF. These HAP represent pollutants that can
cause adverse impacts either through direct exposure to HAP in the air
or through exposure to HAP that are deposited from the air onto soils
and surface waters and then through the environment into the food web.
These HAP represent those HAP for which we can conduct a meaningful
multipathway or environmental screening risk assessment. For other HAP
not included in our screening assessments, the model has not been
parameterized such that it can be used for that purpose. In some cases,
depending on the HAP, we may not have appropriate multipathway models
that allow us to predict the concentration of that pollutant. The EPA
acknowledges that other HAP beyond these that we are evaluating may
have the potential to cause adverse effects and, therefore, the EPA may
evaluate other relevant HAP in the future, as modeling science and
resources allow.
IV. Analytical Results and Proposed Decisions
A. What are the analytical results and proposed decisions for the
surface coating of automobiles and light-duty trucks source category?
1. What are the results of the risk assessment and analyses?
As described in section III of this preamble, for the ALDT source
category, we conducted a risk assessment for all HAP emitted. We
present results of the risk assessment briefly below and in more detail
in the Automobiles and Light-Duty Trucks Risk Assessment Report in the
ALDT Docket (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0314).
a. Chronic Inhalation Risk Assessment Results
Table 2 of this preamble provides a summary of the results of the
inhalation risk assessment for the source category.
Table 2--Surface Coating of Automobiles and Light-Duty Trucks Source Category Inhalation Risk Assessment Results
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum individual Estimated population Estimated annual Maximum chronic Maximum screening
cancer risk (in 1 at increased risk of cancer incidence noncancer TOSHI \1\ acute noncancer HQ \2\
million) cancer >=1-in-1 (cases per year) -----------------------------------------------
------------------------ million ------------------------
Risk assessment ------------------------ Based on Based on
Based on Based on Based on Based on Based on Based on actual allowable Based on actual
actual allowable actual allowable actual allowable emissions emissions emissions
emissions emissions emissions emissions emissions emissions
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source Category................. 10 10 15,000 19,000 0.01 0.01 0.3 0.3 HQREL = 1.
Whole Facility.................. 10 .......... 48,000 .......... 0.02 .......... 0.3
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The target organ specific hazard index (TOSHI) is the sum of the chronic noncancer HQs for substances that affect the same target organ or organ
system.
\2\ The maximum estimated acute exposure concentration was divided by available short-term threshold values to develop HQ values.
[[Page 58955]]
The results of the inhalation risk modeling using actual emissions
data, as shown in Table 2 of this preamble, indicate that the maximum
individual cancer risk based on actual emissions (lifetime) could be up
to 10-in-1 million (driven by naphthalene and ethyl benzene from
miscellaneous industrial processes--other/not classified), the maximum
chronic noncancer TOSHI value based on actual emissions could be up to
0.3 (driven by hexamethylene-1,6-diisocyanate from a painting topcoat
process), and the maximum screening acute noncancer HQ value (off-
facility site) could be up to 1 (driven by formaldehyde). The total
estimated annual cancer incidence (national) from these facilities
based on actual emission levels is 0.01 excess cancer cases per year or
1 case in every 100 years.
b. Screening Level Acute Risk Assessment Results
Table 2 of this preamble shows the acute risk results for the ALDT
source category. The screening analysis for acute impacts was based on
an industry specific multiplier of 1.2, to estimate the peak emission
rates from the average rates. For more detailed acute risk results,
refer to the Automobiles and Light-Duty Trucks Risk Assessment Report,
in the ALDT Docket.
c. Multipathway Risk Screening Results
The emissions data for the ALDT source category indicate that one
PB-HAP is emitted by sources within this source category: Lead. In
evaluating the potential for multipathway effects from emissions of
lead, we compared modeled annual lead concentrations to the NAAQS for
lead (0.15 [micro]g/m3, arithmetic mean concentration over a 3-month
period). The highest annual average lead concentration of 1.5 x
10-5 [micro]g/m\3\ is below the NAAQS for lead, indicating a
low potential for multipathway impacts of concern due to lead even
assuming a shorter averaging period is. Therefore, we do not expect any
human health multipathway risks as a result of emissions from this
source category.
d. Environmental Risk Screening Results
The emissions data for the ALDT source category indicate that three
environmental HAP are emitted by sources within this source category:
Lead, HCl and HF. Therefore, we conducted a screening-level evaluation
of the potential adverse environmental effects associated with
emissions of lead, HCl, and HF for the ALDT source category. In
evaluating the potential for adverse environmental effects from
emissions of lead, we compared modeled annual lead concentrations to
the secondary NAAQS for lead (0.15 [micro]g/m\3\, arithmetic mean
concentration over a 3-month period). The highest annual average lead
concentration of 1.5 x 10-5 [micro]g/m\3\ is below the
secondary NAAQS for lead, indicating a low potential for adverse
environmental impacts due to lead even assuming a shorter averaging
period is analyzed. For both HCl and HF, each individual concentration
(i.e., each off-site data point in the modeling domain) was below the
ecological benchmarks for all facilities. Therefore, we do not expect
an adverse environmental effect as a result of HAP emissions from this
source category.
e. Facility-Wide Risk Results
Fifteen facilities have a facility-wide cancer MIR greater than or
equal to 1-in-1 million. The maximum facility-wide cancer MIR is 10-in-
1 million, driven by naphthalene and ethyl benzene from miscellaneous
industrial processes--other/not classified. The total estimated cancer
incidence from the whole facility is 0.02 excess cancer cases per year,
or one excess case in every 50 years. Approximately 48,000 people were
estimated to have cancer risks above 1-in-1 million from exposure to
HAP emitted from both MACT and non-MACT sources at 15 of the 43
facilities in this source category. The maximum facility-wide TOSHI for
the source category is estimated to be 0.3, mainly driven by emissions
of hexamethylene-1,6-diisocyanate from a painting topcoat process.
f. What demographic groups might benefit from this regulation?
To examine the potential for any environmental justice issues that
might be associated with the source category, we performed a
demographic analysis, which is an assessment of risks to individual
demographic groups of the populations living within 5 km and within 50
km of the facilities. In the analysis, we evaluated the distribution of
HAP-related cancer and noncancer risks from the ALDT source category
across different demographic groups within the populations living near
facilities.\24\
The results of the demographic analysis are summarized in Table 3
of this preamble. These results, for various demographic groups, are
based on the estimated risks from actual emissions levels for the
population living within 50 km of the facilities.
Table 3--Surface Coating of Automobiles and Light-Duty Trucks Source Category Demographic Risk Analysis Results
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Population with
cancer risk at or Population with
above 1-in-1 chronic noncancer
Nationwide million due to HI above 1 due to
surface coating of surface coating of
automobiles and automobiles and
light-duty trucks light-duty trucks
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Population...................................... 317,746,049 15,000 0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
White and Minority by Percent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
White................................................. 62 60 0
Minority.............................................. 38 40 0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minority Detail by Percent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
African American...................................... 12 10 0
Native American....................................... 0.8 0.2 0
Hispanic or Latino.................................... 18 27 0
[[Page 58956]]
Other and Multiracial................................. 7 3 0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Income by Percent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Below the Poverty Level............................... 14 19 0
Above the Poverty Level............................... 86 81 0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Education by Percent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Over 25 Without High a School Diploma................. 14 14 0
Over 25 With a High School Diploma.................... 86 86 0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Linguistically Isolated by Percent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Linguistically Isolated............................... 6 3 0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The results of the ALDT source category demographic analysis
indicate that emissions from the source category expose approximately
15,000 people to a cancer risk at or above 1-in-1 million and no one to
a chronic noncancer HI greater than 1. The percent of minorities is
similar nationally (38 percent) and for the category population with
cancer risk greater than or equal to 1-in-1 million (40 percent).
However, the category population with cancer risk greater than or equal
to 1-in-1 million has a greater percentage of Hispanic (27 percent) as
compared to nationally (18 percent).
The methodology and the results of the demographic analysis are
presented in a technical report titled Risk and Technology Review--
Analysis of Demographic Factors for Populations Living Near Automobile
and Light-Duty Truck Surface Coating Source Category Operations, March
2019 (hereafter referred to as the Automobiles and Light-Duty Trucks
Demographic Analysis Report) in the ALDT Docket.
2. What are our proposed decisions regarding risk acceptability, ample
margin of safety, and adverse environmental effects?
a. Risk Acceptability
As noted in section III.A of this preamble, we weigh all health
risk factors in our risk acceptability determination, including the
cancer MIR, the number of persons in various cancer and noncancer risk
ranges, cancer incidence, the maximum noncancer TOSHI, the maximum
acute noncancer HQ, the extent of noncancer risks, the distribution of
cancer and noncancer risks in the exposed population, and risk
estimation uncertainties (54 FR 38044, September 14, 1989).
For the ALDT source category, the risk analysis indicates that the
cancer risks to the individual most exposed could be up to 10-in-1
million due to actual emissions or based on allowable emissions. These
risks are considerably less than 100-in-1 million, which is the
presumptive upper limit of acceptable risk. The risk analysis also
shows very low cancer incidence (0.01 cases per year for actual and
allowable emissions), and we did not identify a potential for adverse
chronic noncancer health effects. The acute noncancer risks are low at
an HQ of 1 (based on the REL) for formaldehyde. Therefore, we find
there is little potential concern of acute noncancer health impacts
from actual emissions. In addition, the risk assessment indicates no
significant potential for multipathway health effects.
Considering all of the health risk information and factors
discussed above, including the uncertainties discussed in section
III.C.7 of this preamble, we propose to find that the risks from the
ALDT source category are acceptable.
b. Ample Margin of Safety Analysis
Although we are proposing that the risks from the ALDT source
category are acceptable, risk estimates for approximately 15,000
individuals in the exposed population are above 1-in-1 million at the
actual emissions level and 19,000 individuals at the allowable
emissions level. Consequently, we further considered whether the MACT
standards for the ALDT source category provide an ample margin of
safety to protect public health. In this ample margin of safety
analysis, we investigated available emissions control options that
might reduce the risk from the source category. We considered this
information along with all of the health risks and other health
information considered in our determination of risk acceptability.
As described in section III.B of this preamble, our technology
review focused on identifying developments in practices, processes, and
control technologies for the ALDT source category, and the EPA reviewed
various information sources regarding emission sources that are
currently regulated by the ALDT NESHAP. Based on our review, we did not
identify any cost-effective measures to further reduce HAP. Therefore,
considering all of the available health information along with the
absence of additional measures for reducing HAP, we are proposing that
additional emissions controls for this source category are not
necessary and that the current standards provide an ample margin of
safety.
c. Environmental Effects
The emissions data for the ALDT source category indicate that three
environmental HAP are emitted by sources within this source category:
Lead, HCl, and HF. The screening-level evaluation of the potential for
adverse environmental effects from emissions of lead indicated that the
secondary
[[Page 58957]]
NAAQS for lead would not be exceeded by any facility. The screening-
level evaluation of the potential for adverse environmental effects
associated with emissions of HCl and HF from the ALDT source category
indicated that each individual concentration (i.e., each off-site data
point in the modeling domain) was below the ecological benchmarks for
all facilities. In addition, we are unaware of any adverse
environmental effects caused by HAP emitted by this source category.
Therefore, we do not expect there to be an adverse environmental effect
as a result of HAP emissions from this source category and we are
proposing that it is not necessary to set a more stringent standard to
prevent, taking into consideration costs, energy, safety, and other
relevant factors, an adverse environmental effect.
3. What are the results and proposed decisions based on our technology
review?
As described in section III.B of this preamble, our technology
review focused on identifying developments in practices, processes, and
control technologies for the ALDT source category. The EPA reviewed
various information sources regarding emission sources that are
currently regulated by the ALDT NESHAP to support the technology
review. The information sources included the following: The RBLC; state
regulations; facility operating permits; regulatory actions, including
technology reviews, promulgated for other surface coating NESHAP
subsequent to the ALDT NESHAP; site visits; discussions with individual
ALDT surface coating facilities; and industry information. The primary
emission sources for the technology review included the following: The
coating operations; all storage containers and mixing vessels in which
coatings, thinners, and cleaning materials are stored or mixed; all
manual and automated equipment and containers used for conveying
coatings, thinners, and cleaning materials; and all storage containers
and all manual and automated equipment and containers used for
conveying waste materials generated by a coating operation.
Based on our review, we did not identify any add-on control
technologies, process equipment, work practices or procedures that were
not previously considered during development of the 2004 ALDT NESHAP,
and we did not identify any new or improved add-on control technologies
that would result in additional emission reductions. A brief summary of
the EPA's findings in conducting the technology review of ALDT surface
coating operations follows. For a detailed discussion of the EPA's
findings, refer to the memorandum, Technology Review for Surface
Coating Operations in the Automobiles and Light-Duty Trucks Source
Category, in the ALDT Docket.
During 2004 MACT development for the ALDT NESHAP, numerical
emission limits were determined for new and existing major sources
within the four combinations of coating operations, for a total of
eight HAP emissions limits. The emission limits were based on industry
survey responses and the industry's use of low- or no-HAP coatings and
thinners, high efficiency coatings spray equipment (including robotic
spraying), and add-on capture and control technologies. Alternately,
the NESHAP provides sources with the option of limiting HAP emissions
with capture and add-on control to achieve an overall control
efficiency of 95-percent. During development of that rulemaking, we
identified the beyond-the-floor option to require the use of capture
systems and add-on control devices for all ALDT surface coating
operations. This option was rejected because we determined the
additional emission reductions achieved using the beyond-the-floor
option did not warrant the costs each affected source would incur or
the incremental cost per ton of HAP reduced (67 FR 78622, December 24,
2002).
For this technology review, we used the EPA's NEI and the ECHO
databases to identify facilities that are currently subject to the ALDT
NESHAP. We also consulted Regional and state regulations and operating
permits. California has existing surface coating rules for VOC from
vehicle assembly plants within two air quality management districts
(AQMD): Bay Area AQMD and South Coast AQMD. No state VOC rules for ALDT
surface coating operations were identified that had VOC limits that
would translate into lower HAP content limits. The VOC content limits
in state rules (e.g., BAAQMD Rule 8-13 and SCAQMD Rule 1115) are an
order of magnitude higher than the HAP content limits in the ALDT
NESHAP. Because the HAP are only a small fraction of the VOC in these
coatings, complying with these state VOC standards would not limit HAP
emissions to levels that are more stringent than the levels required.
Our search of the RBLC database for improvements in ALDT coating
technologies provided results for 22 facilities with permit dates of
2000 or later. Facilities reported the use of VOC and HAP content
limits, electrodeposition primers, regenerative thermal oxidizers
(RTOs), catalytic oxidation, and thermal oxidation. All of these
control technologies were in use by the ALDT surface coating industry
during development of the ALDT NESHAP and already were considered in
the development of the ALDT NESHAP. Therefore, we concluded that the
results of the search did not result in any improvements in add-on
control technology or other equipment.
We reviewed other surface coating NESHAP promulgated after the ALDT
NESHAP to determine whether any requirements exceed the ALDT MACT level
of control or included technologies that were not considered during the
development of the original ALDT NESHAP. These NESHAP include Paint
Stripping and Miscellaneous Surface Coating Operations at Area Sources
(40 CFR part 63, subpart HHHHHH), and Nine Metal Fabrication and
Finishing Area Source Categories (40 CFR part 63, subpart XXXXXX). We
also reviewed the results of the technology reviews for the following
NESHAP: Printing and Publishing (40 CFR part 63, subpart KK),
Shipbuilding and Ship Repair (40 CFR part 63, subpart II), Wood
Furniture Manufacturing (40 CFR part 63, subpart JJ), and Aerospace
Manufacturing and Rework Facilities (40 CFR part 63, subpart GG).
Technology reviews for these NESHAP identified permanent total
enclosures (PTE) and/or RTOs as improvements in add-on control
technology. The original ALDT NESHAP includes a compliance option
involving the use of a PTE and an add-on control device. Because these
measures were considered in the development of the original ALDT NESHAP
and reflected in the MACT level of control, we concluded that these
measures do not represent an improvement in control technology under
CAA section 112(d)(6).
The control technology assessment conducted for the Paint Stripping
and Miscellaneous Surface Coating NESHAP and Nine Metal Fabrication and
Finishing NESHAP confined all coating operations to a spray booth
fitted with high-efficiency filters, use of high-transfer efficiency
spray guns, and training and certification of spray equipment operator
to optimize transfer efficiency for facilities that spray apply
coatings containing certain inorganic HAP. The technology controls for
inorganic HAP adopted in subparts HHHHHH and XXXXXX, spray booths
fitted with overspray filters and the use of high efficiency spray
equipment, were already considered in the development of the original
ALDT NESHAP, and, therefore, do not
[[Page 58958]]
constitute a development for the purpose of the technology review.
The technology review conducted for the Wood Furniture NESHAP
identified the use of more efficient spray guns as a technology review
development and revised the requirements to prohibit the use of
conventional spray guns. Air-assisted airless spraying was added as a
more efficient coating application technology. The original ALDT NESHAP
is based on the use of high-efficiency application technology, such as
airless and electrostatic spray equipment. This equipment increases
coating transfer efficiency, minimizes emissions by reducing the amount
of coating sprayed and still achieves a given film thickness with
exceptional finish. The format of the ALDT emission limits, in mass of
HAP per mass of coating solids applied to the part, accounts for the
transfer efficiency of the application equipment and is based on high-
efficiency methods.
The technology review conducted for the Printing and Publishing
NESHAP identified the use of a PTE in the form of coating spray booths
and curing tunnels. These PTEs are commonly used in ALDT surface
coating operations to maintain a clean environment for applying the
coatings, and for capturing and removing coating overspray and solvent
vapors from the coating area. Therefore, the use of a PTE, as
identified in the Printing and Publishing NESHAP technology review,
does not represent a development in control technology with respect to
ALDT surface coating operations.
In conclusion, we found no improvements in add-on control
technology or other equipment during review of the RBLC, the state
rules, and subsequent NESHAP that were not already identified and
considered during the ALDT NESHAP development.
Alternatives to conventional solvent-borne coatings were identified
and considered during MACT development but were not considered to be
suitable for all ALDT coating applications. These alternative coatings
include higher solids coatings, waterborne coatings, low-energy
electron beam ultraviolet (UV) cured coatings, and powder coating.
Waterborne and higher solids coatings with lower HAP and VOC content
were considered in the development of the proposed and final standards
and are already reflected in the HAP emission limitations in the final
rule. Industry trends and advances in coating formulation, as
documented in the ACA Industry Market Analysis, showed that powder
coated finishes would be difficult to repair and would likely require
refinishing the entire car in case of damage. Further, the ACA analysis
stated that no progress had been made in overcoming technical hurdles
that would make UV-cured coatings applicable to main vehicle body parts
(e.g., shadowing of certain areas from UV rays, high energy demands,
residual UV photo-initiators in the coating film). Therefore, the EPA
did not identify any developments in coating technology, other process
changes, or pollution prevention alternatives that would represent a
development relative to the coating technologies on which the final
rule is based.
Finally, no improvements in work practices or operational
procedures were identified for the ALDT source category that were not
previously identified and considered during MACT development. The
current MACT standards require that, if a facility uses add-on controls
to comply with the emission limitations, the facility must develop and
implement a work practice plan to minimize organic HAP emissions from
the storage, mixing, and conveying of coatings, thinners, and cleaning
materials used in, and waste materials generated by, those coating
operations. If a facility is not using add-on controls and is using
either the compliant material option or the emission rate without add-
on controls option, the facility does not need to comply with work
practice standards. Under the emission rate option, HAP emitted from
spills or from containers would be counted against the facility in the
compliance calculations, so facilities must already minimize these
losses to maintain compliance.
Based on these findings, we conclude that there have not been any
developments in add-on control technology or other equipment not
identified and considered during MACT development, nor any improvements
in add-on controls, nor any significant changes in the cost (including
cost effectiveness) of the add-on controls. Therefore, we are proposing
no revisions to the ALDT NESHAP pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6). For
further discussion of the technology review results, refer to the
Automobiles and Light-Duty Trucks Technology Review Memo, in the ALDT
Docket.
4. What other actions are we proposing for the ALDT source category?
We are proposing to require electronic submittal of notifications,
semiannual reports, and compliance reports (which include performance
test reports) for ALDT surface coating facilities. In addition, we are
proposing revisions to the SSM provisions of the MACT rule in order to
ensure that they are consistent with the Court decision in Sierra Club
v. EPA, 551 F. 3d 1019 (D.C. Cir. 2008), which vacated two provisions
that exempted source owners and operators from the requirement to
comply with otherwise applicable CAA section 112(d) emission standards
during periods of SSM. We are proposing to require periodic emissions
testing of add-on control devices. We also propose other changes,
including updating references to equivalent test methods, making
technical and editorial revisions, and incorporation by reference (IBR)
of alternative test methods. Our analyses and proposed changes related
to these issues are discussed in the sections below.
a. Electronic Reporting Requirements
The EPA is proposing that owners and operators of ALDT surface
coating facilities submit electronic copies of initial notifications
required in 40 CFR 63.9(b) and 63.3110(b), notifications of compliance
status required in 40 CFR 63.9(h) and 63.3110(c), performance test
reports required in 40 CFR 63.3120(b), and semiannual reports required
in 40 CFR 63.3120(a), through the EPA's Central Data Exchange (CDX)
using the Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface (CEDRI).
For further information regarding the electronic data submission
process, please refer to the memorandum titled Electronic Reporting for
New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) and National Emission Standards
for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) Rules, in the ALDT Docket. The
proposed rule requires that performance test results collected using
test methods that are supported by the EPA's Electronic Reporting Tool
(ERT) as listed on the ERT website \25\ at the time of the test be
submitted in the format generated through the use of the ERT and that
other performance test results be submitted in portable document format
(PDF) using the attachment module of the ERT. No specific form is
proposed at this time for the initial notifications required in 40 CFR
63.9(b) and notification of compliance status in 40 CFR 63.9(h). Until
the EPA has completed electronic forms for these notifications, the
notifications will be required to be submitted via CEDRI in PDF. After
development of the final forms, we will notify sources about their
availability via the CEDRI website and the CHIEF Listserv. For
semiannual reports required in 40 CFR 63.3120(a)
[[Page 58959]]
the proposed rule requires that owners and operators use the
appropriate spreadsheet template to submit information to CEDRI. A
draft version of the proposed templates for these reports is included
in the docket for this rulemaking.\26\ The EPA specifically requests
comment on the content, layout, and overall design of the templates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ https://www.epa.gov/electronic-reporting-air-emissions/electronic-reporting-tool-ert.
\26\ See Electronic Reporting Template for Surface Coating of
Automobiles and Light-Duty Trucks Subpart IIII Semiannual Reports,
in docket ID NO. EPA-HQ-OAR-0314.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additionally, the EPA has identified two broad circumstances in
which electronic reporting extensions may be provided. In both
circumstances, the decision to accept the claim of needing additional
time to report is within the discretion of the Administrator, and
reporting should occur as soon as possible. The EPA is providing these
potential extensions to protect owners and operators from noncompliance
in cases where they cannot successfully submit a report by the
reporting deadline for reasons outside of their control. The situation
where an extension may be warranted due to outages of the EPA's CDX or
CEDRI which precludes an owner or operator from accessing the system
and submitting required reports is addressed in 40 CFR 63.9(b),
notifications of compliance status required in 40 CFR 63.9(h), and
semiannual reports required in 40 CFR 63.3120(a). The situation where
an extension may be warranted due to a force majeure event, which is
defined as an event that will be or has been caused by circumstances
beyond the control of the affected facility, its contractors, or any
entity controlled by the affected facility that prevents an owner or
operator from complying with the requirement to submit a report
electronically as required by this rule is addressed in 40 CFR
63.3120(g). Examples of such events are acts of nature, acts of war or
terrorism, or equipment failure or safety hazards beyond the control of
the facility.
The electronic submittal of the reports addressed in this proposed
rulemaking will increase the usefulness of the data contained in those
reports, is in keeping with current trends in data availability and
transparency, will further assist in the protection of public health
and the environment, will improve compliance by facilitating the
ability of regulated facilities to demonstrate compliance with
requirements and by facilitating the ability of delegated state, local,
tribal, and territorial air agencies and the EPA to assess and
determine compliance, and will ultimately reduce burden on regulated
facilities, delegated air agencies, and the EPA. Electronic reporting
also eliminates paper-based, manual processes, thereby saving time and
resources, simplifying data entry, eliminating redundancies, minimizing
data reporting errors, and providing data quickly and accurately to the
affected facilities, air agencies, the EPA, and the public. Moreover,
electronic reporting is consistent with the EPA's plan \27\ to
implement Executive Order 13563 and is in keeping with the EPA's
agency-wide policy \28\ developed in response to the White House's
Digital Government Strategy.\29\ For more information on the benefits
of electronic reporting, see the memorandum Electronic Reporting
Requirements for New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) and National
Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) Rules,
available in Docket ID No. EPA-OAR-2019-0314.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ EPA's Final Plan for Periodic Retrospective Reviews, August
2011. Available at: https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=EPA-HQ-OA-2011-0156-0154.
\28\ E-Reporting Policy Statement for EPA Regulations, September
2013. Available at: https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-03/documents/epa-ereporting-policy-statement-2013-09-30.pdf.
\29\ Digital Government: Building a 21st Century Platform to
Better Serve the American People, May 2012. Available at: https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/omb/egov/digital-government/digital-government.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
b. SSM Requirements
(1.) Proposed Elimination of the SSM Exemption
In its 2008 decision in Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F.3d 1019 (D.C.
Cir. 2008), the Court vacated portions of two provisions in the EPA's
CAA section 112 regulations governing the emissions of HAP during
periods of SSM. Specifically, the Court vacated the SSM exemption
contained in 40 CFR 63.6(f)(1) and 40 CFR 63.6(h)(1), holding that
under section 302(k) of the CAA, emissions standards or limitations
must be continuous in nature and that the SSM exemption violates the
CAA's requirement that some CAA section 112 standards apply
continuously.
We are proposing the elimination of the SSM exemption in this rule.
Consistent with Sierra Club v. EPA, we are proposing standards in this
rule that apply at all times. We are also proposing several revisions
to Table 2 to subpart IIII of 40 CFR part 63 (Applicability of General
Provisions to Subpart IIII, hereafter referred to as the ``General
Provisions table to subpart IIII''), as explained in more detail below
in section IV.A.4.b.2 of this preamble. For example, we are proposing
to eliminate the incorporation of the General Provisions' requirement
that the source develop an SSM plan. Further, we are proposing to
eliminate and revise certain recordkeeping and reporting requirements
related to the SSM exemption as further described below. The EPA has
attempted to ensure that the provisions we are proposing to eliminate
are inappropriate, unnecessary, or redundant in the absence of the SSM
exemption. We are specifically seeking comment on whether we have
successfully done so.
In proposing these rule amendments, the EPA has taken into account
startup and shutdown periods and, for the reasons explained below, has
not proposed alternate standards for those periods. Startups and
shutdowns are part of normal operations for the ALDT source category.
As currently specified in 40 CFR 63.3100(b), all coating operation(s)
must be in compliance with the operating limits for emission capture
systems and add-on control devices required by 40 CFR 63.3093 ``at all
times except during periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction.''
Therefore, we will be removing the exemption for periods of startup,
and shutdown, as well as for malfunctions. Also, as currently specified
in 40 CFR 63.3100(a), you must be in compliance ``at all times'' with
the emission limitations in 40 CFR 63.3090 and 63.3091, and as
specified in 40 CFR 63.3100(c), you must be in compliance with the work
practice standards in 40 CFR 63.3094 ``at all times.'' During startup
and shutdown periods, in order for a facility (using add-on controls to
meet the standards) to meet the emission and operating standards, the
control device for a coating operation needs to be turned on and
operating at specified levels before the facility begins coating
operations, and the control equipment needs to continue to be operated
until after the facility ceases coating operations. In some cases, the
facility needs to run thermal oxidizers on supplemental fuel before VOC
levels are sufficient for the combustion to be (nearly) self-
sustaining. Note that we are also proposing new related language in 40
CFR 63.3100(d) to require that the owner or operator operate and
maintain the coating operation, including pollution control equipment,
at all times to minimize emissions. See section IV.A.4.b.2 of this
preamble for further discussion of these proposed revisions.
Periods of startup, normal operations, and shutdown are all
predictable and routine aspects of a source's operations. Malfunctions,
in contrast, are neither
[[Page 58960]]
predictable nor routine. Instead they are, by definition, sudden,
infrequent and not reasonably preventable failures of emissions
control, process, or monitoring equipment. (40 CFR 63.2) (definition of
malfunction). The EPA interprets CAA section 112 as not requiring
emissions that occur during periods of malfunction to be factored into
development of CAA section 112 standards and this reading has been
upheld as reasonable by the Court in U.S. Sugar Corp. v. EPA, 830 F.3d
579, 606-610 (2016). Under CAA section 112, emissions standards for new
sources must be no less stringent than the level ``achieved'' by the
best controlled similar source and for existing sources generally must
be no less stringent than the average emission limitation ``achieved''
by the best performing 12 percent of sources in the category. There is
nothing in CAA section 112 that directs the Agency to consider
malfunctions in determining the level ``achieved'' by the best
performing sources when setting emission standards. As the Court has
recognized, the phrase ``average emissions limitation achieved by the
best performing 12 percent of'' sources ``says nothing about how the
performance of the best units is to be calculated.'' Nat'l Ass'n of
Clean Water Agencies v. EPA, 734 F.3d 1115, 1141 (D.C. Cir. 2013).
While the EPA accounts for variability in setting emissions standards,
nothing in CAA section 112 requires the Agency to consider malfunctions
as part of that analysis. The EPA is not required to treat a
malfunction in the same manner as the type of variation in performance
that occurs during routine operations of a source. A malfunction is a
failure of the source to perform in a ``normal or usual manner'' and no
statutory language compels the EPA to consider such events in setting
CAA section 112 standards.
As the Court recognized in U.S. Sugar Corp, accounting for
malfunctions in setting standards would be difficult, if not
impossible, given the myriad different types of malfunctions that can
occur across all sources in the category and given the difficulties
associated with predicting or accounting for the frequency, degree, and
duration of various malfunctions that might occur. Id. at 608 (``the
EPA would have to conceive of a standard that could apply equally to
the wide range of possible boiler malfunctions, ranging from an
explosion to minor mechanical defects. Any possible standard is likely
to be hopelessly generic to govern such a wide array of
circumstances.'') As such, the performance of units that are
malfunctioning is not ``reasonably'' foreseeable. See e.g., Sierra Club
v. EPA, 167 F.3d 658, 662 (D.C. Cir. 1999) (``The EPA typically has
wide latitude in determining the extent of data-gathering necessary to
solve a problem. We generally defer to an agency's decision to proceed
on the basis of imperfect scientific information, rather than to
'invest the resources to conduct the perfect study' ''). See also,
Weyerhaeuser v. Costle, 590 F.2d 1011, 1058 (D.C. Cir. 1978) (``In the
nature of things, no general limit, individual permit, or even any
upset provision can anticipate all upset situations. After a certain
point, the transgression of regulatory limits caused by `uncontrollable
acts of third parties,' such as strikes, sabotage, operator
intoxication or insanity, and a variety of other eventualities, must be
a matter for the administrative exercise of case-by-case enforcement
discretion, not for specification in advance by regulation''). In
addition, emissions during a malfunction event can be significantly
higher than emissions at any other time of source operation. For
example, if an air pollution control device with 99-percent removal
goes off-line as a result of a malfunction (as might happen if, for
example, the bags in a baghouse catch fire) and the emission unit is a
steady state type unit that would take days to shut down, the source
would go from 99-percent control to zero control until the control
device was repaired. The source's emissions during the malfunction
would be 100 times higher than during normal operations. As such, the
emissions over a 4-day malfunction period would exceed the annual
emissions of the source during normal operations. As this example
illustrates, accounting for malfunctions could lead to standards that
are not reflective of (and significantly less stringent than) levels
that are achieved by a well-performing non-malfunctioning source. It is
reasonable to interpret CAA section 112 to avoid such a result. The
EPA's approach to malfunctions is consistent with CAA section 112 and
is a reasonable interpretation of the statute.
Although no statutory language compels the EPA to set standards for
malfunctions, the EPA has the discretion to do so where feasible. For
example, in the Petroleum Refinery Sector Risk and Technology Review,
the EPA established a work practice standard for unique types of
malfunctions that result in releases from pressure relief devices or
emergency flaring events because we had information to determine that
such work practices reflected the level of control that applies to the
best performing sources (80 FR 75178, 75211-14, December 1, 2015). The
EPA will consider whether circumstances warrant setting standards for a
particular type of malfunction and, if so, whether the EPA has
sufficient information to identify the relevant best performing sources
and establish a standard for such malfunctions. We also encourage
commenters to provide any such information.
It is unlikely that a malfunction would result in a violation of
the standards during ALDT surface coatings operations for facilities
complying without the use of add-on controls (i.e., using low-HAP
coatings and thinning materials). Facilities using low-HAP coatings and
thinning materials have demonstrated that the coatings and thinners
used in the coating operations are less than or equal to the applicable
emission limit calculated on a monthly basis.
A malfunction event is more likely for ALDT surface coating
facilities that use add-on controls as a compliance option. For this
option, in addition to demonstrating compliance with the numerical
emission rate limits for coatings and thinners used (calculated on a
monthly basis), facilities must also demonstrate that their emission
capture systems and add-on control devices meet the operating limits
established by the ALDT NESHAP. Control device operating limits are
listed in Table 4 of the ALDT NESHAP and are specific to the device,
and most are based on maintaining an average temperature over a 3-hour
block period, which must not fall below the temperature limit
established during the facility's initial performance test.
All facilities must also comply with work practice standards to
minimize organic HAP emissions from the storage, mixing, and conveying
of coatings, thinners, and cleaning materials used in, and waste
materials generated by, the coating operation(s), but it is unlikely
that a malfunction would result in a violation of the work practice
standards.
We currently have no information to suggest that it is feasible or
necessary to establish any type of standard for malfunctions associated
with the ALDT source category. We encourage commenters to provide any
such information, if available.
In the event that a source fails to comply with the applicable CAA
section 112(d) standards as a result of a malfunction event, the EPA
will determine an appropriate response based on, among other things,
the good
[[Page 58961]]
faith efforts of the source to minimize emissions during malfunction
periods, including preventative and corrective actions, as well as root
cause analyses to ascertain and rectify excess emissions. The EPA will
also consider whether the source's failure to comply with the CAA
section 112(d) standard was, in fact, sudden, infrequent, not
reasonably preventable, and was not instead caused, in part, by poor
maintenance or careless operation. 40 CFR 63.2 (definition of
malfunction).
If the EPA determines in a particular case that an enforcement
action against a source for violation of an emission standard is
warranted, the source can raise any and all defenses in that
enforcement action and the federal district court will determine what,
if any, relief is appropriate. The same is true for citizen enforcement
actions. Similarly, the presiding officer in an administrative
proceeding can consider any defense raised and determine whether
administrative penalties are appropriate.
In summary, the EPA interpretation of the CAA and, in particular,
CAA section 112 is reasonable and encourages practices that will avoid
malfunctions. Administrative and judicial procedures for addressing
exceedances of the standards fully recognize that violations may occur
despite good faith efforts to comply and can accommodate those
situations. U.S. Sugar Corp. v. EPA, 830 F.3d 579, 606-610 (2016).
(2.) Proposed Revisions to the General Provisions Applicability Table
40 CFR 63.3100(d) General duty. We are proposing to revise the
General Provisions table to subpart IIII (Table 2) entry for 40 CFR
63.6(e)(1)(i) by changing the ``yes'' in column 3 to a ``no.'' Section
63.6(e)(1)(i) describes the general duty to minimize emissions. Some of
the language in that section is no longer necessary or appropriate in
light of the elimination of the SSM exemption. We are proposing instead
to add general duty regulatory text at 40 CFR 63.3100(d) that reflects
the general duty to minimize emissions while eliminating the reference
to periods covered by an SSM exemption. The current language in 40 CFR
63.6(e)(1)(i) characterizes what the general duty entails during
periods of SSM. With the elimination of the SSM exemption, there is no
need to differentiate between normal operations, startup and shutdown,
and malfunction events in describing the general duty. Therefore, the
language the EPA is proposing for 40 CFR 63.3100(d) does not include
that language from 40 CFR 63.6(e)(1)(i).
We are also proposing to revise the General Provisions table to
subpart IIII (Table 2) entry for 40 CFR 63.6(e)(1)(ii) by changing the
``yes'' in column 3 to a ``no.'' Section 63.6(e)(1)(ii) imposes
requirements that are not necessary with the elimination of the SSM
exemption or are redundant with the general duty requirement being
added at 40 CFR 63.3100(d).
SSM plan. We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table
to subpart IIII (Table 2) entry for 40 CFR 63.6(e)(3) by changing the
``yes'' in column 3 to a ``no.'' Generally, these paragraphs require
development of an SSM plan and specify SSM recordkeeping and reporting
requirements related to the SSM plan. We are also proposing to remove
from 40 CFR part 63, subpart IIII, the current provisions requiring the
SSM plan at 40 CFR 63.3100(f). As noted, the EPA is proposing to remove
the SSM exemptions. Therefore, affected units will be subject to an
emission standard during such events. The applicability of a standard
during such events will ensure that sources have ample incentive to
plan for and achieve compliance, and, thus, the SSM plan requirements
are no longer necessary.
Compliance with standards. We are proposing to revise the General
Provisions table to subpart IIII (Table 2) entry for 40 CFR 63.6(f)(1)
by changing the ``yes'' in column 3 to a ``no.'' The current language
of 40 CFR 63.6(f)(1) exempts sources from non-opacity standards during
periods of SSM. As discussed above, the Court in Sierra Club vacated
the exemptions contained in this provision and held that the CAA
requires that some CAA section 112 standards apply continuously.
Consistent with Sierra Club, the EPA is proposing to revise the
standards in this rule to apply at all times.
We are also proposing to remove rule text in 40 CFR 63.3161(j)
clarifying that, in calculating emissions to demonstrate compliance,
deviation periods must include deviations during an SSM period. Since
the EPA is removing the SSM exemption, this clarifying text is no
longer needed.
40 CFR 63.3163 Performance testing. We are proposing to revise the
General Provisions table to subpart IIII (Table 2) entry for 40 CFR
63.7(e)(1) by changing the ``yes'' in column 3 to a ``no.'' Section
63.7(e)(1) describes performance testing requirements. The EPA is
instead proposing to add a performance testing requirement at 40 CFR
63.3163 and 40 CFR 63.3164. The performance testing requirements we are
proposing to add differ from the General Provisions performance testing
provisions in several respects. The regulatory text does not include
the language in 40 CFR 63.7(e)(1) that restated the SSM exemption and
language that precluded startup and shutdown periods from being
considered ``representative'' for purposes of performance testing. The
proposed performance testing provisions in 40 CFR 63.3164 will also not
allow performance testing during startup or shutdown. As in 40 CFR
63.7(e)(1), performance tests conducted under this subpart should not
be conducted during malfunctions because conditions during malfunctions
are often not representative of normal operating conditions. Section
63.7(e) requires that the owner or operator maintain records of the
process information necessary to document operating conditions during
the test and include in such records an explanation to support that
such conditions represent normal operation. The EPA is proposing to add
language to 40 CFR 63.3164 clarifying that the owner or operator must
make such records available to the Administrator upon request.
Monitoring. We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table
to subpart IIII (Table 2) entry for 40 CFR 63.8(c)(1) by changing the
``yes'' in column 3 to a ``no.'' The cross-references to the general
duty and SSM plan requirements in 40 CFR 63.8(c)(1) are not necessary
in light of other requirements of 40 CFR 63.8 that require good air
pollution control practices (40 CFR 63.8(c)(1)) and that set out the
requirements of a quality control program for monitoring equipment (40
CFR 63.8(d)). Further, we have determined that 40 CFR 63.8(c)(1)(ii) is
redundant to the current monitoring requirement in 40 CFR 63.3168(a)(4)
(i.e., ``have available necessary parts for routine repairs of the
monitoring equipment,'' except 40 CFR 63.8(c)(1)(ii) specifies ``have
readily available.''). We are proposing to revise 40 CFR 63.3168(a)(4)
to specify ``readily available.''
40 CFR 63.3512 Recordkeeping. We are proposing to revise the
General Provisions table to subpart IIII (Table 2) entry for 40 CFR
63.10(b)(2)(i) by changing the ``yes'' in column 3 to a ``no.'' Section
63.10(b)(2)(i) describes the recordkeeping requirements during startup
and shutdown. These recording provisions are no longer necessary
because the EPA is proposing that recordkeeping and reporting
applicable to normal operations will apply to startup and shutdown. In
the absence of special provisions applicable to startup and shutdown,
such as a startup and shutdown plan, there is no reason to
[[Page 58962]]
retain additional recordkeeping for startup and shutdown periods.
We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table to subpart
IIII (Table 2) entry for 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(ii) by changing the ``yes''
in column 3 to a ``no.'' Section 63.10(b)(2)(ii) describes the
recordkeeping requirements during a malfunction, requiring a record of
``the occurrence and duration of each malfunction.'' A similar record
is already required in 40 CFR 63.3130(g), which requires a record of
``the date, time, and duration of each deviation,'' which the EPA is
retaining. The regulatory text in 40 CFR 63.3130(g) differs from the
General Provisions in that the General Provisions requires the creation
and retention of a record of the occurrence and duration of each
malfunction of process, air pollution control, and monitoring
equipment; whereas 40 CFR 63.3130(g) applies to any failure to meet an
applicable standard and is requiring that the source record the date,
time, and duration of the failure rather than the ``occurrence.'' For
this reason, the EPA is proposing to add to 40 CFR 63.3130(g) a
requirement that sources also keep records that include a list of the
affected source or equipment and actions taken to minimize emissions,
an estimate of the quantity of each regulated pollutant emitted over
the emission limit for which the source failed to meet the standard,
and a description of the method used to estimate the emissions.
Examples of such methods would include product-loss calculations, mass
balance calculations, measurements when available, or engineering
judgment based on known process parameters (e.g., coating HAP content
and application rates and control device efficiencies). The EPA is
proposing to require that sources keep records of this information to
ensure that there is adequate information to allow the EPA to determine
the severity of any failure to meet a standard, and to provide data
that may document how the source met the general duty to minimize
emissions when the source has failed to meet an applicable standard.
We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table to subpart
IIII (Table 2) entry for 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(iv)-(v) by changing the
``yes'' in column 3 to a ``no.'' When applicable, the provision
requires sources to record actions taken during SSM events when actions
were inconsistent with their SSM plan. The requirement in 40 CFR
63.10(b)(2)(iv) is no longer appropriate because SSM plans will no
longer be required. The requirement previously applicable under 40 CFR
63.10(b)(2)(iv)(B) to record actions to minimize emissions and record
corrective actions is now applicable by reference to 40 CFR
63.3130(g)(4). When applicable, the provision in 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(v)
requires sources to record actions taken during SSM events to show that
actions taken were consistent with their SSM plan. The requirement is
no longer appropriate because SSM plans will no longer be required.
We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table to subpart
IIII (Table 2) entry for 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(vi) by changing the ``yes''
in column 3 to a ``no.'' The provision requires sources to maintain
records during continuous monitoring system (CMS) malfunctions. Section
63.3130(g) covers records of periods of deviation from the standard,
including instances where a CMS is inoperative or out-of-control.
Additional recordkeeping requirements for continuous parameter
monitoring systems (CPMS) are also specified in 40 CFR 63.3168.
We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table to subpart
IIII (Table 2) entry for 40 CFR 63.10(c)(15) by changing the ``yes'' in
column 3 to a ``no.'' When applicable, the provision allows an owner or
operator to use the affected source's SSM plan or records kept to
satisfy the recordkeeping requirements of the SSM plan, specified in 40
CFR 63.6(e), to also satisfy the requirements of 40 CFR 63.10(c)(10)
through (12). The EPA is proposing to eliminate this requirement
because SSM plans would no longer be required, and, therefore, 40 CFR
63.10(c)(15) no longer serves any useful purpose for affected units.
We are proposing to remove the requirement in 40 CFR 63.3130(g)
that deviation records specify whether deviations from a standard
occurred during a period of SSM. This revision is being proposed due to
the proposed removal of the SSM exemption and because, as discussed
above in this section, we are proposing that deviation records must
specify the cause of each deviation, which could include a malfunction
period as a cause. We are also proposing to remove the requirement to
report the SSM records in 40 CFR 63.6(e)(3)(iii) through (v) by
deleting 40 CFR 63.3130(h).
40 CFR 63.3120 Reporting. We are proposing to revise the General
Provisions table to subpart IIII (Table 2) entry for 40 CFR 63.10(d)(5)
by changing the ``yes'' in column 3 to a ``no.'' Section 63.10(d)(5)
describes the reporting requirements for startups, shutdowns, and
malfunctions. To replace the General Provisions reporting requirement,
the EPA is proposing to add reporting requirements to 40 CFR
63.3120(a)(5) through (a)(9). The replacement language differs from the
General Provisions requirement in that it eliminates periodic SSM
reports as a stand-alone report. We are proposing language that
requires sources that fail to meet an applicable standard at any time
to report the information concerning such events in the semi-annual
compliance report already required under this rule. Subpart IIII of 40
CFR part 63 currently requires reporting of the date, time period, and
cause of each deviation. We are clarifying in the rule that, if the
cause of a deviation from the standard is unknown, this should be
specified in the report. We are also proposing to change ``date and
time period'' to ``date, time, and duration'' (see proposed revisions
to 40 CFR 63.3130(a)(6)(vii), (viii), and (xiii); 40 CFR
63.3130(a)(7)(i); 40 CFR 63.3130(a)(8)(v), (vi), and (vii); and 40 CFR
63.3130(a)(i)) to use terminology consistent with the recordkeeping
section. Further, we are proposing that the report must also contain
the number of deviations from the standard, and a list of the affected
source or equipment. For deviation reports addressing deviations from
an applicable emission limit in 40 CFR 63.3090, 63.3091, or 63.3092, or
an operating limit in Table 1 to 40 CFR part 63, subpart IIII, we are
proposing that the report also include an estimate of the quantity of
each regulated pollutant emitted over any emission limit for which the
source failed to meet the standard, and a description of the method
used to estimate the emissions. For deviation reports addressing
deviations from work practice standards (40 CFR 63.3120(a)(6)(xiii)),
we are retaining the current requirement (including reporting actions
taken to correct the deviation), except that we are revising the rule
language to reference the new general duty requirement in 40 CFR
63.3100(d), we are clarifying that the description of the deviation
must include a list of the affected sources or equipment and the cause
of the deviation, we are clarifying that ``time period'' includes the
``time and duration,'' and we are requiring that the report include the
number of deviations from the work practice standards in the reporting
period.
Regarding the proposed new requirement discussed above to estimate
the quantity of each regulated pollutant emitted over any emission
limit for which the source failed to meet the standard, and a
description of the method used to estimate the emissions, examples of
such methods would
[[Page 58963]]
include product-loss calculations, mass balance calculations,
measurements when available, or engineering judgment based on known
process parameters (e.g., coating HAP content and application rates and
control device efficiencies). The EPA is proposing this requirement to
ensure that there is adequate information to determine compliance, to
allow the EPA to determine the severity of the failure to meet an
applicable standard, and to provide data that may document how the
source met the general duty to minimize emissions during a failure to
meet an applicable standard.
We will no longer require owners or operators to determine whether
actions taken to correct a malfunction are consistent with an SSM plan,
because plans would no longer be required. The proposed amendments,
therefore, eliminate 40 CFR 63.3120(c) that requires reporting of
whether the source deviated from its SSM plan, including required
actions to communicate with the Administrator, and the cross-reference
to 40 CFR 63.10(d)(5)(ii) that contains the description of the
previously required SSM report format and submittal schedule from this
section. These specifications are no longer necessary because the
events will be reported in otherwise required reports with similar
format and submittal requirements.
Section 63.10(d)(5)(ii) describes an immediate report for startups,
shutdowns, and malfunctions when a source failed to meet an applicable
standard but did not follow the SSM plan. We will no longer require
owners and operators to report when actions taken during a startup,
shutdown, or malfunction were not consistent with an SSM plan, because
plans would no longer be required.
We are proposing to remove the requirements in 40 CFR
63.3120(a)(6)(viii) that deviation reports must specify whether
deviation from an operating limit occurred during a period of SSM. We
are also proposing to remove the requirements in 40 CFR
63.3120(a)(6)(x) to break down the total duration of deviations into
the startup and shutdown categories. As discussed above in this
section, we are proposing to require reporting of the cause of each
deviation. Further, the startup and shutdown categories no longer apply
because these periods are proposed to be considered normal operation,
as discussed in section IV.A.4.b.1 of this preamble.
c. Technical Amendments to the ALDT NESHAP
We propose to amend 40 CFR 63.3166(b) to add the option of
conducting EPA Method 18 of appendix A-6 to 40 CFR part 60,
``Measurement of Gaseous Organic Compound Emissions by Gas
Chromatography,'' to measure and then subtract methane emissions from
measured total gaseous organic mass emissions as carbon. Facilities
using add-on controls as a compliance option can use either EPA Method
25 or EPA Method 25A to measure control device destruction efficiency.
Unlike EPA Method 25, EPA Method 25A does not exclude methane from the
measurement of organic emissions. Because exhaust streams from coating
operations may contain methane from natural gas combustion, we are
proposing to allow facilities the option to measure methane using EPA
Method 18 and to subtract the methane from the emissions as part of
their compliance calculations.
We propose to revise the format of references to test methods in 40
CFR part 60. The current reference in 40 CFR 63.3166(a) and (b) to EPA
Methods 1, 1A, 2, 2A, 2C, 2D, 2F, 2G, 3, 3A, 3B, 4, 25, and 25A specify
that each method is in ``appendix A'' of part 60. Appendix A of 40 CFR
part 60 has been divided into appendices A-1 through A-8. We propose to
revise each reference to appendix A to indicate which of the eight
sections of appendix A applies to the method.
We propose to amend 40 CFR 63.3151(a)(1)(i) and (a)(4), and 40 CFR
63.3171(e)(3), which describe how to determine the mass fraction of
organic HAP in each material used, to remove references to Occupational
Safety and Health Administration (OSHA)-defined carcinogens as
specified in 29 CFR 1910.1200(d)(4). The reference to OSHA-defined
carcinogens as specified in 29 CFR 1910.1200(d)(4) is intended to
specify which compounds must be included in calculating total organic
HAP content of a coating material if they are present at 0.1-percent or
greater by mass. We are proposing to remove this reference because 29
CFR 1910.1200(d)(4) has been amended and no longer readily defines
which compounds are carcinogens. We are proposing to replace these
references to OSHA-defined carcinogens and 29 CFR 1910.1200(d)(4) with
a list (in proposed new Table 5 to 40 CFR part 63, subpart IIII) of
those organic HAP that must be included in calculating total organic
HAP content of a coating material if they are present at 0.1-percent or
greater by mass.
We propose to include organic HAP in proposed Table 5 to 40 CFR
part 63, subpart IIII if they were categorized in the EPA's Prioritized
Chronic Dose-Response Values for Screening Risk Assessments (dated May
9, 2014), as a ``human carcinogen,'' ``probable human carcinogen,'' or
``possible human carcinogen'' according to The Risk Assessment
Guidelines of 1986 (EPA/600/8-87/045, August 1987),\30\ or as
``carcinogenic to humans,'' ``likely to be carcinogenic to humans,'' or
with ``suggestive evidence of carcinogenic potential'' according to the
Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment (EPA/630/P-03/001F, March
2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\ See https://www.epa.gov/fera/dose-response-assessment-assessing-health-risks-associated-exposure-hazardous-air-pollutants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We propose to revise the monitoring provisions for thermal and
catalytic oxidizers to clarify that a thermocouple is part of the gas
temperature monitoring device referred to in 40 CFR 63.3168(c)(3).
We propose to add a new paragraph 40 CFR 63.3130(p) and to revise
40 CFR 63.3131(a) to allow that any records required to be maintained
by 40 CFR part 63, subpart IIII this part that are submitted
electronically via the EPA's CEDRI may be maintained in electronic
format. We also propose to add clarification that this ability to
maintain electronic copies does not affect the requirement for
facilities to make records, data, and reports available upon request to
a delegated air agency or the EPA as part of an on-site compliance
evaluation.
d. Ongoing Emissions Compliance Demonstrations Requirement
As part of an ongoing effort to improve compliance with various
federal air emission regulations, the EPA reviewed the compliance
demonstration requirements in the ALDT NESHAP. Currently, if a source
owner or operator chooses to comply with the standards using add-on
controls, the results of an initial performance test are used to
determine compliance; however, the rule does not require on-going
periodic performance testing for these emission capture systems and
add-on controls. We are proposing periodic testing of add-on control
devices, in addition to the one-time initial emissions and capture
efficiency testing and ongoing parametric monitoring to ensure ongoing
compliance with the standards.
Although ongoing monitoring of operating parameters is required by
the NESHAP, as the control device ages over time, the destruction
efficiency of
[[Page 58964]]
the control device can be compromised due to various factors. The EPA
published several documents that identify potential control device
operational problems that could decrease control device efficiency.\31\
These factors are discussed in more detail in the memorandum titled
Proposed Periodic Testing Requirement dated February 1, 2019, included
in the ALDT Docket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\31\ See Control Techniques for Volatile Organic Compound
Emissions from Stationary Sources, EPA/453/R-92-018, December 1992,
Control Technologies for Emissions from Stationary Sources, EPA/625/
6-91/014, June 1991, and Survey of Control for Low Concentration
Organic Vapor Gas Streams, EPA-456/R-95-003, May 1995. These
documents can be found in the Automobiles and Light-Duty Trucks,
Miscellaneous Metal Parts, and Plastic Parts and Products Dockets
for this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Institute of Clean Air Companies (ICAC), an industry trade
group currently representing 50 emission control device equipment
manufacturers, corroborated the fact that control equipment degrades
over time in their comments on proposed revisions to the NESHAP General
Provisions (72 FR 69, January 3, 2007). ICAC stated that ongoing
maintenance and checks of control devices are necessary in order to
ensure emissions control technology remains effective.\32\ ICAC
identified both thermal and catalytic oxidizers as effective add-on
control devices for VOC reduction and destruction. Thermal oxidizers,
in which ``. . . organic compounds are converted into carbon dioxide
and water . . .'' allow ``. . . for the destruction of VOCs and HAP up
to levels greater than 99-percent . . . '' once ``. . . [t]he oxidation
reaction . . .'' begins, typically ``. . . in the 1,450 degrees
Fahrenheit range.'' That temperature may need to be elevated, depending
on the organic compound to be destroyed. Along with that destruction,
``. . . extreme heat, the corrosive nature of chemical-laden air,
exposure to weather, and the wear and tear of non-stop use . . .''
affect thermal oxidizers such that ``. . . left unchecked, the
corrosive nature of the gases treated will create equipment downtime,
loss of operational efficiency, and eventually failure of the thermal
oxidizer.'' While catalytic oxidizers operate at lower operating
temperatures--typically 440 to 750 degrees Fahrenheit--than thermal
oxidizers, catalytic oxidizers also provide VOC reduction and
destruction. In general, the catalyst ``. . . needs to be checked
periodically to verify the activity of the catalyst . . .'' because
that ``. . . activity or overall ability of the catalyst to convert
target emissions to other by-products will naturally diminish over
time.'' ICAC also mentions chemical poisoning (deactivation of the
catalyst by certain compounds) or masking of the catalyst bed, which
may occur due to changes in manufacturing processes, as means of
catalyst degradation. Finally, ICAC identifies electrical and
mechanical component maintenance as important, for if such components
are not operating properly, ``. . . the combustion temperature in the .
. . oxidizer could drop below the required levels and hazardous air
pollutant (HAP) destruction may not be achieved . . .'' ICAC closes by
noting ``. . . it costs more money to operate an oxidizer at peak
performance, and if not maintained, performance will deteriorate
yielding less destruction of HAP.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\32\ See Docket Item No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2004-0094-0173, available at
https://www.regulations.gov. A copy of the ICAC's comments on the
proposed revisions to the General Provisions is also included in the
Automobiles and Light-Duty Trucks, Miscellaneous Metal Parts, and
Plastic Parts and Products Dockets for this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
State websites also provide on-line CAA violations and enforcement
actions which include performance issues associated with control
devices. A recent search resulted in identification of sources in Ohio
and Massachusetts that did not achieve compliance even though they
maintained the thermal oxidizer operating temperatures established
during previous performance tests, which further corroborates with the
ICAC comments and conclusions regarding control device degradation.
Based on the need for vigilance in maintaining equipment to stem
degradation, we are proposing periodic testing of add-on control
devices once every 5 years, in addition to the one-time initial
emissions and capture efficiency testing and ongoing temperature
measurement to ensure ongoing compliance with the standards.
In this action, we are proposing to require periodic performance
testing of add-on control devices on a regular frequency (e.g., every 5
years) to ensure the equipment continues to operate properly for
facilities using the emission rate with add-on controls compliance
option. We estimate that 18 ALDT surface coating existing sources are
already required to perform such testing every 5 years synchronized
with 40 CFR part 70 air operating permit renewals and for five
facilities this would be a new requirement. This proposed periodic
testing requirement includes an exception to the general requirement
for periodic testing for facilities using the catalytic oxidizer
control option at 40 CFR 63.3167(b) and following the catalyst
maintenance procedures in 40 CFR 63.3167(b)(6). This exception is due
to the catalyst maintenance procedures that already require annual
testing of the catalyst and other maintenance procedures that provide
ongoing demonstrations that the control system is operating properly
and may, thus, be considered comparable to conducting a performance
test.
The proposed periodic performance testing requirement allows an
exception from periodic testing for facilities using instruments to
continuously measure emissions. Such continuous emissions monitoring
systems (CEMS) would show actual emissions. The use of CEMS to
demonstrate compliance would obviate the need for periodic oxidizer
testing. Moreover, installation and operation of a CEMS with a
timesharing component, such that values from more than one oxidizer
exhaust could be tabulated in a recurring frequency, could prove less
expensive (estimated to have an annual cost below $15,000) than ongoing
oxidizer testing.
This proposed requirement does not require periodic testing or CEMS
monitoring of facilities using the compliant materials option or the
emission-rate without add-on controls compliance option because these
two compliance options do not use any add-on controls or control
efficiency measurements in the compliance calculations.
The proposed periodic performance testing requirement requires
facilities complying with the standards using emission capture systems
and add-on controls and which are not already on a 5-year testing
schedule conduct the first of the periodic performance tests within 3
years of the effective date of the revised standards. Afterward, they
would conduct periodic testing before they renew their operating
permits, but no longer than 5 years following the previous performance
test. Additionally, facilities that have already tested as a condition
of their permit within the last 2 years before the effective date would
be permitted to maintain their current 5-year schedule and not be
required to move up the date of the next test to the 3-year date
specified above. This proposed requirement would require periodic air
emissions testing to measure organic HAP destruction or removal
efficiency at the inlet and outlet of the add-on control device, or
measurement of the control device outlet concentration of organic HAP.
The emissions would be measured as total gaseous organic mass emissions
as carbon using either EPA Method 25 or 25A of appendix A-7 to 40 CFR
part 60, which are the methods currently
[[Page 58965]]
required for the initial compliance demonstration.
We estimate that the cost associated with this proposed
requirement, which includes a control device emissions destruction or
removal efficiency test using EPA Method 25 or 25A, would be
approximately $19,000 per control device. The cost estimate is included
in the memorandum titled Estimated Costs/Impacts 40 CFR Part 63
Subparts IIII, MMMM and PPPP Monitoring Review Revisions, in the ALDT
Docket. We have estimated that five facilities subject to the ALDT
NESHAP and using the add-on control option for compliance are not
currently required to conduct periodic testing as a condition of their
permit renewal. Periodic performance tests ensure that any control
systems used to comply with the NESHAP in the future would be properly
maintained over time, thereby reducing the potential for acute
emissions episodes and non-compliance.
e. IBR of Alternative Test Methods Under 1 CFR Part 51
The EPA is proposing new and updated test methods for the ALDT
NESHAP that include IBR. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5,
the EPA is proposing to incorporate by reference the following
voluntary consensus standards (VCS) into 40 CFR 63.14:
ASTM Method D1475-13, Standard Test Method for Density of
Liquid Coatings, Inks, and Related Products, proposed to be IBR
approved for 40 CFR 63.3151(b), 63.3941(b) and (c), 63.3951(c),
63.4551(c);
ASTM D2111-10 (2015), Standard Test Methods for Specific
Gravity of Halogenated Organic Solvents and Their Admixtures, proposed
to be IBR approved for 40 CFR 63.3951(c), 63.4551(c);
ASTM Method D2369-10 (2015), Test Method for Volatile
Content of Coatings, proposed to be IBR approved for 40 CFR
63.3151(a)(2), 63.3961(j), 63.4541(a), 63.4561(j);
ASTM Method D2697-03 (2014), Standard Test Method for
Volume Nonvolatile Matter in Clear or Pigmented Coatings, proposed to
be IBR approved for 40 CFR 63.3161(f)(1), 63.3941(b);
ASTM D5066-91 (Reapproved 2017), Standard Test Method for
Determination of the Transfer Efficiency Under Production Conditions
for Spray Application of Automotive Paints-Weight Basis, proposed to be
IBR approved for 40 CFR 63.3161(g);
ASTM Method D5965-02 (2013), Standard Test Methods for
Specific Gravity of Coating Powders, proposed to be ICR approved for 40
CFR 63.3151(b), 63.3951(c);
ASTM Method D6093-97 (2016), Standard Test Method for
Percent Volume Nonvolatile Matter in Clear or Pigmented Coatings Using
Helium Gas Pycnometer, proposed to be IBR approved for 40 CFR
63.3161(f)(1), 63.3941(b);
ASTM D6266-00a (Reapproved 2017), Test Method for Determining the
Amount of Volatile Organic Compound (VOC) Released from Waterborne
Automotive Coatings and Available for Removal in a VOC Control Device
(Abatement), proposed to be IBR approved for 40 CFR 63.3165(e); and
EPA-450/3-88-018, Protocol for Determining Daily Volatile Organic
Compound Emission Rate of Automobile and Light-Duty Truck Topcoat
Operations, proposed to be IBR approved for 40 CFR 63.3161(f),
63.3165(e).
Older versions of ASTM methods D2697, D5965, and D6093 were
incorporated by reference when the ALDT NESHAP was originally
promulgated (69 FR 22602, April 26, 2004). We are proposing to replace
the older versions of these methods and ASTM Method D1475 with updated
versions, which requires IBR revisions. The updated version of the
method replaces the older version in the same paragraph of the rule
text. We are also proposing the addition of ASTM Method D2369 to the
ALDT NESHAP for the first time by incorporating this method by
reference in this rulemaking. Refer to section VIII.J of this preamble
for further discussion of these VCS.
5. What compliance dates are we proposing?
The EPA is proposing that affected sources must comply with all of
the amendments, with the exception of the proposed electronic format
for submitting semiannual compliance reports, no later than 181 days
after the effective date of the final rule. All affected facilities
would have to continue to meet the current requirements of 40 CFR part
63, subpart IIII until the applicable compliance date of the amended
rule. The final action is not expected to be a ``major rule'' as
defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2), so the effective date of the final rule
will be the promulgation date as specified in CAA section 112(d)(10).
For existing sources, we are proposing one change that would impact
ongoing compliance requirements for 40 CFR part 63, subpart IIII. As
discussed elsewhere in this preamble, we are proposing to add a
requirement that notifications, performance test results, and
semiannual compliance reports be submitted electronically. We are
proposing that the semiannual compliance report be submitted
electronically using a new template, which is available for review and
comment as part of this action. We are also proposing to change the
requirements for SSM by removing the exemption from the requirements to
meet the standard during SSM periods and by removing the requirement to
develop and implement an SSM plan. Our experience with similar
industries that are required to convert reporting mechanisms to install
necessary hardware and software, become familiar with the process of
submitting performance test results electronically through the EPA's
CEDRI, test these new electronic submission capabilities, and reliably
employ electronic reporting shows that a time period of a minimum of 90
days, and, more typically, 180 days, is generally necessary to
successfully accomplish these revisions. Our experience with similar
industries further shows that this sort of regulated facility generally
requires a time period of 180 days to read and understand the amended
rule requirements; to evaluate their operations to ensure that they can
meet the standards during periods of startup and shutdown as defined in
the rule and make any necessary adjustments; and to update their
operation, maintenance, and monitoring plan to reflect the revised
requirements. The EPA recognizes the confusion that multiple different
compliance dates for individual requirements would create and the
additional burden such an assortment of dates would impose. From our
assessment of the time frame needed for compliance with the entirety of
the revised requirements, the EPA considers a period of 180 days to be
the most expeditious compliance period practicable and, thus, is
proposing that existing affected sources be in compliance with all of
this regulation's revised requirements within 181 days of the
regulation's effective date.
We solicit comment on these proposed compliance periods, and we
specifically request submission of information from sources in this
source category regarding specific actions that would need to be
undertaken to comply with the proposed amended requirements and the
time needed to make the adjustments for compliance with any of the
revised requirements. We note that information provided may result in
changes to the proposed compliance dates.
[[Page 58966]]
B. What are the analytical results and proposed decisions for the MMPP
source category?
1. What are the results of the risk assessment and analyses?
As described above in section III of this preamble, for the MMPP
source category, we conducted a risk assessment for all HAP emitted. We
present results of the risk assessment briefly below and in more detail
in the Miscellaneous Metal Parts and Products Risk Assessment Report in
the MMPP Docket (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0312).
a. Chronic Inhalation Risk Assessment Results
Table 4 below provides a summary of the results of the inhalation
risk assessment for the source category.
Table 4--Surface Coating of Miscellaneous Metal Parts and Products Source Category Inhalation Risk Assessment Results
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum individual Estimated population Estimated annual Maximum chronic Maximum screening
cancer risk (in 1 at increased risk of cancer incidence noncancer TOSHI \1\ acute noncancer HQ \2\
million) cancer >=1-in-1 (cases per year) -----------------------------------------------
------------------------ Million ------------------------
Risk assessment ------------------------ Based on Based on
Based on Based on Based on Based on Based on Based on actual allowable Based on actual
actual allowable actual allowable actual allowable emissions emissions emissions
emissions emissions emissions emissions emissions emissions
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source category................. 20 30 18,000 24,000 0.008 0.01 0.8 1 HQREL = 4
Whole facility.................. 100 .......... 370,000 .......... 0.04 .......... 1 .......... ......................
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The TOSHI is the sum of the chronic noncancer HQ for substances that affect the same target organ or organ system.
\2\ The maximum estimated acute exposure concentration was divided by available short-term threshold values to develop HQ values.
The results of the inhalation risk modeling using actual emissions
data, as shown in Table 4 above, indicate that the maximum individual
cancer risk based on actual emissions (lifetime) could be up to 20-in-1
million (driven by naphthalene and ethyl benzene from coating
operations), the maximum chronic noncancer TOSHI value based on actual
emissions could be up to 0.8 (driven by antimony from coating
operations), and the maximum screening acute noncancer HQ value (off-
facility site) could be up to 4 (driven by glycol ethers). The total
estimated annual cancer incidence (national) from these facilities
based on actual emission levels is 0.008 excess cancer cases per year
or 1 case in every 125 years.
b. Screening Level Acute Risk Assessment Results
Table 4 of this preamble also shows the acute risk results for the
MMPP source category. The screening analysis for acute impacts was
based on an industry-specific multiplier of 1.2, to estimate the peak
emission rates from the average emission rates. For more detailed acute
risk results refer to the Miscellaneous Metal Parts and Products Risk
Assessment Report, in the MMPP Docket.
c. Multipathway Risk Screening Results
The emissions data for the MMPP source category indicate that three
PB-HAP are emitted by sources within this source category: Arsenic,
cadmium, and lead. Of the 368 facilities in the source category, two
facilities reported emissions of carcinogenic PB-HAP (arsenic) and two
facilities reported emissions of non-carcinogenic PB-HAP (cadmium). The
PB-HAP emissions from these facilities did not exceed the Tier 1
multipathway screening value of 1 for cancer or noncancer.
In evaluating the potential for multipathway effects from emissions
of lead, we compared modeled annual lead concentrations to the NAAQS
for lead (0.15 [micro]g/m\3\, arithmetic mean concentration over a 3-
month period). The highest annual average lead concentration of 0.059
[micro]g/m\3\ is below the NAAQS level for lead, indicating a low
potential for multipathway impacts of concern due to lead even assuming
a shorter averaging period is analyzed.
d. Environmental Risk Screening Results
The emissions data for the MMPP source category indicate that four
environmental HAP are emitted by sources within this source category:
Arsenic, cadmium, lead and HCl. Therefore, we conducted a screening-
level evaluation of the potential adverse environmental effects
associated with emissions of arsenic, cadmium, lead, and HCl for the
MMPP source category. In the Tier 1 screening analysis for PB-HAP
(other than lead which was evaluated differently), arsenic and cadmium
had no exceedances of any of the ecological benchmarks evaluated.
In evaluating the potential for adverse environmental effects from
emissions of lead, we compared modeled annual lead concentrations to
the secondary NAAQS for lead (0.15 [micro]g/m\3\, arithmetic mean
concentration over a 3-month period). The highest annual average lead
concentration of 0.059 [micro]g/m\3\ is below the secondary NAAQS for
lead, indicating a low potential for adverse environmental impacts due
to lead even assuming a shorter averaging period is analyzed. For HCl,
each individual concentration (i.e., each off-site data point in the
modeling domain) was below the ecological benchmarks for all
facilities. Therefore, we do not expect an adverse environmental effect
as a result of HAP emissions from this source category.
e. Facility-Wide Risk Results
One hundred and one facilities have a facility-wide cancer MIR
greater than or equal to 1-in-1 million. The maximum facility-wide
cancer MIR is 100-in-1 million, driven by nickel emissions from
welding. The total estimated cancer incidence from the whole facility
is 0.01 excess cancer cases per year, or one excess case in every 100
years. Approximately 370,000 people were estimated to have cancer risks
above 1-in-1 million from exposure to HAP emitted from both MACT and
non-MACT sources of the 368 facilities in this source category. The
maximum facility-wide TOSHI for the source category is estimated to be
1, driven by emissions of cobalt from a gel coating operation.
f. What demographic groups might benefit from this regulation?
To examine the potential for any environmental justice issues that
might be associated with the source category, we performed a
demographic analysis, which is an assessment of risks to individual
demographic groups of the populations living within 5 km and within 50
km of the facilities. In the analysis, we evaluated the distribution of
HAP-related cancer and noncancer risks from the MMPP source category
across different demographic groups
[[Page 58967]]
within the populations living near facilities.
The results of the demographic analysis are summarized in Table 5
of this preamble. These results, for various demographic groups, are
based on the estimated risks from actual emissions levels for the
population living within 50 km of the facilities.
Table 5--Surface Coating of Miscellaneous Metal Parts and Products Source Category Demographic Risk Analysis
Results
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Population with
cancer risk at or Population with
above 1-in-1 chronic noncancer
Nationwide million due to HI above 1 due to
surface coating of surface coating of
miscellaneous metal miscellaneous metal
parts and products parts and products
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Population................................. 317,746,049 18,000 0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
White and Minority by Percent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
White............................................ 62 75 0
Minority......................................... 38 25 0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minority Detail by Percent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
African American................................. 12 12 0
Native American.................................. 0.8 0.6 0
Hispanic or Latino............................... 18 9 0
Other and Multiracial............................ 7 3 0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Income by Percent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Below the Poverty Level.......................... 14 20 0
Above the Poverty Level.......................... 86 80 0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Education by Percent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Over 25 Without High a School Diploma............ 14 18 0
Over 25 With a High School Diploma............... 86 82 0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Linguistically Isolated by Percent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Linguistically Isolated.......................... 6 3 0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The results of the MMPP source category demographic analysis
indicate that emissions from the source category expose approximately
18,000 people to a cancer risk at or above 1-in-1 million and no one is
exposed to a chronic noncancer HI greater than 1. The percentages of
the at-risk population in the following specific demographic groups are
higher than their respective nationwide percentages: ``White,'' ``Below
the Poverty Level,'' and ``Over 25 and without a high school diploma.''
The methodology and the results of the demographic analysis are
presented in a technical report, Risk and Technology Review--Analysis
of Demographic Factors for Populations Living Near Surface Coating of
Miscellaneous Metal Parts and Products Source Category, May 2019
(hereafter referred to as the Miscellaneous Metal Parts and Products
Demographic Analysis Report), available in the MMPP Docket.
2. What are our proposed decisions regarding risk acceptability, ample
margin of safety, and adverse environmental effects?
a. Risk Acceptability
As noted in section III.A of this preamble, we weigh all health
risk factors in our risk acceptability determination, including the
cancer MIR, the number of persons in various cancer and noncancer risk
ranges, cancer incidence, the maximum noncancer TOSHI, the maximum
acute noncancer HQ, the extent of noncancer risks, the distribution of
cancer and noncancer risks in the exposed population, and risk
estimation uncertainties (54 FR 38044, September 14, 1989).
For the MMPP source category, the risk analysis indicates that the
cancer risks to the individual most exposed could be up to 20-in-1
million due to actual emissions and up to 30-in-1 million due to
allowable emissions. These risks are considerably less than 100-in-1
million, which is the presumptive upper limit of acceptable risk. The
risk analysis also shows very low cancer incidence (0.008 cases per
year for actual emissions and 0.01 cases per year for allowable
emissions), and we did not identify potential for adverse chronic
noncancer health effects.
The acute screening analysis results in a maximum acute noncancer
HQ of 4 at one facility based on use of the acute REL for ethylene
glycol monomethyl ether as a surrogate for unspeciated glycol ethers.
Since there is not a specified acute dose-response value for
unspeciated glycol ethers, we applied the most protective dose-response
value from the other glycol ether compounds, the acute REL for ethylene
glycol monomethyl ether, to estimate risk. Given that ethylene glycol
monomethyl ether is more toxic than other glycol ethers, the use of
this surrogate is a health-protective choice in the EPA's risk
assessment.
For acute screening analyses, to better characterize the potential
health risks
[[Page 58968]]
associated with estimated worst-case acute exposures to HAP, we examine
a wider range of available acute health metrics than we do for our
chronic risk assessments. This is in acknowledgement that there are
generally more data gaps and uncertainties in acute reference values
than there are in chronic reference values. By definition, the acute
REL represents a health-protective level of exposure, with effects not
anticipated below those levels, even for repeated exposures; however,
the level of exposure that would cause health effects is not
specifically known. As the exposure concentration increases above the
acute REL, the potential for effects increases. Therefore, when an REL
is exceeded and an AEGL-1 or ERPG-1 level is available (i.e., levels at
which mild, reversible effects are anticipated in the general
population for a single exposure), we typically use them as an
additional comparative measure, as they provide an upper bound for
exposure levels above which exposed individuals could experience
effects. However, for glycol ethers, there are no AEGL or ERPG values.
Additional uncertainties in the acute exposure assessment that the
EPA conducts as part of the risk review under section 112 of the CAA
include several factors. The accuracy of an acute inhalation exposure
assessment depends on the simultaneous occurrence of independent
factors that may vary greatly, such as hourly emission rates,
meteorology, and the presence of a person. In the acute screening
assessment that we conduct under the RTR program, we include the
conservative (health-protective) assumptions that peak emissions from
each emission point in the source category and reasonable worst-case
air dispersion conditions (i.e., 99th percentile) co-occur. We then
include the additional assumption that a person is located at this
point at the same time. Together, these assumptions represent a
reasonable exposure. In most cases, it is unlikely that a person would
be located at the point of maximum exposure during the time when peak
emissions and reasonable worst-case air dispersion conditions occur
simultaneously. Thus, as discussed in the document titled Residual Risk
Assessment for the Surface Coating of Miscellaneous Metal Parts and
Products Source Category in Support of the Risk and Technology Review
2019 Proposed Rule, in the docket for this action, by assuming the co-
occurrence of independent factors for the acute screening assessment,
the results are intentionally biased high and are, thus, health-
protective. We conclude that adverse effects from acute exposure to
emissions of glycol ethers from this source category are not
anticipated.
Considering all of the health risk information and factors
discussed above, including the uncertainties discussed in section
III.C.7 of this preamble, we propose that the risks from the MMPP
source category are acceptable.
b. Ample Margin of Safety Analysis
Although we are proposing that the risks from the MMPP source
category are acceptable, risk estimates for approximately 18,000
individuals in the exposed population are above 1-in-1 million at the
actual emissions level and 24,000 individuals in the exposed population
are above 1-in-1 million at the allowable emissions level.
Consequently, we further considered whether the MACT standards for the
MMPP source category provide an ample margin of safety to protect
public health. In this ample margin of safety analysis, we investigated
available emissions control options that might reduce the risk from the
source category. We considered this information along with all of the
health risks and other health information considered in our
determination of risk acceptability.
As described in section III.B of this preamble, our technology
review focused on identifying developments in practices, processes, and
control technologies for the MMPP source category, and we reviewed
various information sources regarding emission sources that are
currently regulated by the MMPP NESHAP.
Based on our review (described in section IV.B.3 of this preamble),
we identified and evaluated the use of add-on control technologies for
the rubber-to-metal bonding and high- performance subcategories.
For the rubber-to-metal bonding subcategory, we evaluated the
option of lowering the existing source limit to an emission limit of 10
lb HAP/gallon (gal) solids. Two facilities may need to install thermal
oxidizers, if alternative low-HAP coatings or other compliance options
are not available. The thermal oxidizers would require a total capital
investment of $2 million (combined) for the two facilities, and total
annual costs of $410,000 (combined). Estimated emission reductions from
the two facilities would be 43 tpy of HAP, and the estimated cost
effectiveness would $9,500 per ton of HAP reduced.
For the high-performance subcategory, we evaluated lowering both
the existing and new source limits to the general use subcategory
existing source limit of 2.6 lb HAP/gal solids. One facility in the
high-performance coating subcategory may need to install a thermal
oxidizer if alternative low-HAP coatings or other compliance options
are not available. The cost of installing a thermal oxidizer at this
one facility would require a total capital investment of $2.3 million,
and total annual costs of $620,000. The estimated emission reduction at
this one facility would be 53 tpy of HAP, and the estimated cost
effectiveness would be $11,700 per ton of HAP reduced.
We have determined that the added costs and cost effectiveness for
these two coating subcategories ($9,500 per ton of HAP reduced for the
rubber-to-metal coating subcategory and $11,700 per ton for the high
performance subcategory) are not justified. We think these costs are
unreasonable particularly because the risks are already low, and the
risks would not be reduced in a meaningful manner by the control of
these subcategories. We are proposing that additional emissions
controls for this source category are not necessary to provide an ample
margin of safety.
c. Environmental Effects
The emissions data for the MMPP source category indicate that four
environmental HAP are emitted by sources within this source category:
Arsenic, cadmium, lead, and HCl. In the Tier 1 screening analysis for
PB-HAP (other than lead which was evaluated differently), arsenic and
cadmium had no exceedances of any of the ecological benchmarks
evaluated. For lead, we did not estimate any exceedances of the
secondary lead NAAQS. The screening-level evaluation of the potential
for adverse environmental effects associated with emissions of HCl from
the MMPP source category indicated that each individual concentration
(i.e., each off-site data point in the modeling domain) was below the
ecological benchmarks for all facilities. In addition, we are unaware
of any adverse environmental effects caused by HAP emitted by this
source category.
Therefore, we do not expect there to be an adverse environmental
effect as a result of HAP emissions from this source category and we
are proposing that it is not necessary to set a more stringent standard
to prevent, taking into consideration costs, energy, safety, and other
relevant factors, an adverse environmental effect.
[[Page 58969]]
3. What are the results and proposed decisions based on our technology
review?
As described in section III.B of this preamble, our technology
review focused on identifying developments in practices, processes, and
control technologies for the MMPP source category. The EPA reviewed
various information sources regarding emission sources that are
currently regulated by the MMPP NESHAP to support the technology
review. The information sources include the following: The RBLC;
publicly available state air permit databases and facility operating
permits compliance reports; regulatory actions, including technology
reviews promulgated for other surface coating NESHAP subsequent to the
promulgation of the MMPP NESHAP; state regulations; site visits; and
industry information.
Based on our review, we identified and evaluated the use of add-on
control technologies for two coating subcategories that had not been
previously considered during development of the MMPP NESHAP. This
analysis is described in detail in the following paragraphs. Aside from
this, we did not identify any new or improved process equipment, work
practices, or procedures that would further reduce emissions. For a
detailed discussion of the EPA's findings, refer to the Miscellaneous
Metal Parts and Products Technology Review Memo, in the MMPP Docket.
During the development of the 2004 MMPP NESHAP, numerical emission
limits were determined for new and existing major sources within five
coating subcategories for a total of 10 HAP emissions limits. The MACT
emission limits were based on different data sources, depending on the
coating subcategory. In the general use coating subcategory and the
high- performance coating subcategory, the MACT emission limits were
based on the most stringent state VOC limits and HAP-to-VOC ratios to
convert the VOC limits to HAP limits. For the general use coating
subcategory, the HAP-to-VOC ratio was developed from industry survey
data. For the high-performance coating subcategory, the HAP-to-VOC
ratio was developed from industry information. For rubber-to-metal
coating, the MACT emission limits were based on survey data on the HAP
content of the coatings. For magnet wire coating, the MACT emission
limits were based on survey data and also accounted for the fact that
magnet wire coating uses an oven to cure the coatings that is fueled by
coating solvent vapors, reducing overall emissions. For the EPFP
coating subcategory, the MACT emission limits were based on data
received in public comments on the proposed NESHAP.
With the exception of the emission limits for the magnet wire
coating subcategory, none of the emission limits for new or existing
sources in the other subcategories accounted for the use of add-on
controls, and the documentation of the MACT analysis did not identify
facilities that were using add-on controls.
The EPA investigated the use of emissions capture systems and add-
on controls but found that the costs would be prohibitive for the
incremental emissions reductions achieved. The EPA estimated that it
would be technically feasible for capture systems and add-on controls
could reduce emissions by at least 95 percent, but the cost for
facilities in this source category could be as much as $1 million. The
EPA concluded that without information on the benefits that would be
achieved by further reducing emissions beyond the floor, the additional
emissions reductions did not warrant the cost of add-on controls.\33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\33\ 67 FR 52792-52793, August 13, 2002.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A search of the RBLC database for the MMPP surface coating category
provided 42 entries representing 23 facilities with permit dates of
2000 or later. Entries in the RBLC documented facilities subject to VOC
content and HAP content limits. Emission control strategies identified
in the RBLC included using electrodeposition coatings, using high
efficiency and robotic spray guns, and using add-on controls, including
catalytic oxidizers, RTOs, and adsorbers. The RBLC review did not
identify any facilities subject to HAP limits more stringent than those
in 40 CFR part 63, subpart MMMM.
We reviewed other surface coating NESHAP promulgated subsequent to
the MMPP NESHAP to determine whether any requirements exceed the MMPP
MACT level of control or include technologies that were not considered
during the development of the original MMPP NESHAP. These NESHAP
include Paint Stripping and Miscellaneous Surface Coating Operations at
Area Sources (40 CFR part 63, subpart HHHHHH), and Nine Metal
Fabrication and Finishing Area Source Categories (40 CFR part 63,
subpart XXXXXX). We also reviewed the results of the technology reviews
for other surface coating NESHAP promulgated after the MMPP NESHAP.
These technology reviews include the NESHAP for Printing and Publishing
(40 CFR part 63, subpart KK), Shipbuilding and Ship Repair (40 CFR part
63, subpart II), Wood Furniture Manufacturing (40 CFR part 63, subpart
JJ), and Aerospace Manufacturing and Rework Facilities (40 CFR part 63,
subpart GG). The review of these more recently promulgated NESHAP and
the technology reviews of other NESHAP did not identify any control
technologies that were not already considered during the development of
40 CFR part 63, subpart MMMM, with the exception of some applications
of add-on controls, which are discussed in more detail below in this
section.
Using the EPA's NEI and the ECHO databases, we identified 368 major
source facilities that are currently subject to the MMPP NESHAP. The
EPA also collected operating permits for over 100 of these facilities.
Based on these permits, we identified a number of facilities that were
in the rubber-to-metal coating and high-performance coating
subcategories that were using add-on controls to reduce air emissions.
We identified six facilities in the high-performance coating
subcategory and four of these facilities use a thermal oxidizer to
reduce emissions. We identified 15 facilities in the rubber to metal
coating subcategory and nine of these use a thermal oxidizer to reduce
emissions. Based on these findings, we identified the use of a thermal
oxidizer as a potential development for these two subcategories because
the MACT emission limits were based on only the HAP content of the
coatings and not on the use of an add-on control, such as a thermal
oxidizer.
We further evaluated the add-on controls as a technology
development by collecting semi-annual compliance reports or inspection
reports for all six facilities in the high-performance subcategory and
the 15 facilities in the rubber to metal coating subcategory to confirm
that the facilities were subject to these subcategory emission limits
and to determine the actual emission rate these facilities were
achieving. For several facilities, we determined that the facilities
were using the add-on controls for complying with limits on VOC
emissions, but were not accounting for the add-on controls in
demonstrating compliance with the HAP limits in 40 CFR part 63, subpart
MMMM.
The current existing source emission limit for the rubber-to-metal
subcategory is 37.7 lb HAP/gal solids, and the new source limit is 6.8
lb HAP/gal solids. The EPA evaluated the option of lowering the
existing source limit to an emission limit of 10 lb HAP/gal solids. We
chose this level because several smaller facilities could meet this
limit without having to install controls, based
[[Page 58970]]
on their semi-annual compliance reports.
Eight of the 15 facilities in the rubber-to-metal subcategory have
emission rates below 10 lb HAP/gal solids through use of a thermal
oxidizer. One facility does not have a thermal oxidizer but can meet
the 10 lb HAP/gal solids limit through the emissions averaging between
the general use and rubber-to-metal subcategories allowed in 40 CFR
63.3890(c)(2) of the current NESHAP. Four rubber-to-metal facilities do
not have a thermal oxidizer but their current emission rate is less
than 10 lb/gal solids.
For the remaining two facilities, installing thermal oxidizers, if
alternative low-HAP coatings or other compliance options are not
available, would require a total capital investment of $2 million
(combined) for the two facilities, and total annual costs of $410,000
(combined). Estimated emission reductions from the two facilities would
be 43 tpy of HAP, and the estimated cost effectiveness would be $9,500
per ton of HAP reduced. The estimated emission reductions are based on
the reported HAP emissions for these two facilities in the NEI and
their semi-annual compliance reports and assumes a 95-percent emission
reduction from thermal oxidation. These costs and emission reductions
for the rubber-to-metal subcategory are documented in detail in the
Miscellaneous Metal Parts and Products Technology Review Memo, in the
MMPP Docket.
The current existing and new source emission limits for the high-
performance subcategory are both 27.5 lb HAP/gal solids. The EPA
evaluated the option of lowering both the existing and new source
limits to the general use subcategory existing source limit of 2.6 lb
HAP/gal solids. Five of the six facilities in the high-performance
subcategory could comply with the general use subcategory limit of 2.6
lb HAP/gal solids for their high-performance coatings operations.
One facility in the high-performance coating subcategory may need
to install a thermal oxidizer if alternative low-HAP coatings or other
compliance options are not available. The cost of installing a thermal
oxidizer at this one facility would require a total capital investment
of $2.3 million, and total annual costs of $620,000. The estimated
emission reduction this one facility would be 53 tpy of HAP, and the
estimated cost effectiveness would be $11,700 per ton of HAP reduced.
The estimated emission reduction is based on the reported HAP emissions
for this facility's semi-annual compliance report and assumes a 95-
percent emission reduction from thermal oxidation. These costs and
emission reductions for the high performance subcategory are documented
in detail in the Miscellaneous Metal Parts and Products Technology
Review Memo, in the MMPP Docket.
However, the EPA has determined that the added costs and cost
effectiveness for these two coating subcategories ($9,500 per ton of
HAP reduced for the rubber-to-metal coating subcategory and $11,700 per
ton for the high-performance subcategory) are not justified. Therefore,
we are proposing no revisions to the MMPP NESHAP pursuant to CAA
section 112(d)(6). For further discussion of the technology review
results, refer to the Miscellaneous Metal Parts and Products Technology
Review Memo, in the MMPP Docket.
4. What other actions are we proposing for the Surface Coating of MMPP
source category?
We are proposing to require electronic submittal of notifications
(initial and compliance status), semiannual reports, and performance
test reports for MMPP surface coating facilities. In addition, we are
proposing revisions to the SSM provisions of the MACT rule in order to
ensure that they are consistent with the Court decision in Sierra Club
v. EPA, 551 F. 3d 1019 (D.C. Cir. 2008), which vacated two provisions
that exempted sources from the requirement to comply with otherwise
applicable CAA section 112(d) emission standards during periods of SSM.
We are proposing to require periodic emissions testing of add-on
control devices. We also are proposing to add optional EPA Method 18,
to IBR an alternative test method, and to make various technical and
editorial changes. Our analyses and proposed changes related to these
issues are discussed in the sections below.
a. Electronic Reporting Requirements
The EPA is proposing that owners and operators of MMPP surface
coating facilities submit electronic copies of initial notifications
required in 40 CFR 63.9(b) and 63.3910(b), notifications of compliance
status required in 40 CFR 63.9(h) and 63.3910(c), performance test
reports required in 40 CFR 63.3920(b), and semiannual reports required
in 40 CFR 63.3920(a) through the EPA's CDX, using the CEDRI. A
description of the EPA's CDX and the EPA's proposed rationale and
details on the addition of these electronic reporting requirements for
the MMPP source category is the same as for the ALDT source category,
as discussed in section IV.A.4.a of this preamble. No specific form is
proposed at this time for the initial notifications required in 40 CFR
63.9(b) and notification of compliance status in 40 CFR 63.9(h). Until
the EPA has completed electronic forms for these notifications, the
notifications will be required to be submitted via CEDRI in PDF. After
development of the final forms, we will notify sources about their
availability via the CEDRI website and the CHIEF Listserv. For
semiannual reports required in 40 CFR 63.3920(a), the proposed rule
requires that owners or operators use the appropriate spreadsheet
template to submit information to CEDRI. A draft version of the
proposed template for this report is included in the docket for this
rulemaking.\34\ The EPA specifically requests comment on the content,
layout, and overall design of the template.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\34\ See Electronic Reporting Template for Surface Coating of
Miscellaneous Metal Parts and Products Subpart MMMM Semiannual
Reports, in docket ID NO. EPA-HQ-OAR-0312.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regarding submittal of performance test reports via the EPA's ERT,
as discussed in section IV.A.4.a of this preamble for the ALDT NESHAP,
the proposal to submit performance test data electronically to the EPA
applies only if the EPA has developed an electronic reporting form for
the test method as listed on the EPA's ERT website. For the MMPP
NESHAP, all of the EPA test methods listed under 40 CFR part 63,
subpart MMMM, are currently supported by the ERT, except for EPA Method
18 (an optional test method proposed in this action), which appears in
the proposed text for 40 CFR 63.3966. As mentioned above in section
IV.A.4.a of this preamble, the rule proposes that should an owner or
operator choose to use EPA Method 18, then its results would be
submitted in PDF using the attachment module of the ERT.
Also, as discussed in section IV.A.4.a of this preamble for the
ALDT NESHAP, we are proposing to provide facilities with the ability to
seek extensions for submitting electronic reports for circumstances
beyond the control of the facility. In proposed 40 CFR 63.3920(g), we
address the situation for facilities subject to the MMPP NESHAP where
an extension may be warranted due to outages of the EPA's CDX or CEDRI,
which may prevent access to the system and submittal of the required
reports. In proposed 40 CFR 63.3920(h), we address the situation for
facilities subject to the MMPP NESHAP where an extension may be
warranted due to a force majeure event, which is defined as an event
that will be or has been caused
[[Page 58971]]
by circumstances beyond the control of the affected facility, its
contractors, or any entity controlled by the affected facility that
prevents compliance with the requirement to submit a report
electronically as required by this rule. Examples of such events are
acts of nature, acts of war or terrorism, or equipment failure or
safety hazards beyond the control of the facility.
The electronic submittal of the reports addressed in this proposed
rulemaking will increase the usefulness of the data contained in those
reports, is in keeping with current trends in data availability and
transparency, will further assist in the protection of public health
and the environment, will improve compliance by facilitating the
ability of regulated facilities to demonstrate compliance with
requirements and by facilitating the ability of delegated state, local,
tribal, and territorial air agencies and the EPA to assess and
determine compliance, and will ultimately reduce burden on regulated
facilities, delegated air agencies, and the EPA. Electronic reporting
also eliminates paper-based, manual processes, thereby saving time and
resources, simplifying data entry, eliminating redundancies, minimizing
data reporting errors, and providing data quickly and accurately to the
affected facilities, air agencies, the EPA, and the public. Moreover,
electronic reporting is consistent with the EPA's plan to implement
Executive Order 13563 and is in keeping with the EPA's Agency-wide
policy developed in response to the White House's Digital Government
Strategy. For more information on the benefits of electronic reporting,
see the memorandum titled Electronic Reporting Requirements for New
Source Performance Standards (NSPS) and National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) Rules, available in Docket ID No.
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0312.
b. SSM Requirements
(1.) Proposed Elimination of the SSM Exemption
The EPA is proposing to eliminate the SSM exemption in the MMPP
NESHAP. The EPA's proposed rationale for the elimination of the SSM
exemption for the MMPP source category is the same as for the ALDT
source category, which is discussed in section IV.A.4.b.1 of this
preamble. We are also proposing several revisions to Table 2 to Subpart
MMMM of 40 CFR part 63 (Applicability of General Provisions to Subpart
MMMM of Part 63, hereafter referred to as the ``General Provisions
table to subpart MMMM'') as is explained in more detail below in
section IV.B.4.b.2 of this preamble. For example, we are proposing to
eliminate the incorporation of the General Provisions' requirement that
the source develop an SSM plan. We are also proposing to eliminate and
revise certain recordkeeping and reporting requirements related to the
SSM exemption as further described below. The EPA has attempted to
ensure that the provisions we are proposing to eliminate are
inappropriate, unnecessary, or redundant in the absence of the SSM
exemption. We are specifically seeking comment on the specific proposed
deletions and revisions and also whether additional provisions should
be revised to achieve the stated goal.
In proposing these rule amendments, the EPA has taken into account
startup and shutdown periods and, for the same reasons explained in
section IV.A.4.b.1 of this preamble for the ALDT source category, has
not proposed alternate standards for those periods in the MMPP NESHAP.
Startups and shutdowns are part of normal operations for the MMPP
source category. As currently specified in 40 CFR 63.3892(b), any
coating operation(s) for which you use the emission rate with add-on
controls option must meet the applicable operating limits in Table 1 to
40 CFR part 63, subpart MMMM ``at all times,'' except for solvent
recovery systems for which you conduct liquid-liquid material balances
according to 40 CFR 63.3961(j). (Solvent recovery systems for which you
conduct a liquid-liquid material balance require a monthly calculation
of the solvent recovery device's collection and recovery efficiency for
volatile organic matter.)
Also, as currently specified in 40 CFR 63.3900(a)(2), any coating
operation(s) for which you use the emission rate with add-on controls
option must be in compliance ``at all times'' with the applicable
emission limit in 40 CFR 63.3890. During startup and shutdown periods,
in order for a facility (using add-on controls to meet the standards)
to meet the emission and operating standards, the control device for a
coating operation needs to be turned on and operating at specified
levels before the facility begins coating operations, and the control
equipment needs to continue to be operated until after the facility
ceases coating operations. In some cases, the facility needs to run
thermal oxidizers on supplemental fuel before VOC levels are sufficient
for the combustion to be (nearly) self-sustaining. Note that we are
also proposing new related language in 40 CFR 63.3900(b) to require
that the owner or operator operate and maintain the coating operation,
including pollution control equipment, at all times to minimize
emissions. See section IV.A.4.b.2 of this preamble for further
discussion of this proposed revision.
Although no statutory language compels the EPA to set standards for
malfunctions, the EPA has the discretion to do so where feasible, as
discussed previously in section IV.A.4.b.1 of this preamble for the
ALDT source category.
It is unlikely that a malfunction would result in a violation of
the standards during MMPP surface coatings operations for facilities
using the compliant material option or the emission rate without add-on
controls option. Facilities using these options have demonstrated that
the organic HAP contents of the coating materials do not exceed the
emission limits in 40 CFR 63.3890(a) or (b), either on a coating-by-
coating basis or by using averaging among coatings.
A malfunction event is more likely for MMPP coating facilities that
use the emission rate with add-on controls option. For this option,
facilities must demonstrate that the average emission rate does not
exceed the emission limits in 40 CFR 63.3890(a) or (b), and the
facility is complying with the control device operating limits listed
in Table 1 to 40 CFR part 63, subpart MMMM of the MMPP NESHAP. The
operating limits are specific to the type of control device and
established by the facility during its initial performance test.
In the unlikely event that a source fails to comply with the
applicable CAA section 112(d) standards as a result of a malfunction
event, the EPA would determine an appropriate response based on, among
other things, the good faith efforts of the source to minimize
emissions during malfunction periods, including preventative and
corrective actions, as well as root cause analyses to ascertain and
rectify excess emissions. Refer to section IV.A.4.b.1 of this preamble
for further discussion of the EPA's actions in response to a source
failing to comply with the applicable CAA section 112(d) standards as a
result of a malfunction event for the ALDT source category, which
applies to this source category.
(2.) Proposed Revisions to the General Provisions Applicability Table
40 CFR 63.3900(b) General duty. We are proposing to revise the
General Provisions table to subpart MMMM (Table 2) entry for 40 CFR
63.6(e)(1)(i) by changing the ``yes'' in column 3 to a ``no.'' Section
63.6(e)(1)(i) describes the general duty to minimize emissions. Some of
the language in that section is
[[Page 58972]]
no longer necessary or appropriate in light of the elimination of the
SSM exemption. We are proposing instead to add general duty regulatory
text at 40 CFR 63.3900(b) that reflects the general duty to minimize
emissions while eliminating the reference to periods covered by an SSM
exemption. The current language in 40 CFR 63.6(e)(1)(i) characterizes
what the general duty entails during periods of SSM. With the
elimination of the SSM exemption, there is no need to differentiate
between normal operations, startup and shutdown, and malfunction events
in describing the general duty. Therefore, the language the EPA is
proposing for 40 CFR 63.3900(b) does not include that language from 40
CFR 63.6(e)(1).
We are also proposing to revise the General Provisions table to
subpart MMMM (Table 2) entry for 40 CFR 63.6(e)(1)(ii) by changing the
``yes'' in column 3 to a ``no.'' Section 63.6(e)(1)(ii) imposes
requirements that are not necessary with the elimination of the SSM
exemption or are redundant with the general duty requirement being
added at 40 CFR 63.3900(b).
SSM plan. We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table
to subpart MMMM (Table 2) entry for 40 CFR 63.6(e)(3) by changing the
``yes'' in column 3 to a ``no.'' Generally, these paragraphs require
development of an SSM plan and specify SSM recordkeeping and reporting
requirements related to the SSM plan. We are also proposing to remove
from 40 CFR part 63, subpart SSSS, the current provisions requiring the
SSM plan in 40 CFR 63.5180(f) and requiring reporting related to the
SSM plan in 40 CFR 63.5180(f)(1). As noted, the EPA is proposing to
remove the SSM exemptions. Therefore, affected units will be subject to
an emission standard during such events. The applicability of a
standard during such events will ensure that sources have ample
incentive to plan for and achieve compliance, and, thus, the SSM plan
requirements are no longer necessary.
Compliance with standards. We are proposing to revise the General
Provisions table to subpart MMMM (Table 2) entry for 40 CFR 63.6(f)(1)
by changing the ``yes'' in column 3 to a ``no.'' The current language
of 40 CFR 63.6(f)(1) exempts sources from non-opacity standards during
periods of SSM. As discussed above, the Court in Sierra Club vacated
the exemptions contained in this provision and held that the CAA
requires that some CAA section 112 standards apply continuously.
Consistent with Sierra Club, the EPA is proposing to revise standards
in this rule to apply at all times.
40 CFR 63.3964 Performance testing. We are proposing to revise the
General Provisions table to subpart MMMM (Table 2) entry for 40 CFR
63.7(e)(1) by changing the ``yes'' in column 3 to a ``no.'' Section
63.7(e)(1) describes performance testing requirements. The EPA is
instead proposing to add a performance testing requirement at 40 CFR
63.3964(a)(1). The performance testing requirements we are proposing to
add differ from the General Provisions performance testing provisions
in several respects. The regulatory text does not include the language
in 40 CFR 63.7(e)(1) that restated the SSM exemption and language that
precluded startup and shutdown periods from being considered
``representative'' for purposes of performance testing. Also, the
proposed performance testing provisions will not allow performance
testing during startup or shutdown. As in 40 CFR 63.7(e)(1),
performance tests conducted under this subpart should not be conducted
during malfunctions because conditions during malfunctions are often
not representative of normal operating conditions. Section 63.7(e)
requires that the owner or operator maintain records of the process
information necessary to document operating conditions during the test
and include in such records an explanation to support that such
conditions represent normal operation. The EPA is proposing to add
language to 40 CFR 63.3964(a)(1) clarifying that the owner or operator
must make such records available to the Administrator upon request.
Monitoring. We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table
to subpart MMMM (Table 2) entry for 40 CFR 63.8(c)(1) by changing the
``yes'' in column 3 to a ``no.'' The cross-references to the general
duty and SSM plan requirements in those subparagraphs are not necessary
in light of other requirements of 40 CFR 63.8 that require good air
pollution control practices (40 CFR 63.8(c)(1)) and that set out the
requirements of a quality control program for monitoring equipment (40
CFR 63.8(d)). Further, we are proposing to revise 40 CFR 63.3968(a) to
add a requirement to maintain the monitoring equipment at all times in
accordance with 40 CFR 63.3900(b) and keep the necessary parts readily
available for routine repairs of the monitoring equipment, consistent
with the requirements in 40 CFR 63.8(c)(1)(ii). The reference to 40 CFR
63.8(c)(1)(ii) is no longer needed since it is redundant to the
requirement in 40 CFR 63.3968(a).
We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table to subpart
MMMM (Table 2) entry for 40 CFR 63.8(c)(6) by changing the ``yes'' in
column 3 to a ``no.'' The reference to 40 CFR 63.8(c)(6) is no longer
needed since it is redundant to the requirement in 40 CFR 63.5170 that
specifies the requirements for monitoring systems for capture systems
and add-on control devices at sources using these to comply.
We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table to subpart
MMMM (Table 2) entry for 40 CFR 63.8(c)(8) by changing the ``yes'' in
column 3 to a ``no.'' The reference to 40 CFR 63.8(c)(8) is no longer
needed since it is redundant to the requirements in 40 CFR 63.3920(a)
that requires reporting of CPMS out-of-control periods.
We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table to subpart
MMMM (Table 2) entry for 40 CFR 63.8(d)-(e) by changing the ``yes'' in
column 3 to a ``no.'' The requirements for quality control program and
performance evaluation of CMS are not required under 40 CFR part 63,
subpart MMMM.
We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table to subpart
MMMM (Table 2) entry for 40 CFR 63.8(g) by changing the ``yes'' in
column 3 to a ``no.'' The reference to 40 CFR 63.8(g) is no longer
needed since it is redundant to the requirement in 40 CFR 63.3967 and
63.3968 that specify monitoring data reduction.
40 CFR 63.5190 Recordkeeping. We are proposing to revise the
General Provisions table to subpart MMMM (Table 2) entry for 40 CFR
63.10(b)(2)(i) by changing the ``yes'' in column 3 to a ``no.'' Section
63.10(b)(2)(i) describes the recordkeeping requirements during startup
and shutdown. These recording provisions are no longer necessary
because the EPA is proposing that recordkeeping and reporting
applicable to normal operations will apply to startup and shutdown. In
the absence of special provisions applicable to startup and shutdown,
such as a startup and shutdown plan, there is no reason to retain
additional recordkeeping for startup and shutdown periods.
We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table to subpart
MMMM (Table 2) entry for 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(ii) by changing the ``yes''
in column 3 to a ``no.'' Section 63.10(b)(2)(ii) describes the
recordkeeping requirements during a malfunction, requiring a record of
``the occurrence and duration of each malfunction.'' A similar record
is already required in 40 CFR 63.3930(j), which requires a record of
``the date,
[[Page 58973]]
time, and duration of each deviation,'' which the EPA is retaining. The
regulatory text in 40 CFR 63.3930(j) differs from the General
Provisions in that the General Provisions requires the creation and
retention of a record of the occurrence and duration of each
malfunction of process, air pollution control, and monitoring
equipment; whereas 40 CFR 63.3930(j) applies to any failure to meet an
applicable standard and is requiring that the source record the date,
time, and duration of the failure rather than the ``occurrence.'' The
EPA is also proposing to add to 40 CFR 63.3930(j) a requirement that
sources also keep records that include a list of the affected source or
equipment and actions taken to minimize emissions, an estimate of the
quantity of each regulated pollutant emitted over the emission limit
for which the source failed to meet the standard, and a description of
the method used to estimate the emissions. Examples of such methods
would include product-loss calculations, mass balance calculations,
measurements when available, or engineering judgment based on known
process parameters (e.g., coating HAP content and application rates and
control device efficiencies). The EPA proposes to require that sources
keep records of this information to ensure that there is adequate
information to allow the EPA to determine the severity of any failure
to meet a standard, and to provide data that may document how the
source met the general duty to minimize emissions when the source has
failed to meet an applicable standard.
We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table to subpart
MMMM (Table 2) entry for 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(iv) by changing the ``yes''
in column 3 to a ``no.'' When applicable, the provision requires
sources to record actions taken during SSM events when actions were
inconsistent with their SSM plan. The requirement is no longer
appropriate because SSM plans will no longer be required. The
requirement previously applicable under 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(iv)(B) to
record actions to minimize emissions and record corrective actions is
now applicable by reference to 40 CFR 63.3930(j)(4).
We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table to subpart
MMMM (Table 2) entry for 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(v) by changing the ``yes''
in column 3 to a ``no.'' When applicable, the provision requires
sources to record actions taken during SSM events to show that actions
taken were consistent with their SSM plan. The requirement is no longer
appropriate because SSM plans will no longer be required.
We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table to subpart
MMMM (Table 2) entry for 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(x)-(xiii) by changing the
``yes'' in column 3 to a ``no.'' When applicable, the provision
requires sources to record actions taken during SSM events to show that
actions taken were consistent with their SSM plan. The requirement is
no longer appropriate because SSM plans will no longer be required.
40 CFR 63.3920 Reporting. We are proposing to revise the General
Provisions table to subpart MMMM (Table 2) entry for 40 CFR 63.10(d)(5)
by changing the ``yes'' in column 3 to a ``no.'' Section 63.10(d)(5)
describes the reporting requirements for startups, shutdowns, and
malfunctions. To replace the General Provisions reporting requirement,
the EPA is proposing to add reporting requirements to 40 CFR
63.3920(a). The replacement language differs from the General
Provisions requirement in that it eliminates periodic SSM reports as a
stand-alone report. We are proposing language that requires sources
that fail to meet an applicable standard at any time to report the
information concerning such events in the semi-annual compliance report
already required under this rule. Subpart MMMM of 40 CFR part 63
currently requires reporting of the date, time period, and cause of
each deviation. We are clarifying in the rule that, if the cause of a
deviation from a standard is unknown, this should be specified in the
report. We are also proposing to change ``date and time period'' or
``date and time'' to ``date, time, and duration'' (see proposed
revisions to 40 CFR 63.3920(a)(7)). Further, we are proposing that the
report must also contain the number of deviations from the standard and
a list of the affected sources or equipment. For deviation reports
addressing deviations from an applicable emission limit in 40 CFR
63.3890 or operating limit in Table 1 to 40 CFR part 63, subpart MMMM,
we are proposing that the report also include an estimate of the
quantity of each regulated pollutant emitted over any emission limit
for which the source failed to meet the standard, and a description of
the method used to estimate the emissions.
(3.) Other SSM Changes
Regarding the proposed new requirement discussed above to estimate
the quantity of each regulated pollutant emitted over any emission
limit for which the source failed to meet the standard, and a
description of the method used to estimate the emissions, examples of
such methods would include product-loss calculations, mass balance
calculations, measurements when available, or engineering judgment
based on known process parameters (e.g., coating HAP content and
application rates and control device efficiencies). The EPA is
proposing this requirement to ensure that there is adequate information
to determine compliance, to allow the EPA to determine the severity of
the failure to meet an applicable standard, and to provide data that
may document how the source met the general duty to minimize emissions
during a failure to meet an applicable standard.
We will no longer require owners or operators to determine whether
actions taken to correct a malfunction are consistent with an SSM plan,
because plans would no longer be required. The proposed amendments,
therefore, eliminate 40 CFR 63.3920(c) that requires reporting of
whether the source deviated from its SSM plan, including required
actions to communicate with the Administrator, and the cross-reference
to 40 CFR 63.10(d)(5) that contains the description of the previously
required SSM report format and submittal schedule from this section.
These specifications are no longer necessary because the events will be
reported in otherwise required reports with similar format and
submittal requirements.
We are proposing to remove the requirements in 40 CFR 63.3920(a)(7)
that deviation reports must specify whether a deviation from an
operating limit occurred during a period of SSM. We are also proposing
to remove the requirements in 40 CFR 63. 3920(a)(7) to break down the
total duration of deviations into the startup and shutdown categories.
As discussed above in this section, we are proposing to require
reporting of the cause of each deviation. Further, the startup and
shutdown categories no longer apply because these periods are proposed
to be considered normal operation, as discussed in section IV.A.4.b.1
of this preamble for the ALDT source category, which also applies to
this source category.
c. Technical Amendments to the MMPP NESHAP
We propose to amend 40 CFR 63.3966(b) to add the option of
conducting EPA Method 18 of appendix A to 40 CFR part 60, ``Measurement
of Gaseous Organic Compound Emissions by Gas Chromatography,'' to
measure and then subtract methane emissions from measured total gaseous
organic mass emissions as carbon. Facilities using the emission rate
with add-on
[[Page 58974]]
control compliance option can use either EPA Method 25 or EPA Method
25A to measure control device destruction efficiency. Unlike EPA Method
25, Method 25A does not exclude methane from the measurement of organic
emissions. Because exhaust streams from coating operations may contain
methane from natural gas combustion, we are proposing to allow
facilities the option to measure methane using EPA Method 18 and to
subtract the methane from the emissions as part of their compliance
calculations. We also propose to revise the format of references to
test methods in 40 CFR part 60. The current references in 40 CFR
63.5160(d)(1) to EPA Methods 1, 1A, 2, 2A, 2C, 2D, 2F, 2G, 3, 3A, 3B,
4, 25, and 25A specify that each method is in ``appendix A'' of 40 CFR
part 60. Appendix A of 40 CFR part 60 has been divided into appendices
A-1 through A-8. We propose to revise each reference to appendix A to
indicate which of the eight sections of appendix A applies to the
method.
We propose to amend 40 CFR 63.3941(a)(1)(i) and (a)(4), which
describe how to demonstrate compliance with the emission limitations
using the compliant material option, and the definition of ``non-HAP
coating'' in 40 CFR 63.3981 to remove references to OSHA-defined
carcinogens as specified in 29 CFR 1910.1200(d)(4). The reference to
OSHA-defined carcinogens as specified in 29 CFR 1910.1200(d)(4) is
intended to specify which compounds must be included in calculating
total organic HAP content of a coating material if they are present at
0.1percent or greater by mass. We propose to remove this reference
because 29 CFR 1910.1200(d)(4) has been amended and no longer readily
defines which compounds are carcinogens. We propose to replace these
references to OSHA-defined carcinogens at 29 CFR 1910.1200(d)(4) with a
list (in proposed new Table 5 to 40 CFR part 63, subpart MMMM) of those
organic HAP that must be included in calculating total organic HAP
content of a coating material if they are present at 0.1-percent or
greater by mass.
We propose to include organic HAP in proposed Table 5 to 40 CFR
part 63, subpart MMMM if they were categorized in the EPA's Prioritized
Chronic Dose-Response Values for Screening Risk Assessments (dated May
9, 2014), as a ``human carcinogen,'' ``probable human carcinogen,'' or
``possible human carcinogen'' according to The Risk Assessment
Guidelines of 1986 (EPA/600/8-87/045, August 1987),\35\ or as
``carcinogenic to humans,'' ``likely to be carcinogenic to humans,'' or
with ``suggestive evidence of carcinogenic potential'' according to the
Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment (EPA/630/P-03/001F, March
2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\35\ See https://www.epa.gov/fera/dose-response-assessment-assessing-health-risks-associated-exposure-hazardous-air-pollutants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Current 40 CFR 63.3931 specifies how records must be maintained. We
propose to add clarification to this provision at 40 CFR 63.3931(a)
that specifies the allowance to retain electronic records applies to
all records that were submitted as reports electronically via the EPA's
CEDRI. We also propose to add text to the same provision clarifying
that this ability to maintain electronic copies does not affect the
requirement for facilities to make records, data, and reports available
upon request to a delegated air agency or the EPA as part of an on-site
compliance evaluation.
d. Ongoing Emissions Compliance Demonstrations
As part of an ongoing effort to improve compliance with various
federal air emission regulations, the EPA reviewed the compliance
demonstration requirements in the MMPP NESHAP. Currently, if a source
owner or operator chooses to comply with the standards using add-on
controls, the results of an initial performance test are used to
determine compliance; however, the rule does not require on-going
periodic performance testing for these emission capture systems and
add-on controls. In this action, we are proposing to require periodic
testing of add-on control devices, in addition to the one-time initial
emissions and capture efficiency testing, and ongoing temperature
measurement, to ensure ongoing compliance with the standards.
As described more fully in section IV.A.4.d of this preamble for
the ALDT source category, the EPA documented potential operational
problems associated with control devices in several publications; \36\
the ICAC, in their comments on a separate rulemaking on the proposed
revisions related to the NESHAP General Provisions (72 FR 69, January
3, 2007), commented that ongoing maintenance and checks of control
devices are necessary in order to ensure emissions control technology,
including both thermal and catalytic oxidizers, remains effective; \37\
and state websites list CAA enforcement information that further
corroborates the potential problems identified by the EPA and ICAC
comments and conclusions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\36\ See Control Techniques for Volatile Organic Compound
Emissions from Stationary Sources, EPA/453/R-92-018, December 1992,
Control Technologies for Emissions from Stationary Sources, EPA/625/
6-91/014, June 1991, and Survey of Control for Low Concentration
Organic Vapor Gas Streams, EPA-456/R-95-003, May 1995. These
documents can be found in the ALDT, MMPP, and PPP Dockets for this
action.
\37\ See Docket Item No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2004-0094-0173, available at
https://www.regulations.gov/. A copy of the ICAC's comments on the
proposed revisions to the General Provisions is also included in the
ALDT, MMPP, and PPP Dockets for this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Given the need for vigilance in maintaining equipment to stem
degradation, the EPA is proposing to require periodic testing of add-on
control devices, in addition to the one-time initial emissions and
capture efficiency testing and ongoing temperature measurement, to
ensure ongoing compliance with the MMPP NESHAP.
In this action, the EPA is proposing to require periodic
performance testing of add-on control devices on a regular frequency
(e.g., every 5 years) to ensure the equipment continues to operate
properly for facilities using the emission rate with add-on controls
compliance option. We note that the majority of state operating permits
for existing MMPP surface coating sources already require such testing
every 5 years synchronized with 40 CFR part 70 air operating permit
renewals. This proposed periodic testing requirement includes an
exception to the general requirement for periodic testing for
facilities using the catalytic oxidizer control option at 40 CFR
63.3967(b) and following the catalyst maintenance procedures in 40 CFR
63.3967(b)(4). This exception is due to the catalyst maintenance
procedures that already require annual testing of the catalyst and
other maintenance procedures that provide ongoing demonstrations that
the control system is operating properly and may, thus, be considered
comparable to conducting a performance test.
The proposed periodic performance testing requirement allows an
exception from periodic testing for facilities using instruments to
continuously measure emissions. Such CEMS would show actual emissions.
The use of CEMS to demonstrate compliance would obviate the need for
periodic oxidizer testing. Moreover, installation and operation of a
CEMS with a timesharing component, such that values from more than one
oxidizer exhaust could be tabulated in a recurring frequency, could
prove less expensive (estimated to have an annual cost below $15,000)
than ongoing oxidizer testing.
[[Page 58975]]
This proposed requirement would not require periodic testing or
CEMS monitoring of facilities using the ``as purchased'' or ``as
applied'' compliant coatings options because these compliance options
do not use any add-on controls or control efficiency measurements in
the compliance calculations.
The proposed periodic performance testing requirement would require
that facilities complying with the standards using emission capture
systems and add-on controls and which are not already on a 5-year
testing schedule to conduct the first of the periodic performance tests
within 3 years of the effective date of the revised standards.
Afterward, they would conduct the periodic testing before they renew
their operating permits, but no longer than 5 years following the
previous performance test. Additionally, facilities that have already
tested as a condition of their permit within the last 2 years before
the effective date would be permitted to maintain their current 5-year
schedule and not be required to move up the date of the next test to
the 3-year date specified above. This proposed requirement would
require periodic air emissions testing to measure organic HAP
destruction or removal efficiency at the inlet and outlet of the add-on
control device, or measurement of the control device outlet
concentration of organic HAP. The emissions would be measured as total
gaseous organic mass emissions as carbon using either EPA Method 25 or
25A of appendix A-7 to 40 CFR part 60, which are the methods currently
required for the initial compliance demonstration.
We estimate that the cost to perform a control device emissions
destruction or removal efficiency test using EPA Method 25 or 25A would
be approximately $19,000 per control device. The cost estimate is
included in the memorandum titled Draft Costs/Impacts of the 40 CFR
part 63 Subparts IIII, MMMM, and PPPP Monitoring Review Revisions, in
the MMPP Docket. We have reviewed the operating permits for facilities
subject to the several other surface coating NESHAP, and we found that
affected sources currently using emission capture systems and add-on
controls are often, but not always, required to conduct periodic
control device performance tests as a condition of their 40 CFR part 70
operating permits. We estimate that seven MMPP surface coating
facilities currently are not required to conduct periodic testing of
their control devices as a condition of their permit renewal. Periodic
performance tests ensure that all control systems used to comply with
the NESHAP would be properly maintained over time, thereby reducing the
potential for acute emissions episodes and non-compliance.
We are requesting comment on adding periodic testing of add-on
control devices to the MMPP NESHAP and on the suggested 5-year schedule
for the periodic testing.
e. IBR of Alternative Test Methods Under 1 CFR Part 51
The EPA is proposing new and updated test methods for the MMPP
NESHAP that include IBR. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5,
the EPA is proposing to add the following optional EPA methods and
incorporate by reference the VCS described in the amendments to 40 CFR
63.14:
EPA Method 18 of appendix A to 40 CFR part 60, Measurement
of Gaseous Organic Compound Emissions by Gas Chromatography, proposed
to be IBR approved for 40 CFR 63.3966(b)(4);
ASTM Method D1475-13, Standard Test Method for Density of
Liquid Coatings, Inks, and Related Products, proposed to be IBR
approved for 40 CFR 63.3941(b)(4), 63.3941(c), and 63.3951(c);
ASTM Method D2111-10 (2015), Standard Test Methods for
Specific Gravity of Halogenated Organic Solvents and Their Admixtures,
proposed to be IBR approved for 40 CFR 63.3951(c);
ASTM Method D2369-10 (2015), Test Method for Volatile
Content of Coatings, proposed to be IBR approved for 40 CFR
63.3961(j)(3);
ASTM Method D2697-03 (2014), Standard Test Method for
Volume Nonvolatile Matter in Clear or Pigmented Coatings, proposed to
be IBR approved for 40 CFR 63.3941(b)(1);
ASTM Method D5965-02 (2013), Standard Test Methods for
Specific Gravity of Coating Powders, proposed to be IBR approved for 40
CFR 3951(c); and
ASTM Method D6093-97 (2016), Standard Test Method for
Percent Volume Nonvolatile Matter in Clear or Pigmented Coatings Using
Helium Gas Pycnometer, proposed to be IBR approved for 40 CFR
63.3941(b)(1).
Older versions of ASTM methods D1475, D2697, D5965, and D6093 were
incorporated by reference when the MMPP NESHAP was originally
promulgated (69 FR 130, January 2, 2004). We are proposing to replace
the older versions of these methods with updated versions, which
requires IBR revisions. The updated version of the method replaces the
older version in the same paragraph of the rule text. We are also
proposing the addition of EPA Method 18 and incorporating by reference
ASTM methods D2111 and D2369 to the MMPP NESHAP for the first time in
this rulemaking. Refer to section VIII.J of this preamble for further
discussion of these VCS.
5. What compliance dates are we proposing?
The EPA is proposing that affected sources must comply with all of
the amendments, with the exception of the proposed electronic format
for submitting semiannual compliance reports, no later than 181 days
after the effective date of the final rule. All affected facilities
would have to continue to meet the current requirements of 40 CFR part
63, subpart MMMM until the applicable compliance date of the amended
rule. The final action is not expected to be a ``major rule'' as
defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2), so the effective date of the final rule
will be the promulgation date as specified in CAA section 112(d)(10).
For existing sources, we are proposing two changes that would
impact ongoing compliance requirements for 40 CFR part 63, subpart
MMMM. As discussed elsewhere in this preamble, we are proposing to add
a requirement that notifications, performance test results, and
semiannual compliance reports be submitted electronically. We are
proposing that the semiannual compliance report be submitted
electronically using a new template, which is available for review and
comment as part of this action. We are also proposing to change the
requirements for SSM by removing the exemption from the requirements to
meet the standard during SSM periods and by removing the requirement to
develop and implement an SSM plan. Our experience with similar
industries that are required to convert reporting mechanisms to install
necessary hardware and software, become familiar with the process of
submitting performance test results electronically through the EPA's
CEDRI, test these new electronic submission capabilities, and reliably
employ electronic reporting shows that a time period of a minimum of 90
days, and, more typically, 180 days is generally necessary to
successfully accomplish these revisions. Our experience with similar
industries further shows that this sort of regulated facility generally
requires a time period of 180 days to read and understand the amended
rule requirements; to evaluate their operations to ensure that they can
meet the standards during periods of startup and shutdown as defined in
the rule and make any necessary
[[Page 58976]]
adjustments; and to update their operation, maintenance, and monitoring
plan to reflect the revised requirements. The EPA recognizes the
confusion that multiple different compliance dates for individual
requirements would create and the additional burden such an assortment
of dates would impose. From our assessment of the time frame needed for
compliance with the entirety of the revised requirements, the EPA
considers a period of 180 days to be the most expeditious compliance
period practicable and, thus, is proposing that existing affected
sources be in compliance with all of this regulation's revised
requirements within 181 days of the regulation's effective date.
We solicit comment on these proposed compliance periods, and we
specifically request submission of information from sources in this
source category regarding specific actions that would need to be
undertaken to comply with the proposed amended requirements and the
time needed to make the adjustments for compliance with any of the
revised requirements. We note that information provided may result in
changes to the proposed compliance dates.
C. What are the analytical results and proposed decisions for the
surface coating of plastic parts and products source category?
1. What are the results of the risk assessment and analyses?
As described above in section III of this preamble, for the PPP
source category, we conducted a risk assessment for all HAP emitted. We
present results of the risk assessment briefly below and in more detail
in the Surface Coating of Plastic Parts and Products Risk Assessment
Report, in the PPP Docket (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0313).
a. Chronic Inhalation Risk Assessment Results
Table 6 of this preamble provides a summary of the results of the
inhalation risk assessment for the source category.
Table 6--Surface Coating of Plastic Parts and Products Source Category Inhalation Risk Assessment Results
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum individual Estimated population Estimated annual Maximum chronic Maximum screening
cancer risk (in 1 at increased risk of cancer incidence noncancer TOSHI \1\ acute noncancer HQ \2\
million) cancer >=1-in-1 (cases per year) -----------------------------------------------
------------------------ million ------------------------
Risk assessment ------------------------ Based on Based on
Based on Based on Based on Based on Based on Based on actual allowable Based on actual
actual allowable actual allowable actual allowable emissions emissions emissions
emissions emissions emissions emissions emissions emissions
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source Category................. 10 10 600 700 0.001 0.001 1 1 HQREL = 4.
Whole Facility.................. 70 .......... 29,000 .......... 0.006 .......... 1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The TOSHI is the sum of the chronic noncancer HQ for substances that affect the same target organ or organ system.
\2\ The maximum estimated acute exposure concentration was divided by available short-term threshold values to develop HQ values.
The results of the inhalation risk modeling using actual emissions
data, as shown in Table 6 of this preamble, indicate that the maximum
individual cancer risk based on actual emissions (lifetime) could be up
to 10-in-1 million (driven by ethyl benzene, naphthalene, and
formaldehyde from coating operations), the maximum chronic noncancer
TOSHI value based on actual emissions could be up to 1 (driven by
hexamethylene-1,6-diisocyanate from coating operations), and the
maximum screening acute noncancer HQ value (off-facility site) could be
up to 4 (driven by glycol ethers). The total estimated annual cancer
incidence (national) from these facilities based on actual emission
levels is 0.001 excess cancer cases per year or 1 case in every 1,000
years.
b. Screening Level Acute Risk Assessment Results
Table 6 of this preamble also shows the acute risk results for the
PPP source category. The screening analysis for acute impacts was based
on an industry-specific multiplier of 1.2, to estimate the peak
emission rates from the average emission rates. For more detailed acute
risk results refer to the Surface Coating of Plastic Parts and Products
Risk Assessment Report, in the PPP Docket.
c. Multipathway Risk Screening Results
There are no PB-HAP emitted by facilities in the PPP source
category. Therefore, we do not expect any human health multipathway
risks as a result of emissions from this source category.
d. Environmental Risk Screening Results
The emissions data for the PPP source category indicate that no
environmental HAP are emitted by sources within this source category.
Therefore, we do not expect an adverse environmental effect as a result
of HAP emissions from this source category.
e. Facility-Wide Risk Results
Twenty-two facilities have a facility-wide cancer MIR greater than
or equal to 1-in-1 million. The maximum facility-wide cancer MIR is 70-
in-1 million, driven by nickel and formaldehyde from a co-located
boiler. The total estimated cancer incidence from the whole facility is
0.006 excess cancer cases per year, or one excess case in every 200
years. Approximately 29,000 people were estimated to have cancer risks
above 1-in-1 million from exposure to HAP emitted from both MACT and
non-MACT sources of the 125 facilities in this source category. The
maximum facility-wide TOSHI for the source category is estimated to be
1, driven by emissions of nickel and formaldehyde from a co-located
boiler.
f. What demographic groups might benefit from this regulation?
To examine the potential for any environmental justice issues that
might be associated with the source category, we performed a
demographic analysis, which is an assessment of risks to individual
demographic groups of the populations living within 5 km and within 50
km of the facilities. In the analysis, we evaluated the distribution of
HAP-related cancer and noncancer risks from the PPP source category
across different demographic groups within the populations living near
facilities.\38\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\38\ Demographic groups included in the analysis are: White,
African American, Native American, other races and multiracial,
Hispanic or Latino, children 17 years of age and under, adults 18 to
64 years of age, adults 65 years of age and over, adults without a
high school diploma, people living below the poverty level, people
living above the poverty level, and linguistically isolated people.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 58977]]
The results of the demographic analysis are summarized in Table 7
of this preamble. These results, for various demographic groups, are
based on the estimated risks from actual emissions levels for the
population living within 50 km of the facilities.
Table 7--Surface Coating of Plastic Parts and Products Source Category Demographic Risk Analysis Results
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Population with
cancer risk at or Population with
above 1-in-1 chronic noncancer
Nationwide million due to HI above 1 due to
surface coating of surface coating of
plastic parts and plastic parts and
products products
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Population...................................... 317,746,049 500 0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
White and Minority by Percent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
White................................................. 62 92 0
Minority.............................................. 38 8 0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minority Detail by Percent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
African American...................................... 12 4 0
Native American....................................... 0.8 0.1 0
Hispanic or Latino.................................... 18 3 0
Other and Multiracial................................. 7 1 0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Income by Percent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Below the Poverty Level............................... 14 19 0
Above the Poverty Level............................... 86 81 0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Education by Percent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Over 25 Without High a School Diploma................. 14 14 0
Over 25 With a High School Diploma.................... 86 86 0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Linguistically Isolated by Percent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Linguistically Isolated............................... 6 0 0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The results of the PPP source category demographic analysis
indicate that emissions from the source category expose approximately
500 people to a cancer risk at or above 1-in-1 million and no one is
exposed to a chronic noncancer HI greater than 1. The percentages of
the at-risk population in the following specific demographic groups are
higher than their respective nationwide percentages: ``White,'' and
``Below the Poverty Level.''
The methodology and the results of the demographic analysis are
presented in a technical report, Risk and Technology Review--Analysis
of Demographic Factors for Populations Living Near Surface Coating of
Plastic Parts and Products Source Category Operations, April 2019
(hereafter referred to as the Plastic Parts and Products Demographic
Analysis Report), available in the PPP Docket.
2. What are our proposed decisions regarding risk acceptability, ample
margin of safety, and adverse environmental effects?
a. Risk Acceptability
As noted in section III.A of this preamble, we weigh all health
risk factors in our risk acceptability determination, including the
cancer MIR, the number of persons in various cancer and noncancer risk
ranges, cancer incidence, the maximum noncancer TOSHI, the maximum
acute noncancer HQ, the extent of noncancer risks, the distribution of
cancer and noncancer risks in the exposed population, and risk
estimation uncertainties (54 FR 38044, September 14, 1989).
For the PPP source category, the risk analysis indicates that the
cancer risks to the individual most exposed could be up to 10-in-1
million due to actual emissions and allowable emissions. These risks
are considerably less than 100-in-1 million, which is the presumptive
upper limit of acceptable risk. The risk analysis also shows very low
cancer incidence (0.001 cases per year for actual and allowable
emissions), and we did not identify any potential for adverse chronic
noncancer health effects.
The acute screening analysis results in a maximum acute noncancer
HQ of 4 at one facility based on use of the acute REL for ethylene
glycol monomethyl ether as a surrogate for unspeciated glycol ethers.
Since there is not a specified acute dose-response value for
unspeciated glycol ethers, we applied the most protective dose-response
value from the other glycol ether compounds, the acute REL for ethylene
glycol monomethyl ether, to estimate risk. Given that ethylene glycol
monomethyl ether is more toxic than other glycol ethers, the use of
this surrogate is a health-protective choice in the EPA's risk
assessment.
For acute screening analyses, to better characterize the potential
health risks associated with estimated worst-case acute exposures to
HAP, we examine a wider range of available acute health metrics than we
do for our chronic risk assessments. This is in
[[Page 58978]]
acknowledgement that there are generally more data gaps and
uncertainties in acute reference values than there are in chronic
reference values. By definition, the acute REL represents a health-
protective level of exposure, with effects not anticipated below those
levels, even for repeated exposures; however, the level of exposure
that would cause health effects is not specifically known. As the
exposure concentration increases above the acute REL, the potential for
effects increases. Therefore, when an REL is exceeded and an AEGL-1 or
ERPG-1 level is available (i.e., levels at which mild, reversible
effects are anticipated in the general population for a single
exposure), we typically use them as an additional comparative measure,
as they provide an upper bound for exposure levels above which exposed
individuals could experience effects. However, for glycol ethers, there
are no AEGL or ERPG values.
Additional uncertainties in the acute exposure assessment that the
EPA conducts as part of the risk review under section 112 of the CAA
include several factors. The accuracy of an acute inhalation exposure
assessment depends on the simultaneous occurrence of independent
factors that may vary greatly, such as hourly emission rates,
meteorology, and the presence of a person. In the acute screening
assessment that we conduct under the RTR program, we include the
conservative (health-protective) assumptions that peak emissions from
each emission point in the source category and reasonable worst-case
air dispersion conditions (i.e., 99th percentile) co-occur. We then
include the additional assumption that a person is located at this
point at the same time. Together, these assumptions represent a
reasonable exposure. In most cases, it is unlikely that a person would
be located at the point of maximum exposure during the time when peak
emissions and reasonable worst-case air dispersion conditions occur
simultaneously. Thus, as discussed in the document titled Residual Risk
Assessment for the Surface Coating of Plastic Parts and Products Source
Category in Support of the Risk and Technology Review 2019 Proposed
Rule, in the PPP docket for this action, by assuming the co-occurrence
of independent factors for the acute screening assessment, the results
are intentionally biased high and are, thus, health-protective. We
conclude that adverse effects from acute exposure to emissions of
glycol ethers from this source category are not anticipated.
Considering all of the health risk information and factors
discussed above, including the uncertainties discussed in section
III.C.7 of this preamble, we propose that the risks from the PPP source
category are acceptable.
b. Ample Margin of Safety Analysis
Although we are proposing that the risks from the PPP source
category are acceptable, risk estimates for approximately 500
individuals in the exposed population are above 1-in-1 million at the
actual emissions level and 700 individuals in the exposed population
are above 1-in-1 million at the allowable emissions level.
Consequently, we further considered whether the MACT standards for the
PPP source category provide an ample margin of safety to protect public
health. In this ample margin of safety analysis, we investigated
available emissions control options that might reduce the risk from the
source category. We considered this information along with all of the
health risks and other health information considered in our
determination of risk acceptability.
As described in section III.B of this preamble, our technology
review focused on identifying developments in practices, processes, and
control technologies for the PPP source category, and we reviewed
various information sources regarding emission sources that are
currently regulated by the PPP NESHAP. Based on our review, we did not
identify any cost-effective measures to further reduce HAP. Therefore,
considering all of the available health information along with the
absence of additional measures for reducing HAP, we are proposing that
additional emissions controls for this source category are not
necessary and that the current standards provide an ample margin of
safety.
c. Environmental Effects
The emissions data for the PPP source category indicate that no
environmental HAP are emitted by sources within this source category.
In addition, we are unaware of any adverse environmental effects caused
by HAP emitted by this source category. Therefore, we do not expect
there to be an adverse environmental effect as a result of HAP
emissions from this source category and we are proposing that it is not
necessary to set a more stringent standard to prevent, taking into
consideration costs, energy, safety, and other relevant factors, an
adverse environmental effect.
3. What are the results and proposed decisions based on our technology
review?
As described in section III.B of this preamble, our technology
review focused on identifying developments in practices, processes, and
control technologies for the PPP source category. The EPA reviewed
various information sources regarding emission sources that are
currently regulated by the PPP NESHAP to support the technology review.
The information sources included the following: the RBLC; publicly
available state air permit databases; regulatory actions, including
technology reviews promulgated for other surface coating NESHAP
subsequent to the PPP NESHAP; state regulations; facility operating
permits; site visits; and industry information.
Based on our review, we did not identify any add-on control
technologies, process equipment, work practices, or procedures that had
not been previously considered during development of the PPP NESHAP,
and we did not identify any new or improved add-on control technologies
that would result in additional emission reductions. A brief summary of
the EPA's findings in conducting the technology review of plastic part
surface coating operations follows. For a detailed discussion of the
EPA's findings, refer to the Plastic Parts and Products Technology
Review Memo, in the PPP Docket.
During the development of the 2004 PPP NESHAP, numerical emission
limits were determined for new and existing major sources within four
coating subcategories for a total of eight HAP emissions limits. The
emission limits were based on industry survey responses and the
industry's use of low- or no-HAP coatings and thinners and add-on
capture and control technologies.
Using the EPA's NEI and the ECHO databases, we identified 125 major
source facilities that are currently subject to the PPP NESHAP. A
search of the RBLC database for improvements in plastic parts and
product coating technologies provided 20 facilities with permit dates
of 2000 or later. The results of the RBLC search included facilities
subject to VOC and HAP content limits, and using high volume/low
pressure spray guns, robotic electrostatic application, thermal
oxidizers, catalytic oxidizers, and adsorbers. All of these control
technologies were in use by the plastic parts and product coating
industry during development of the PPP NESHAP and were already
considered in the development of the PPP NESHAP.
[[Page 58979]]
Therefore, we concluded that the results of the RBLC search are
consistent with current PPP NESHAP requirements and did not identify
any improvements in add-on control technology or processes and work
practices that are not already reflected in the rule.
We also collected permit information from about 45 major source
surface coating facilities subject to the PPP NESHAP. (Many of these
facilities were also subject to 40 CFR part 63, subparts IIII or MMMM.)
The review of these permits did not identify a facility subject to HAP
limits more stringent than those in the PPP NESHAP and did not identify
any control technologies or work practices that were not already
considered in the development of the NESHAP.
We reviewed other surface coating NESHAP promulgated subsequent to
the PPP NESHAP to determine whether any requirements exceed the PPP
MACT level of control or include technologies that were not considered
during the development of the original PPP NESHAP. These NESHAP include
Paint Stripping and Miscellaneous Surface Coating Operations at Area
Sources (40 CFR part 63, subpart HHHHHH), and Nine Metal Fabrication
and Finishing Area Source Categories (40 CFR part 63, subpart XXXXXX).
We also reviewed the results of the technology reviews for other
surface coating NESHAP promulgated after the PPP NESHAP. These
technology reviews include the NESHAP for Printing and Publishing (40
CFR part 63, subpart KK), Shipbuilding and Ship Repair (40 CFR part 63,
subpart II), Wood Furniture Manufacturing (40 CFR part 63, subpart JJ),
and Aerospace Manufacturing and Rework Facilities (40 CFR part 63,
subpart GG). The review of these more recently promulgated NESHAP and
the technology reviews of other NESHAP did not identify any control
technologies that were not already considered during the development of
the 2004 PPP NESHAP.
The developments considered in these other technology reviews
included the use of emission capture systems and thermal oxidizers to
reduce emissions. Because the PPP NESHAP already includes a compliance
option involving the use of a PTE and an add-on control device, and
because these measures were considered in the development of the PPP
NESHAP, we concluded that these measures do not represent a development
in control technology under CAA section 112(d)(6). We also identified
and considered alternatives to conventional solvent borne coatings
during MACT development (e.g., waterborne coatings, low-HAP/high-solids
coatings, low energy radiation cured coating) and the presence of
facilities using these coatings is reflected in the current MACT
standards. We found no other improvements in add-on control technology
or other equipment during review of the RBLC, the state operating
permits, and subsequent NESHAP that were not already identified and
considered during development of the PPP NESHAP.
Finally, we identified no developments in work practices or
procedures for the PPP source category that were not previously
identified and considered during MACT development.
Based on these findings, we conclude that there have not been any
developments in add-on control technology or other equipment not
identified and considered during MACT development, nor any improvements
in add-on controls, nor any significant changes in the cost (including
cost effectiveness) of the add-on controls. Therefore, we are proposing
no revisions to the PPP NESHAP pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6). For
further discussion of the technology review results, refer to the
Plastic Parts and Products Technology Review Memo, in the PPP Docket.
4. What other actions are we proposing for the surface coating of
plastic parts and products source category?
We are proposing to require electronic submittal of notifications
(initial and compliance status), semiannual reports, and performance
test reports for PPP surface coating facilities. In addition, we are
proposing revisions to the SSM provisions of the MACT rule in order to
ensure that they are consistent with the Court decision in Sierra Club
v. EPA, 551 F. 3d 1019 (D.C. Cir. 2008), which vacated two provisions
that exempted sources from the requirement to comply with otherwise
applicable CAA section 112(d) emission standards during periods of SSM.
We are proposing to require periodic emissions testing of add-on
control devices. We also are proposing to add optional EPA Method 18,
to IBR an alternative test method, and to make various technical and
editorial changes. Our analyses and proposed changes related to these
issues are discussed in the sections below.
a. Electronic Reporting Requirements
The EPA is proposing that owners and operators of PPP surface
coating facilities submit electronic copies of initial notifications
required in 40 CFR 63.9(b) and 63.4510(b), notifications of compliance
status required in 40 CFR 63.9(h) and 63.4510(c), performance test
reports required in 40 CFR 63.4520(b), and semiannual reports required
in 40 CFR 63.4520(a) through the EPA's CDX, using the CEDRI. A
description of the EPA's CDX and the EPA's proposed rationale and
details on the addition of these electronic reporting requirements for
the PPP source category is the same as for the ALDT source category, as
discussed in section IV.A.4.a of this preamble. No specific form is
proposed at this time for the initial notifications required in 40 CFR
63.9(b) and notifications of compliance status in 40 CFR 63.9(h). Until
the EPA has completed electronic forms for these notifications, the
notifications will be required to be submitted via CEDRI in PDF. After
development of the final forms, we will notify sources about their
availability via the CEDRI website and the CHIEF Listserv. For
semiannual reports required in 40 CFR 63.4520(a), the proposed rule
requires that owners or operators use the appropriate spreadsheet
template to submit information to CEDRI. A draft version of the
proposed template for this report is included in the docket for this
rulemaking.\39\ The EPA specifically requests comment on the content,
layout, and overall design of the template.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\39\ See Electronic Reporting Template for Surface Coating of
Plastic Parts and Products Subpart PPPP Semiannual Reports, in
Docket ID NO. EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0313.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regarding submittal of performance test reports via the EPA's ERT,
as discussed in section IV.A.4.a of this preamble for the ALDT NESHAP,
the proposal to submit performance test data electronically to the EPA
applies only if the EPA has developed an electronic reporting form for
the test method as listed on the EPA's ERT website. For the PPP NESHAP,
all of the EPA test methods listed under 40 CFR part 63, subpart PPPP,
are currently supported by the ERT, except for EPA Method 18 (an
optional test method proposed in this action), which appears in the
proposed text for 40 CFR 63.4566. As mentioned above in section
IV.A.4.a of this preamble, the rule proposes that should an owner or
operator choose to use EPA Method 18, then its results would be
submitted in PDF using the attachment module of the ERT.
Also, as discussed in section IV.A.4.a of this preamble for the
ALDT NESHAP, we are proposing to provide facilities with the ability to
seek extensions for submitting electronic reports for circumstances
beyond the control of the facility. In proposed 40 CFR 63.4520(g), we
address the situation for facilities subject to the PPP NESHAP where an
[[Page 58980]]
extension may be warranted due to outages of the EPA's CDX or CEDRI,
which may prevent access to the system and submittal of the required
reports. In proposed 40 CFR 63.4520(h), we address the situation for
facilities subject to the PPP NESHAP where an extension may be
warranted due to a force majeure event, which is defined as an event
that will be or has been caused by circumstances beyond the control of
the affected facility, its contractors, or any entity controlled by the
affected facility that prevents compliance with the requirement to
submit a report electronically as required by this rule. Examples of
such events are acts of nature, acts of war and terrorism, or equipment
failure or safety hazards beyond the control of the facility.
The electronic submittal of the reports addressed in this proposed
rulemaking will increase the usefulness of the data contained in those
reports, is in keeping with current trends in data availability and
transparency, will further assist in the protection of public health
and the environment, will improve compliance by facilitating the
ability of regulated facilities to demonstrate compliance with
requirements and by facilitating the ability of delegated state, local,
tribal, and territorial air agencies and the EPA to assess and
determine compliance, and will ultimately reduce burden on regulated
facilities, delegated air agencies, and the EPA. Electronic reporting
also eliminates paper-based, manual processes, thereby saving time and
resources, simplifying data entry, eliminating redundancies, minimizing
data reporting errors, and providing data quickly and accurately to the
affected facilities, air agencies, the EPA, and the public. Moreover,
electronic reporting is consistent with the EPA's plan to implement
Executive Order 13563 and is in keeping with the EPA's Agency-wide
policy developed in response to the White House's Digital Government
Strategy. For more information on the benefits of electronic reporting,
see the memorandum titled Electronic Reporting Requirements for New
Source Performance Standards (NSPS) and National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) Rules, available in Docket ID No.
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0313.
b. SSM Requirements
(1.) Proposed Elimination of the SSM Exemption
The EPA is proposing to eliminate the SSM exemption in the PPP
NESHAP. The EPA's proposed rationale for the elimination of the SSM
exemption for the PPP source category is the same as for the ALDT
source category, which is discussed in section IV.A.4.b.1 of this
preamble. We are also proposing several revisions to Table 2 to subpart
PPPP of 40 CFR part 63 (Applicability of General Provisions to Subpart
PPPP of Part 63, hereafter referred to as the ``General Provisions
table to subpart PPPP'') as is explained in more detail below in
section IV.C.4.b.2 of this preamble. For example, we are proposing to
eliminate the incorporation of the General Provisions' requirement that
the source develop an SSM plan. Further, we are proposing to eliminate
and revise certain recordkeeping and reporting requirements related to
the SSM exemption as further described below. The EPA has attempted to
ensure that the provisions we are proposing to eliminate are
inappropriate, unnecessary, or redundant in the absence of the SSM
exemption. We are specifically seeking comment on the specific proposed
deletions and revisions and also whether additional provisions should
be revised to achieve the stated goal.
In proposing these rule amendments, the EPA has taken into account
startup and shutdown periods and, for the same reasons explained in
section IV.A.4.b.1 of this preamble for the ALDT source category, has
not proposed alternate standards for those periods in the PPP NESHAP.
Startups and shutdowns are part of normal operations for the PPP source
category. As currently specified in 40 CFR 63.4500(a), any coating
operation(s) for which you use the emission rate with add-on controls
option must meet the applicable operating limits in Table 1 to 40 CFR
part 63, subpart PPPP ``at all times,'' except for solvent recovery
systems for which you conduct liquid-liquid material balances according
to 40 CFR 63.4561(j). (Solvent recovery systems for which you conduct a
liquid-liquid material balance require a monthly calculation of the
solvent recovery device's collection and recovery efficiency for
volatile organic matter.)
Also, as currently specified in 40 CFR 63.4500(a)(2), any coating
operation(s) for which you use the emission rate with add-on controls
option must be in compliance ``at all times'' with the applicable
emission limit in 40 CFR 63.4490. During startup and shutdown periods,
in order for a facility (using add-on controls to meet the standards)
to meet the emission and operating standards, the control device for a
coating operation needs to be turned on and operating at specified
levels before the facility begins coating operations, and the control
equipment needs to continue to be operated until after the facility
ceases coating operations. In some cases, the facility needs to run
thermal oxidizers on supplemental fuel before VOC levels are sufficient
for the combustion to be (nearly) self-sustaining. Note that we are
also proposing new related language in 40 CFR 63.4500(b) to require
that the owner or operator operate and maintain the coating operation,
including pollution control equipment, at all times to minimize
emissions. See section IV.A.4.b.2 of this preamble for further
discussion of this proposed revision.
Although no statutory language compels the EPA to set standards for
malfunctions, the EPA has the discretion to do so where feasible, as
discussed previously in section IV.A.4.b.1 of this preamble for the
ALDT source category.
It is unlikely that a malfunction would result in a violation of
the standards during PPP surface coatings operations for facilities
using the compliant material option or the emission rate without add-on
controls option. Facilities using these options have demonstrated that
the organic HAP contents of the coating materials do not exceed the
emission limits in 40 CFR 63.4490(a) or (b), either on a coating-by-
coating basis or by using averaging among coatings.
A malfunction event is more likely for PPP coating facilities that
use the emission rate with add-on controls option. For this option,
facilities must demonstrate that the average emission rate does not
exceed the emission limits in 40 CFR 63.4490(a) or (b), and the
facility is complying with the control device operating limits listed
in Table 1 to 40 CFR part 63, subpart PPPP of the PPP NESHAP. The
operating limits are specific to the type of control device and
established by the facility during its initial performance test.
In the unlikely event that a source fails to comply with the
applicable CAA section 112(d) standards as a result of a malfunction
event, the EPA would determine an appropriate response based on, among
other things, the good faith efforts of the source to minimize
emissions during malfunction periods, including preventative and
corrective actions, as well as root cause analyses to ascertain and
rectify excess emissions. Refer to section IV.A.4.b.1 of this preamble
for further discussion of the EPA's actions in response to a source
failing to comply with the applicable CAA section 112(d) standards as a
result of a malfunction event for the ALDT source category, which
applies to this source category.
[[Page 58981]]
(2.) Proposed Revisions to the General Provisions Applicability Table
40 CFR 63.4500(b) General duty. We are proposing to revise the
General Provisions table to subpart PPPP (Table 2) entry for 40 CFR
63.6(e)(1)(i) by changing the ``yes'' in column 3 to a ``no.'' Section
63.6(e)(1)(i) describes the general duty to minimize emissions. Some of
the language in that section is no longer necessary or appropriate in
light of the elimination of the SSM exemption. We are proposing instead
to add general duty regulatory text at 40 CFR 63.4500(b) that reflects
the general duty to minimize emissions while eliminating the reference
to periods covered by an SSM exemption. The current language in 40 CFR
63.6(e)(1)(i) characterizes what the general duty entails during
periods of SSM. With the elimination of the SSM exemption, there is no
need to differentiate between normal operations, startup and shutdown,
and malfunction events in describing the general duty. Therefore, the
language the EPA is proposing for 40 CFR 63.4500(b) does not include
that language from 40 CFR 63.6(e)(1).
We are also proposing to revise the General Provisions table to
subpart PPPP (Table 2) entry for 40 CFR 63.6(e)(1)(ii) by changing the
``yes'' in column 3 to a ``no.'' Section 63.6(e)(1)(ii) imposes
requirements that are not necessary with the elimination of the SSM
exemption or are redundant with the general duty requirement being
added at 40 CFR 63.4500(b).
SSM plan. We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table
to subpart PPPP (Table 2) entry for 40 CFR 63.6(e)(3) by changing the
``yes'' in column 3 to a ``no.'' Generally, these paragraphs require
development of an SSM plan and specify SSM recordkeeping and reporting
requirements related to the SSM plan. We are also proposing to remove
from 40 CFR part 63, subpart PPPP, the current provisions requiring the
SSM plan in 40 CFR 63.4500(c) and requiring reporting related to the
SSM plan in 40 CFR 63.4520(c). As noted, the EPA is proposing to remove
the SSM exemptions. Therefore, affected units will be subject to an
emission standard during such events. The applicability of a standard
during such events will ensure that sources have ample incentive to
plan for and achieve compliance, and, thus, the SSM plan requirements
are no longer necessary.
Compliance with standards. We are proposing to revise the General
Provisions table to subpart PPPP (Table 2) entry for 40 CFR 63.6(f)(1)
by changing the ``yes'' in column 3 to a ``no.'' The current language
of 40 CFR 63.6(f)(1) exempts sources from non-opacity standards during
periods of SSM. As discussed above, the Court in Sierra Club vacated
the exemptions contained in this provision and held that the CAA
requires that some CAA section 112 standards apply continuously.
Consistent with Sierra Club, the EPA is proposing to revise standards
in this rule to apply at all times.
40 CFR 63.4564 Performance testing. We are proposing to revise the
General Provisions table to subpart PPPP (Table 2) entry for 40 CFR
63.7(e)(1) by changing the ``yes'' in column 3 to a ``no.'' Section
63.7(e)(1) describes performance testing requirements. The EPA is
instead proposing to add a performance testing requirement at 40 CFR
63.4564(a)(1). The performance testing requirements we are proposing to
add differ from the General Provisions performance testing provisions
in several respects. The regulatory text does not include the language
in 40 CFR 63.7(e)(1) that restated the SSM exemption and language that
precluded startup and shutdown periods from being considered
``representative'' for purposes of performance testing. Also, the
proposed performance testing provisions will not allow performance
testing during startup or shutdown. As in 40 CFR 63.7(e)(1),
performance tests conducted under this subpart should not be conducted
during malfunctions because conditions during malfunctions are often
not representative of normal operating conditions. Section 63.7(e)
requires that the owner or operator maintain records of the process
information necessary to document operating conditions during the test
and include in such records an explanation to support that such
conditions represent normal operation. The EPA is proposing to add
language clarifying that the owner or operator must make such records
available to the Administrator upon request.
Monitoring. We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table
to subpart PPPP (Table 2) entry for 40 CFR 63.8(a)(4) by changing the
``yes'' in column 3 to a ``no.'' Section 63.8(a)(4) describes
additional monitoring requirements for control devices. Subpart PPPP of
40 CFR part 63 does not have monitoring requirements for flares.
We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table to subpart
PPPP (Table 2) entry for 40 CFR 63.8(c)(1) by changing the ``yes'' in
column 3 to a ``no.'' The cross-references to the general duty and SSM
plan requirements in those subparagraphs are not necessary in light of
other requirements of 40 CFR 63.8 that require good air pollution
control practices (40 CFR 63.8(c)(1)) and that set out the requirements
of a quality control program for monitoring equipment (40 CFR 63.8(d)).
Further, we are proposing to revise 40 CFR 63.4568(a) to add a
requirement to maintain the monitoring equipment at all times in
accordance with 40 CFR 63.4500(b) and keep the necessary parts readily
available for routine repairs of the monitoring equipment, consistent
with the requirements in 40 CFR 63.8(c)(1)(ii). The reference to 40 CFR
63.8(c)(1)(ii) is no longer needed since it is redundant to the
requirement in 40 CFR 63.4568(a).
40 CFR 63.4530 Recordkeeping. We are proposing to revise the
General Provisions table to subpart PPPP (Table 2) entry for 40 CFR
63.10(b)(2)(i) by changing the ``yes'' in column 3 to a ``no.'' Section
63.10(b)(2)(i) describes the recordkeeping requirements during startup
and shutdown. These recording provisions are no longer necessary
because the EPA is proposing that recordkeeping and reporting
applicable to normal operations will apply to startup and shutdown. In
the absence of special provisions applicable to startup and shutdown,
such as a startup and shutdown plan, there is no reason to retain
additional recordkeeping for startup and shutdown periods.
We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table to subpart
PPPP (Table 2) entry for 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(ii) by changing the ``yes''
in column 3 to a ``no.'' Section 63.10(b)(2)(ii) describes the
recordkeeping requirements during a malfunction, requiring a record of
``the occurrence and duration of each malfunction.'' A similar record
is already required in 40 CFR 63.4530(h), which requires a record of
``the date, time, and duration of each deviation,'' which the EPA is
retaining. The regulatory text in 40 CFR 63.4530(h) differs from the
General Provisions in that the General Provisions requires the creation
and retention of a record of the occurrence and duration of each
malfunction of process, air pollution control, and monitoring
equipment; whereas 40 CFR 63.4530(h) applies to any failure to meet an
applicable standard and is requiring that the source record the date,
time, and duration of the failure rather than the ``occurrence.'' The
EPA is also proposing to add to 40 CFR 63.4530(h) a requirement that
sources also keep records that include a list of the affected source or
equipment and actions taken to minimize emissions, an estimate of the
quantity of
[[Page 58982]]
each regulated pollutant emitted over the emission limit for which the
source failed to meet the standard, and a description of the method
used to estimate the emissions. Examples of such methods would include
product-loss calculations, mass balance calculations, measurements when
available, or engineering judgment based on known process parameters
(e.g., coating HAP content and application rates and control device
efficiencies). The EPA proposes to require that sources keep records of
this information to ensure that there is adequate information to allow
the EPA to determine the severity of any failure to meet a standard,
and to provide data that may document how the source met the general
duty to minimize emissions when the source has failed to meet an
applicable standard.
We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table to subpart
PPPP (Table 2) entry for 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(iv) by changing the ``yes''
in column 3 to a ``no.'' When applicable, the provision requires
sources to record actions taken during SSM events when actions were
inconsistent with their SSM plan. The requirement is no longer
appropriate because SSM plans will no longer be required. The
requirement previously applicable under 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(iv)(B) to
record actions to minimize emissions and record corrective actions is
now applicable by reference to 40 CFR 63.4530(h)(4).
We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table to subpart
PPPP (Table 2) entry for 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(v) by changing the ``yes''
in column 3 to a ``no.'' When applicable, the provision requires
sources to record actions taken during SSM events to show that actions
taken were consistent with their SSM plan. The requirement is no longer
appropriate because SSM plans will no longer be required.
We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table to subpart
PPPP (Table 2) entry for 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(x)-(xiii) by changing the
``yes'' in column 3 to a ``no.'' When applicable, the provision
requires sources to record actions taken during SSM events to show that
actions taken were consistent with their SSM plan. The requirement is
no longer appropriate because SSM plans will no longer be required.
40 CFR 63.4520 Reporting. We are proposing to revise the General
Provisions table to subpart PPPP (Table 2) entry for 40 CFR 63.10(d)(5)
by changing the ``yes'' in column 3 to a ``no.'' Section 63.10(d)(5)
describes the reporting requirements for startups, shutdowns, and
malfunctions. To replace the General Provisions reporting requirement,
the EPA is proposing to add reporting requirements to 40 CFR
63.4520(a)(7). The replacement language differs from the General
Provisions requirement in that it eliminates periodic SSM reports as a
stand-alone report. We are proposing language that requires sources
that fail to meet an applicable standard at any time to report the
information concerning such events in the semi-annual compliance report
already required under this rule. Subpart PPPP of 40 CFR part 63
currently requires reporting of the date, time period, and cause of
each deviation. We are clarifying in the rule that, if the cause of a
deviation from a standard is unknown, this should be specified in the
report. We are also proposing to change ``date and time period'' or
``date and time'' to ``date, time, and duration'' (see proposed
revisions to 40 CFR 63.4520(a)(7)(vi), 63.4520(a)(7)(viii), and
63.4520(a)(7)(xiii)). Further, we are proposing that the report must
also contain the number of deviations from the standard and a list of
the affected sources or equipment. For deviation reports addressing
deviations from an applicable emission limit in 40 CFR 63.4490 or
operating limit in Table 1 to 40 CFR part 63, subpart PPPP, we are
proposing that the report also include an estimate of the quantity of
each regulated pollutant emitted over any emission limit for which the
source failed to meet the standard, and a description of the method
used to estimate the emissions.
Regarding the proposed new requirement discussed above to estimate
the quantity of each regulated pollutant emitted over any emission
limit for which the source failed to meet the standard, and a
description of the method used to estimate the emissions, examples of
such methods would include product-loss calculations, mass balance
calculations, measurements when available, or engineering judgment
based on known process parameters (e.g., coating HAP content and
application rates and control device efficiencies). The EPA is
proposing this requirement to ensure that there is adequate information
to determine compliance, to allow the EPA to determine the severity of
the failure to meet an applicable standard, and to provide data that
may document how the source met the general duty to minimize emissions
during a failure to meet an applicable standard.
We will no longer require owners or operators to determine whether
actions taken to correct a malfunction are consistent with an SSM plan,
because plans would no longer be required. The proposed amendments,
therefore, eliminate 40 CFR 63.4520(c) that requires reporting of
whether the source deviated from its SSM plan, including required
actions to communicate with the Administrator, and the cross-reference
to 40 CFR 63.10(d)(5) that contains the description of the previously
required SSM report format and submittal schedule from this section.
These specifications are no longer necessary because the events will be
reported in otherwise required reports with similar format and
submittal requirements.
We are proposing to remove the requirements in 40 CFR
63.4520(a)(7)(viii) that deviation reports must specify whether a
deviation from an operating limit occurred during a period of SSM. We
are also proposing to remove the requirements in 40 CFR
63.4520(a)(7)(viii) to break down the total duration of deviations into
the startup and shutdown categories. As discussed above in this
section, we are proposing to require reporting of the cause of each
deviation. Further, the startup and shutdown categories no longer apply
because these periods are proposed to be considered normal operation,
as discussed in section IV.A.4.b.1 of this preamble for the ALDT source
category, which also applies to this source category.
c. Technical Amendments to the Plastic Parts and Products NESHAP
We propose to amend 40 CFR 63.4566(b)(4) to add the option of
conducting EPA Method 18 of appendix A to 40 CFR part 60, ``Measurement
of Gaseous Organic Compound Emissions by Gas Chromatography,'' to
measure and then subtract methane emissions from measured total gaseous
organic mass emissions as carbon. Facilities using the emission rate
with add-on control compliance option can use either EPA Method 25 or
EPA Method 25A to measure control device destruction efficiency. Unlike
EPA Method 25, EPA Method 25A does not exclude methane from the
measurement of organic emissions. Because exhaust streams from coating
operations may contain methane from natural gas combustion, we are
proposing to allow facilities the option to measure methane using EPA
Method 18 and to subtract the methane from the emissions as part of
their compliance calculations. We also propose to revise the format of
references to test methods in 40 CFR part 60. The current references in
40 CFR 63.4566(a) to EPA Methods 1, 1A, 2, 2A, 2C, 2D, 2F, 2G, 3, 3A,
3B, 4, 25, and 25A specify that each method is in
[[Page 58983]]
``appendix A'' of 40 CFR part 60. Appendix A of 40 CFR part 60 has been
divided into appendices A-1 through A-8. We propose to revise each
reference to appendix A to indicate which of the eight sections of
appendix A applies to the method.
We propose to amend 40 CFR 63.4541(a)(1)(i) and 63.4541(a)(4),
which describe how to demonstrate compliance with the emission
limitations using the compliant material option, and the definition of
``non-HAP coating'' in 40 CFR 63.4581, to remove references to OSHA-
defined carcinogens as specified in 29 CFR 1910.1200(d)(4). The
reference to OSHA-defined carcinogens as specified in 29 CFR
1910.1200(d)(4) is intended to specify which compounds must be included
in calculating total organic HAP content of a coating material if they
are present at 0.1 percent or greater by mass. We propose to remove
this reference because 29 CFR 1910.1200(d)(4) has been amended and no
longer readily defines which compounds are carcinogens. We propose to
replace these references to OSHA-defined carcinogens at 29 CFR
1910.1200(d)(4) with a list (in proposed new Table 5 to 40 CFR part 63,
subpart PPPP) of those organic HAP that must be included in calculating
total organic HAP content of a coating material if they are present at
0.1-percent or greater by mass.
We propose to include organic HAP in proposed Table 5 to 40 CFR
part 63, subpart PPPP if they were categorized in the EPA's Prioritized
Chronic Dose-Response Values for Screening Risk Assessments (dated May
9, 2014), as a ``human carcinogen,'' ``probable human carcinogen,'' or
``possible human carcinogen'' according to The Risk Assessment
Guidelines of 1986 (EPA/600/8-87/045, August 1987),\40\ or as
``carcinogenic to humans,'' ``likely to be carcinogenic to humans,'' or
with ``suggestive evidence of carcinogenic potential'' according to the
Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment (EPA/630/P-03/001F, March
2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\40\ See https://www.epa.gov/fera/dose-response-assessment-assessing-health-risks-associated-exposure-hazardous-air-pollutants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Current 40 CFR 63.4530 specifies records that must be maintained.
We propose to add clarification to this provision at 40 CFR 63.4530(a)
that specifies the allowance to retain electronic records applies to
all records that were submitted as reports electronically via the EPA's
CEDRI. We also propose to add text to the same provision clarifying
that this ability to maintain electronic copies does not affect the
requirement for facilities to make records, data, and reports available
upon request to a delegated air agency or the EPA as part of an on-site
compliance evaluation.
We propose to clarify and harmonize the general requirement in 40
CFR 63.4500(b) with the reporting requirement in 40 CFR 63.4520(a)(5),
63.4520(a)(6), and 63.4520(a)(7), and the recordkeeping requirement in
40 CFR 63.4530(h)(4).
d. Ongoing Emissions Compliance Demonstrations
As part of an ongoing effort to improve compliance with various
federal air emission regulations, the EPA reviewed the compliance
demonstration requirements in the PPP NESHAP. Currently, if a source
owner or operator chooses to comply with the standards using add-on
controls, the results of an initial performance test are used to
determine compliance; however, the rule does not require on-going
periodic performance testing for these emission capture systems and
add-on controls. In this action, we are proposing to require periodic
testing of add-on control devices, in addition to the one-time initial
emissions and capture efficiency testing, and ongoing temperature
measurement, to ensure ongoing compliance with the standards.
As described more fully in section IV.A.4.d of this preamble for
the ALDT source category, the EPA documented potential operational
problems associated with control devices in several publications; \41\
the ICAC, in their comments on a separate rulemaking on the proposed
revisions related to the NESHAP General Provisions (72 FR 69, January
3, 2007), commented that ongoing maintenance and checks of control
devices are necessary in order to ensure emissions control technology,
including both thermal and catalytic oxidizers, remains effective; \42\
and state websites list CAA enforcement information that further
corroborates the potential problems identified by the EPA and ICAC
comments and conclusions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\41\ See Control Techniques for Volatile Organic Compound
Emissions from Stationary Sources, EPA/453/R-92-018, December 1992,
Control Technologies for Emissions from Stationary Sources, EPA/625/
6-91/014, June 1991, and Survey of Control for Low Concentration
Organic Vapor Gas Streams, EPA-456/R-95-003, May 1995. These
documents can be found in the Automobiles and Light-Duty Trucks,
Miscellaneous Metal Parts, and Plastic Parts and Products Dockets
for this action.
\42\ See Docket Item No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2004-0094-0173, available at
www.regulations.gov. A copy of the ICAC's comments on the proposed
revisions to the General Provisions is also included in the
Automobiles and Light-Duty Trucks, Miscellaneous Metal Parts, and
Plastic Parts and Products Dockets for this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Given the need for vigilance in maintaining equipment to stem
degradation, the EPA is proposing to require periodic testing of add-on
control devices, in addition to the one-time initial emissions and
capture efficiency testing and ongoing temperature measurement, to
ensure ongoing compliance with the PPP NESHAP.
In this action, the EPA is requiring periodic performance testing
of add-on control devices on a regular frequency (e.g., every 5 years)
to ensure the equipment continues to operate properly for facilities
using the emission rate with add-on controls compliance option. We note
that about half of the state operating permits for existing plastic
parts coating sources already require such testing every 5 years
synchronized with 40 CFR part 70 air operating permit renewals. This
proposed periodic testing requirement includes an exception to the
general requirement for periodic testing for facilities using the
catalytic oxidizer control option at 40 CFR 63.4567(b) and following
the catalyst maintenance procedures in 40 CFR 63.4567(b)(4). This
exception is due to the catalyst maintenance procedures that already
require annual testing of the catalyst and other maintenance procedures
that provide ongoing demonstrations that the control system is
operating properly and may, thus, be considered comparable to
conducting a performance test.
The proposed periodic performance testing requirement allows an
exception from periodic testing for facilities using instruments to
continuously measure emissions. Such CEMS would show actual emissions.
The use of CEMS to demonstrate compliance would obviate the need for
periodic oxidizer testing. Moreover, installation and operation of a
CEMS with a timesharing component, such that values from more than one
oxidizer exhaust could be tabulated in a recurring frequency, could
prove less expensive (estimated to have an annual cost below $15,000)
than ongoing oxidizer testing.
This proposed requirement would not require periodic testing or
CEMS monitoring of facilities using the compliant material or the
emission rate without add-on controls options because these compliance
options do not use any add-on controls or control efficiency
measurements in the compliance calculations.
The proposed periodic performance testing requirement would require
that facilities complying with the standards using emission capture
systems and
[[Page 58984]]
add-on controls and which are not already on a 5-year testing schedule
to conduct the first of the periodic performance tests within 3 years
of the effective date of the revised standards. Afterward, they would
conduct the periodic testing before they renew their operating permits,
but no longer than 5 years following the previous performance test.
Additionally, facilities that have already tested as a condition of
their permit within the last 2 years before the effective date would be
permitted to maintain their current 5-year schedule and not be required
to move up the date of the next test to the 3-year date specified
above. This proposed requirement would require periodic air emissions
testing to measure organic HAP destruction or removal efficiency at the
inlet and outlet of the add-on control device. The emissions would be
measured as total gaseous organic mass emissions as carbon using either
EPA Method 25 or 25A of appendix A-7 to 40 CFR part 60, which are the
methods currently required for the initial compliance demonstration.
We estimate that the cost to perform a control device emissions
destruction or removal efficiency test using EPA Method 25 or 25A would
be approximately $19,000 per control device. The cost estimate is
included in the memorandum titled Draft Costs/Impacts of the 40 CFR
part 63 Subparts IIII, MMMM and PPPP Monitoring Review Revisions, in
the ALDT, MMPP, and PPP Dockets. We have reviewed the operating permits
for facilities subject to the several other surface coating NESHAP, and
we found that affected sources currently using emission capture systems
and add-on controls are often, but not always, required to conduct
periodic control device performance tests as a condition of their 40
CFR part 70 operating permits. We estimate that three PPP surface
coating facilities currently are not required to conduct periodic
testing of their control devices as a condition of their permit
renewal. Periodic performance tests ensure that all control systems
used to comply with the NESHAP would be properly maintained over time,
thereby reducing the potential for acute emissions episodes and non-
compliance.
We are requesting comment on adding periodic testing of add-on
control devices to the PPP NESHAP and on the suggested 5-year schedule
for the periodic testing.
e. IBR of Alternative Test Methods Under 1 CFR Part 51
The EPA is proposing new and updated test methods for the PPP
NESHAP that include IBR. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5,
the EPA is proposing to add the following optional EPA method and
incorporate by reference the VCS described in the amendments to 40 CFR
63.14:
EPA Method 18 of appendix A to 40 CFR part 60, Measurement
of Gaseous Organic Compound Emissions by Gas Chromatography, proposed
for 40 CFR 63.4566(b)(4);
ASTM Method D1475-13, Standard Test Method for Density of
Liquid Coatings, Inks, and Related Products, proposed to be IBR
approved for 40 CFR 63.4551(c);
ASTM Method D2111-10 (2015), Standard Test Methods for
Specific Gravity of Halogenated Organic Solvents and Their Admixtures,
proposed to be IBR approved for 40 CFR 63.4551(c); and
ASTM Method D2369-10 (2015), Test Method for Volatile
Content of Coatings, proposed to be IBR approved for 40 CFR
63.4541(a)(2) and 634561(j)(3).
An older version of ASTM Method D1475 was incorporated by reference
when the PPP NESHAP was originally promulgated (69 FR 20968, April 19,
2004). We are proposing to replace the older version of this method
with an updated version, which requires IBR revisions. The updated
version of the method replaces the older version in the same paragraph
of the rule text. We are also proposing the addition of EPA Method 18
and incorporating by reference ASTM Methods D2111 and D2369 to the PPP
NESHAP for the first time in this rulemaking. Refer to section VIII.J
of this preamble for further discussion of these VCS.
5. What compliance dates are we proposing?
The EPA is proposing that affected sources must comply with all of
the amendments, with the exception of the proposed electronic format
for submitting semiannual compliance reports, no later than 181 days
after the effective date of the final rule. All affected facilities
would have to continue to meet the current requirements of 40 CFR part
63, subpart PPPP until the applicable compliance date of the amended
rule. The final action is not expected to be a ``major rule'' as
defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2), so the effective date of the final rule
will be the promulgation date as specified in CAA section 112(d)(10).
For existing sources, we are proposing two changes that would
impact ongoing compliance requirements for 40 CFR part 63, subpart
PPPP. As discussed elsewhere in this preamble, we are proposing to add
a requirement that notifications, performance test results, and
semiannual compliance reports be submitted electronically. We are
proposing that the semiannual compliance report be submitted
electronically using a new template, which is available for review and
comment as part of this action. We are also proposing to change the
requirements for SSM by removing the exemption from the requirements to
meet the standard during SSM periods and by removing the requirement to
develop and implement an SSM plan. Our experience with similar
industries that are required to convert reporting mechanisms to install
necessary hardware and software, become familiar with the process of
submitting performance test results electronically through the EPA's
CEDRI, test these new electronic submission capabilities, and reliably
employ electronic reporting shows that a time period of a minimum of 90
days, and, more typically, 180 days is generally necessary to
successfully accomplish these revisions. Our experience with similar
industries further shows that this sort of regulated facility generally
requires a time period of 180 days to read and understand the amended
rule requirements; to evaluate their operations to ensure that they can
meet the standards during periods of startup and shutdown as defined in
the rule and make any necessary adjustments; and to update their
operation, maintenance, and monitoring plan to reflect the revised
requirements. The EPA recognizes the confusion that multiple different
compliance dates for individual requirements would create and the
additional burden such an assortment of dates would impose. From our
assessment of the time frame needed for compliance with the entirety of
the revised requirements, the EPA considers a period of 180 days to be
the most expeditious compliance period practicable and, thus, is
proposing that existing affected sources be in compliance with all of
this regulation's revised requirements within 181 days of the
regulation's effective date.
We solicit comment on these proposed compliance periods, and we
specifically request submission of information from sources in this
source category regarding specific actions that would need to be
undertaken to comply with the proposed amended requirements and the
time needed to
[[Page 58985]]
make the adjustments for compliance with any of the revised
requirements. We note that information provided may result in changes
to the proposed compliance dates.
D. Proposed Corrections to Earlier Subparts
We are proposing the following corrections to three subparts that
were amended in a final rule notice published in the Federal Register
on March 15, 2019 (84 FR 9590). The proposed corrections are to the
NESHAP for Surface Coating of Large Appliances (40 CFR part 63, subpart
NNNN); the NESHAP for Printing, Coating, and Dyeing of Fabrics and
Other Textiles (40 CFR part 63, subpart OOOO); and the NESHAP for
Surface Coating of Metal Furniture (40 CFR part 63, subpart RRRR). Note
that these proposed corrections are not published in the amendatory
rule text in the Federal Register (see 84 FR 9590) and are discussed
below.
We are proposing to correct 40 CFR 63.4168 of subpart NNNN. The
original instructions to 40 CFR 63.4168 in the final rule were,
``Section 63.4168 is amended by revising paragraphs (a)(4) and (5) and
(c)(2) and (3) to read as follows . . .'' (84 FR 9618). The
instructions should have said, ``Section 63.4168 is amended by revising
paragraphs (a)(4) and (5) and (c)(2) and the introductory text of
(c)(3) to read as follows . . .'' As a result, the subparagraphs 40 CFR
63.4168(c)(3)(i) through (iii), which were not intended to be affected
by this action, were deleted in the CFR. We are proposing to insert
these paragraphs back into the CFR. Please submit any comments on this
proposed correction to the docket for the Surface Coating of Large
Appliances (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0670).
We are proposing to correct 40 CFR 63.4371 of subpart OOOO. The
instructions in the final rule were to revise the definition of
``Deviation,'' but the amendatory text contained revised definitions of
``Deviation'' and ``No organic HAP.'' The current definition of ``No
organic HAP'' in the CFR contains a reference that is no longer
accurate. The instruction to revise the definition of ``No organic
HAP'' was inadvertently deleted; and, the new definition was not
inserted. We are proposing to insert this new definition as indicated
in the amendatory language in the final rule (84 FR 9631, March 15,
2019). Please submit any comments on this proposed correction to the
docket for the Printing, Coating, and Dyeing of Fabrics and Other
Textiles (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0668).
We are proposing to correct 40 CFR 63.4965 of subpart RRRR. The
original instructions to 40 CFR 63.4965 in the final rule were,
``Section 63.4965 is amended by revising paragraphs (a)(1) through (4)
and paragraph (b) to read as follows . . .'' (84 FR 9641). The
instructions should have said, ``Section 63.4965 is amended by revising
paragraphs (a)(1) through (4) and the introductory text of paragraph
(b) to read as follows . . .'' As a result, the subparagraphs 40 CFR
63.4965(b)(1) through (3), which were not intended to be affected by
this action, were deleted in the CFR. We are proposing to insert these
paragraphs back into the CFR. Please submit any comments on this
proposed correction to the docket for the Surface Coating of Metal
Furniture (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0669).
V. Summary of Cost, Environmental, and Economic Impacts
A. What are the affected sources?
Currently, we estimate 43 major source facilities are subject to
the ALDT NESHAP and operating in the United States. The affected source
under the NESHAP is the collection of all coating operations; all
storage containers and mixing vessels in which coatings, thinners, and
cleaning materials are stored or mixed; all manual and automated
equipment and containers used for conveying coatings, thinners, and
cleaning materials; and all storage containers and all manual and
automated equipment and containers used for conveying waste materials
generated by a coating operation. A coating operation is defined as the
equipment used to apply coating to a substrate (coating application)
and to dry or cure the coating after application. A single coating
operation always includes at least the point at which a coating is
applied and all subsequent points in the affected source where organic
HAP emissions from that coating occur. There may be multiple coating
operations in an affected source. Coating application with hand-held
nonrefillable aerosol containers, touchup bottles, touchup markers,
marking pens, or pinstriping equipment is not a coating operation for
the purposes of this subpart. The application of temporary materials
such as protective oils and ``travel waxes'' that are designed to be
removed from the vehicle before it is delivered to a retail purchaser
is not a coating operation for the purposes of 40 CFR part 63, subpart
IIII.
Currently, we estimate 368 major source facilities are subject to
the MMPP NESHAP and operating in the United States. The affected source
under the NESHAP is the collection of all coating operations; all
storage containers and mixing vessels in which coatings, thinners, and
cleaning materials are stored or mixed; all manual and automated
equipment and containers used for conveying coatings, thinners, and
cleaning materials; and all storage containers and all manual and
automated equipment and containers used for conveying waste materials
generated by a coating operation. A coating operation is defined as the
equipment used to apply cleaning materials to a substrate to prepare it
for coating application (surface preparation) or to remove dried
coating; to apply coating to a substrate (coating application) and to
dry or cure the coating after application; or to clean coating
operation equipment (equipment cleaning). A single coating operation
may include any combination of these types of equipment, but always
includes at least the point at which a given quantity of coating or
cleaning material is applied to a given part and all subsequent points
in the affected source where organic HAP are emitted from the specific
quantity of coating or cleaning material on the specific part. There
may be multiple coating operations in an affected source. Coating
application with handheld, non-refillable aerosol containers, touch-up
markers, or marking pens is not a coating operation for the purposes of
40 CFR part 63, subpart MMMM.
Currently, we estimate 125 major source facilities are subject to
the PPP NESHAP and operating in the United States. The affected source
under the NESHAP is the collection of coating operations; all storage
containers and mixing vessels in which coatings, thinners, and cleaning
materials are stored or mixed; all manual and automated equipment and
containers used for conveying coatings, thinners, and cleaning
materials; and all storage containers and all manual and automated
equipment and containers used for conveying waste materials generated
by a coating operation. A coating operation is defined as the equipment
used to apply cleaning materials to a substrate to prepare it for
coating application (surface preparation) or to remove dried coating;
to apply coating to a substrate (coating application) and to dry or
cure the coating after application; or to clean coating operation
equipment (equipment cleaning). A single coating operation may include
any combination of these types of equipment, but always
[[Page 58986]]
includes at least the point at which a given quantity of coating or
cleaning material is applied to a given part and all subsequent points
in the affected source where organic HAP are emitted from the specific
quantity of coating or cleaning material on the specific part. There
may be multiple coating operations in an affected source. Coating
application with handheld, non-refillable aerosol containers, touch-up
markers, or marking pens is not a coating operation for the purposes of
40 CFR part 63, subpart PPPP.
B. What are the air quality impacts?
At the current level of control, estimated emissions of volatile
organic HAP from the 43 facilities in the ALDT source category are
approximately 1,700 tpy. Current estimated emissions of volatile
organic HAP from the 368 facilities in the MMPP source category are
approximately 2,700 tpy. Current estimated emissions of volatile
organic HAP from the 125 facilities in the PPP source category are
approximately 760 tpy.
The proposed amendments require that all major sources in the ALDT,
MMPP, and PPP source categories comply with the relevant emission
standards at all times, including periods of SSM. We were unable to
quantify the emissions that occur during periods of SSM or the specific
emissions reductions that would occur as a result of this action.
However, eliminating the SSM exemption has the potential to reduce
emissions by requiring facilities to meet the applicable standard
during SSM periods.
Indirect or secondary air emissions impacts are impacts that would
result from the increased electricity usage associated with the
operation of control devices (e.g., increased secondary emissions of
criteria pollutants from power plants). Energy impacts consist of the
electricity and steam needed to operate control devices and other
equipment. The proposed amendments would have no effect on the energy
needs of the affected facilities in any of the three source categories
and would, therefore, have no indirect or secondary air emissions
impacts.
C. What are the cost impacts?
We estimate that each facility in these three source categories
will experience costs as a result of these proposed amendments that are
estimated as part of the reporting and recordkeeping costs. Each
facility will experience costs to read and understand the rule
amendments. Costs associated with elimination of the SSM exemption were
estimated as part of the reporting and recordkeeping costs and include
time for re-evaluating previously developed SSM record systems. Costs
associated with the requirement to electronically submit notifications
and semi-annual compliance reports using CEDRI were estimated as part
of the reporting and recordkeeping costs and include time for becoming
familiar with CEDRI and the reporting template for semi-annual
compliance reports. The recordkeeping and reporting costs are presented
in section V.III.C of this preamble.
We are also proposing a requirement for performance testing no less
frequently than every 5 years for sources in each source category using
the add-on controls compliance options. We estimate that five major
source facilities subject to the ALDT NESHAP would incur costs to
conduct periodic testing because they are currently using the emission
rate with add-on controls compliance option. This total does not
include facilities in the source category that have add-on controls and
are currently required to perform periodic performance testing as a
condition of their state operating permit. The cost for a facility to
conduct a destruction or removal efficiency performance test using EPA
Method 25 or 25A is estimated to be about $19,000, and the total cost
for all five facilities subject to the ALDT NESHAP in a single year
would be $95,000. Similarly, we estimate that seven major source
facilities subject to the MMPP NESHAP would incur costs to conduct
periodic testing because they are currently using the emission rate
with add-on controls compliance option, at a total cost in a single
year of $133,000. Finally, we estimate that three major source
facilities subject to the PPP NESHAP, at a cost in a single year of
$57,000. For further information on the potential costs, see the
memorandum titled Draft Costs/Impacts of the 40 CFR Part 63 Subparts
IIII, MMMM, and PPPP Monitoring Review Revisions, June 2019, in the
ALDT, MMPP, and PPP Dockets.
D. What are the economic impacts?
The economic impact analysis is designed to inform decision makers
about the potential economic consequences of a regulatory action. For
the current proposals, the EPA estimated the cost of becoming familiar
with the rule and re-evaluating previously developed SSM record systems
and performing periodic emissions testing at certain facilities with
add-on controls that are not already required to perform testing. To
assess the maximum potential impact, the largest cost expected to be
experienced in any one year is compared to the total sales for the
ultimate owner of the affected facilities to estimate the total burden
for each facility.
For the proposed revisions to the ALDT NESHAP, the total cost is
estimated to be approximately $110,000 for the 43 affected entities in
the first year of the rule, and an additional $120,000 in testing and
reporting costs for five facilities in the third year of the rule and
every 5 years thereafter. The 43 affected facilities are owned by 14
different parent companies, and the total costs associated with the
proposed requirements range from 0.000002 to 0.0056 percent of annual
sales revenue per ultimate owner. These costs are not expected to
result in a significant market impact, regardless of whether they are
passed on to the purchaser or absorbed by the firms.
For the proposed revisions to the MMPP NESHAP, the total cost is
estimated to be approximately $960,000 for the 368 affected entities in
the first year of the rule, and an additional $170,000 in testing and
reporting costs for seven facilities in the third year of the rule and
every 5 years thereafter. The 368 affected facilities are owned by 265
different parent companies, and the total costs associated with the
proposed requirements range from 0.000002 to 0.25 percent of annual
sales revenue per ultimate owner. These costs are not expected to
result in a significant market impact, regardless of whether they are
passed on to the purchaser or absorbed by the firms.
For the proposed revisions to the PPP NESHAP, the total cost is
estimated to be approximately $330,000 for the 125 affected entities in
the first year of the rule, and an additional $74,000 in testing and
reporting costs for three facilities in the third year of the rule and
every 5 years thereafter. The 125 affected facilities are owned by 94
different parent companies, and the total costs associated with the
proposed requirements range from 0.000008 to 0.22 percent of annual
sales revenue per ultimate owner. These costs are not expected to
result in a significant market impact, regardless of whether they are
passed on to the purchaser or absorbed by the firms.
The EPA also prepared a small business screening assessment to
determine whether any of the identified affected entities are small
entities, as defined by the U.S. Small Business Administration. One of
the facilities potentially affected by the proposed revisions to the
ALDT NESHAP is a small entity. However, the annualized costs associated
with the proposed requirement is 0.0056 percent of annual
[[Page 58987]]
sales revenue for the owner of that facility. Of the facilities
potentially affected by the proposed revisions to the MMPP NESHAP, 110
are small entities. However, the annualized costs associated with the
proposed requirements for the 103 ultimate owners of these 110 affected
small entities range from 0.001 to 0.25 percent of annual sales
revenues per ultimate owner. Of the facilities potentially affected by
the proposed revisions to the PPP NESHAP, 35 are small entities.
However, the annualized costs associated with the proposed requirements
for the 35 ultimate owners of these 35 affected small entities range
from 0.0009 to 0.22 percent of annual sales revenues per ultimate
owner. Therefore, there are no significant economic impacts on a
substantial number of small entities from these proposed amendments.
E. What are the benefits?
As stated above in section V.B. of this preamble, we were unable to
quantify the specific emissions reductions associated with eliminating
the SSM exemption, although this proposed change has the potential to
reduce emissions of volatile organic HAP.
Because these proposed amendments are not considered economically
significant, as defined by Executive Order 12866, we did not monetize
the benefits of reducing these emissions. This does not mean that there
are no benefits associated with the potential reduction in volatile
organic HAP from this rule.
VI. Request for Comments
We solicit comments on this proposed action. In addition to general
comments on this proposed action, we are also interested in additional
data that may improve the risk assessments and other analyses. We are
specifically interested in receiving any improvements to the data used
in the site-specific emissions profiles used for risk modeling. Such
data should include supporting documentation in sufficient detail to
allow characterization of the quality and representativeness of the
data or information. Section VII of this preamble provides more
information on submitting data.
VII. Submitting Data Corrections
The site-specific emissions profiles used in the source category
risk and demographic analyses and instructions are available for
download on the RTR website at https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/surface-coating-automobiles-and-light-duty-trucks-national-emission, for the ALDT NESHAP; https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/surface-coating-miscellaneous-metal-parts-and-products-national for the MMPP NESHAP; and https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/surface-coating-plastic-parts-and-products-national-emission for the PPP NESHAP. The data files include
detailed information for each HAP emissions release point for the
facilities in these source categories.
If you believe that the data are not representative or are
inaccurate, please identify the data in question, provide your reason
for concern, and provide any ``improved'' data that you have, if
available. When you submit data, you must provide documentation of the
basis for the revised values to support your suggested changes. To
submit comments on the data downloaded from the RTR website, complete
the following steps:
1. Within this downloaded file, enter suggested revisions to the
data fields appropriate for that information.
2. Fill in the commenter information fields for each suggested
revision (i.e., commenter name, commenter organization, commenter email
address, commenter phone number, and revision comments).
3. Gather documentation for any suggested emissions revisions
(e.g., performance test reports, material balance calculations).
4. Send the entire downloaded file with suggested revisions in
Microsoft[supreg] Access format and all accompanying documentation to
the ALDT, MMPP, or PPP Docket, as applicable (through the method
described in the ADDRESSES section of this preamble).
5. If you are providing comments on a single facility or multiple
facilities, you need only submit one file for all facilities. The file
should contain all suggested changes for all sources at that facility
(or facilities). We request that all data revision comments be
submitted in the form of updated Microsoft[supreg] Excel files that are
generated by the Microsoft[supreg] Access file. These files are
provided on the RTR website at https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/surface-coating-automobiles-and-light-duty-trucks-national-emission, for the ALDT NESHAP; https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/surface-coating-miscellaneous-metal-parts-and-products-national for the MMPP NESHAP; and https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/surface-coating-plastic-parts-and-products-national-emission for the PPP NESHAP.
VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Additional information about these statutes and Executive Orders
can be found at https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/laws-and-executive-orders.
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
This action is not a significant regulatory action and was,
therefore, not submitted to OMB for review.
B. Executive Order 13771: Reducing Regulations and Controlling
Regulatory Costs
This action is not expected to be an Executive Order 13771
regulatory action because this action is not significant under
Executive Order 12866.
C. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
The information collection activities in this proposal have been
submitted for approval to OMB under the PRA, as discussed for each
source category covered by this proposal in sections VIII.C.1 through
3.
1. Surface Coating of Automobiles and Light-Duty Trucks
The Information Collection Request (ICR) document that the EPA
prepared has been assigned EPA ICR number 2045.07. You can find a copy
of the ICR in the ALDT Docket (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0314), and
it is briefly summarized here.
As part of the RTR for the ALDT NESHAP, the EPA is not proposing to
revise the emission limit requirements. The EPA is proposing to revise
the SSM provisions of the rule and proposing the use of electronic data
reporting for future performance test data submittals, notifications,
and reports. This information is being collected to assure compliance
with 40 CFR part 63, subpart IIII.
Respondents/affected entities: Facilities performing surface
coating of automobiles and light-duty trucks.
Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (40 CFR part 63,
subpart IIII).
Estimated number of respondents: In the 3 years after the
amendments are final, approximately 43 respondents per year would be
subject to the NESHAP and no additional respondents are expected to
become subject to the NESHAP during that period.
Frequency of response: The total number of responses in year 1 is
129 and in year 3 is 15. Year 2 would have no responses.
Total estimated burden: The average annual burden to the ALDT
surface
[[Page 58988]]
coating facilities over the 3 years if the amendments are finalized is
estimated to be 410 hours (per year). The average annual burden to the
Agency over the 3 years after the amendments are final is estimated to
be 19 hours (per year). Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).
Total estimated cost: The average annual cost to the ALDT surface
coating facilities is $47,000 in labor costs and in the first 3 years
after the amendments are final. The average annual capital and
operation and maintenance (O&M) costs is $32,000. The total average
annual Agency cost over the first 3 years after the amendments are
final is estimated to be $910.
2. Surface Coating of Miscellaneous Metal Parts and Products
The ICR document that the EPA prepared has been assigned EPA ICR
number 2056.07. You can find a copy of the ICR in the MMPP Docket
(Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0312), and it is briefly summarized
here.
As part of the RTR for the MMPP NESHAP, the EPA is not proposing to
revise the emission limit requirements. The EPA is proposing to revise
the SSM provisions of the rule and proposing the use of electronic data
reporting for future performance test data submittals, notifications,
and reports. This information is being collected to assure compliance
with 40 CFR part 63, subpart MMMM.
Respondents/affected entities: Facilities performing surface
coating of miscellaneous metal parts and products.
Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (40 CFR part 63,
subpart MMMM).
Estimated number of respondents: In the 3 years after the
amendments are final, approximately 368 respondents per year will be
subject to the NESHAP and no additional respondents are expected to
become subject to the NESHAP during that period.
Frequency of response: The total number of responses in year 1 is
1,104 and in year 3 is 14. Year 2 would have no responses.
Total estimated burden: The average annual burden to the MMPP
surface coating facilities over the 3 years if the amendments are
finalized is estimated to be 2,934 hours (per year). The average annual
burden to the Agency over the 3 years after the amendments are final is
estimated to be 27 hours (per year) for the Agency. Burden is defined
at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).
Total estimated cost: The average annual cost to the MMPP surface
coating facilities is $334,000 in labor costs in the first 3 years
after the amendments are final. The average annual capital and O&M cost
is $44,000. The average annual Agency cost over the first 3 years after
the amendments are final is estimated to be $1,300.
3. Surface Coating of Plastic Parts and Products
The ICR document that the EPA prepared has been assigned EPA ICR
number 2044.07. You can find a copy of the ICR in the PPP Docket
(Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0313), and it is briefly summarized
here.
As part of the RTR for the PPP NESHAP, the EPA is not proposing to
revise the emission limit requirements. The EPA is proposing to revise
the SSM provisions of the rule and proposing the use of electronic data
reporting for future performance test data submittals, notifications,
and reports. This information is being collected to assure compliance
with 40 CFR part 63, subpart PPPP.
Respondents/affected entities: Facilities performing surface
coating of plastic parts and products.
Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (40 CFR part 63,
subpart PPPP).
Estimated number of respondents: In the 3 years after the
amendments are final, approximately 125 respondents per year will be
subject to the NESHAP and no additional respondents are expected to
become subject to the NESHAP during that period.
Frequency of response: The total number of responses in year 1 is
375 and in year 3 is 9. Year 2 would have no responses.
Total estimated burden: The average annual burden to the PPP
surface coating facilities over the 3 years if the amendments are
finalized is estimated to be 1,007 hours (per year). The average annual
burden to the Agency over the 3 years after the amendments are final is
estimated to be 18 hours (per year) for the Agency. Burden is defined
at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).
Total estimated cost: The average annual cost to the PPP surface
coating facilities is $115,000 in labor costs in the first 3 years
after the amendments are final. The average annual capital and O&M cost
is $19,000. The average annual Agency cost over the first 3 years after
the amendments are final is estimated to be $870.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for the
EPA's regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9.
Submit your comments on the Agency's need for this information, the
accuracy of the provided burden estimates and any suggested methods for
minimizing respondent burden to the EPA using the dockets identified at
the beginning of this rule. You may also send your ICR-related comments
to OMB's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs via email to
[email protected], Attention: Desk Officer for the EPA. Since
OMB is required to make a decision concerning the ICR between 30 and 60
days after receipt, OMB must receive comments no later than December 2,
2019. The EPA will respond to any ICR-related comments in the final
rule.
D. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
I certify that this action will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. The
economic impact associated with the proposed requirements in this
action for the affected small entities is described in section V.D.
above.
E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
This action does not contain an unfunded mandate of $100 million or
more as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not
significantly or uniquely affect small governments. The action imposes
no enforceable duty on any state, local, or tribal governments or the
private sector.
F. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have
substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between
the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
G. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments
This action does not have tribal implications as specified in
Executive Order 13175. No tribal facilities are known to be engaged in
any of the industries that would be affected by this action (ALDT
surface coating, MMPP surface coating, and PPP surface coating). Thus,
Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.
H. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks
This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is
not economically significant as defined in Executive Order 12866, and
because the EPA does not believe the environmental
[[Page 58989]]
health or safety risks addressed by this action present a
disproportionate risk to children. This action's health and risk
assessments are contained in sections III.A and C, IV.A.1 and 2, IV.B.1
and 2, and IV.C.1 and 2 of this preamble and are further documented in
the Automobiles and Light-Duty Trucks Risk Assessment Report, in the
ALDT Docket, Miscellaneous Metal Parts and Products Risk Assessment
Report, in the MMPP Docket and the Plastic Parts and Products Risk
Assessment Report, in the PPP Docket.
I. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211 because it is
not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.
J. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) and 1 CFR
Part 51
This rulemaking involves technical standards. We are proposing to
amend the ALDT NESHAP, the MMPP NESHAP, and the PPP NESHAP in this
action to provide owners and operators with the option of using two new
methods. We are proposing to add EPA Method 18 of appendix A to 40 CFR
part 60, ``Measurement of Gaseous Organic Compound Emissions by Gas
Chromatography'' to measure and subtract methane emissions from
measured total gaseous organic mass emissions as carbon. We are also
proposing to amend each of these NESHAP to incorporate by reference
ASTM Method D2369-10 (2015), ``Test Method for Volatile Content of
Coatings'' into these three NESHAP as an alternative to EPA Method 24
for the determination of the volatile matter content in surface
coatings. ASTM Method D2369-10 (2015) is a test method that allows for
more accurate results for multi-component chemical resistant coatings.
We are proposing to amend the MMPP NESHAP and the PPP NESHAP to
incorporate by reference ASTM Method D2111-10 (2015), ``Standard Test
Methods for Specific Gravity of Halogenated Organic Solvents and Their
Admixtures,'' as an alternative to ASTM Method D1475-13. ASTM Method
D2111-10 (2015) is a test method that allows measurement of specific
gravity at different temperatures that are chosen by the analyst.
We are proposing to amend all three NESHAP to update ASTM Method
D1475-98, ``Standard Test Method for Density of Liquid Coatings, Inks,
and Related Products,'' by incorporating by reference ASTM Method
D1475-13. This test method covers the measurement of the density of
paints, inks, varnishes, lacquers, and components thereof, other than
pigments, when in fluid form.
We are proposing to amend the ALDT NESHAP and the MMPP NESHAP to
update ASTM Method D2697-86 (1998), ``Standard Test Method for Volume
Nonvolatile Matter in Clear or Pigmented Coatings,'' by incorporating
by reference ASTM Method D2697-03 (2014), which is the updated version
of the previously approved method, and to update ASTM Method D6093-97
(2003), ``Standard Test Method for Percent Volume Nonvolatile Matter in
Clear or Pigmented Coatings Using Helium Gas Pycnometer,'' by
incorporating by reference ASTM Method D6093-97 (2016), which is the
updated version of the previously approved method. ASTM Method D2697-03
(2014) is a test method that can be used to determine the volume of
nonvolatile matter in clear and pigmented coatings and ASTM Method
D6093-97 (2016) is a test method that can be used to determine the
percent volume of nonvolatile matter in clear and pigmented coatings.
We are proposing to amend the ALDT NESHAP to update ASTM D5066-91,
``Standard Test Method for Determination of the Transfer Efficiency
Under Production Conditions for Spray Application of Automotive Paints-
Weight Basis,'' by incorporating by reference ASTM D5066-91 (Reapproved
2017). This test method covers procedures for determination of the
transfer efficiency (using a weight method) under production conditions
for in-plant spray application of automotive paints as outlined in
Section 18 of EPA 450/3-88-018.
We are proposing to amend the ALDT NESHAP and the MMPP NESHAP to
update ASTM Method D5965, ``Standard Test Methods for Specific Gravity
of Coating Powders,'' by incorporating by reference ASTM Method D5965-
02 (2013). These test methods cover three procedures for determining
the specific gravity (see definition) of coating powders, i.e., Test
Method A--For Testing Coating Powders, Excluding Metallics; Test Method
B--For Tests Requiring Greater Precision than Test Method A, Including
Metallics, Using Helium Pycnometry; and Test Method C--For Theoretical
Calculation Based on Raw Material.
We are proposing to amend the ALDT NESHAP to update ASTM D6266-00a,
``Test Method for Determining the Amount of Volatile Organic Compound
(VOC) Released from Waterborne Automotive Coatings and Available for
Removal in a VOC Control Device (Abatement),'' by incorporating by
reference ASTM D6266-00a (Reapproved 2017). This test method describes
the determination of the amount of VOC released from applied waterborne
automotive coatings that is available for delivery to a VOC control
device. The determination is accomplished by measuring the weight loss
of a freshly coated test panel subject to evaporation or drying and by
analysis of the VOC or water content in the coating.
The ASTM standards are available from the American Society for
Testing and Materials (ASTM), 100 Barr Harbor Drive, Post Office Box
C700, West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959. See http://www.astm.org/.
The EPA is proposing to amend the ALDT NESHAP to incorporate by
reference EPA-450/3-88-018 ``Protocol for Determining Daily Volatile
Organic Compound Emission Rate of Automobile and Light Duty Truck
Topcoat Operations'' for use in Sec. Sec. 63.3161(f), 63.3165(e). This
protocol determines the daily VOC emission rate (pounds of VOC per
gallon of coating solids deposited) for a complete automobile and
light-duty truck topcoat operation and is available in the ALDT Docket.
The protocol is designed for uses in cases where topcoat emission limit
is stated in units of pounds of VOC per gallon of solids deposited,
compliance is demonstrated each day, and entire topcoat operation is
treated as a single entity. The protocol uses the number of square feet
coated on each vehicle in each booth with each coating as the basis for
the daily weighting of individual transfer efficiency and bake oven
exhaust control values. The method is intended to apply to primary
coatings for new ALDT bodies, body parts for new ALDT, and other parts
that are coated along with these bodies or body parts. It can also be
downloaded from EPA's website at the National Service Center for
Environmental Publications, just access the following website at
https://nepis.epa.gov and search either the title or document number.
The EPA is not proposing ASTM Method D1963-85 (1996), ``Standard Test
Method for Specific Gravity of Drying Oils, Varnishes, Resins, and
Related Materials at 25/25 C,'' as an alternative for the determination
of the specific gravity because ASTM has withdrawn the method without
replacement. The EPA is also not proposing California Air Resources
Board Method 310, ``Determination of Volatile Organic
[[Page 58990]]
Compounds in Consumer Products and Reactive Organic Compounds in
Aerosol Coating Products,'' as an alternative to EPA Method 24 because
the EPA has approved the method only for consumer products and aerosol
coatings, which do not apply to the rulemakings or source categories
addressed in this action.
ASTM D5087-02 was previously approved for incorporation by
reference into Sec. 63.3165(e).
Although we identified another 14 VCS for ALDT, MMPP, and PPP as
being possible alternatives for methods included in these rules, we are
not proposing to add these VCS in these rulemakings. See the memoranda
titled Voluntary Consensus Standard Results for Surface Coating of
Automobiles and Light-duty Trucks, June 2019, Voluntary Consensus
Standard Results for Surface Coating of Miscellaneous Metal Parts and
Products, June 2019, and Voluntary Consensus Standard Results for
Surface Coating of Plastic Parts and Products, June 2019, in the ALDT
Docket, MMPP Docket, and the PPP Docket, respectively, for the reasons
for these determinations.
Under 40 CFR 63.7(f) and 40 CFR 63.8(f) of subpart A of the General
Provisions, a source may apply to the EPA for permission to use
alternative test methods or alternative monitoring requirements in
place of any required testing methods, performance specifications, or
procedures in the final rule or any amendments.
The EPA welcomes comments on this aspect of the proposed rulemaking
and, specifically, invites the public to identify potentially
applicable VCS and to explain why such standards should be used in this
regulation.
K. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations
The EPA believes that this action does not have disproportionately
high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority
populations, low-income populations, and/or indigenous peoples, as
specified in Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
The documentation for this decision is contained in sections IV.A.1
and 2, sections IV.B.1 and 2, and IV.C.1 and 2 of this preamble and the
technical reports titled Risk and Technology Review--Analysis of
Demographic Factors for Populations Living Near Surface Coating of
Automobiles and Light-Duty Trucks Source Category Operations, March
2019, Risk and Technology Review--Analysis of Demographic Factors for
Populations Living Near Surface Coating of Miscellaneous Metal Parts
and Products Source Category Operations, May 2019, and Risk and
Technology Review--Analysis of Demographic Factors for Populations
Living Near Surface Coating of Plastic Parts and Products Source
Category Operations, April 2019, available in the ALDT Docket, MMPP
Docket, and the PPP Docket, respectively.
As discussed in sections IV.A.1, IV.B.1, and IV.C.1 of this
preamble, we performed a demographic analysis for each source category,
which is an assessment of risks to individual demographic groups, of
the population close to the facilities (within 50 km and within 5 km).
In this analysis, we evaluated the distribution of HAP-related cancer
risks and noncancer hazards from the ALDT, MMPP, and PPP source
categories across different social, demographic, and economic groups
within the populations living near operations identified as having the
highest risks.
The results of the ALDT source category demographic analysis
indicate that approximately 15,000 people are exposed to a cancer risk
at or above 1-in-1 million and no one is exposed to a chronic noncancer
HI greater than 1. The overall percent of the population that is
minorities is similar nationally (38 percent) and for the category
population with cancer risk greater than or equal to 1-in-1 million (40
percent). However, the category population with cancer risk greater
than or equal to 1-in-1 million has a greater percent Hispanic
population (27 percent) as compared to the national percent Hispanic
population (18 percent).
The proximity results (irrespective of risk) indicate that the
overall percentage of the population that is minority is higher (48
percent) within 5 km of ALDT facilities than the nationwide percentage
(38 percent). This is driven by a higher percentage of ``African
American'' (27 percent) within 5 km of facilities in this category than
the nationwide percentage (12 percent).
The results of the MMPP source category demographic analysis
indicate that approximately 18,000 people are exposed to a cancer risk
at or above 1-in-1 million and no one is exposed to a chronic noncancer
HI greater than 1. The percentages of the at-risk population in the
following specific demographic groups are higher than their respective
nationwide percentages: ``White,'' ``Below the Poverty Level,'' and
``Over 25 and Without a High School Diploma.''
The proximity results (irrespective of risk) indicate that the
overall percentage of the population that is minority is higher (45
percent) within 5 km of MMPP facilities than the nationwide percentage
(38 percent). This is driven by a higher percentage of ``African
American'' (18 percent) within 5 km of facilities in this category than
the nationwide percentage (12 percent).
The results of the PPP source category demographic analysis
indicate that approximately 500 people are exposed to a cancer risk at
or above 1-in-1 million and no one is exposed to a chronic noncancer HI
greater than 1. The percentages of the at-risk population in the
following specific demographic groups are higher than their respective
nationwide percentages: ``White'' and ``Below the Poverty Level.''
The proximity results (irrespective of risk) indicate that the
population percentages for all demographic categories located within 5
km of PPP facilities are very similar to their respective nationwide
percentages.
We do not expect this proposal to achieve significant reductions in
HAP emissions. The EPA anticipates that this action does not have
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
effects on minority populations, low-income populations, and/or
indigenous peoples, as specified in Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629,
February 16, 1994) because it does not significantly affect the level
of protection provided to human health or the environment. The
documentation for this decision is contained in section IV of this
preamble and the technical reports titled Risk and Technology Review--
Analysis of Demographic Factors for Populations Living Near Surface
Coating of Automobiles and Light-Duty Trucks Category Operations, June
2019, Risk and Technology Review--Analysis of Demographic Factors for
Populations Living Near Surface Coating of Miscellaneous Metal Parts
and Products Source Category Operations, June 2019, and Risk and
Technology Review--Analysis of Demographic Factors for Populations
Living Near Surface Coating of Plastic Parts and Products Source
Category Operations, June 2019, which are available in the ALDT Docket,
MMPP Docket, and the PPP Docket, respectively.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Appendix A,
Hazardous substances, Incorporation by reference, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Surface coating of automobiles and light-
duty trucks, Surface coating of miscellaneous metal
[[Page 58991]]
parts and products, Surface coating of plastic parts and products.
Dated: August 16, 2019.
Andrew R. Wheeler,
Administrator.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Environmental
Protection Agency proposes to amend part 63 of title 40, chapter I, of
the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:
PART 63--NATIONAL EMISSION STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANTS
FOR SOURCE CATEGORIES
0
1. The authority citation for part 63 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Subpart A--General Provisions
0
2. Section 63.14 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraphs (h)(12), (13), (21), (26), (29), (30), (66),
(76), (78), (79), and (81);
0
b. Redesignating paragraphs (n)(1) through (24) as paragraphs (n)(2)
through (25); and
0
c. Adding new paragraph (n)(1).
The revisions and addition read as follows:
Sec. 63.14 Incorporations by reference
* * * * *
(h) * * *
(12) ASTM D1475-98 (Reapproved 2003), ``Standard Test Method for
Density of Liquid Coatings, Inks, and Related Products,'' IBR approved
for Sec. 63.4141(b) and (c).
(13) ASTM D1475-13, Standard Test Method for Density of Liquid
Coatings, Inks, and Related Products, approved November 1, 2013, IBR
approved for Sec. Sec. 63.3151(b), 63.3941(b) and (c), 63.3951(c),
63.4141(b) and (c), 63.4551(c), 63.4741(b) and (c), 63.4751(c), and
63.4941(b) and (c).
* * * * *
(21) ASTM D2111-10 (Reapproved 2015), Standard Test Methods for
Specific Gravity and Density of Halogenated Organic Solvents and Their
Admixtures, approved June 1, 2015, IBR approved for Sec. Sec.
63.3951(c), 63.4141(b) and (c), 63.4551(c), and 63.4741(a).
* * * * *
(26) ASTM D2369-10 (Reapproved 2015)\e\, Standard Test Method for
Volatile Content of Coatings, approved June 1, 2015, IBR approved for
Sec. Sec. 63.3151(a), 63.3961(j), 63.4141(a) and (b), 63.4161(h),
63.4321(e), 63.4341(e), 63.4351(d), 63.4541(a), 63.4561(j), 63.4741(a),
63.4941(a) and (b), and 63.4961(j).
* * * * *
(29) ASTM D2697-86 (Reapproved 1998), Standard Test Method for
Volume Nonvolatile Matter in Clear or Pigmented Coatings, IBR approved
for Sec. Sec. 63.3521(b), 63.4141(b), 63.4741(b), 63.4941(b), and
63.5160(c).
(30) ASTM D2697-03 (Reapproved 2014), Standard Test Method for
Volume Nonvolatile Matter in Clear or Pigmented Coatings, approved July
1, 2014, IBR approved for Sec. Sec. 63.3161(f), 63.3941(b),
63.4141(b), 63.4741(a) and (b), and 63.4941(b).
* * * * *
(66) ASTM D5066-91 (Reapproved 2017), Standard Test Method for
Determination of the Transfer Efficiency Under Production Conditions
for Spray Application of Automotive Paints-Weight Basis, IBR approved
for Sec. 63.3161(g).
* * * * *
(76) ASTM D5965-02 (2013), Standard Test Methods for Specific
Gravity of Coating Powders, IBR approved for Sec. Sec. 63.3151(b) and
63.3951(c).
* * * * *
(78) ASTM D6093-97 (Reapproved 2003), Standard Test Method for
Percent Volume Nonvolatile Matter in Clear or Pigmented Coatings Using
a Helium Gas Pycnometer, IBR approved for Sec. Sec. 63.3521 and
63.5160(c).
(79) ASTM D6093-97 (Reapproved 2016), Standard Test Method for
Percent Volume Nonvolatile Matter in Clear or Pigmented Coatings Using
a Helium Gas Pycnometer, Approved December 1, 2016, IBR approved for
Sec. Sec. 63.3161(f), 63.3941(b), 63.4141(b), 63.4741(a) and (b), and
63.4941(b).
* * * * *
(81) ASTM D6266-00a (Reapproved 2017), Test Method for Determining
the Amount of Volatile Organic Compound (VOC) Released from Waterborne
Automotive Coatings and Available for Removal in a VOC Control Device
(Abatement), IBR approved for Sec. 63.3165(e).
* * * * *
(n) * * *
(1) EPA-450/3-88-018, Protocol for Determining Daily Volatile
Organic Compound Emission Rate of Automobile and Light-Duty Truck
Topcoat Operations, IBR approved for Sec. Sec. 63.3161(f) and
63.3165(e)
* * * * *
Subpart IIII--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants: Surface Coating of Automobiles and Light-Duty Trucks
0
3. Section 63.3092 is amended by revising paragraph (a)(2) to read as
follows:
Sec. 63.3092 How must I control emissions from my electrodeposition
primer system if I want to comply with the combined primer-surfacer,
topcoat, final repair, glass bonding primer, and glass bonding adhesive
emission limit?
* * * * *
(a) * * *
(2) 0.10 percent by weight of any organic HAP in Table 5 of this
subpart.
* * * * *
0
4. Section 63.3093 is amended by revising paragraph (b) to read as
follows:
Sec. 63.3093 What operating limits must I meet?
* * * * *
(b) Except as provided in paragraph (d) of this section, for any
controlled coating operation(s), you must meet the operating limits
specified in Table 1 to this subpart. These operating limits apply to
the emission capture and add-on control systems on the coating
operation(s) for which you use this option, and you must establish the
operating limits during performance tests according to the requirements
in Sec. 63.3167. You must meet the operating limits at all times after
you establish them.
* * * * *
0
5. Section 63.3100 is amended by revising paragraphs (b), (d), and (f)
to read as follows:
Sec. 63.3100 What are my general requirements for complying with this
subpart?
* * * * *
(b) Before [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule
in the Federal Register], the coating operations must be in compliance
with the operating limits for emission capture systems and add-on
control devices required by Sec. 63.3093 at all times except during
periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction. On and after [date 181
days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register],
the coating operations must be in compliance with the operating limits
for emission capture systems and add-on control devices required by
Sec. 63.3093 at all times.
* * * * *
(d) Before [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule
in the Federal Register], you must always operate and maintain your
affected source including all air pollution control and monitoring
[[Page 58992]]
equipment you use for purposes of complying with this subpart according
to the provisions in Sec. 63.6(e)(1)(i). On and after [date 181 days
after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register], at
all times, the owner or operator must operate and maintain any affected
source, including associated air pollution control equipment and
monitoring equipment, in a manner consistent with safety and good air
pollution control practices for minimizing emissions. The general duty
to minimize emissions does not require the owner or operator to make
any further efforts to reduce emissions if levels required by the
applicable standard have been achieved. Determination of whether a
source is operating in compliance with operation and maintenance
requirements will be based on information available to the
Administrator that may include, but is not limited to, monitoring
results, review of operation and maintenance procedures, review of
operation and maintenance records, and inspection of the affected
source.
* * * * *
(f) Before [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule
in the Federal Register], if your affected source uses emission capture
systems and add-on control devices, you must develop a written startup,
shutdown, and malfunction plan (SSMP) according to the provisions in
Sec. 63.6(e)(3). The SSMP must address startup, shutdown, and
corrective actions in the event of a malfunction of the emission
capture system or the add-on control devices. On and after [date 181
days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register],
the SSMP is not required.
0
6. Section 63.3120 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraphs (a)(4), (a)(5) introductory text, (a)(5)(iv),
(a)(6) introductory text, (a)(6)(iii), (a)(6)(vi) through (viii),
(a)(6)(x), and (a)(6)(xiii) and (xiv);
0
b. Adding paragraphs (a)(5)(v) and (a)(6)(xv);
0
c. Revising paragraphs (a)(7) introductory text and (a)(7)(i) and
(iii);
0
d. Adding paragraph (a)(7)(iv);
0
e. Revising paragraphs (a)(8) introductory text, (a)(8)(ii), (a)(8)(v)
through (vii), (a)(8)(ix), (a)(8)(xii), (a)(9) introductory text,
(a)(9)(i) and (ii), and (c) introductory text; and
0
f. Adding paragraphs (d) through (h).
The revisions and additions read as follows:
Sec. 63.3120 What reports must I submit?
(a) * * *
(4) No deviations. If there were no deviations from the emission
limits, operating limits, or work practices in Sec. Sec. 63.3090,
63.3091, 63.3092, 63.3093, and 63.3094 that apply to you, the
semiannual compliance report must include a statement that there were
no deviations from the applicable emission limitations during the
reporting period. If you used control devices to comply with the
emission limits, and there were no periods during which the CPMS were
out of control as specified in Sec. 63.8(c)(7), the semiannual
compliance report must include a statement that there were no periods
during which the CPMS were out of control during the reporting period.
(5) Deviations: Adhesive, sealer, and deadener. Before [date 181
days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register],
if there was a deviation from the applicable emission limits in Sec.
63.3090(c) and (d) or Sec. 63.3091(c) and (d), the semiannual
compliance report must contain the information in paragraphs (a)(5)(i)
through (iv) of this section. On and after [date 181 days after date of
publication of final rule in the Federal Register], if there was a
deviation from the applicable emission limits in Sec. 63.3090(c) and
(d) or Sec. 63.3091(c) and (d), the semiannual compliance report must
contain the information in paragraphs (a)(5)(i) through (v) of this
section.
* * * * *
(iv) The reason for the deviation (including unknown cause, if
applicable).
(v) On and after [date 181 days after date of publication of final
rule in the Federal Register], the number of deviations and, for each
deviation, a list of the affected source or equipment, an estimate of
the quantity of each regulated pollutant emitted over the applicable
emission limit in Sec. 63.3090(c) and (d) or Sec. 63.3091(c) and (d),
and a description of the method used to estimate the emissions.
(6) Deviations: Combined electrodeposition primer, primer-surfacer,
topcoat, final repair, glass bonding primer and glass bonding adhesive,
or combined primer-surfacer, topcoat, final repair, glass bonding
primer, and glass bonding adhesive plus all coatings and thinners,
except for deadener materials and for adhesive and sealer materials
that are not components of glass bonding systems, used in coating
operations added to the affected source pursuant to Sec. 63.3082(c).
Before [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the
Federal Register], if there was a deviation from the applicable
emission limits in Sec. 63.3090(a) or (b) or Sec. 63.3091(a) or (b)
or the applicable operating limit(s) in Table 1 to this subpart, the
semiannual compliance report must contain the information in paragraphs
(a)(6)(i) through (xiv) of this section. On and after [date 181 days
after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register], if
there was a deviation from the applicable emission limits in Sec.
63.3090(a) or (b) or Sec. 63.3091(a) or (b) or the applicable
operating limit(s) in Table 1 to this subpart, the semiannual
compliance report must contain the information in paragraphs (a)(6)(i)
through (xv) of this section.
* * * * *
(iii) The date and time that each malfunction of the capture system
or add-on control devices used to control emissions from these
operations started and stopped.
* * * * *
(vi) Before [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule
in the Federal Register], the date and time that each CPMS was
inoperative, except for zero (low-level) and high-level checks. On and
after [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the
Federal Register], for each instance that the CPMS was inoperative,
except for zero (low-level) and high-level checks, the date, time, and
duration that the CPMS was inoperative; the cause (including unknown
cause) for the CPMS being inoperative; and descriptions of corrective
actions taken.
(vii) Before [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule
in the Federal Register], the date and time period that each CPMS was
out of control, including the information in Sec. 63.8(c)(8). On and
after [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the
Federal Register], for each instance that the CPMS was out of control,
as specified in Sec. 63.8(c)(7), the date, time, and duration that the
CPMS was out-of-control; the cause (including unknown cause) for the
CPMS being out-of-control; and descriptions of corrective actions
taken.
(viii) Before [date 181 days after date of publication of final
rule in the Federal Register], The date and time period of each
deviation from an operating limit in Table 1 to this subpart; date and
time period of each bypass of an add-on control device; and whether
each deviation occurred during a period of startup, shutdown, or
malfunction or during another period. On and after [date 181 days after
date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register], the date,
time, and duration of each deviation from an operating limit in Table 1
to this subpart; and the date,
[[Page 58993]]
time, and duration of each bypass of an add-on control device.
* * * * *
(x) Before [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule
in the Federal Register], a breakdown of the total duration of the
deviations from each operating limit in Table 1 to this subpart and
bypasses of each add-on control device during the semiannual reporting
period into those that were due to startup, shutdown, control equipment
problems, process problems, other known causes, and other unknown
causes. On and after [date 181 days after date of publication of final
rule in the Federal Register], a breakdown of the total duration of the
deviations from each operating limit in Table 1 to this subpart and
bypasses of each add-on control device during the semiannual reporting
period into those that were due to control equipment problems, process
problems, other known causes, and other unknown causes.
* * * * *
(xiii) Before [date 181 days after date of publication of final
rule in the Federal Register], for each deviation from the work
practice standards a description of the deviation, the date and time
period of the deviation, and the actions you took to correct the
deviation. On and after [date 181 days after date of publication of
final rule in the Federal Register], for deviations from the work
practice standards, the number of deviations, and, for each deviation,
the information in paragraphs (a)(6)(xiii)(A) and (B) of this section.
(A) A description of the deviation, the date, time, and duration of
the deviation; and the actions you took to minimize emissions in
accordance with Sec. 63.3100(d).
(B) A list of the affected sources or equipment for which a
deviation occurred, the cause of the deviation (including unknown
cause, if applicable), and any corrective actions taken to return the
affected unit to its normal or usual manner of operation.
(xiv) Before [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule
in the Federal Register], a statement of the cause of each deviation.
On and after [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in
the Federal Register], for deviations from an emission limitation in
Sec. 63.3090(a) or (b) or Sec. 63.3091(a) or (b) or operating limit
in Table 1 of this subpart, a statement of the cause of each deviation
(including unknown cause, if applicable).
(xv) On and after [date 181 days after date of publication of final
rule in the Federal Register], for each deviation from an emission
limitation in Sec. 63.3090(a) or (b), or Sec. 63.3091(a) or (b), or
operating limit in Table 1 to this subpart, a list of the affected
sources or equipment for which a deviation occurred, an estimate of the
quantity of each regulated pollutant emitted over any emission limit in
Sec. 63.3090(a) or (b) or Sec. 63.3091(a) or (b), and a description
of the method used to estimate the emissions.
(7) Deviations: Separate electrodeposition primer organic HAP
content limit. Before [date 181 days after date of publication of final
rule in the Federal Register], if you used the separate
electrodeposition primer organic HAP content limits in Sec.
63.3092(a), and there was a deviation from these limits, the semiannual
compliance report must contain the information in paragraphs (a)(7)(i)
through (iii) of this section. On and after [date 181 days after date
of publication of final rule in the Federal Register], if you used the
separate electrodeposition primer organic HAP content limits in Sec.
63.3092(a), and there was a deviation from these limits, the semiannual
compliance report must contain the information in paragraphs (a)(7)(i)
through (iv) of this section.
(i) Identification of each material used that deviated from the
emission limit, and the date, time, and duration each was used.
* * * * *
(iii) A statement of the cause of each deviation (including unknown
case, if applicable).
(iv) On and after [date 181 days after date of publication of final
rule in the Federal Register], the number of deviations, a list of the
affected source or equipment, an estimate of the quantity of each
regulated pollutant emitted over any emission limit in Sec.
63.3092(a), and a description of the method used to estimate the
emissions.
(8) Deviations: Separate electrodeposition primer bake oven capture
and control limitations. Before [date 181 days after date of
publication of final rule in the Federal Register], if you used the
separate electrodeposition primer bake oven capture and control
limitations in Sec. 63.3092(b), and there was a deviation from the
limitations in Sec. 63.3092(b) or the applicable operating limit in
Table 1 to this subpart, the semiannual compliance report must contain
the information in paragraphs (a)(8)(i) through (xii) of this section.
On and after [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in
the Federal Register], if you used the separate electrodeposition
primer bake oven capture and control limitations in Sec. 63.3092(b),
and there was a deviation from the limitations in Sec. 63.3092(b) or
the applicable operating limit in Table 1 to this subpart, the
semiannual compliance report must contain the information in paragraphs
(a)(8)(i) through (xiv) of this section.
* * * * *
(ii) The date and time that each malfunction of the capture systems
or control devices used to control emissions from the electrodeposition
primer bake oven started and stopped.
* * * * *
(v) Before [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule
in the Federal Register], the date and time that each CPMS was
inoperative, except for zero (low-level) and high-level checks. On and
after [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the
Federal Register], for each instance that the CPMS was inoperative,
except for zero (low-level) and high-level checks, the date, time, and
duration that the CPMS was inoperative; the cause (including unknown
cause) for the CPMS being inoperative; and descriptions of corrective
actions taken.
(vi) Before [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule
in the Federal Register], the date, time, and duration that each CPMS
was out of control, including the information in Sec. 63.8(c)(8). On
and after [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the
Federal Register], for each instance that the CPMS was out of control,
as specified in Sec. 63.8(c)(7), the date, time, and duration that the
CPMS was out-of-control; the cause (including unknown cause) for the
CPMS being out-of-control; and descriptions of corrective actions
taken.
(vii) Before [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule
in the Federal Register], the date and time period of each deviation
from an operating limit in Table 1 to this subpart; date and time
period of each bypass of an add-on control device; and whether each
deviation occurred during a period of startup, shutdown, or malfunction
or during another period. On and after [date 181 days after date of
publication of final rule in the Federal Register], the date, time, and
duration of each deviation from an operating limit in Table 1 to this
subpart; and the date, time, and duration of each bypass of an add-on
control device.
* * * * *
(ix) Before [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule
in the Federal Register], a breakdown of the total duration of the
deviations from each operating limit in Table 1 to this subpart and
bypasses of each add-on control device during the semiannual reporting
[[Page 58994]]
period into those that were due to startup, shutdown, control equipment
problems, process problems, other known causes, and other unknown
causes. On and after [date 181 days after date of publication of final
rule in the Federal Register], a breakdown of the total duration of the
deviations from each operating limit in Table 1 to this subpart and
bypasses of each add-on control device during the semiannual reporting
period into those that were due to control equipment problems, process
problems, other known causes, and other unknown causes.
* * * * *
(xii) A statement of the cause of each deviation (including unknown
cause, if applicable).
(9) Deviations: Work practice plans. Before [date 181 days after
date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register], if there
was a deviation from an applicable work practice plan developed in
accordance with Sec. 63.3094(b) or (c), the semiannual compliance
report must contain the information in paragraphs (a)(9)(i) through
(iii) of this section. On and after [date 181 days after date of
publication of final rule in the Federal Register], if there were
deviations from an applicable work practice plan developed in
accordance with Sec. 63.3094(b) or (c), the semiannual compliance
report must contain the number of deviations, and, for each deviation,
the information in paragraphs (a)(9)(i) through (iii) of this section.
(i) Before [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule
in the Federal Register], the time period during which each deviation
occurred. On and after [date 181 days after date of publication of
final rule in the Federal Register], the date, time, and duration of
the deviation.
(ii) Before [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule
in the Federal Register], the nature of each deviation. On and after
[date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal
Register], the nature of the deviation, including a list of the
affected sources or equipment for which the deviation occurred, and the
cause of the deviation (including unknown cause, if applicable).
* * * * *
(c) Startup, shutdown, and malfunction reports. Before [date 181
days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register],
if you used add-on control devices and you had a startup, shutdown, or
malfunction during the semiannual reporting period, you must submit the
reports specified in paragraphs (c)(1) and (2) of this section. On and
after [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the
Federal Register], the reports specified in paragraphs (c)(1) and (2)
of this section are not required.
* * * * *
(d) On and after [date 181 days after date of publication of final
rule in the Federal Register], you must submit the results of the
performance test required in paragraph (b) of this section following
the procedure specified in paragraphs (d)(1) through (3) of this
section.
(1) For data collected using test methods supported by the EPA's
Electronic Reporting Tool (ERT) as listed on the EPA's ERT website
(https://www.epa.gov/electronic-reporting-air-emissions/electronic-reporting-tool-ert) at the time of the test, you must submit the
results of the performance test to the EPA via the Compliance and
Emissions Data Reporting Interface (CEDRI). (CEDRI can be accessed
through the EPA's Central Data Exchange (CDX) (https://cdx.epa.gov/)).
Performance test data must be submitted in a file format generated
through the use of the EPA's ERT or an alternate electronic file format
consistent with the extensible markup language (XML) schema listed on
the EPA's ERT website.
(2) For data collected using test methods that are not supported by
the EPA's ERT as listed on the EPA's ERT website at the time of the
test, you must submit the results of the performance test to the
Administrator at the appropriate address listed in Sec. 63.13, unless
the Administrator agrees to or specifies an alternate reporting method.
(3) If you claim that some of the performance test information
being submitted under paragraph (c)(1) of this section is confidential
business information (CBI), you must submit a complete file generated
through the use of the EPA's ERT or an alternate electronic file
consistent with the XML schema listed on the EPA's ERT website,
including information claimed to be CBI, on a compact disc, flash
drive, or other commonly used electronic storage medium to the EPA. The
electronic medium must be clearly marked as CBI and mailed to U.S. EPA/
OAPQS/CORE CBI Office, Attention: Group Leader, Measurement Policy
Group, MD C404-02, 4930 Old Page Rd., Durham, NC 27703. The same ERT or
alternate file with the CBI omitted must be submitted to the EPA via
the EPA's CDX as described in paragraph (c)(1) of this section.
(e) On and after [date 181 days after date of publication of final
rule in the Federal Register], the owner or operator shall submit the
initial notifications required in Sec. 63.9(b) and the notification of
compliance status required in Sec. 63.9(h) and Sec. 63.3110(c) to the
EPA via the CEDRI. (CEDRI can be accessed through the EPA's CDX
(https://cdx.epa.gov/)). The owner or operator must upload to CEDRI an
electronic copy of each applicable notification in portable document
format (PDF). The applicable notification must be submitted by the
deadline specified in this subpart, regardless of the method in which
the reports are submitted. Owners or operators who claim that some of
the information required to be submitted via CEDRI is CBI shall submit
a complete report generated using the appropriate form in CEDRI or an
alternate electronic file consistent with the extensible markup
language (XML) schema listed on the EPA's CEDRI website, including
information claimed to be CBI, on a compact disc, flash drive, or other
commonly used electronic storage medium to the EPA. The electronic
medium shall be clearly marked as CBI and mailed to U.S. EPA/OAQPS/CORE
CBI Office, Attention: Group Leader, Measurement Policy Group, MD C404-
02, 4930 Old Page Rd., Durham, NC 27703. The same file with the CBI
omitted shall be submitted to the EPA via the EPA's CDX as described
earlier in this paragraph.
(f) On and after [date 181 days after date of publication of final
rule in the Federal Register], or once the reporting template has been
available on the CEDRI website for 1 year, whichever date is later, the
owner or operator shall submit the semiannual compliance report
required in paragraph (a) of this section to the EPA via the CEDRI. The
CEDRI interface can be accessed through the EPA's CDX (https://cdx.epa.gov/). The owner or operator must use the appropriate
electronic template on the CEDRI Web for this subpart or an alternate
electronic file format consistent with the XML schema listed on the
CEDRI website (https://www.epa.gov/electronic-reporting-air-emissions/compliance-and-emissions-data-reporting-interface-cedri). If the
reporting form for the semiannual compliance report specific to this
subpart is not available in CEDRI at the time that the report is due,
you must submit the report to the Administrator at the appropriate
addresses listed in Sec. 63.13. Once the form has been available in
CEDRI for 1 year, you must begin submitting all subsequent reports via
CEDRI. The reports must be submitted by the deadlines specified in this
subpart, regardless of the method in
[[Page 58995]]
which the reports are submitted. Owners or operators who claim that
some of the information required to be submitted via CEDRI is CBI shall
submit a complete report generated using the appropriate form in CEDRI
or an alternate electronic file consistent with the XML schema listed
on the EPA's CEDRI website, including information claimed to be CBI, on
a compact disc, flash drive, or other commonly used electronic storage
medium to the EPA. The electronic medium shall be clearly marked as CBI
and mailed to U.S. EPA/OAQPS/CORE CBI Office, Attention: Group Leader,
Measurement Policy Group, MD C404-02, 4930 Old Page Rd., Durham, NC
27703. The same file with the CBI omitted shall be submitted to the EPA
via the EPA's CDX as described earlier in this paragraph.
(g) If you are required to electronically submit a report through
the CEDRI in the EPA's CDX, and due to a planned or actual outage of
either the EPA's CEDRI or CDX systems within the period of time
beginning 5 business days prior to the date that the submission is due,
you will be or are precluded from accessing CEDRI or CDX and submitting
a required report within the time prescribed, you may assert a claim of
EPA system outage for failure to timely comply with the reporting
requirement. You must submit notification to the Administrator in
writing as soon as possible following the date you first knew, or
through due diligence should have known, that the event may cause or
caused a delay in reporting. You must provide to the Administrator a
written description identifying the date, time and length of the
outage; a rationale for attributing the delay in reporting beyond the
regulatory deadline to the EPA system outage; describe the measures
taken or to be taken to minimize the delay in reporting; and identify a
date by which you propose to report, or if you have already met the
reporting requirement at the time of the notification, the date you
reported. In any circumstance, the report must be submitted
electronically as soon as possible after the outage is resolved. The
decision to accept the claim of EPA system outage and allow an
extension to the reporting deadline is solely within the discretion of
the Administrator.
(h) If you are required to electronically submit a report through
CEDRI in the EPA's CDX and a force majeure event is about to occur,
occurs, or has occurred or there are lingering effects from such an
event within the period of time beginning 5 business days prior to the
date the submission is due, the owner or operator may assert a claim of
force majeure for failure to timely comply with the reporting
requirement. For the purposes of this section, a force majeure event is
defined as an event that will be or has been caused by circumstances
beyond the control of the affected facility, its contractors, or any
entity controlled by the affected facility that prevents you from
complying with the requirement to submit a report electronically within
the time period prescribed. Examples of such events are acts of nature
(e.g., hurricanes, earthquakes, or floods), acts of war or terrorism,
or equipment failure or safety hazard beyond the control of the
affected facility (e.g., large scale power outage). If you intend to
assert a claim of force majeure, you must submit notification to the
Administrator in writing as soon as possible following the date you
first knew, or through due diligence should have known, that the event
may cause or caused a delay in reporting. You must provide to the
Administrator a written description of the force majeure event and a
rationale for attributing the delay in reporting beyond the regulatory
deadline to the force majeure event; describe the measures taken or to
be taken to minimize the delay in reporting; and identify a date by
which you propose to report, or if you have already met the reporting
requirement at the time of the notification, the date you reported. In
any circumstance, the reporting must occur as soon as possible after
the force majeure event occurs. The decision to accept the claim of
force majeure and allow an extension to the reporting deadline is
solely within the discretion of the Administrator.
0
7. Section 63.3130 is amended by revising paragraphs (g) and (h) and
adding paragraph (p) to read as follows:
Sec. 63.3130 What records must I keep?
* * * * *
(g) Before [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule
in the Federal Register], a record of the date, time, and duration of
each deviation, and for each deviation, a record of whether the
deviation occurred during a period of startup, shutdown, or
malfunction. On and after [date 181 days after date of publication of
final rule in the Federal Register], for each deviation from an
emission limitation, operating limit, or work practice plan reported
under Sec. 63.3120(a)(5) through (9), a record of the information
specified in paragraphs (g)(1) through (4) of this section, as
applicable.
(1) The date, time, and duration of the deviation, and for each
deviation, the information as reported under Sec. 63.3120(a)(5)
through (9).
(2) A list of the affected sources or equipment for which the
deviation occurred and the cause of the deviation, as reported under
Sec. 63.3120(a)(5) through (9).
(3) An estimate of the quantity of each regulated pollutant emitted
over any applicable emission limit in Sec. 63.3090 (a) through (d) or
63.3091(a) through (d) or any applicable operating limit in Table 1 to
this subpart, and a description of the method used to calculate the
estimate, as reported under Sec. 63.3120(a)(5) through (9).
(4) A record of actions taken to minimize emissions in accordance
with Sec. 63.3100(d) and any corrective actions taken to return the
affected unit to its normal or usual manner of operation.
(h) Before [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule
in the Federal Register], the records required by Sec. 63.6(e)(3)(iii)
through (v) related to startup, shutdown, and malfunction. On and after
[date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal
Register], the provisions of this paragraph no longer apply.
* * * * *
(p) On and after [date 181 days after date of publication of final
rule in the Federal Register], any records required to be maintained by
this subpart that are submitted electronically via the EPA's CEDRI may
be maintained in electronic format. This ability to maintain electronic
copies does not affect the requirement for facilities to make records,
data, and reports available upon request to a delegated air agency or
the EPA as part of an on-site compliance evaluation.
0
8. Section 63.3131 is amended by revising paragraph (a) to read as
follows:
Sec. 63.3131 In what form and for how long must I keep my records?
(a) Your records must be in a form suitable and readily available
for expeditious review according to Sec. 63.10(b)(1). Where
appropriate, the records may be maintained as electronic spreadsheets
or as a database. On and after [date 181 days after date of publication
of final rule in the Federal Register], any records required to be
maintained by this subpart that are submitted electronically via the
EPA's CEDRI may be maintained in electronic format. This ability to
maintain electronic copies does not affect the requirement for
facilities to make records, data, and reports available upon request to
a delegated air agency or the EPA as part of an on-site compliance
evaluation.
* * * * *
[[Page 58996]]
0
9. Section 63.3151 is amended by revising paragraphs (a)(1)(i), (a)(2)
and (4), and (b) to read as follows.
Sec. 63.3151 How do I demonstrate initial compliance with the
emission limitations?
* * * * *
(a) * * *
(1) * * *
(i) Count each organic HAP in Table 5 to this subpart that is
present at 0.1 percent by mass or more and at 1.0 percent by mass or
more for other compounds. For example, if toluene (not listed in Table
5 to this subpart) is measured to be 0.5 percent of the material by
mass, you do not have to count it. Express the mass fraction of each
organic HAP you count as a value truncated to four places after the
decimal point (e.g., 0.3791).
* * * * *
(2) EPA Method 24 (appendix A-7 to 40 CFR part 60). For coatings,
you may use EPA Method 24 to determine the mass fraction of nonaqueous
volatile matter and use that value as a substitute for mass fraction of
organic HAP. As an alternative to using EPA Method 24, you may use ASTM
D2369-10 (2015)\e\ (incorporated by reference, see Sec. 63.14).
* * * * *
(4) Information from the supplier or manufacturer of the material.
You may rely on information other than that generated by the test
methods specified in paragraphs (a)(1) through (3) of this section,
such as manufacturer's formulation data, if it represents each organic
HAP in Table 5 to this subpart that is present at 0.1 percent by mass
or more and at 1.0 percent by mass or more for other compounds. For
example, if toluene (not listed in Table 5 of this subpart) is 0.5
percent of the material by mass, you do not have to count it. If there
is a disagreement between such information and results of a test
conducted according to paragraphs (a)(1) through (3) of this section,
then the test method results will take precedence, unless after
consultation, the facility demonstrates to the satisfaction of the
enforcement authority that the facility's data are correct.
* * * * *
(b) Determine the density of each material used. Determine the
density of each material used during the compliance period from test
results using ASTM D1475-13 (incorporated by reference, see Sec.
63.14) or for powder coatings, test method A or test method B of ASTM
D5965-02 (2013) (incorporated by reference, see Sec. 63.14), or
information from the supplier or manufacturer of the material. If there
is disagreement between ASTM D1475-13 test results or ASTM D5965-02
(2013), test method A or test method B test results and the supplier's
or manufacturer's information, the test results will take precedence
unless after consultation, the facility demonstrates to the
satisfaction of the enforcement authority that the facility's data are
correct.
* * * * *
0
10. Section 63.3160 is amended by revising the section heading and
paragraph (b)(1) to read as follows:
Sec. 63.3160 By what date must I conduct initial performance tests
and other initial compliance demonstrations?
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(1) All emission capture systems, add-on control devices, and CPMS
must be installed and operating no later than the applicable compliance
date specified in Sec. 63.3083. You must conduct an initial
performance test of each capture system and add-on control device
according to the procedures in Sec. Sec. 63.3164 through 63.3166 and
establish the operating limits required by Sec. 63.3093 no later than
the compliance date specified in Sec. 63.3083.
* * * * *
0
11. Section 63.3161 is amended by revising paragraphs (a), (f)(1), (g),
and (k)(3) to read as follows:
Sec. 63.3161 How do I demonstrate initial compliance?
(a) You must meet all of the requirements of this section to
demonstrate initial compliance. To demonstrate initial compliance, the
organic HAP emissions from the combined electrodeposition primer,
primer-surfacer, topcoat, final repair, glass bonding primer, and glass
bonding adhesive operations plus all coatings and thinners, except for
deadener materials and for adhesive and sealer materials that are not
components of glass bonding systems, used in coating operations added
to the affected source pursuant to Sec. 63.3082(c) must meet the
applicable emission limitation in Sec. 63.3090(a) or Sec. 63.3091(a)
and the applicable operating limits and work practice standards in
Sec. Sec. 63.3093 and 63.3094.
* * * * *
(f) * * *
(1) ASTM Method D2697-03 (2014) or ASTM Method D6093-97 (2016). You
may use ASTM D2697-03 (Reapproved 2014) (incorporated by reference, see
Sec. 63.14), or ASTM D6093-97 (Reapproved 2016) (incorporated by
reference, see Sec. 63.14), to determine the volume fraction of
coating solids for each coating. Divide the nonvolatile volume percent
obtained with the methods by 100 to calculate volume fraction of
coating solids.
* * * * *
(g) Determine the transfer efficiency for each coating. You must
determine the transfer efficiency for each primer-surfacer and topcoat
coating, and for all coatings, except for deadener and for adhesive and
sealer that are not components of glass bonding systems, used in
coating operations added to the affected source pursuant to Sec.
63.3082(c) using ASTM D5066-91 (Reapproved 2017) (incorporated by
reference, see Sec. 63.14), or the guidelines presented in ``Protocol
for Determining Daily Volatile Organic Compound Emission Rate of
Automobile and Light-Duty Truck Topcoat Operations,'' EPA-450/3-88-018.
You may conduct transfer efficiency testing on representative coatings
and for representative spray booths as described in ``Protocol for
Determining Daily Volatile Organic Compound Emission Rate of Automobile
and Light-Duty Truck Topcoat Operations,'' EPA-450/3-88-018. You may
assume 100 percent transfer efficiency for electrodeposition primer
coatings, glass bonding primers, and glass bonding adhesives. For final
repair coatings, you may assume 40 percent transfer efficiency for air
atomized spray and 55 percent transfer efficiency for electrostatic
spray and high volume, low pressure spray. For blackout, chip resistant
edge primer, interior color, in-line repair, lower body anti-chip
coatings, or underbody anti-chip coatings, you may assume 40 percent
transfer efficiency for air atomized spray, 55 percent transfer
efficiency for electrostatic spray and high volume-low pressure spray,
and 80 percent transfer efficiency for airless spray.
* * * * *
(k) * * *
(3) Determine the mass fraction of volatile organic matter for each
coating and thinner used in the coating operation controlled by the
solvent recovery system during the month, kg volatile organic matter
per kg coating. You may determine the volatile organic matter mass
fraction using EPA Method 24 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-7, or an EPA
approved alternative method, or you may use information provided by the
manufacturer or supplier of the coating. In the event of any
inconsistency between information provided by the manufacturer or
supplier and the results of EPA Method 24 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix
A-7, or an approved alternative method, the test method results will
govern unless after
[[Page 58997]]
consultation, the facility demonstrates to the satisfaction of the
enforcement authority that the facility's data are correct.
* * * * *
0
12. Section 63.3163 is amended by revising the section heading and
paragraph (c) introductory text, adding paragraph (c)(3), and revising
paragraphs (f) and (h) to read as follows:
Sec. 63.3163 How do I conduct periodic performance tests and
demonstrate continuous compliance with the emission limitations?
* * * * *
(c) You must demonstrate continuous compliance with each operating
limit required by Sec. 63.3093 that applies to you, as specified in
Table 1 to this subpart, and you must conduct performance tests as
specified in paragraph (c)(3) of this section.
* * * * *
(3) Except for solvent recovery systems for which you conduct
liquid-liquid material balances according to Sec. 63.3161(k) for
controlled coating operations, you must conduct periodic performance
tests and establish the operating limits required by Sec. 63.3093
within 5 years following the previous performance test. You must
conduct the first periodic performance test before [date 3 years after
date of publications of final rule in the Federal Register], unless you
are already required to complete periodic performance tests as a
requirement of renewing your facility's operating permit under 40 CFR
part 70 or 40 CFR part 71 and have conducted a performance test on or
after [date 2 years before date of publications of final rule in the
Federal Register]. Thereafter you must conduct a performance test no
later than 5 years following the previous performance test. Operating
limits must be confirmed or reestablished during each performance test.
For any control device for which you are using the catalytic oxidizer
control option at Sec. 63.3167(b) and following the catalyst
maintenance procedures in Sec. 63.3167(b)(6), you are not required to
conduct periodic control device performance testing as specified by
this paragraph. For any control device for which instruments are used
to continuously measure organic compound emissions, you are not
required to conduct periodic control device performance testing as
specified by this paragraph.
* * * * *
(f) If there were no deviations from the emission limitations,
submit a statement as part of the semiannual compliance report that you
were in compliance with the emission limitations during the reporting
period because the organic HAP emission rate for each compliance period
was less than or equal to the applicable emission limit in Sec.
63.3090(a) or Sec. 63.3091(a), Sec. 63.3090(b) or Sec. 63.3091(b),
or Sec. 63.3092(a) or Sec. 63.3092(b), you achieved the operating
limits required by Sec. 63.3093, and you achieved the work practice
standards required by Sec. 63.3094 during each compliance period.
* * * * *
(h) Before [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule
in the Federal Register], consistent with Sec. Sec. 63.6(e) and
63.7(e)(1), deviations that occur during a period of startup, shutdown,
or malfunction of the emission capture system, add-on control device,
or coating operation that may affect emission capture or control device
efficiency are not violations if you demonstrate to the Administrator's
satisfaction that you were operating in accordance with Sec.
63.6(e)(1). The Administrator will determine whether deviations that
occur during a period you identify as a startup, shutdown, or
malfunction are violations according to the provisions in Sec.
63.6(e). On and after [date 181 days after date of publication of final
rule in the Federal Register], the provisions of this paragraph no
longer apply.
* * * * *
0
13. Section 63.3164 is amended by revising paragraphs (a) introductory
text and (a)(1) to read as follows:
Sec. 63.3164 What are the general requirements for performance tests?
(a) You must conduct each applicable performance test required by
Sec. Sec. 63.3160, 63.3163, and 63.3171 according to the requirements
in Sec. 63.7(e)(1) and under the conditions in this section unless you
obtain a waiver of the performance test according to the provisions in
Sec. 63.7(h).
(1) Representative coating operation operating conditions. You must
conduct the performance test under representative operating conditions
for the coating operation. Before [date 181 days after date of
publication of final rule in the Federal Register], operations during
periods of startup, shutdown, or malfunction, and during periods of
nonoperation do not constitute representative conditions. You must
record the process information that is necessary to document operating
conditions during the test and explain why the conditions represent
normal operation. On and after [date 181 days after date of publication
of final rule in the Federal Register], operations during periods of
startup, shutdown, or nonoperation do not constitute representative
conditions for purposes of conducting a performance test. The owner or
operator may not conduct performance tests during periods of
malfunction. You must record the process information that is necessary
to document operating conditions during the test and explain why the
conditions represent normal operation. Upon request, you must make
available to the Administrator such records as may be necessary to
determine the conditions of performance tests.
* * * * *
0
14. Section 63.3165 is amended by revising the introductory text and
paragraphs (e) introductory text, the definition of
``Wvocc,i'' in Equation 6 of paragraph (e)(2), the
definition of ``Wvocc,i'' in Equation 7 of paragraph (e)(3),
and the definition of ``Ws,i'' in Equation 8 of paragraph
(e)(4) to read as follows:
Sec. 63.3165 How do I determine the emission capture system
efficiency?
You must use the procedures and test methods in this section to
determine capture efficiency as part of the performance test required
by Sec. 63.3160 and Sec. 63.3163. For purposes of this subpart, a
spray booth air seal is not considered a natural draft opening in a PTE
or a temporary total enclosure provided you demonstrate that the
direction of air movement across the interface between the spray booth
air seal and the spray booth is into the spray booth. For purposes of
this subpart, a bake oven air seal is not considered a natural draft
opening in a PTE or a temporary total enclosure provided you
demonstrate that the direction of air movement across the interface
between the bake oven air seal and the bake oven is into the bake oven.
You may use lightweight strips of fabric or paper, or smoke tubes to
make such demonstrations as part of showing that your capture system is
a PTE or conducting a capture efficiency test using a temporary total
enclosure. You cannot count air flowing from a spray booth air seal
into a spray booth as air flowing through a natural draft opening into
a PTE or into a temporary total enclosure unless you elect to treat
that spray booth air seal as a natural draft opening. You cannot count
air flowing from a bake oven air seal into a bake oven as air flowing
through a natural draft opening into a PTE or into a temporary total
enclosure unless you elect to treat that bake oven air seal as a
natural draft opening.
* * * * *
(e) Panel testing to determine the capture efficiency of flash-off
or bake oven emissions. You may conduct panel
[[Page 58998]]
testing to determine the capture efficiency of flash-off or bake oven
emissions using ASTM D5087-02 (incorporated by reference, see Sec.
63.14), ASTM D6266-00a (Reapproved 2017) (incorporated by reference,
see Sec. 63.14), or the guidelines presented in ``Protocol for
Determining Daily Volatile Organic Compound Emission Rate of Automobile
and Light-Duty Truck Topcoat Operations,'' EPA-450/3-88-018 . You may
conduct panel testing on representative coatings as described in
``Protocol for Determining Daily Volatile Organic Compound Emission
Rate of Automobile and Light-Duty Truck Topcoat Operations,'' EPA-450/
3-88-018. The results of these panel testing procedures are in units of
mass of VOC per volume of coating solids deposited and must be
converted to a percent value for use in this subpart. If you panel test
representative coatings, then you may convert the panel test result for
each representative coating either to a unique percent capture
efficiency for each coating grouped with that representative coating by
using coating specific values for the volume of coating solids
deposited per volume of coating used, mass of VOC per volume of
coating, volume fraction solids, transfer efficiency, density and mass
fraction VOC in Equations 4 through 6 of this section; or to a
composite percent capture efficiency for the group of coatings by using
composite values for the group of coatings for the volume of coating
solids deposited per volume of coating used and for the mass of VOC per
volume of coating, and average values for the group of coatings for
volume fraction solids, transfer efficiency, density and mass fraction
VOC in Equations 4 through 6 of this section. If you panel test each
coating, then you must convert the panel test result for each coating
to a unique percent capture efficiency for that coating by using
coating specific values for the volume of coating solids deposited per
volume of coating used, mass of VOC per volume of coating, volume
fraction solids, transfer efficiency, density, and mass fraction VOC in
Equations 4 through 6 of this section. Panel test results expressed in
units of mass of VOC per volume of coating solids deposited must be
converted to percent capture efficiency using Equation 4 of this
section. An alternative for using panel test results expressed in units
of mass of VOC per mass of coating solids deposited is presented in
paragraph (e)(3) of this section.
* * * * *
(2) * * *
Wvocc,i = Mass fraction of VOC in coating, i, or
average mass fraction of VOC for the group of coatings, including
coating, i, kg VOC per kg coating, determined by EPA Method 24
(appendix A-7 to 40 CFR part 60) or the guidelines for combining
analytical VOC content and formulation solvent content presented in
Section 9 of ``Protocol for Determining Daily Volatile Organic
Compound Emission Rate of Automobile and Light-Duty Truck Topcoat
Operations,'' EPA-450/3-88-018 (Docket ID No. OAR-2002-0093 and
Docket ID No. A-2001-22).
(3) * * *
Wvocc,i = Mass fraction of VOC in coating, i, or
average mass fraction of VOC for the group of coatings, including
coating, i, kg VOC per kg coating, determined by EPA Method 24
(appendix A-7 to 40 CFR part 60) or the guidelines for combining
analytical VOC content and formulation solvent content presented in
Section 9 of ``Protocol for Determining Daily Volatile Organic
Compound Emission Rate of Automobile and Light-Duty Truck Topcoat
Operations,'' EPA-450/3-88-018 (Docket ID No. OAR-2002-0093 and
Docket ID No. A-2001-22).
(4) * * *
Ws, i = Mass fraction of coating solids for coating,
i, or average mass fraction of coating solids for the group of
coatings including coating, i, kg coating solids per kg coating,
determined by EPA Method 24 (appendix A-7 to 40 CFR part 60) or the
guidelines for combining analytical VOC content and formulation
solvent content presented in ``Protocol for Determining Daily
Volatile Organic Compound Emission Rate of Automobile and Light-Duty
Truck Topcoat Operations,'' EPA-450/3-88-018 (Docket ID No. OAR-
2002-0093 and Docket ID No. A-2001-22).
* * * * *
0
15. Section 63.3166 is amended by revising the introductory text and
paragraphs (a)(1) through (4) and (b) introductory text, and adding
paragraph (b)(4) to read as follows:
Sec. 63.3166 How do I determine the add-on control device emission
destruction or removal efficiency?
You must use the procedures and test methods in this section to
determine the add-on control device emission destruction or removal
efficiency as part of the performance test required by Sec. Sec.
63.3160, 63.3163, or 63.3171. You must conduct three test runs as
specified in Sec. 63.7(e)(3), and each test run must last at least 1
hour.
(a) * * *
(1) Use EPA Method 1 or 1A of appendix A-1 to 40 CFR part 60, as
appropriate, to select sampling sites and velocity traverse points.
(2) Use EPA Method 2, 2A, 2C, 2D, or 2F of appendix A-1, or 2G of
appendix A-2 to 40 CFR part 60, as appropriate, to measure gas
volumetric flow rate.
(3) Use EPA Method 3, 3A, or 3B of appendix A-2 to 40 CFR part 60,
as appropriate, for gas analysis to determine dry molecular weight. The
ANSI/ASME PTC 19.10-1981, ``Flue and Exhaust Gas Analyses [Part 10,
Instruments and Apparatus]'' (incorporated by reference, see Sec.
63.14), may be used as an alternative to EPA Method 3B.
(4) Use EPA Method 4 of appendix A-3 to 40 CFR part 60 to determine
stack gas moisture.
* * * * *
(b) Measure total gaseous organic mass emissions as carbon at the
inlet and outlet of the add-on control device simultaneously, using
either EPA Method 25 or 25A of appendix A-7 to 40 CFR part 60, as
specified in paragraphs (b)(1) through (4) of this section. You must
use the same method for both the inlet and outlet measurements.
* * * * *
(4) You may use EPA Method 18 of appendix A-6 to 40 CFR part 60 to
subtract methane emissions from measured total gaseous organic mass
emissions as carbon.
* * * * *
0
16. Section 63.3167 is amended by revising the section heading,
introductory text, and paragraph (f)(1) to read as follows:
Sec. 63.3167 How do I establish the add-on control device operating
limits during performance tests?
During the performance tests required by Sec. Sec. 63.3160,
63.3163, and 63.3171 (and described in Sec. Sec. 63.3164 and 63.3166),
you must establish the operating limits required by Sec. 63.3093
according to this section, unless you have received approval for
alternative monitoring and operating limits under Sec. 63.8(f) as
specified in Sec. 63.3093.
* * * * *
(f) * * *
(1) During the capture efficiency determination required by
Sec. Sec. 63.3160 and 63.3163 and described in Sec. Sec. 63.3164 and
63.3165, you must monitor and record either the gas volumetric flow
rate or the duct static pressure for each separate capture device in
your emission capture system at least once every 15 minutes during each
of the three test runs at a point in the duct between the capture
device and the add-on control device inlet.
* * * * *
0
17. Section 63.3168 is amended by revising paragraphs (a)(4) through
(7) and (c)(3) introductory text to read as follows:
[[Page 58999]]
Sec. 63.3168 What are the requirements for continuous parameter
monitoring system installation, operation, and maintenance?
(a) * * *
(4) You must maintain the CPMS at all times in accordance with
Sec. 63.3100(d) and have readily available necessary parts for routine
repairs of the monitoring equipment.
(5) Before [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule
in the Federal Register], you must operate the CPMS and collect
emission capture system and add-on control device parameter data at all
times that a controlled coating operation is operating, except during
monitoring malfunctions, associated repairs, and required quality
assurance or control activities (including, if applicable, calibration
checks and required zero and span adjustments). On and after [date 181
days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register],
you must operate the CPMS and collect emission capture system and add-
on control device parameter data at all times that a controlled coating
operation is operating in accordance with Sec. 63.3100(d).
(6) Before [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule
in the Federal Register], you must not use emission capture system or
add-on control device parameter data recorded during monitoring
malfunctions, associated repairs, out-of-control periods, or required
quality assurance or control activities when calculating data averages.
You must use all the data collected during all other periods in
calculating the data averages for determining compliance with the
emission capture system and add-on control device operating limits. On
and after [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the
Federal Register], startups and shutdowns are normal operation for this
source category. Emissions from these activities are to be included
when determining if the standards specified in Sec. Sec. 63.3090,
63.3091, 63.3092, 63.4292, and 63.4293 are being attained. You must not
use emission capture system or add-on control device parameter data
recorded during monitoring malfunctions, associated repairs, out-of-
control periods, or required quality assurance or control activities
when calculating data averages. You must use all the data collected
during all other periods in calculating the data averages for
determining compliance with the emission capture system and add-on
control device operating limits.
(7) A monitoring malfunction is any sudden, infrequent, not
reasonably preventable failure of the CPMS to provide valid data.
Monitoring failures that are caused in part by poor maintenance or
careless operation are not malfunctions. Before [date 181 days after
date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register], any period
for which the monitoring system is out of control and data are not
available for required calculations is a deviation from the monitoring
requirements. On and after [date 181 days after date of publication of
final rule in the Federal Register], except for periods of required
quality assurance or control activities, any period during which the
CPMS fails to operate and record data continuously as required by
paragraph (a)(1) of this section, or generates data that cannot be
included in calculating averages as specified in paragraph (a)(7) of
this section constitutes a deviation from the monitoring requirements.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(3) For all thermal oxidizers and catalytic oxidizers, you must
meet the requirements in paragraphs (a)(1) through (6) and (c)(3)(i)
through (vii) of this section for each gas temperature monitoring
device. For the purposes of this paragraph (c)(3), a thermocouple is
part of the temperature sensor.
* * * * *
0
18. Section 63.3171 is amended by revising paragraphs (a) and (e)(3) to
read as follows:
Sec. 63.3171 How do I demonstrate initial compliance?
(a) You must meet all of the requirements of this section to
demonstrate initial compliance. To demonstrate initial compliance, the
organic HAP emissions from the combined primer-surfacer, topcoat, final
repair, glass bonding primer, and glass bonding adhesive operations
plus all coatings and thinners, except for deadener materials and for
adhesive and sealer materials that are not components of glass bonding
systems, used in coating operations added to the affected source
pursuant to Sec. 63.3082(c) must meet the applicable emission
limitation in Sec. 63.3090(b) or Sec. 63.3091(b); the organic HAP
emissions from the electrodeposition primer operation must meet the
applicable emissions limitations in Sec. 63.3092(a) or (b); and you
must meet the applicable operating limits and work practice standards
in Sec. Sec. 63.3093 and 63.3094.
* * * * *
(e) * * *
(3) Information from the supplier or manufacturer of the material.
You may rely on information other than that generated by the test
methods specified in paragraphs (e)(1) and (2) of this section, such as
manufacturer's formulation data, if it represents each organic HAP in
Table 5 to this subpart that is present at 0.1 percent by mass, and at
1.0 percent by mass or more for other compounds. If there is a
disagreement between such information and results of a test conducted
according to paragraph (e)(1) or (2) of this section, then the test
method results will take precedence unless after consultation, the
facility demonstrates to the satisfaction of the enforcement authority
that the facility's data are correct.
* * * * *
0
19. Section 63.3176 is amended by revising the definition of
``Deviation'' to read as follows:
Sec. 63.3176 What definitions apply to this subpart?
* * * * *
Deviation means:
(1) Before [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule
in the Federal Register], any instance in which an affected source
subject to this subpart or an owner or operator of such a source:
(i) Fails to meet any requirement or obligation established by this
subpart including but not limited to any emission limit, operating
limit, or work practice standard;
(ii) Fails to meet any term or condition that is adopted to
implement an applicable requirement in this subpart and that is
included in the operating permit for any affected source required to
obtain such a permit; or
(iii) Fails to meet any emission limit or operating limit or work
practice standard in this subpart during startup, shutdown, or
malfunction, regardless of whether or not such failure is permitted by
this subpart; and
(2) On and after [date 181 days after date of publication of final
rule in the Federal Register], any instance in which an affected source
subject to this subpart or an owner or operator of such a source:
(i) Fails to meet any requirement or obligation established by this
subpart including but not limited to any emission limit, operating
limit, or work practice standard; or
(ii) Fails to meet any term or condition that is adopted to
implement an applicable requirement in this subpart and that is
included in the operating permit for any affected source required to
obtain such a permit.
* * * * *
0
20. Table 2 to subpart IIII of part 63 is revised to read as follows:
[[Page 59000]]
Table 2 to Subpart IIII of Part 63--Applicability of General Provisions to Subpart IIII of Part 63
You must comply with the applicable General Provisions requirements according to the following table:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Applicable to subpart
Citation Subject IIII Explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 63.1(a)(1)-(12)............... General Applicability.. Yes....................
Sec. 63.1(b)(1)-(3)................ Initial Applicability Yes.................... Applicability to
Determination. subpart IIII is also
specified in Sec.
63.3081.
Sec. 63.1(c)(1).................... Applicability After Yes....................
Standard Established.
Sec. 63.1(c)(2).................... Applicability of Permit No..................... Area sources are not
Program for Area subject to subpart
Sources. IIII.
Sec. 63.1(c)(5).................... Extensions and Yes....................
Notifications.
Sec. 63.1(e)....................... Applicability of Permit Yes....................
Program Before
Relevant Standard is
Set.
Sec. 63.2.......................... Definitions............ Yes.................... Additional definitions
are specified in Sec.
63.3176.
Sec. 63.3.......................... Units and Abbreviations Yes....................
Sec. 63.4(a)(1)-(2)................ Prohibited Activities.. Yes....................
Sec. 63.4(b)-(c)................... Circumvention/ Yes....................
Fragmentation.
Sec. 63.5(a)....................... Preconstruction Review Yes....................
Applicability.
Sec. 63.5(b)(1), (3), (4), (6)..... Requirements for Yes....................
Existing, Newly
Constructed, and
Reconstructed Sources.
Sec. 63.5(d)(1)(i)-(ii)(F), Application for Yes....................
(d)(1)(ii)(H), (d)(1)(ii)(J), Approval of
(d)(1)(iii), (d)(2)-(4). Construction/
Reconstruction.
Sec. 63.5(e)....................... Approval of Yes....................
Construction/
Reconstruction.
Sec. 63.5(f)....................... Approval of Yes....................
Construction/
Reconstruction Based
on Prior State Review.
Sec. 63.6(a)....................... Compliance With Yes....................
Standards and
Maintenance
Requirements--Applicab
ility.
Sec. 63.6(b)(1)-(5), (b)(7)........ Compliance Dates for Yes.................... Section 63.3083
New and Reconstructed specifies the
Sources. compliance dates.
Sec. 63.6(c)(1), (2), (5).......... Compliance Dates for Yes.................... Section 63.3083
Existing Sources. specifies the
compliance dates.
Sec. 63.6(e)(1)(i)-(ii)............ Operation and Yes before [date 181 See Sec. 63.3100(d)
Maintenance. days after date of for general duty
publication of final requirement.
rule in the Federal
Register]. No on and
after [date 181 days
after date of
publication of final
rule in the Federal
Register].
Sec. 63.6(e)(1)(iii)............... Operation and Yes.................... .......................
Maintenance.
Sec. 63.6(e)(3)(i), (e)(3)(iii)- SSMP................... Yes before [date 181 .......................
(ix). days after date of
publication of final
rule in the Federal
Register]. No on and
after [date 181 days
after date of
publication of final
rule in the Federal
Register].
Sec. 63.6(f)(1).................... Compliance Except Yes before [date 181
During Startup, days after date of
Shutdown, and publication of final
Malfunction. rule in the Federal
Register]. No on and
after [date 181 days
after date of
publication of final
rule in the Federal
Register].
Sec. 63.6(f)(2)-(3)................ Methods for Determining Yes....................
Compliance.
Sec. 63.6(g)....................... Use of an Alternative Yes....................
Standard.
Sec. 63.6(h)....................... Compliance With Opacity/ No..................... Subpart IIII does not
Visible Emission establish opacity
Standards. standards and does not
require continuous
opacity monitoring
systems (COMS).
Sec. 63.6(i)(1)-(14)............... Extension of Compliance Yes....................
63.6(j).............................. Presidential Compliance Yes....................
Exemption.
Sec. 63.7(a)(1).................... Performance Test Yes.................... Applies to all affected
Requirements--Applicab sources. Additional
ility. requirements for
performance testing
are specified in Sec.
Sec. 63.3164 and
63.3166.
[[Page 59001]]
Sec. 63.7(a)(2) except (a)(2)(i)- Performance Test Yes.................... Applies only to
(viii). Requirements--Dates. performance tests for
capture system and
control device
efficiency at sources
using these to comply
with the standards.
Section 63.3160
specifies the schedule
for performance test
requirements that are
earlier than those
specified in Sec.
63.7(a)(2).
Sec. 63.7(a)(3)-(4)................ Performance Tests Yes....................
Required By the
Administrator, Force
Majeure.
Sec. 63.7(b)-(d)................... Performance Test Yes.................... Applies only to
Requirements--Notifica performance tests for
tion, Quality capture system and add-
Assurance, Facilities on control device
Necessary for Safe efficiency at sources
Testing Conditions using these to comply
During Test. with the standards.
Sec. 63.7(e)(1).................... Conduct of performance Yes before [date 181 See Sec. 63.3164.
tests. days after date of
publication of final
rule in the Federal
Register]. No on and
after [date 181 days
after date of
publication of final
rule in the Federal
Register].
Sec. 63.7(e)(2)-(4)................ Conduct of performance Yes....................
tests.
Sec. 63.7(f)....................... Performance Test Yes.................... Applies to all test
Requirements--Use of methods except those
Alternative Test used to determine
Method. capture system
efficiency.
Sec. 63.7(g)-(h)................... Performance Test Yes.................... Applies only to
Requirements--Data performance tests for
Analysis, capture system and add-
Recordkeeping, on control device
Reporting, Waiver of efficiency at sources
Test. using these to comply
with the standards.
Sec. 63.8(a)(1)-(2)................ Monitoring Yes.................... Applies only to
Requirements--Applicab monitoring of capture
ility. system and add-on
control device
efficiency at sources
using these to comply
with the standards.
Additional
requirements for
monitoring are
specified in Sec.
63.3168.
Sec. 63.8(a)(4).................... Additional Monitoring No..................... Subpart IIII does not
Requirements. have monitoring
requirements for
flares.
Sec. 63.8(b)....................... Conduct of Monitoring.. Yes....................
Sec. 63.8(c)(1).................... Continuous Monitoring Yes before [date 181 Section 63.3168
Systems (CMS) days after date of specifies the
Operation and publication of final requirements for the
Maintenance. rule in the Federal operation of CMS for
Register]. No on and capture systems and
after [date 181 days add-on control devices
after date of at sources using these
publication of final to comply.
rule in the Federal
Register].
63.8(c)(2)-(3)....................... CMS Operation and Yes.................... Applies only to
Maintenance. monitoring of capture
system and add-on
control device
efficiency at sources
using these to comply
with the standards.
Additional
requirements for CMS
operations and
maintenance are
specified in Sec.
63.3168.
Sec. 63.8(c)(4).................... CMS.................... No..................... Section 63.3168
specifies the
requirements for the
operation of CMS for
capture systems and
add-on control devices
at sources using these
to comply with the
standards.
Sec. 63.89(c)(5)................... COMS................... No..................... Subpart IIII does not
have opacity or
visible emission
standards.
[[Page 59002]]
Sec. 63.8(c)(6).................... CMS Requirements....... No..................... Section 63.3168
specifies the
requirements for
monitoring systems for
capture systems and
add-on control devices
at sources using these
to comply with the
standards.
Sec. 63.8(c)(7).................... CMS Out-of-Control Yes....................
Periods.
Sec. 63.8(c)(8).................... CMS Out-of-Control No..................... Section 63.3120
Periods Reporting. requires reporting of
CMS out-of-control
periods.
Sec. 63.8(d)-(e)................... Quality Control Program No..................... Subpart IIII does not
and CMS Performance require the use of
Evaluation. continuous emissions
monitoring systems
(CEMS).
Sec. 63.8(f)(1)-(5)................ Use of an Alternative Yes....................
Monitoring Method.
Sec. 63.8(f)(6).................... Alternative to Relative No..................... Subpart IIII does not
Accuracy Test. require the use of
CEMS.
Sec. 63.8(g)....................... Data Reduction......... No..................... Sections 63.3167 and
63.3168 specify
monitoring data
reduction.
Sec. 63.9(a)....................... Notification Yes....................
Requirements.
Sec. 63.9(b)(1)-(2)................ Initial Notifications.. Yes....................
Sec. 63.9(b)(4)(i), (b)(4)(v), Application for Yes....................
(b)(5). Approval of
Construction or
Reconstruction.
Sec. 63.9(c)....................... Request for Extension Yes....................
of Compliance.
Sec. 63.9(d)....................... Special Compliance Yes....................
Requirement
Notification.
Sec. 63.9(e)....................... Notification of Yes.................... Applies only to capture
Performance Test. system and add-on
control device
performance tests at
sources using these to
comply with the
standards.
Sec. 63.9(f)....................... Notification of Visible No..................... Subpart IIII does not
Emissions/Opacity Test. have opacity or
visible emission
standards.
Sec. 63.9(g)....................... Additional No..................... Subpart IIII does not
Notifications When require the use of
Using CMS. CEMS.
Sec. 63.9(h)(1)-(3)................ Notification of Yes.................... Section 63.3110
Compliance Status. specifies the dates
for submitting the
notification of
compliance status.
Sec. 63.9(h)(5)-(6)................ Clarifications......... Yes....................
Sec. 63.9(i)....................... Adjustment of Submittal Yes....................
Deadlines.
Sec. 63.9(j)....................... Change in Previous Yes....................
Information.
Sec. 63.10(a)...................... Recordkeeping/ Yes....................
Reporting--Applicabili
ty and General
Information.
Sec. 63.10(b)(1)................... General Recordkeeping Yes.................... Additional requirements
Requirements. are specified in Sec.
Sec. 63.3130 and
63.3131.
Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(i)-(ii)........... Recordkeeping of Yes before [date 181 See 63.3130(g).
Occurrence and days after date of
Duration of Startups publication of final
and Shutdowns and of rule in the Federal
Failures to Meet Register]. No on and
Standards. after [date 181 days
after date of
publication of final
rule in the Federal
Register].
Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(iii).............. Recordkeeping Relevant Yes....................
to Maintenance of Air
Pollution Control and
Monitoring Equipment.
Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(iv)-(v)........... Actions Taken to Yes before [date 181 See Sec.
Minimize Emissions days after date of 63.3130(g)(4) for a
During SSM. publication of final record of actions
rule in the Federal taken to minimize
Register]. No on and emissions during a
after [date 181 days deviation from the
after date of standard.
publication of final
rule in the Federal
Register].
Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(vi)............... Recordkeeping for CMS Yes before [date 181 See Sec. 63.3130(g)
Malfunctions. days after date of for records of periods
publication of final of deviation from the
rule in the Federal standard, including
Register]. No on and instances where a CMS
after [date 181 days is inoperative or out-
after date of of-control.
publication of final
rule in the Federal
Register].
[[Page 59003]]
Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(vii)-(xi)......... Records................ Yes....................
Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(xii).............. Records................ Yes....................
Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(xiii)............. ....................... No..................... Subpart IIII does not
require the use of
CEMS.
Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(xiv).............. ....................... Yes....................
Sec. 63.10(b)(3)................... Recordkeeping Yes....................
Requirements for
Applicability
Determinations.
Sec. 63.10(c)(1)-(6)............... Additional Yes....................
Recordkeeping
Requirements for
Sources with CMS.
Sec. 63.10(c)(7)-(8)............... Additional No..................... See Sec. 63.3130(g)
Recordkeeping for records of periods
Requirements for of deviation from the
Sources with CMS. standard, including
instances where a CMS
is inoperative or out-
of-control.
Sec. 63.10(c)(10)-(14)............. ....................... Yes....................
Sec. 63.10(c)(15).................. Records Regarding the Yes before [date 181
SSM Plan. days after date of
publication of final
rule in the Federal
Register]. No on and
after [date 181 days
after date of
publication of final
rule in the Federal
Register].
Sec. 63.10(d)(1)................... General Reporting Yes.................... Additional requirements
Requirements. are specified in Sec.
63.3120.
Sec. 63.10(d)(2)................... Report of Performance Yes.................... Additional requirements
Test Results. are specified in Sec.
63.3120(b).
Sec. 63.10(d)(3)................... Reporting Opacity or No..................... Subpart IIII does not
Visible Emissions require opacity or
Observations. visible emissions
observations.
Sec. 63.10(d)(4)................... Progress Reports for Yes....................
Sources With
Compliance Extensions.
Sec. 63.10(d)(5)................... Startup, Shutdown, and Yes before [date 181 See 63.3120(a)(6).
Malfunction Reports. days after date of
publication of final
rule in the Federal
Register]. No on and
after [date 181 days
after date of
publication of final
rule in the Federal
Register].
Sec. 63.10(e)(1)-(2)............... Additional CMS Reports. No..................... Subpart IIII does not
require the use of
CEMS.
Sec. 63.10(e)(3)................... Excess Emissions/CMS No..................... Section 63.3120(b)
Performance Reports. specifies the contents
of periodic compliance
reports.
Sec. 63.10(e)(4)................... COMS Data Reports...... No..................... Subpart IIII does not
specify requirements
for opacity or COMS.
Sec. 63.10(f)...................... Recordkeeping/Reporting Yes....................
Waiver.
Sec. 63.11......................... Control Device No..................... Subpart IIII does not
Requirements/Flares. specify use of flares
for compliance.
Sec. 63.12......................... State Authority and Yes....................
Delegations.
Sec. 63.13......................... Addresses.............. Yes....................
Sec. 63.14......................... Incorporation by Yes....................
Reference.
Sec. 63.15......................... Availability of Yes....................
Information/
Confidentiality.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0
21. Table 5 to subpart IIII of part 63 is added to read as follows:
Table 5 to Subpart IIII of Part 63--List of Hazardous Air Pollutants
That Must Be Counted Toward Total Organic HAP Content if Present at 0.1
Percent or More by Mass
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chemical name CAS No.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane............................... 79-34-5
1,1,2-Trichloroethane................................... 79-00-5
1,1-Dimethylhydrazine................................... 57-14-7
1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane............................. 96-12-8
1,2-Diphenylhydrazine................................... 122-66-7
[[Page 59004]]
1,3-Butadiene........................................... 106-99-0
1,3-Dichloropropene..................................... 542-75-6
1,4-Dioxane............................................. 123-91-1
2,4,6-Trichlorophenol................................... 88-06-2
2,4/2,6-Dinitrotoluene (mixture)........................ 25321-14-6
2,4-Dinitrotoluene...................................... 121-14-2
2,4-Toluene diamine..................................... 95-80-7
2-Nitropropane.......................................... 79-46-9
3,3'-Dichlorobenzidine.................................. 91-94-1
3,3'-Dimethoxybenzidine................................. 119-90-4
3,3'-Dimethylbenzidine.................................. 119-93-7
4,4'-Methylene bis(2-chloroaniline)..................... 101-14-4
Acetaldehyde............................................ 75-07-0
Acrylamide.............................................. 79-06-1
Acrylonitrile........................................... 107-13-1
Allyl chloride.......................................... 107-05-1
alpha-Hexachlorocyclohexane (a-HCH)..................... 319-84-6
Aniline................................................. 62-53-3
Benzene................................................. 71-43-2
Benzidine............................................... 92-87-5
Benzotrichloride........................................ 98-07-7
Benzyl chloride......................................... 100-44-7
beta-Hexachlorocyclohexane (b-HCH)...................... 319-85-7
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate.............................. 117-81-7
Bis(chloromethyl)ether.................................. 542-88-1
Bromoform............................................... 75-25-2
Captan.................................................. 133-06-2
Carbon tetrachloride.................................... 56-23-5
Chlordane............................................... 57-74-9
Chlorobenzilate......................................... 510-15-6
Chloroform.............................................. 67-66-3
Chloroprene............................................. 126-99-8
Cresols (mixed)......................................... 1319-77-3
DDE..................................................... 3547-04-4
Dichloroethyl ether..................................... 111-44-4
Dichlorvos.............................................. 62-73-7
Epichlorohydrin......................................... 106-89-8
Ethyl acrylate.......................................... 140-88-5
Ethylene dibromide...................................... 106-93-4
Ethylene dichloride..................................... 107-06-2
Ethylene oxide.......................................... 75-21-8
Ethylene thiourea....................................... 96-45-7
Ethylidene dichloride (1,1-Dichloroethane).............. 75-34-3
Formaldehyde............................................ 50-00-0
Heptachlor.............................................. 76-44-8
Hexachlorobenzene....................................... 118-74-1
Hexachlorobutadiene..................................... 87-68-3
Hexachloroethane........................................ 67-72-1
Hydrazine............................................... 302-01-2
Isophorone.............................................. 78-59-1
Lindane (hexachlorocyclohexane, all isomers)............ 58-89-9
m-Cresol................................................ 108-39-4
Methylene chloride...................................... 75-09-2
Naphthalene............................................. 91-20-3
Nitrobenzene............................................ 98-95-3
Nitrosodimethylamine.................................... 62-75-9
o-Cresol................................................ 95-48-7
o-Toluidine............................................. 95-53-4
Parathion............................................... 56-38-2
p-Cresol................................................ 106-44-5
p-Dichlorobenzene....................................... 106-46-7
Pentachloronitrobenzene................................. 82-68-8
Pentachlorophenol....................................... 87-86-5
Propoxur................................................ 114-26-1
Propylene dichloride.................................... 78-87-5
Propylene oxide......................................... 75-56-9
Quinoline............................................... 91-22-5
Tetrachloroethene....................................... 127-18-4
Toxaphene............................................... 8001-35-2
Trichloroethylene....................................... 79-01-6
Trifluralin............................................. 1582-09-8
[[Page 59005]]
Vinyl bromide........................................... 593-60-2
Vinyl chloride.......................................... 75-01-4
Vinylidene chloride..................................... 75-35-4
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subpart MMMM--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants for Surface Coating of Miscellaneous Metal Parts and
Products
0
22. Section 63.3900 is amended by revising paragraphs (a)(2)(i) and
(ii), (b), and (c) to read as follows:
Sec. 63.3900 What are my general requirements for complying with this
subpart?
(a) * * *
(2) * * *
(i) Before [date 181 days after publication of final rule in the
Federal Register], the coating operation(s) must be in compliance with
the applicable emission limit in Sec. 63.3890 at all times except
during periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction. On or after [date
181 days after publication of final rule in the Federal Register] you
must be in compliance with the applicable emission limits in Sec. 63.
3890 and the operating limits in Table 1 of this subpart at all times.
(ii) Before [date 181 days after publication of final rule in the
Federal Register], the coating operation(s) must be in compliance with
the operating limits for emission capture systems and add-on control
devices required by Sec. 63.3892 at all times except during periods of
startup, shutdown, and malfunction, and except for solvent recovery
systems for which you conduct liquid-liquid material balances according
to Sec. 63.3961(j). On or after [date 181 days after publication of
final rule in the Federal Register] the coating operation(s) must be in
compliance with the operating limits for emission capture systems and
add-on control devices required by Sec. 63.3892 at all times, except
for solvent recovery systems for which you conduct liquid-liquid
material balances according to Sec. 63.3961(j).
* * * * *
(b) Before [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule
in the Federal Register], you must always operate and maintain your
affected source, including all air pollution control and monitoring
equipment you use for purposes of complying with this subpart,
according to the provisions in Sec. 63.6(e)(1)(i). On and after [date
181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal
Register], at all times, the owner or operator must operate and
maintain any affected source, including associated air pollution
control equipment and monitoring equipment, in a manner consistent with
safety and good air pollution control practices for minimizing
emissions. The general duty to minimize emissions does not require the
owner or operator to make any further efforts to reduce emissions if
levels required by the applicable standard have been achieved.
Determination of whether a source is operating in compliance with
operation and maintenance requirements will be based on information
available to the Administrator that may include, but is not limited to,
monitoring results, review of operation and maintenance procedures,
review of operation and maintenance records, and inspection of the
affected source.
(c) Before [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule
in the Federal Register], if your affected source uses an emission
capture system and add-on control device, you must develop a written
startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan (SSMP) according to the
provisions in Sec. 63.6(e)(3). The plan must address the startup,
shutdown, and corrective actions in the event of a malfunction of the
emission capture system or the add-on control device. The plan must
also address any coating operation equipment that may cause increased
emissions or that would affect capture efficiency if the process
equipment malfunctions, such as conveyors that move parts among
enclosures. On and after [date 181 days after date of publication of
final rule in the Federal Register], the SSMP is not required.
0
23. Section 63.3920 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraphs (a)(5) introductory text and (a)(5)(i) and (iv);
0
b. Adding paragraph (a)(5)(v);
0
c. Revising paragraphs (a)(6) introductory text and (a)(6)(iii);
0
d. Adding paragraph (a)(6)(iv);
0
e. Revising paragraphs (a)(7) introductory text, (a)(7)(iii),
(a)(7)(vi) through (viii), (a)(7) (x), and (a)(7)(xiii) and (xiv);
0
f. Adding paragraph (a)(7)(xv);
0
g. Revising paragraph (c) introductory text; and
0
h. Adding paragraphs (d) through (h).
The revisions and additions read as follows:
Sec. 63.3920 What reports must I submit?
(a) * * *
(5) Deviations: Compliant material option. If you used the
compliant material option and there was a deviation from the applicable
organic HAP content requirements in Sec. 63.3890, the semiannual
compliance report must contain the information in paragraphs (a)(5)(i)
through (v) of this section.
(i) Identification of each coating used that deviated from the
applicable emission limit, and each thinner and/or other additive, and
cleaning material used that contained organic HAP, and the dates, time
and duration each was used.
* * * * *
(iv) Before [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule
in the Federal Register], a statement of the cause of each deviation.
On and after [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in
the Federal Register], a statement of the cause of each deviation
(including unknown cause, if applicable).
(v) On and after [date 181 days after date of publication of final
rule in the Federal Register], the number of deviations and, for each
deviation, a list of the affected source or equipment, an estimate of
the quantity of each regulated pollutant emitted over any applicable
emission limit in Sec. 63.3890, a description of the method used to
estimate the emissions, and the actions you took to minimize emissions
in accordance with Sec. 63.3900(b).
(6) Deviations: Emission rate without add-on controls option. If
you used the emission rate without add-on controls option and there was
a deviation from the applicable emission limit in Sec. 63.3890, the
semiannual compliance report must contain the information in paragraphs
(a)(6)(i) through (iv) of this section.
* * * * *
(iii) Before [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule
in the Federal Register], a statement of the cause of each deviation.
On and after [date 181
[[Page 59006]]
days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register],
a statement of the cause of each deviation (including unknown cause, if
applicable).
(iv) On and after [date 181 days after date of publication of final
rule in the Federal Register], the number of deviations and, for each
deviation, the date, time, duration, a list of the affected source or
equipment, an estimate of the quantity of each regulated pollutant
emitted over any applicable emission limit in Sec. 63.3890, a
description of the method used to estimate the emissions, and the
actions you took to minimize emissions in accordance with Sec.
63.3900(b).
(7) Deviations: Emission rate with add-on controls option. If you
used the emission rate with add-on controls option and there was a
deviation from the applicable emission limit in Sec. 63.3890 or the
applicable operating limit(s) in Table 1 to this subpart (including any
periods when emissions bypassed the add-on control device and were
diverted to the atmosphere), before [date 181 days after date of
publication of final rule in the Federal Register], the semiannual
compliance report must contain the information in paragraphs (a)(7)(i)
through (xiv) of this section. This includes periods of startup,
shutdown, and malfunction during which deviations occurred. On and
after [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the
Federal Register], the semiannual compliance report must contain the
information in paragraphs (a)(7)(i) through (xii), (a)(7)(xiv), and
(a)(7)(xv) of this section. If you use the emission rate with add-on
controls option and there was a deviation from the applicable work
practice standards in Sec. 63.3893(b), the semiannual compliance
report must contain the information in paragraph (a)(7)(xiii) of this
section.
* * * * *
(iii) The date and time that each malfunction of the capture system
or add-on control devices started and stopped.
* * * * *
(vi) Before [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule
in the Federal Register], the date and time that each CPMS was
inoperative, except for zero (low-level) and high-level checks. On and
after [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the
Federal Register], the number of instances that the CPMS was
inoperative, and for each instance, except for zero (low-level) and
high-level checks, the date, time, and duration that the CPMS was
inoperative; the cause (including unknown cause) for the CPMS being
inoperative; and the actions you took to minimize emissions in
accordance with Sec. 63.3900(b).
(vii) Before [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule
in the Federal Register], the date, time, and duration that each CPMS
was out-of-control, including the information in Sec. 63.8(c)(8). On
and after [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the
Federal Register], the number of instances that the CPMS was out of
control as specified in Sec. 63.8(c)(7) and, for each instance, the
date, time, and duration that the CPMS was out-of-control; the cause
(including unknown cause) for the CPMS being out-of-control; and
descriptions of corrective actions taken.
(viii) Before [date 181 days after date of publication of final
rule in the Federal Register], the date and time period of each
deviation from an operating limit in Table 1 to this subpart; date and
time period of any bypass of the add-on control device; and whether
each deviation occurred during a period of startup, shutdown, or
malfunction or during another period. On and after [date 181 days after
date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register], the number
of deviations from an operating limit in Table 1 to this subpart and,
for each deviation, the date, time, and duration of each deviation; and
the date, time, and duration of any bypass of the add-on control
device.
* * * * *
(x) Before [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule
in the Federal Register], a breakdown of the total duration of the
deviations from the operating limits in Table 1 of this subpart and
bypasses of the add-on control device during the semiannual reporting
period into those that were due to startup, shutdown, control equipment
problems, process problems, other known causes, and other unknown
causes. On and after [date 181 days after date of publication of final
rule in the Federal Register], a breakdown of the total duration of the
deviations from the operating limits in Table 1 to this subpart and
bypasses of the add-on control device during the semiannual reporting
period into those that were due to control equipment problems, process
problems, other known causes, and other unknown causes.
* * * * *
(xiii) Before [date 181 days after date of publication of final
rule in the Federal Register], for each deviation from the work
practice standards, a description of the deviation, the date and time
period of the deviation, and the actions you took to correct the
deviation. On and after [date 181 days after date of publication of
final rule in the Federal Register], for deviations from the work
practice standards, the number of deviations, and, for each deviation,
the information in paragraphs (a)(7)(xiii)(A) and (B) of this section:
(A) A description of the deviation; the date, time, and duration of
the deviation; and the actions you took to minimize emissions in
accordance with Sec. 63.3900(b).
(B) The description required in paragraph (a)(7)(xiii)(A) of this
section must include a list of the affected sources or equipment for
which a deviation occurred and the cause of the deviation (including
unknown cause, if applicable).
(xiv) Before [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule
in the Federal Register], statement of the cause of each deviation. On
and after [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the
Federal Register], for deviations from an emission limit in Sec.
63.3890 or an operating limit in Table 1 to this subpart, a statement
of the cause of each deviation (including unknown cause, if applicable)
and the actions you took to minimize emissions in accordance with Sec.
63.3900(b).
(xv) On and after [date 181 days after date of publication of final
rule in the Federal Register], for each deviation from an emission
limit in Sec. 63.3890 or operating limit in Table 1 to this subpart, a
list of the affected sources or equipment for which a deviation
occurred, an estimate of the quantity of each regulated pollutant
emitted over any emission limit in Sec. 63.3890 or operating limit in
Table 1 to this subpart, and a description of the method used to
estimate the emissions.
* * * * *
(c) Startup, shutdown, malfunction reports. Before [date 181 days
after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register], if
you used the emission rate with add-on controls option and you had a
startup, shutdown, or malfunction during the semiannual reporting
period, you must submit the reports specified in paragraphs (c)(1) and
(2) of this section. On and after [date 181 days after date of
publication of final rule in the Federal Register], the reports
specified in paragraphs (c)(1) and (2) of this section are not
required.
* * * * *
(d) On and after [date 181 days after date of publication of final
rule in the Federal Register], you must submit the results of the
performance test required
[[Page 59007]]
in Sec. Sec. 63.3940 and 63.3950 following the procedure specified in
paragraphs (d)(1) through (3) of this section.
(1) For data collected using test methods supported by the EPA's
Electronic Reporting Tool (ERT) as listed on the EPA's ERT website
(https://www.epa.gov/electronic-reporting-air-emissions/electronic-reporting-tool-ert) at the time of the test, you must submit the
results of the performance test to the EPA via the CEDRI. The CEDRI
interface can be accessed through the EPA's CDX (https://cdx.epa.gov//
). Performance test data must be submitted in a file format generated
through the use of the EPA's ERT or an alternate electronic file format
consistent with the XML schema listed on the EPA's ERT website.
(2) For data collected using test methods that are not supported by
the EPA's ERT as listed on the EPA's ERT website at the time of the
test, you must submit the results of the performance test to the
Administrator at the appropriate address listed in Sec. 63.13, unless
the Administrator agrees to or specifies an alternate reporting method.
(3) If you claim that some of the performance test information
being submitted under paragraph (d)(1) of this section is CBI, you must
submit a complete file generated through the use of the EPA's ERT or an
alternate electronic file consistent with the XML schema listed on the
EPA's ERT website, including information claimed to be CBI, on a
compact disc, flash drive, or other commonly used electronic storage
medium to the EPA. The electronic medium must be clearly marked as CBI
and mailed to U.S. EPA/OAPQS/CORE CBI Office, Attention: Group Leader,
Measurement Policy Group, MD C404-02, 4930 Old Page Rd., Durham, NC
27703. The same ERT or alternate file with the CBI omitted must be
submitted to the EPA via the EPA's CDX as described in paragraph (d)(1)
of this section.
(e) On and after [date 181 days after date of publication of final
rule in the Federal Register], the owner or operator shall submit the
initial notifications required in Sec. 63.9(b) and the notification of
compliance status required in Sec. 63.9(h) and Sec. 63.3910(c) to the
EPA via the CEDRI. The CEDRI interface can be accessed through the
EPA's CDX (https://cdx.epa.gov/). The owner or operator must upload to
CEDRI an electronic copy of each applicable notification in portable
document format (PDF). The applicable notification must be submitted by
the deadline specified in this subpart, regardless of the method in
which the reports are submitted. Owners or operators who claim that
some of the information required to be submitted via CEDRI is CBI shall
submit a complete report generated using the appropriate form in CEDRI
or an alternate electronic file consistent with the XML schema listed
on the EPA's CEDRI website, including information claimed to be CBI, on
a compact disc, flash drive, or other commonly used electronic storage
medium to the EPA. The electronic medium shall be clearly marked as CBI
and mailed to U.S. EPA/OAQPS/CORE CBI Office, Attention: Group Leader,
Measurement Policy Group, MD C404-02, 4930 Old Page Rd., Durham, NC
27703. The same file with the CBI omitted shall be submitted to the EPA
via the EPA's CDX as described earlier in this paragraph.
(f) On and after [date 181 days after date of publication of final
rule in the Federal Register], or once the reporting template has been
available on the CEDRI website for 1 year, whichever date is later, the
owner or operator shall submit the semiannual compliance report
required in paragraph (a) of this section to the EPA via the CEDRI. The
CEDRI interface can be accessed through the EPA's CDX (https://cdx.epa.gov/). The owner or operator must use the appropriate
electronic template on the CEDRI website for this subpart or an
alternate electronic file format consistent with the XML schema listed
on the CEDRI website (https://www.epa.gov/electronic-reporting-air-emissions/compliance-and-emissions-data-reporting-interface-cedri). The
date report templates become available will be listed on the CEDRI
website. If the reporting form for the semiannual compliance report
specific to this subpart is not available in CEDRI at the time that the
report is due, you must submit the report to the Administrator at the
appropriate addresses listed in Sec. 63.13. Once the form has been
available in CEDRI for 1 year, you must begin submitting all subsequent
reports via CEDRI. The reports must be submitted by the deadlines
specified in this subpart, regardless of the method in which the
reports are submitted. Owners or operators who claim that some of the
information required to be submitted via CEDRI is CBI shall submit a
complete report generated using the appropriate form in CEDRI or an
alternate electronic file consistent with the XML schema listed on the
EPA's CEDRI website, including information claimed to be CBI, on a
compact disc, flash drive, or other commonly used electronic storage
medium to the EPA. The electronic medium shall be clearly marked as CBI
and mailed to U.S. EPA/OAQPS/CORE CBI Office, Attention: Group Leader,
Measurement Policy Group, MD C404-02, 4930 Old Page Rd., Durham, NC
27703. The same file with the CBI omitted shall be submitted to the EPA
via the EPA's CDX as described earlier in this paragraph.
(g) If you are required to electronically submit a report through
the CEDRI in the EPA's CDX, and due to a planned or actual outage of
either the EPA's CEDRI or CDX systems within the period of time
beginning 5 business days prior to the date that the submission is due,
you will be or are precluded from accessing CEDRI or CDX and submitting
a required report within the time prescribed, you may assert a claim of
EPA system outage for failure to timely comply with the reporting
requirement. You must submit notification to the Administrator in
writing as soon as possible following the date you first knew, or
through due diligence should have known, that the event may cause or
caused a delay in reporting. You must provide to the Administrator a
written description identifying the date, time and length of the
outage; a rationale for attributing the delay in reporting beyond the
regulatory deadline to the EPA system outage; describe the measures
taken or to be taken to minimize the delay in reporting; and identify a
date by which you propose to report, or if you have already met the
reporting requirement at the time of the notification, the date you
reported. In any circumstance, the report must be submitted
electronically as soon as possible after the outage is resolved. The
decision to accept the claim of EPA system outage and allow an
extension to the reporting deadline is solely within the discretion of
the Administrator.
(h) If you are required to electronically submit a report through
CEDRI in the EPA's CDX and a force majeure event is about to occur,
occurs, or has occurred or there are lingering effects from such an
event within the period of time beginning 5 business days prior to the
date the submission is due, the owner or operator may assert a claim of
force majeure for failure to timely comply with the reporting
requirement. For the purposes of this section, a force majeure event is
defined as an event that will be or has been caused by circumstances
beyond the control of the affected facility, its contractors, or any
entity controlled by the affected facility that prevents you from
complying with the requirement to submit a report electronically within
the time period prescribed. Examples of such events are acts of nature
(e.g., hurricanes, earthquakes, or floods), acts of war or terrorism,
or equipment failure
[[Page 59008]]
or safety hazard beyond the control of the affected facility (e.g.,
large scale power outage). If you intend to assert a claim of force
majeure, you must submit notification to the Administrator in writing
as soon as possible following the date you first knew, or through due
diligence should have known, that the event may cause or caused a delay
in reporting. You must provide to the Administrator a written
description of the force majeure event and a rationale for attributing
the delay in reporting beyond the regulatory deadline to the force
majeure event; describe the measures taken or to be taken to minimize
the delay in reporting; and identify a date by which you propose to
report, or if you have already met the reporting requirement at the
time of the notification, the date you reported. In any circumstance,
the reporting must occur as soon as possible after the force majeure
event occurs. The decision to accept the claim of force majeure and
allow an extension to the reporting deadline is solely within the
discretion of the Administrator.
0
24. Section 63.3930 is amended by revising paragraphs (j), (k)
introductory text, and (k)(1) and (2) to read as follows:
Sec. 63.3930 What records must I keep?
* * * * *
(j) Before [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule
in the Federal Register], you must keep records of the date, time, and
duration of each deviation. On and after [date 181 days after date of
publication of final rule in the Federal Register], for each deviation
from an emission limitation reported under Sec. 63.3920(a)(5) through
(7), a record of the information specified in paragraphs (j)(1) through
(4) of this section, as applicable.
(1) The date, time, and duration of the deviation, as reported
under Sec. 63.3920(a)(5) through (7).
(2) A list of the affected sources or equipment for which the
deviation occurred and the cause of the deviation, as reported under
Sec. 63.3920(a)(5) through (7).
(3) An estimate of the quantity of each regulated pollutant emitted
over any applicable emission limit in Sec. 63.3890 or any applicable
operating limit in Table 1 to this subpart, and a description of the
method used to calculate the estimate, as reported under Sec.
63.3920(a)(5) through (7).
(4) A record of actions taken to minimize emissions in accordance
with Sec. 63.3900(b) and any corrective actions taken to return the
affected unit to its normal or usual manner of operation.
(k) If you use the emission rate with add-on controls option, you
must also keep the records specified in paragraphs (k)(1) through (8)
of this section.
(1) Before [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule
in the Federal Register], for each deviation, a record of whether the
deviation occurred during a period of startup, shutdown, or
malfunction. On and after [date 181 days after date of publication of
final rule in the Federal Register], a record of whether the deviation
occurred during a period of startup, shutdown, or malfunction is not
required.
(2) Before [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule
in the Federal Register], the records in Sec. 63.6(e)(3)(iii) through
(v) related to startup, shutdown, and malfunction. On and after [date
181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal
Register], the records in Sec. 63.6(e)(3)(iii) through (v) related to
startup, shutdown, and malfunction are not required.
* * * * *
0
25. Section 63.3931 is amended by revising paragraph (a) to read as
follows:
Sec. 63.3931 In what form and for how long must I keep my records?
(a) Your records must be in a form suitable and readily available
for expeditious review, according to Sec. 63.10(b)(1). Where
appropriate, the records may be maintained as electronic spreadsheets
or as a database. On and after [date 181 days after date of publication
of final rule in the Federal Register], any records required to be
maintained by this subpart that are in reports that were submitted
electronically via the EPA's CEDRI may be maintained in electronic
format. This ability to maintain electronic copies does not affect the
requirement for facilities to make records, data, and reports available
upon request to a delegated air agency or the EPA as part of an on-site
compliance evaluation.
* * * * *
0
26. Section 63.3941 is amended by revising paragraphs (a)(1)(i),
(a)(4), (b)(1), the definition of ``Davg'' in Equation 1 of paragraph
(b)(4), and paragraph (c) to read as follows:
Sec. 63.3941 How do I demonstrate initial compliance with the
emission limitations?
* * * * *
(a) * * *
(1) * * *
(i) Count each organic HAP in Table 5 to this subpart that is
measured to be present at 0.1 percent by mass or more and at 1.0
percent by mass or more for other compounds. For example, if toluene
(not listed in Table 5 to this subpart) is measured to be 0.5 percent
of the material by mass, you do not have to count it. Express the mass
fraction of each organic HAP you count as a value truncated to four
places after the decimal point (e.g., 0.3791).
* * * * *
(4) Information from the supplier or manufacturer of the material.
You may rely on information other than that generated by the test
methods specified in paragraphs (a)(1) through (3) of this section,
such as manufacturer's formulation data, if it represents each organic
HAP in Table 5 to this subpart that is present at 0.1 percent by mass
or more and at 1.0 percent by mass or more for other compounds. For
example, if toluene (not listed in Table 5 to this subpart) is 0.5
percent of the material by mass, you do not have to count it. For
reactive adhesives in which some of the HAP react to form solids and
are not emitted to the atmosphere, you may rely on manufacturer's data
that expressly states the organic HAP or volatile matter mass fraction
emitted. If there is a disagreement between such information and
results of a test conducted according to paragraphs (a)(1) through (3)
of this section, then the test method results will take precedence
unless, after consultation, you demonstrate to the satisfaction of the
enforcement agency that the formulation data are correct.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(1) ASTM Method D2697-03 (2014) or D6093-97 (2016). You may use
ASTM D2697-03 (Reapproved 2014) (incorporated by reference, see Sec.
63.14), or D6093-97 (Reapproved 2016) (incorporated by reference, see
Sec. 63.14), to determine the volume fraction of coating solids for
each coating. Divide the nonvolatile volume percent obtained with the
methods by 100 to calculate volume fraction of coating solids.
* * * * *
(4) * * *
Davg = Average density of volatile matter in the coating,
grams volatile matter per liter volatile matter, determined from
test results using ASTM D1475-13 (incorporated by reference, see
Sec. 63.14), information from the supplier or manufacturer of the
material, or reference sources providing density or specific gravity
data for pure materials. If there is disagreement between ASTM
D1475-13 test results and other information sources, the test
results will take precedence unless, after consultation you
demonstrate to the satisfaction of the enforcement agency that the
formulation data are correct.
(c) Determine the density of each coating. Determine the density of
each coating used during the compliance period from test results using
ASTM
[[Page 59009]]
D1475-13 (incorporated by reference, see Sec. 63.14), information from
the supplier or manufacturer of the material, or specific gravity data
for pure chemicals. If there is disagreement between ASTM D1475-13 test
results and the supplier's or manufacturer's information, the test
results will take precedence unless, after consultation you demonstrate
to the satisfaction of the enforcement agency that the formulation data
are correct.
* * * * *
0
27. Section 63.3951 is amended by revising paragraph (c) to read as
follows:
Sec. 63.3951 How do I demonstrate initial compliance with the
emission limitations?
* * * * *
(c) Determine the density of each material. Determine the density
of each liquid coating, thinner and/or other additive, and cleaning
material used during each month from test results using ASTM D1475-13
or ASTM D2111-10 (Reapproved 2015) (both incorporated by reference, see
Sec. 63.14), information from the supplier or manufacturer of the
material, or reference sources providing density or specific gravity
data for pure materials. If you are including powder coatings in the
compliance determination, determine the density of powder coatings,
using ASTM D5965-02 (2013) (incorporated by reference, see Sec.
63.14), or information from the supplier. If there is disagreement
between ASTM D1475-13 or ASTM D2111-10 (2015) test results and other
such information sources, the test results will take precedence unless,
after consultation you demonstrate to the satisfaction of the
enforcement agency that the formulation data are correct. If you
purchase materials or monitor consumption by weight instead of volume,
you do not need to determine material density. Instead, you may use the
material weight in place of the combined terms for density and volume
in Equations 1A, 1B, 1C, and 2 of this section.
* * * * *
0
28. Section 63.3960 is amended by revising paragraphs (a)(1) and (4),
(b)(1), and (c) introductory text to read as follows:
Sec. 63.3960 By what date must I conduct performance tests and other
initial compliance demonstrations?
(a) * * *
(1) All emission capture systems, add-on control devices, and CPMS
must be installed and operating no later than the applicable compliance
date specified in Sec. 63.3883. Except for solvent recovery systems
for which you conduct liquid-liquid material balances according to
Sec. 63.3961(j), you must conduct according to the schedule in
paragraphs (a)(1)(i) and (ii) of this section initial and periodic
performance tests of each capture system and add-on control device
according to the procedures in Sec. Sec. 63.3964, 63.3965, and 63.3966
and establish the operating limits required by Sec. 63.3892. For a
solvent recovery system for which you conduct liquid-liquid material
balances according to Sec. 63.3961(j), you must initiate the first
material balance no later than the applicable compliance date specified
in Sec. 63.3883. For magnet wire coating operations, you may, with
approval, conduct a performance test of one representative magnet wire
coating machine for each group of identical or very similar magnet wire
coating machines.
(i) You must conduct the initial performance test and establish the
operating limits required by Sec. 63.3892 no later than 180 days after
the applicable compliance date specified in Sec. 63.3883.
(ii) You must conduct periodic performance tests and establish the
operating limits required by Sec. 63.3892 within 5 years following the
previous performance test. You must conduct the first periodic
performance test before [date 3 years after date of publications of
final rule in the Federal Register], unless you are already required to
complete periodic performance tests as a requirement of renewing your
facility's operating permit under 40 CFR part 70 or 40 CFR part 71 and
have conducted a performance test on or after [date 2 years before date
of publications of final rule in the Federal Register]. Thereafter you
must conduct a performance test no later than 5 years following the
previous performance test. Operating limits must be confirmed or
reestablished during each performance test. For any control device for
which you are using the catalytic oxidizer control option at Sec.
63.3967(b) and following the catalyst maintenance procedures in Sec.
63.3967(b)(4), you are not required to conduct periodic testing control
device performance testing as specified by this paragraph. For any
control device for which instruments are used to continuously measure
organic compound emissions, you are not required to conduct periodic
control device performance testing as specified by this paragraph.
* * * * *
(4) For the initial compliance demonstration, you do not need to
comply with the operating limits for the emission capture system and
add-on control device required by Sec. 63.3892 until after you have
completed the initial performance tests specified in paragraph (a)(1)
of this section. Instead, you must maintain a log detailing the
operation and maintenance of the emission capture system, add-on
control device, and continuous parameter monitors during the period
between the compliance date and the performance test. You must begin
complying with the operating limits established based on the initial
performance tests specified in paragraph (a)(1) of this section for
your affected source on the date you complete the performance tests.
For magnet wire coating operations, you must begin complying with the
operating limits for all identical or very similar magnet wire coating
machines on the date you complete the performance test of a
representative magnet wire coating machine. The requirements in this
paragraph (a)(4) do not apply to solvent recovery systems for which you
conduct liquid-liquid material balances according to the requirements
in Sec. 63.3961(j).
(b) * * *
(1) All emission capture systems, add-on control devices, and CPMS
must be installed and operating no later than the applicable compliance
date specified in Sec. 63.3883. Except for magnet wire coating
operations and solvent recovery systems for which you conduct liquid-
liquid material balances according to Sec. 63.3961(j), you must
conduct according to the schedule in paragraphs (b)(1)(i) and (ii) of
this section initial and periodic performance tests of each capture
system and add-on control device according to the procedures in
Sec. Sec. 63.3964, 63.3965, and 63.3966 and establish the operating
limits required by Sec. 63.3892. For magnet wire coating operations,
you may, with approval, conduct a performance test of a single magnet
wire coating machine that represents identical or very similar magnet
wire coating machines. For a solvent recovery system for which you
conduct liquid-liquid material balances according to Sec. 63.3961(j),
you must initiate the first material balance no later than the
compliance date specified in Sec. 63.3883.
(i) You must conduct the initial performance test and establish the
operating limits required by Sec. 63.3892 no later than 180 days after
the applicable compliance date specified in Sec. 63.3883.
(ii) You must conduct periodic performance tests and establish the
operating limits required by Sec. 63.3892 within 5 years following the
previous performance test. You must conduct the first periodic
performance test before
[[Page 59010]]
[date 3 years after date of publications of final rule in the Federal
Register], unless you are already required to complete periodic
performance tests as a requirement of renewing your facility's
operating permit under 40 CFR part 70 or 40 CFR part 71 and have
conducted a performance test on or after [date 2 years before date of
publications of final rule in the Federal Register]. Thereafter you
must conduct a performance test no later than 5 years following the
previous performance test. Operating limits must be confirmed or
reestablished during each performance test. For any control device for
which you are using the catalytic oxidizer control option at Sec.
63.3967(b) and following the catalyst maintenance procedures in Sec.
63.3967(b)(4), you are not required to conduct periodic testing control
device performance testing as specified by this paragraph. For any
control device for which instruments are used to continuously measure
organic compound emissions, you are not required to conduct periodic
control device performance testing as specified by this paragraph.
* * * * *
(c) You are not required to conduct an initial performance test to
determine capture efficiency or destruction efficiency of a capture
system or control device if you receive approval to use the results of
a performance test that has been previously conducted on that capture
system or control device. Any such previous tests must meet the
conditions described in paragraphs (c)(1) through (3) of this section.
You are still required to conduct a periodic performance test according
to the applicable requirements of paragraphs (a)(1)(ii) and (b)(2)(ii)
of this section.
* * * * *
0
29. Section 63.3961 is amended by revising paragraph (j)(3) to read as
follows:
Sec. 63.3961 How do I demonstrate initial compliance?
* * * * *
(j) * * *
(3) Determine the mass fraction of volatile organic matter for each
coating, thinner and/or other additive, and cleaning material used in
the coating operation controlled by the solvent recovery system during
the month, kg volatile organic matter per kg coating. You may determine
the volatile organic matter mass fraction using EPA Method 24 of 40 CFR
part 60, appendix A-7, ASTM D2369-10 (Reapproved 2015)\e\,
(incorporated by reference, see Sec. 63.14), or an EPA approved
alternative method, or you may use information provided by the
manufacturer or supplier of the coating. In the event of any
inconsistency between information provided by the manufacturer or
supplier and the results of EPA Method 24 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix
A-7, ASTM D2369-10 (Reapproved 2015)\e\, or an approved alternative
method, the test method results will take precedence unless, after
consultation you demonstrate to the satisfaction of the enforcement
agency that the formulation data are correct.
* * * * *
0
30. Section 63.3963 is amended by revising paragraph (f) and adding
paragraph (i) to read as follows:
Sec. 63.3963 How do I demonstrate continuous compliance with the
emission limitations?
* * * * *
(f) As part of each semiannual compliance report required in Sec.
63.3920, you must identify the coating operation(s) for which you used
the emission rate with add-on controls option. If there were no
deviations from the emission limits in Sec. 63.3890, the operating
limits in Sec. 63.3892, and the work practice standards in Sec.
63.3893, submit a statement that you were in compliance with the
emission limitations during the reporting period because the organic
HAP emission rate for each compliance period was less than or equal to
the applicable emission limit in Sec. 63.3890, and you achieved the
operating limits required by Sec. 63.3892 and the work practice
standards required by Sec. 63.3893 during each compliance period.
* * * * *
(i) On and after [date 181 days after date of publication of final
rule in the Federal Register], deviations that occur due to malfunction
of the emission capture system, add-on control device, or coating
operation that may affect emission capture or control device efficiency
are required to operate in accordance with Sec. 63.3900(b). The
Administrator will determine whether the deviations are violations
according to the provisions in Sec. 63.3900(b).
* * * * *
0
31. Section 63.3964 is amended by revising paragraphs (a) introductory
text and (a)(1) to read as follows:
Sec. 63.3964 What are the general requirements for performance tests?
(a) Before [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule
in the Federal Register], you must conduct each performance test
required by Sec. 63.3960 according to the requirements in Sec.
63.7(e)(1) and under the conditions in this section, unless you obtain
a waiver of the performance test according to the provisions in Sec.
63.7(h). On and after [date 181 days after date of publication of final
rule in the Federal Register], you must conduct each performance test
required by Sec. 63.3960 according to the requirements in this section
unless you obtain a waiver of the performance test according to the
provisions in Sec. 63.7(h).
(1) Representative coating operation operating conditions. You must
conduct the performance test under representative operating conditions
for the coating operation. Operations during periods of startup,
shutdown, or periods of nonoperation do not constitute representative
conditions for purposes of conducting a performance test. The owner or
operator may not conduct performance tests during periods of
malfunction. You must record the process information that is necessary
to document operating conditions during the test and explain why the
conditions represent normal operation. Upon request, you must make
available to the Administrator such records as may be necessary to
determine the conditions of performance tests.
* * * * *
0
32. Section 63.3965 is amended by revising the introductory text to
read as follows:
Sec. 63.3965 How do I determine the emission capture system
efficiency?
You must use the procedures and test methods in this section to
determine capture efficiency as part of each performance test required
by Sec. 63.3960.
* * * * *
0
33. Section 63.3966 is amended by revising the introductory text and
paragraph (b) to read as follows:
Sec. 63.3966 How do I determine the add-on control device emission
destruction or removal efficiency?
You must use the procedures and test methods in this section to
determine the add-on control device emission destruction or removal
efficiency as part of the performance test required by Sec. 63.3960.
For each performance test, you must conduct three test runs as
specified in Sec. 63.7(e)(3) and each test run must last at least 1
hour. If the source is a magnet wire coating machine, you may use the
procedures in section 3.0 of appendix A to this subpart as an
alternative.
* * * * *
(b) Measure total gaseous organic mass emissions as carbon at the
inlet and outlet of the add-on control device simultaneously, using
either EPA Method 25 or 25A of appendix A-7 to 40 CFR part 60.
(1) Use EPA Method 25 of appendix A-7 to 40 CFR part 60 if the add-
on
[[Page 59011]]
control device is an oxidizer and you expect the total gaseous organic
concentration as carbon to be more than 50 parts per million (ppm) at
the control device outlet.
(2) Use EPA Method 25A of appendix A-7 to 40 CFR part 60 if the
add-on control device is an oxidizer and you expect the total gaseous
organic concentration as carbon to be 50 ppm or less at the control
device outlet.
(3) Use EPA Method 25A of appendix A-7 to 40 CFR part 60 if the
add-on control device is not an oxidizer.
(4) You may use EPA Method 18 of appendix A-6 to 40 CFR part 60 to
subtract methane emissions from measured total gaseous organic mass
emissions as carbon.
* * * * *
0
34. Section 63.3967 is amended by revising paragraphs (a)(1) and (2),
(b)(1) through (3), (d)(1) and (2), and (e)(1) through (4) to read as
follows:
Sec. 63.3967 How do I establish the emission capture system and add-
on control device operating limits during the performance test?
* * * * *
(a) * * *
(1) During performance tests, you must monitor and record the
combustion temperature at least once every 15 minutes during each of
the three test runs. You must monitor the temperature in the firebox of
the thermal oxidizer or immediately downstream of the firebox before
any substantial heat exchange occurs.
(2) For each performance test, use the data collected during the
performance test to calculate and record the average combustion
temperature maintained during the performance test. This average
combustion temperature is the minimum operating limit for your thermal
oxidizer.
(b) * * *
(1) During performance tests, you must monitor and record the
temperature just before the catalyst bed and the temperature difference
across the catalyst bed at least once every 15 minutes during each of
the three test runs.
(2) For each performance test, use the data collected during the
performance test to calculate and record the average temperature just
before the catalyst bed and the average temperature difference across
the catalyst bed maintained during the performance test. These are the
minimum operating limits for your catalytic oxidizer.
(3) You must monitor the temperature at the inlet to the catalyst
bed and implement a site-specific inspection and maintenance plan for
your catalytic oxidizer as specified in paragraph (b)(4) of this
section. During the performance test, you must monitor and record the
temperature just before the catalyst bed at least once every 15 minutes
during each of the three test runs. For each performance test, use the
data collected during the performance test to calculate and record the
average temperature just before the catalyst bed during the performance
test. This is the minimum operating limit for your catalytic oxidizer.
* * * * *
(d) * * *
(1) During performance tests, you must monitor and record the
condenser outlet (product side) gas temperature at least once every 15
minutes during each of the three test runs.
(2) For each performance test, use the data collected during the
performance test to calculate and record the average condenser outlet
(product side) gas temperature maintained during the performance test.
This average condenser outlet gas temperature is the maximum operating
limit for your condenser.
(e) * * *
(1) During performance tests, you must monitor and record the
desorption concentrate stream gas temperature at least once every 15
minutes during each of the three runs of the performance test.
(2) For each performance test, use the data collected during the
performance test to calculate and record the average temperature. This
is the minimum operating limit for the desorption concentrate gas
stream temperature.
(3) During performance tests, you must monitor and record the
pressure drop of the dilute stream across the concentrator at least
once every 15 minutes during each of the three runs of the performance
test.
(4) For each performance test, use the data collected during the
performance test to calculate and record the average pressure drop.
This is the minimum operating limit for the dilute stream across the
concentrator.
* * * * *
0
35. Section 63.3968 is amended by revising paragraphs (a)(4), (5), and
(7) and (c)(3) introductory text to read as follows:
Sec. 63.3968 What are the requirements for continuous parameter
monitoring system installation, operation, and maintenance?
(a) * * *
(4) Before [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule
in the Federal Register], you must maintain the CPMS at all times and
have available necessary parts for routine repairs of the monitoring
equipment. On and after [date 181 days after date of publication of
final rule in the Federal Register], you must maintain the CPMS at all
times in accordance with Sec. 63.3900(b) and keep necessary parts
readily available for routine repairs of the monitoring equipment.
(5) Before [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule
in the Federal Register], you must operate the CPMS and collect
emission capture system and add-on control device parameter data at all
times that a controlled coating operation is operating, except during
monitoring malfunctions, associated repairs, and required quality
assurance or control activities (including, if applicable, calibration
checks and required zero and span adjustments). On and after [date 181
days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register],
you must operate the CPMS and collect emission capture system and add-
on control device parameter data at all times in accordance with Sec.
63.3900(b).
* * * * *
(7) A monitoring malfunction is any sudden, infrequent, not
reasonably preventable failure of the CPMS to provide valid data.
Monitoring failures that are caused in part by poor maintenance or
careless operation are not malfunctions. Before [date 181 days after
date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register], any period
for which the monitoring system is out-of-control and data are not
available for required calculations is a deviation from the monitoring
requirements. On and after [date 181 days after date of publication of
final rule in the Federal Register], except for periods of required
quality assurance or control activities, any period for which the CPMS
fails to operate and record data continuously as required by paragraph
(a)(5) of this section, or generates data that cannot be included in
calculating averages as specified in (a)(6) of this section constitutes
a deviation from the monitoring requirements.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(3) For all thermal oxidizers and catalytic oxidizers, you must
meet the requirements in paragraphs (a) and (c)(3)(i) through (v) of
this section for each gas temperature monitoring device. For the
purposes of this paragraph (c)(3), a thermocouple is part of the
temperature sensor.
* * * * *
0
36. Section 63.3981 is amended by revising the definitions of
``Deviation'' and ``Non-HAP coating'' to read as follows:
[[Page 59012]]
Sec. 63.3981 What definitions apply to this subpart?
* * * * *
Deviation means:
(1) Before [date 181 days after date of publication in the Federal
Register], any instance in which an affected source subject to this
subpart, or an owner or operator of such a source:
(i) Fails to meet any requirement or obligation established by this
subpart including but not limited to, any emission limit or operating
limit or work practice standard;
(ii) Fails to meet any term or condition that is adopted to
implement an applicable requirement in this subpart and that is
included in the operating permit for any affected source required to
obtain such a permit; or
(iii) Fails to meet any emission limit, or operating limit, or work
practice standard in this subpart during startup, shutdown, or
malfunction, regardless of whether or not such failure is permitted by
this subpart; and
(2) On and after [date 181 days after date of publication of final
rule in the Federal Register], any instance in which an affected source
subject to this subpart or an owner or operator of such a source:
(i) Fails to meet any requirement or obligation established by this
subpart including but not limited to any emission limit, operating
limit, or work practice standard; or
(ii) Fails to meet any term or condition that is adopted to
implement an applicable requirement in this subpart and that is
included in the operating permit for any affected source required to
obtain such a permit.
* * * * *
Non-HAP coating means, for the purposes of this subpart, a coating
that contains no more than 0.1 percent by mass of any individual
organic HAP that is listed in Table 5 to this subpart and no more than
1.0 percent by mass for any other individual HAP.
* * * * *
0
37. Table 2 to Subpart MMMM of part 63 is revised to read as follows:
Table 2 to Subpart MMMM of Part 63--Applicability of General Provisions to Subpart MMMM of Part 63
You must comply with the applicable General Provisions requirements according to the following table:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Applicable to subpart
Citation Subject MMMM Explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 63.1(a)(1)-(14)............... General Applicability.. Yes....................
Sec. 63.1(b)(1)-(3)................ Initial Applicability Yes.................... Applicability to
Determination. subpart MMMM is also
specified in Sec.
63.3881.
Sec. 63.1(c)(1).................... Applicability After Yes....................
Standard Established.
Sec. 63.1(c)(2)-(3)................ Applicability of Permit No..................... Area sources are not
Program for Area subject to subpart
Sources. MMMM.
Sec. 63.1(c)(4)-(5)................ Extensions and Yes....................
Notifications.
Sec. 63.1(e)....................... Applicability of Permit Yes....................
Program Before
Relevant Standard is
Set.
Sec. 63.2.......................... Definitions............ Yes.................... Additional definitions
are specified in Sec.
63.3981.
Sec. 63.1(a)-(c)................... Units and Abbreviations Yes....................
Sec. 63.4(a)(1)-(5)................ Prohibited Activities.. Yes....................
Sec. 63.4(b)-(c)................... Circumvention/ Yes....................
Severability.
Sec. 63.5(a)....................... Construction/ Yes....................
Reconstruction.
Sec. 63.5(b)(1)-(6)................ Requirements for Yes....................
Existing Newly
Constructed, and
Reconstructed Sources.
Sec. 63.5(d)....................... Application for Yes....................
Approval of
Construction/
Reconstruction.
Sec. 63.5(e)....................... Approval of Yes....................
Construction/
Reconstruction.
Sec. 63.5(f)....................... Approval of Yes....................
Construction/
Reconstruction Based
on Prior State Review.
Sec. 63.6(a)....................... Compliance With Yes....................
Standards and
Maintenance
Requirements--Applicab
ility.
Sec. 63.6(b)(1)-(7)................ Compliance Dates for Yes.................... Section 63.3883
New and Reconstructed specifies the
Sources. compliance dates.
Sec. 63.6(c)(1)-(5)................ Compliance Dates for Yes.................... Section 63.3883
Existing Sources. specifies the
compliance dates.
Sec. 63.6(e)(1)-(2)................ Operation and Yes before [date 181 See Sec. 63.3900(b)
Maintenance. days after date of for general duty
publication of final requirement.
rule in the Federal
Register]. No on and
after [date 181 days
after date of
publication of final
rule in the Federal
Register].
Sec. 63.6(e)(3).................... Startup, Shutdown, and Yes before [date 181
Malfunction Plan. days after date of
publication of final
rule in the Federal
Register]. No on and
after [date 181 days
after date of
publication of final
rule in the Federal
Register].
[[Page 59013]]
Sec. 63.6(f)(1).................... Compliance Except Yes before [date 181
During Startup, days after date of
Shutdown, and publication of final
Malfunction. rule in the Federal
Register]. No on and
after [date 181 days
after date of
publication of final
rule in the Federal
Register].
Sec. 63.6(f)(2)-(3)................ Methods for Determining Yes....................
Compliance..
Sec. 63.6(g)(1)-(3)................ Use of an Alternative Yes....................
Standard.
Sec. 63.6(h)....................... Compliance With Opacity/ No..................... Subpart MMMM does not
Visible Emission establish opacity
Standards. standards and does not
require continuous
opacity monitoring
systems (COMS).
Sec. 63.6(i)(1)-(16)............... Extension of Compliance Yes....................
Sec. 63.6(j)....................... Presidential Compliance Yes....................
Exemption.
Sec. 63.7(a)(1).................... Performance Test Yes.................... Applies to all affected
Requirements--Applicab sources. Additional
ility. requirements for
performance testing
are specified in Sec.
Sec. 63.3964,
63.3965, and 63.3966.
Sec. 63.7(a)(2).................... Performance Test Yes.................... Applies only to
Requirements--Dates. performance tests for
capture system and
control device
efficiency at sources
using these to comply
with the standard.
Section 63.3960
specifies the schedule
for performance test
requirements that are
earlier than those
specified in Sec.
63.7(a)(2).
Sec. 63.7(a)(3)-(4)................ Performance Tests Yes....................
Required By the
Administrator, Force
Majeure.
Sec. 63.7(b)-(d)................... Performance Test Yes.................... Applies only to
Requirements--Notifica performance tests for
tion, Quality capture system and add-
Assurance, Facilities on control device
Necessary for Safe efficiency at sources
Testing, Conditions using these to comply
During Test. with the standard.
Sec. 63.7(e)(1).................... Conduct of Performance Yes before [date 181 See Sec. Sec.
Tests. days after date of 63.3964
publication of final
rule in the Federal
Register]. No on and
after [date 181 days
after date of
publication of final
rule in the Federal
Register].
Sec. 63.7(e)(2)-(4)................ Conduct of Performance Yes....................
Tests.
Sec. 63.7(f)....................... Performance Test Yes.................... Applies to all test
Requirements--Use of methods except those
Alternative Test used to determine
Method. capture system
efficiency.
Sec. 63.7(g)-(h)................... Performance Test Yes.................... Applies only to
Requirements--Data performance tests for
Analysis, capture system and add-
Recordkeeping, on control device
Reporting, Waiver of efficiency at sources
Test. using these to comply
with the standard.
Sec. 63.8(a)(1)-(3)................ Monitoring Yes.................... Applies only to
Requirements--Applicab monitoring of capture
ility. system and add-on
control device
efficiency at sources
using these to comply
with the standard.
Additional
requirements for
monitoring are
specified in Sec.
63.3968.
Sec. 63.8(a)(4).................... Additional Monitoring No..................... Subpart MMMM does not
Requirements. have monitoring
requirements for
flares.
Sec. 63.8(b)....................... Conduct of Monitoring.. Yes....................
[[Page 59014]]
Sec. 63.8(c)(1).................... Continuous Monitoring Yes before [date 181 Section 63.3968
System (CMS) Operation days after date of specifies the
and Maintenance. publication of final requirements for the
rule in the Federal operation of CMS for
Register]. No on and capture systems and
after [date 181 days add-on control devices
after date of at sources using these
publication of final to comply.
rule in the Federal
Register].
Sec. 63.8(c)(2)-(3)................ CMS Operation and Yes.................... Applies only to
Maintenance. monitoring of capture
system and add-on
control device
efficiency at sources
using these to comply
with the standard.
Additional
requirements for CMS
operations and
maintenance are
specified in Sec.
63.3968.
Sec. 63.8(c)(4).................... CMS.................... No..................... Sec. 63.3968
specifies the
requirements for the
operation of CMS for
capture systems and
add-on control devices
at sources using these
to comply.
Sec. 63.8(c)(5).................... COMS................... No..................... Subpart MMMM does not
have opacity or
visible emission
standards.
Sec. 63.8(c)(6).................... CMS Requirements....... No..................... Section 63.3968
specifies the
requirements for
monitoring systems for
capture systems and
add-on control devices
at sources using these
to comply.
Sec. 63.8(c)(7).................... CMS Out-of-Control Yes....................
Periods.
Sec. 63.8(c)(8).................... CMS Out-of-Control No..................... Sec. 63.3920 requires
Periods and Reporting. reporting of CMS out-
of-control periods.
Sec. 63.8(d)-(e)................... Quality Control Program No..................... Subpart MMMM does not
and CMS Performance require the use of
Evaluation. continuous emissions
monitoring systems.
Sec. 63.8(f)(1)-(5)................ Use of an Alternative Yes....................
Monitoring Method.
Sec. 63.8(f)(6).................... Alternative to Relative No..................... Subpart MMMM does not
Accuracy Test. require the use of
continuous emissions
monitoring systems.
Sec. 63.8(g)(1)-(5)................ Data Reduction......... No..................... Sections 63.3967 and
63.3968 specify
monitoring data
reduction.
Sec. 63.9(a)-(d)................... Notification Yes....................
Requirements.
Sec. 63.9(e)....................... Notification of Yes.................... Applies only to capture
Performance Test. system and add-on
control device
performance tests at
sources using these to
comply with the
standard.
Sec. 63.9(f)....................... Notification of Visible No..................... Subpart MMMM does not
Emissions/Opacity Test. have opacity or
visible emissions
standards.
Sec. 63.9(g)(1)-(3)................ Additional No..................... Subpart MMMM does not
Notifications When require the use of
Using CMS. continuous emissions
monitoring systems.
Sec. 63.9(h)....................... Notification of Yes.................... Section 63.3910
Compliance Status. specifies the dates
for submitting the
notification of
compliance status.
Sec. 63.9(i)....................... Adjustment of Submittal Yes....................
Deadlines.
Sec. 63.9(j)....................... Change in Previous Yes....................
Information.
Sec. 63.10(a)...................... Recordkeeping/ Yes....................
Reporting--Applicabili
ty and General
Information.
Sec. 63.10(b)(1)................... General Recordkeeping Yes.................... Additional requirements
Requirements. are specified in Sec.
Sec. 63.3930 and
63.3931.
Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(i)-(ii)........... Recordkeeping of Yes before [date 181 See Sec. 63.3930(j).
Occurrence and days after date of
Duration of Startups publication of final
and Shutdowns and of rule in the Federal
Failures to Meet Register]. No on and
Standards. after [date 181 days
after date of
publication of final
rule in the Federal
Register].
[[Page 59015]]
Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(iii).............. Recordkeeping Relevant Yes.................... Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(iii)
to Maintenance of Air
Pollution Control and
Monitoring Equipment.
Sec. 63.10(b)(2) (iv)-(v).......... Actions Taken to Yes before [date 181 See Sec. 63.3930(j)
Minimize Emissions days after date of for a record of
During Startup, publication of final actions taken to
Shutdown, and rule in the Federal minimize emissions
Malfunction. Register]. No on and duration a deviation
after [date 181 days from the standard.
after date of
publication of final
rule in the Federal
Register].
Sec. 63.10(b)(2) (vi).............. Recordkeeping for CMS Yes before [date 181 See Sec. 63.3930(j)
Malfunctions. days after date of for records of periods
publication of final of deviation from the
rule in the Federal standard, including
Register]. No on and instances where a CMS
after [date 181 days is inoperative or out-
after date of of-control.
publication of final
rule in the Federal
Register].
Sec. 63.10(b)(2) (xii)............. Records................ Yes....................
Sec. 63.10(b)(2) (xiii)............ ....................... No..................... Subpart MMMM does not
require the use of
continuous emissions
monitoring systems.
Sec. 63.10(b)(2) (xiv)............. ....................... Yes....................
Sec. 63.10(b)(3)................... Recordkeeping Yes....................
Requirements for
Applicability
Determinations.
Sec. 63.10(c) (1)-(6).............. Additional Yes....................
Recordkeeping
Requirements for
Sources with CMS.
Sec. 63.10(c) (7)-(8).............. Additional No..................... See Sec. 63.3930(j)
Recordkeeping for records of periods
Requirements for of deviation from the
Sources with CMS. standard, including
instances where a CMS
is inoperative or out-
of-control.
Sec. 63.10(c)(10)-(14)............. Additional Yes....................
Recordkeeping
Requirements for
Sources with CMS.
Sec. 63.10(c)(15).................. Records Regarding the Yes before [date 181
Startup, Shutdown, and days after date of
Malfunction Plan. publication of final
rule in the Federal
Register]. No on and
after [date 181 days
after date of
publication of final
rule in the Federal
Register].
Sec. 63.10(d)(1)................... General Reporting Yes.................... Additional requirements
Requirements. are specified in Sec.
63.3920.
Sec. 63.10(d)(2)................... Report of Performance Yes.................... Additional requirements
Test Results. are specified in Sec.
63.3920(b) and (d).
Sec. 63.10(d)(3)................... Reporting Opacity or No..................... Subpart MMMM does not
Visible Emissions require opacity or
Observations. visible emissions
observations.
Sec. 63.10(d)(4)................... Progress Reports for Yes....................
Sources With
Compliance Extensions.
Sec. 63.10(d)(5)................... Startup, Shutdown, and Yes before [date 181 See Sec. 63.3920
Malfunction Reports. days after date of (a)(7) and (c).
publication of final
rule in the Federal
Register]. No on and
after [date 181 days
after date of
publication of final
rule in the Federal
Register].
Sec. 63.10(e) (1)-(2).............. Additional CMS Reports. No..................... Subpart MMMM does not
require the use of
continuous emissions
monitoring systems.
Sec. 63.10(e) (3).................. Excess Emissions/CMS No..................... Section 63.3920 (b)
Performance Reports. specifies the contents
of periodic compliance
reports.
Sec. 63.10(e) (4).................. COMS Data Reports...... No..................... Subpart MMMMM does not
specify requirements
for opacity or COMS.
Sec. 63.10(f)...................... Recordkeeping/Reporting Yes....................
Waiver.
Sec. 63.11......................... Control Device No..................... Subpart MMMM does not
Requirements/Flares. specify use of flares
for compliance.
Sec. 63.12......................... State Authority and Yes....................
Delegations.
Sec. 63.13......................... Addresses.............. Yes....................
Sec. 63.14......................... Incorporation by Yes....................
Reference.
[[Page 59016]]
Sec. 63.15......................... Availability of Yes....................
Information/
Confidentiality.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0
38. Table 5 to Subpart MMMM of part 63 is added to read as follows:
Table 5 to Subpart MMMM of Part 63--List of Hazardous Air Pollutants
That Must Be Counted Toward Total Organic HAP Content if Present at 0.1
Percent or More by Mass
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chemical name CAS No.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane............................... 79-34-5
1,1,2-Trichloroethane................................... 79-00-5
1,1-Dimethylhydrazine................................... 57-14-7
1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane............................. 96-12-8
1,2-Diphenylhydrazine................................... 122-66-7
1,3-Butadiene........................................... 106-99-0
1,3-Dichloropropene..................................... 542-75-6
1,4-Dioxane............................................. 123-91-1
2,4,6-Trichlorophenol................................... 88-06-2
2,4/2,6-Dinitrotoluene (mixture)........................ 25321-14-6
2,4-Dinitrotoluene...................................... 121-14-2
2,4-Toluene diamine..................................... 95-80-7
2-Nitropropane.......................................... 79-46-9
3,3'-Dichlorobenzidine.................................. 91-94-1
3,3'-Dimethoxybenzidine................................. 119-90-4
3,3'-Dimethylbenzidine.................................. 119-93-7
4,4'-Methylene bis(2-chloroaniline)..................... 101-14-4
Acetaldehyde............................................ 75-07-0
Acrylamide.............................................. 79-06-1
Acrylonitrile........................................... 107-13-1
Allyl chloride.......................................... 107-05-1
alpha-Hexachlorocyclohexane (a-HCH)..................... 319-84-6
Aniline................................................. 62-53-3
Benzene................................................. 71-43-2
Benzidine............................................... 92-87-5
Benzotrichloride........................................ 98-07-7
Benzyl chloride......................................... 100-44-7
beta-Hexachlorocyclohexane (b-HCH)...................... 319-85-7
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate.............................. 117-81-7
Bis(chloromethyl)ether.................................. 542-88-1
Bromoform............................................... 75-25-2
Captan.................................................. 133-06-2
Carbon tetrachloride.................................... 56-23-5
Chlordane............................................... 57-74-9
Chlorobenzilate......................................... 510-15-6
Chloroform.............................................. 67-66-3
Chloroprene............................................. 126-99-8
Cresols (mixed)......................................... 1319-77-3
DDE..................................................... 3547-04-4
Dichloroethyl ether..................................... 111-44-4
Dichlorvos.............................................. 62-73-7
Epichlorohydrin......................................... 106-89-8
Ethyl acrylate.......................................... 140-88-5
Ethylene dibromide...................................... 106-93-4
Ethylene dichloride..................................... 107-06-2
Ethylene oxide.......................................... 75-21-8
Ethylene thiourea....................................... 96-45-7
Ethylidene dichloride (1,1-Dichloroethane).............. 75-34-3
Formaldehyde............................................ 50-00-0
Heptachlor.............................................. 76-44-8
Hexachlorobenzene....................................... 118-74-1
Hexachlorobutadiene..................................... 87-68-3
Hexachloroethane........................................ 67-72-1
Hydrazine............................................... 302-01-2
Isophorone.............................................. 78-59-1
Lindane (hexachlorocyclohexane, all isomers)............ 58-89-9
[[Page 59017]]
m-Cresol................................................ 108-39-4
Methylene chloride...................................... 75-09-2
Naphthalene............................................. 91-20-3
Nitrobenzene............................................ 98-95-3
Nitrosodimethylamine.................................... 62-75-9
o-Cresol................................................ 95-48-7
o-Toluidine............................................. 95-53-4
Parathion............................................... 56-38-2
p-Cresol................................................ 106-44-5
p-Dichlorobenzene....................................... 106-46-7
Pentachloronitrobenzene................................. 82-68-8
Pentachlorophenol....................................... 87-86-5
Propoxur................................................ 114-26-1
Propylene dichloride.................................... 78-87-5
Propylene oxide......................................... 75-56-9
Quinoline............................................... 91-22-5
Tetrachloroethene....................................... 127-18-4
Toxaphene............................................... 8001-35-2
Trichloroethylene....................................... 79-01-6
Trifluralin............................................. 1582-09-8
Vinyl bromide........................................... 593-60-2
Vinyl chloride.......................................... 75-01-4
Vinylidene chloride..................................... 75-35-4
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subpart NNNN--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants: Surface Coating of Large Appliances
0
39. Section 63.4168 is amended by adding paragraphs (c)(3)(i) through
(vii) to read as follows:
Sec. 63.4168 What are the requirements for continuous parameter
monitoring system installation, operation, and maintenance?
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(3) * * *
(i) Locate the temperature sensor in a position that provides a
representative temperature.
(ii) Use a temperature sensor with a measurement sensitivity of 4
degrees Fahrenheit or 0.75 percent of the temperature value, whichever
is larger.
(iii) Shield the temperature sensor system from electromagnetic
interference and chemical contaminants.
(iv) If a gas temperature chart recorder is used, it must have a
measurement sensitivity in the minor division of at least 20 degrees
Fahrenheit.
(v) Perform an electronic calibration at least semiannually
according to the procedures in the manufacturer's owners manual.
Following the electronic calibration, you must conduct a temperature
sensor validation check in which a second or redundant temperature
sensor placed nearby the process temperature sensor must yield a
reading within 30 degrees Fahrenheit of the process temperature
sensor's reading.
(vi) Any time the sensor exceeds the manufacturer's specified
maximum operating temperature range, either conduct calibration and
validation checks or install a new temperature sensor.
(vii) At least monthly, inspect components for integrity and
electrical connections for continuity, oxidation, and galvanic
corrosion.
* * * * *
Subpart OOOO--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants: Printing, Coating, and Dyeing of Fabrics and Other
Textiles
0
40. Section 63.4371 is amended by revising the definition for ``No
organic HAP'' to read as follows:
Sec. 63.4371 What definitions apply to this subpart?
* * * * *
No organic HAP means no organic HAP in Table 5 to this subpart is
present at 0.1 percent by mass or more and no organic HAP not listed in
Table 5 to this subpart is present at 1.0 percent by mass or more. The
organic HAP content of a regulated material is determined according to
Sec. 63.4321(e)(1).
* * * * *
Subpart PPPP--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants for Surface Coating of Plastic Parts and Products
0
41. Section 63.4492 is amended by revising paragraph (b) to read as
follows:
Sec. 63.4492 What operating limits must I meet?
* * * * *
(b) For any controlled coating operation(s) on which you use the
emission rate with add-on controls option, except those for which you
use a solvent recovery system and conduct a liquid-liquid material
balance according to Sec. 63.4561(j), you must meet the operating
limits specified in Table 1 to this subpart. These operating limits
apply to the emission capture and control systems on the coating
operation(s) for which you use this option, and you must establish the
operating limits during the performance tests required in Sec. 63.4560
according to the requirements in Sec. 63.4567. You must meet the
operating limits established during the most recent performance tests
required in Sec. 63.4560 at all times after you establish them.
* * * * *
0
42. Section 63.4500 is amended by revising paragraphs (a)(2)(i) and
(ii), (b), and (c) to read as follows:
Sec. 63.4500 What are my general requirements for complying with this
subpart?
(a) * * *
(2) * * *
[[Page 59018]]
(i) The coating operation(s) must be in compliance with the
applicable emission limit in Sec. 63.4490 at all times.
(ii) The coating operation(s) must be in compliance with the
operating limits for emission capture systems and add-on control
devices required by Sec. 63.4492 at all times, except for solvent
recovery systems for which you conduct liquid-liquid material balances
according to Sec. 63.4561(j).
* * * * *
(b) Before [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule
in the Federal Register], you must always operate and maintain your
affected source, including all air pollution control and monitoring
equipment you use for purposes of complying with this subpart,
according to the provisions in Sec. 63.6(e)(1)(i). On and after [date
181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal
Register], at all times, the owner or operator must operate and
maintain any affected source, including associated air pollution
control equipment and monitoring equipment, in a manner consistent with
safety and good air pollution control practices for minimizing
emissions. The general duty to minimize emissions does not require the
owner or operator to make any further efforts to reduce emissions if
levels required by the applicable standard have been achieved.
Determination of whether a source is operating in compliance with
operation and maintenance requirements will be based on information
available to the Administrator that may include, but is not limited to,
monitoring results, review of operation and maintenance procedures,
review of operation and maintenance records, and inspection of the
affected source.
(c) Before [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule
in the Federal Register], if your affected source uses an emission
capture system and add-on control device, you must develop a written
startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan (SSMP) according to the
provisions in Sec. 63.6(e)(3). The plan must address the startup,
shutdown, and corrective actions in the event of a malfunction of the
emission capture system or the add-on control device. The plan must
also address any coating operation equipment that may cause increased
emissions or that would affect capture efficiency if the process
equipment malfunctions, such as conveyors that move parts among
enclosures. On and after [date 181 days after date of publication of
final rule in the Federal Register], the SSMP is not required.
0
43. Section 63.4520 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraphs (a)(5) introductory text and (a)(5)(i) and (iv);
0
b. Adding paragraph (a)(5)(v);
0
c. Revising paragraph (a)(6) introductory text and (a)(6)(iii);
0
d. Adding paragraph (a)(6)(iv);
0
e. Revising paragraph (a)(7) introductory text, (a)(7)(iii), (a)(7)(vi)
through (viii), (a)(7)(x), and (a)(7)(xiii) and (xiv);
0
f. Adding paragraph (a)(7)(xv);
0
g. Revising paragraph (c) introductory text; and
0
h. Adding paragraphs (d) through (h).
The revisions and additions read as follows:
Sec. 63.4520 What reports must I submit?
(a) * * *
(5) Deviations: Compliant material option. If you used the
compliant material option and there was a deviation from the applicable
organic HAP content requirements in Sec. 63.4490, the semiannual
compliance report must contain the information in paragraphs (a)(5)(i)
through (v) of this section.
(i) Identification of each coating used that deviated from the
applicable emission limit, and each thinner and/or other additive, and
cleaning material used that contained organic HAP, and the date, time,
and duration each was used.
* * * * *
(iv) Before [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule
in the Federal Register], a statement of the cause of each deviation.
On and after [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in
the Federal Register], a statement of the cause of each deviation
(including unknown cause, if applicable).
(v) On and after [date 181 days after date of publication of final
rule in the Federal Register], the number of deviations and, for each
deviation, a list of the affected source or equipment, an estimate of
the quantity of each regulated pollutant emitted over any applicable
emission limit in Sec. 63.4490, a description of the method used to
estimate the emissions, and the actions you took to minimize emissions
in accordance with Sec. 63.4500(b).
(6) Deviations: Emission rate without add-on controls option. If
you used the emission rate without add-on controls option and there was
a deviation from the applicable emission limit in Sec. 63.4490, the
semiannual compliance report must contain the information in paragraphs
(a)(6)(i) through (iv) of this section.
* * * * *
(iii) Before [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule
in the Federal Register], a statement of the cause of each deviation.
On and after [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in
the Federal Register], a statement of the cause of each deviation
(including unknown cause, if applicable).
(iv) On and after [date 181 days after date of publication of final
rule in the Federal Register], the number of deviations, date, time,
duration, a list of the affected source or equipment, an estimate of
the quantity of each regulated pollutant emitted over any applicable
emission limit in Sec. 63.4490, a description of the method used to
estimate the emissions, and the actions you took to minimize emissions
in accordance with Sec. 63.4500(b).
(7) Deviations: Emission rate with add-on controls option. If you
used the emission rate with add-on controls option and there was a
deviation from the applicable emission limit in Sec. 63.4490 or the
applicable operating limit(s) in Table 1 to this subpart (including any
periods when emissions bypassed the add-on control device and were
diverted to the atmosphere), before [date 181 days after date of
publication of final rule in the Federal Register], the semiannual
compliance report must contain the information in paragraphs (a)(7)(i)
through (xiv) of this section. This includes periods of startup,
shutdown, and malfunction during which deviations occurred. On and
after [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the
Federal Register], the semiannual compliance report must contain the
information in paragraphs (a)(7)(i) through (xii), (a)(7)(xiv), and
(a)(7)(xv) of this section. If you use the emission rate with add-on
controls option and there was a deviation from the applicable work
practice standards in Sec. 63.4493(b), the semiannual compliance
report must contain the information in paragraph (a)(7)(xiii) of this
section.
* * * * *
(iii) The date and time that each malfunction of the capture system
or add-on control devices started and stopped.
* * * * *
(vi) Before [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule
in the Federal Register], the date and time that each CPMS was
inoperative, except for zero (low-level) and high-level checks. On and
after [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the
Federal Register], the number of instances that the CPMS was
inoperative, and for each instance, except for zero (low-level) and
high-level checks, the date, time, and duration that the CPMS was
inoperative;
[[Page 59019]]
the cause (including unknown cause) for the CPMS being inoperative; and
the actions you took to minimize emissions in accordance with Sec.
63.4500(b).
(vii) Before [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule
in the Federal Register], the date, time, and duration that each CPMS
was out-of-control, including the information in Sec. 63.8(c)(8). On
and after [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the
Federal Register], the number of instances that the CPMS was out of
control as specified in Sec. 63.8(c)(7) and, for each instance, the
date, time, and duration that the CPMS was out-of-control; the cause
(including unknown cause) for the CPMS being out-of-control; and
descriptions of corrective actions taken.
(viii) Before [date 181 days after date of publication of final
rule in the Federal Register], the date and time period of each
deviation from an operating limit in Table 1 to this subpart; date and
time period of any bypass of the add-on control device; and whether
each deviation occurred during a period of startup, shutdown, or
malfunction or during another period. On and after [date 181 days after
date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register], the number
of deviations from an operating limit in Table 1 to this subpart and,
for each deviation, the date, time, and duration of each deviation; the
date, time, and duration of any bypass of the add-on control device.
* * * * *
(x) Before [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule
in the Federal Register], a breakdown of the total duration of the
deviations from the operating limits in Table 1 of this subpart and
bypasses of the add-on control device during the semiannual reporting
period into those that were due to startup, shutdown, control equipment
problems, process problems, other known causes, and other unknown
causes. On and after [date 181 days after date of publication of final
rule in the Federal Register], a breakdown of the total duration of the
deviations from the operating limits in Table 1 to this subpart and
bypasses of the add-on control device during the semiannual reporting
period into those that were due to control equipment problems, process
problems, other known causes, and other unknown causes.
* * * * *
(xiii) Before [date 181 days after date of publication of final
rule in the Federal Register], for each deviation from the work
practice standards, a description of the deviation, the date and time
period of the deviation, and the actions you took to correct the
deviation. On and after [date 181 days after date of publication of
final rule in the Federal Register], for deviations from the work
practice standards, the number of deviations, and, for each deviation,
the information in paragraphs (a)(7)(xiii)(A) and (B) of this section:
(A) A description of the deviation; the date, time, and duration of
the deviation; and the actions you took to minimize emissions in
accordance with Sec. 63.4500(b).
(B) The description required in paragraph (a)(7)(xiii)(A) of this
section must include a list of the affected sources or equipment for
which a deviation occurred and the cause of the deviation (including
unknown cause, if applicable.
(xiv) Before [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule
in the Federal Register], a statement of the cause of each deviation.
On and after [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in
the Federal Register], for deviations from an emission limit in Sec.
63.4490 or an operating limit in Table 1 to this subpart, a statement
of the cause of each deviation (including unknown cause, if applicable)
and the actions you took to minimize emissions in accordance with Sec.
63.4500(b).
(xv) On and after [date 181 days after date of publication of final
rule in the Federal Register], for each deviation from an emission
limit in Sec. 63.4490 or operating limit in Table 1 to this subpart, a
list of the affected sources or equipment for which a deviation
occurred, an estimate of the quantity of each regulated pollutant
emitted over any emission limit in Sec. 63.4490 or operating limit in
Table 1 to this subpart, and a description of the method used to
estimate the emissions.
* * * * *
(c) Startup, shutdown, malfunction reports. Before [date 181 days
after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register], if
you used the emission rate with add-on controls option and you had a
startup, shutdown, or malfunction during the semiannual reporting
period, you must submit the reports specified in paragraphs (c)(1) and
(2) of this section. On and after [date 181 days after date of
publication of final rule in the Federal Register], the reports
specified in paragraphs (c)(1) and (2) of this section are not
required.
* * * * *
(d) On and after [date 181 days after date of publication of final
rule in the Federal Register], you must submit the results of the
performance tests required in Sec. 63.4560 following the procedure
specified in paragraphs (d)(1) through (3) of this section.
(1) For data collected using test methods supported by the EPA's
Electronic Reporting Tool (ERT) as listed on the EPA's ERT website
(https://www.epa.gov/electronic-reporting-air-emissions/electronic-reporting-tool-ert) at the time of the test, you must submit the
results of the performance test to the EPA via the CEDRI. The CEDRI
interface can be accessed through the EPA's CDX (https://cdx.epa.gov/).
Performance test data must be submitted in a file format generated
through the use of the EPA's ERT or an alternate electronic file format
consistent with the XML schema listed on the EPA's ERT website.
(2) For data collected using test methods that are not supported by
the EPA's ERT as listed on the EPA's ERT website at the time of the
test, you must submit the results of the performance test to the
Administrator at the appropriate address listed in Sec. 63.13, unless
the Administrator agrees to or specifies an alternate reporting method.
(3) If you claim that some of the performance test information
being submitted under paragraph (d)(1) of this section is CBI, you must
submit a complete file generated through the use of the EPA's ERT or an
alternate electronic file consistent with the XML schema listed on the
EPA's ERT website, including information claimed to be CBI, on a
compact disc, flash drive, or other commonly used electronic storage
medium to the EPA. The electronic medium must be clearly marked as CBI
and mailed to U.S. EPA/OAPQS/CORE CBI Office, Attention: Group Leader,
Measurement Policy Group, MD C404-02, 4930 Old Page Rd., Durham, NC
27703. The same ERT or alternate file with the CBI omitted must be
submitted to the EPA via the EPA's CDX as described in paragraph (d)(1)
of this section.
(e) On and after [date 181 days after date of publication of final
rule in the Federal Register], the owner or operator shall submit the
initial notifications required in Sec. 63.9(b) and the notification of
compliance status required in Sec. 63.9(h) and Sec. 63.4510(c) to the
EPA via the CEDRI. The CEDRI interface can be accessed through the
EPA's CDX (https://cdx.epa.gov/). The owner or operator must upload to
CEDRI an electronic copy of each applicable notification in portable
document format (PDF). The applicable notification must be submitted by
the deadline specified in this subpart, regardless of the method in
which the
[[Page 59020]]
reports are submitted. Owners or operators who claim that some of the
information required to be submitted via CEDRI is CBI shall submit a
complete report generated using the appropriate form in CEDRI or an
alternate electronic file consistent with the XML schema listed on the
EPA's CEDRI website, including information claimed to be CBI, on a
compact disc, flash drive, or other commonly used electronic storage
medium to the EPA. The electronic medium shall be clearly marked as CBI
and mailed to U.S. EPA/OAQPS/CORE CBI Office, Attention: Group Leader,
Measurement Policy Group, MD C404-02, 4930 Old Page Rd., Durham, NC
27703. The same file with the CBI omitted shall be submitted to the EPA
via the EPA's CDX as described earlier in this paragraph.
(f) On and after [date 181 days after date of publication of final
rule in the Federal Register], or once the reporting template has been
available on the CEDRI website for 1 year, whichever date is later, the
owner or operator shall submit the semiannual compliance report
required in paragraph (a) of this section to the EPA via the CEDRI.
(CEDRI can be accessed through the EPA's CDX (https://cdx.epa.gov/)).
The owner or operator must use the appropriate electronic template on
the CEDRI website for this subpart or an alternate electronic file
format consistent with the XML schema listed on the CEDRI website
(https://www.epa.gov/electronic-reporting-air-emissions/compliance-and-emissions-data-reporting-interface-cedri). The date report templates
become available will be listed on the CEDRI website. If the reporting
form for the semiannual compliance report specific to this subpart is
not available in CEDRI at the time that the report is due, you must
submit the report to the Administrator at the appropriate addresses
listed in Sec. 63.13. Once the form has been available in CEDRI for 1
year, you must begin submitting all subsequent reports via CEDRI. The
reports must be submitted by the deadlines specified in this subpart,
regardless of the method in which the reports are submitted. Owners or
operators who claim that some of the information required to be
submitted via CEDRI is CBI shall submit a complete report generated
using the appropriate form in CEDRI or an alternate electronic file
consistent with the XML schema listed on the EPA's CEDRI website,
including information claimed to be CBI, on a compact disc, flash
drive, or other commonly used electronic storage medium to the EPA. The
electronic medium shall be clearly marked as CBI and mailed to U.S.
EPA/OAQPS/CORE CBI Office, Attention: Group Leader, Measurement Policy
Group, MD C404-02, 4930 Old Page Rd., Durham, NC 27703. The same file
with the CBI omitted shall be submitted to the EPA via the EPA's CDX as
described earlier in this paragraph.
(g) If you are required to electronically submit a report through
the CEDRI in the EPA's CDX, and due to a planned or actual outage of
either the EPA's CEDRI or CDX systems within the period of time
beginning 5 business days prior to the date that the submission is due,
you will be or are precluded from accessing CEDRI or CDX and submitting
a required report within the time prescribed, you may assert a claim of
EPA system outage for failure to timely comply with the reporting
requirement. You must submit notification to the Administrator in
writing as soon as possible following the date you first knew, or
through due diligence should have known, that the event may cause or
caused a delay in reporting. You must provide to the Administrator a
written description identifying the date, time and length of the
outage; a rationale for attributing the delay in reporting beyond the
regulatory deadline to the EPA system outage; describe the measures
taken or to be taken to minimize the delay in reporting; and identify a
date by which you propose to report, or if you have already met the
reporting requirement at the time of the notification, the date you
reported. In any circumstance, the report must be submitted
electronically as soon as possible after the outage is resolved. The
decision to accept the claim of EPA system outage and allow an
extension to the reporting deadline is solely within the discretion of
the Administrator.
(h) If you are required to electronically submit a report through
CEDRI in the EPA's CDX and a force majeure event is about to occur,
occurs, or has occurred or there are lingering effects from such an
event within the period of time beginning 5 business days prior to the
date the submission is due, the owner or operator may assert a claim of
force majeure for failure to timely comply with the reporting
requirement. For the purposes of this section, a force majeure event is
defined as an event that will be or has been caused by circumstances
beyond the control of the affected facility, its contractors, or any
entity controlled by the affected facility that prevents you from
complying with the requirement to submit a report electronically within
the time period prescribed. Examples of such events are acts of nature
(e.g., hurricanes, earthquakes, or floods), acts of war or terrorism,
or equipment failure or safety hazard beyond the control of the
affected facility (e.g., large scale power outage). If you intend to
assert a claim of force majeure, you must submit notification to the
Administrator in writing as soon as possible following the date you
first knew, or through due diligence should have known, that the event
may cause or caused a delay in reporting. You must provide to the
Administrator a written description of the force majeure event and a
rationale for attributing the delay in reporting beyond the regulatory
deadline to the force majeure event; describe the measures taken or to
be taken to minimize the delay in reporting; and identify a date by
which you propose to report, or if you have already met the reporting
requirement at the time of the notification, the date you reported. In
any circumstance, the reporting must occur as soon as possible after
the force majeure event occurs. The decision to accept the claim of
force majeure and allow an extension to the reporting deadline is
solely within the discretion of the Administrator.
0
44. Section 63.4530 is amended by revising paragraphs (h), (i)
introductory text, and (i)(1) and (2) to read as follows:
Sec. 63.4530 What records must I keep?
* * * * *
(h) Before [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule
in the Federal Register], you must keep records of the date, time, and
duration of each deviation. On and after [date 181 days after date of
publication of final rule in the Federal Register], for each deviation
from an emission limitation reported under Sec. 63.4520(a)(5) through
(7), a record of the information specified in paragraphs (h)(1) through
(4) of this section, as applicable.
(1) The date, time, and duration of the deviation, as reported
under Sec. 63.4520(a)(5) through (7).
(2) A list of the affected sources or equipment for which the
deviation occurred and the cause of the deviation, as reported under
Sec. 63.4520(a)(5) through (7).
(3) An estimate of the quantity of each regulated pollutant emitted
over any applicable emission limit in Sec. 63.4490 or any applicable
operating limit in Table 1 to this subpart, and a description of the
method used to calculate the estimate, as reported under Sec.
63.4520(a)(5) through (7).
(4) A record of actions taken to minimize emissions in accordance
with Sec. 63.4500(b) and any corrective actions taken to return the
affected unit to its normal or usual manner of operation.
[[Page 59021]]
(i) If you use the emission rate with add-on controls option, you
must also keep the records specified in paragraphs (i)(1) through (8)
of this section.
(1) Before [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule
in the Federal Register], for each deviation, a record of whether the
deviation occurred during a period of startup, shutdown, or
malfunction. On and after [date 181 days after date of publication of
final rule in the Federal Register], a record of whether the deviation
occurred during a period of startup, shutdown, or malfunction is not
required.
(2) Before [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule
in the Federal Register], the records in Sec. 63.6(e)(3)(iii) through
(v) related to startup, shutdown, and malfunction. On and after [date
181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal
Register], the records in Sec. 63.6(e)(3)(iii) through (v) related to
startup, shutdown, and malfunction are not required.
* * * * *
0
45. Section 63.4531 is amended by revising paragraph (a) to read as
follows:
Sec. 63.4531 In what form and for how long must I keep my records?
(a) Your records must be in a form suitable and readily available
for expeditious review, according to Sec. 63.10(b)(1). Where
appropriate, the records may be maintained as electronic spreadsheets
or as a database. On and after [date 181 days after date of publication
of final rule in the Federal Register], any records required to be
maintained by this subpart that are in reports that were submitted
electronically via the EPA's CEDRI may be maintained in electronic
format. This ability to maintain electronic copies does not affect the
requirement for facilities to make records, data, and reports available
upon request to a delegated air agency or the EPA as part of an on-site
compliance evaluation.
* * * * *
0
46. Section 63.4541 is amended by revising paragraphs (a)(1)(i) and
(a)(2) and (4) to read as follows:
Sec. 63.4541 How do I demonstrate initial compliance with the
emission limitations?
* * * * *
(a) * * *
(1) * * *
(i) Count each organic HAP in Table 5 to this subpart that is
measured to be present at 0.1 percent by mass or more and at 1.0
percent by mass or more for other compounds. For example, if toluene
(not listed in Table 5 to this subpart) is measured to be 0.5 percent
of the material by mass, you do not have to count it. Express the mass
fraction of each organic HAP you count as a value truncated to four
places after the decimal point (e.g., 0.3791).
* * * * *
(2) EPA Method 24 (appendix A-7 to 40 CFR part 60). For coatings,
you may use EPA Method 24 to determine the mass fraction of nonaqueous
volatile matter and use that value as a substitute for mass fraction of
organic HAP. As an alternative to using EPA Method 24, you may use ASTM
D2369-10 (Reapproved 2015) \e\ (incorporated by reference, see Sec.
63.14). For reactive adhesives in which some of the HAP react to form
solids and are not emitted to the atmosphere, you may use the
alternative method contained in appendix A to this subpart, rather than
EPA Method 24. You may use the volatile fraction that is emitted, as
measured by the alternative method in appendix A to this subpart, as a
substitute for the mass fraction of organic HAP.
* * * * *
(4) Information from the supplier or manufacturer of the material.
You may rely on information other than that generated by the test
methods specified in paragraphs (a)(1) through (3) of this section,
such as manufacturer's formulation data, if it represents each organic
HAP in Table 5 to this subpart that is present at 0.1 percent by mass
or more and at 1.0 percent by mass or more for other compounds. For
example, if toluene (not listed in Table 5 to this subpart) is 0.5
percent of the material by mass, you do not have to count it. For
reactive adhesives in which some of the HAP react to form solids and
are not emitted to the atmosphere, you may rely on manufacturer's data
that expressly states the organic HAP or volatile matter mass fraction
emitted. If there is a disagreement between such information and
results of a test conducted according to paragraphs (a)(1) through (3)
of this section, then the test method results will take precedence
unless, after consultation you demonstrate to the satisfaction of the
enforcement agency that the formulation data are correct.
* * * * *
0
47. Section 63.4551 is amended by revising paragraph (c) to read as
follows:
Sec. 63.4551 How do I demonstrate initial compliance with the
emission limitations?
* * * * *
(c) Determine the density of each material. Determine the density
of each liquid coating, thinner and/or other additive, and cleaning
material used during each month from test results using ASTM D1475-13
or ASTM D2111-10 (Reapproved 2015) (both incorporated by reference, see
Sec. 63.14), information from the supplier or manufacturer of the
material, or reference sources providing density or specific gravity
data for pure materials. If there is disagreement between ASTM D1475-13
or ASTM D2111-10 (2015) and other such information sources, the test
results will take precedence unless, after consultation you demonstrate
to the satisfaction of the enforcement agency that the formulation data
are correct. If you purchase materials or monitor consumption by weight
instead of volume, you do not need to determine material density.
Instead, you may use the material weight in place of the combined terms
for density and volume in Equations 1A, 1B, 1C, and 2 of this section.
* * * * *
0
48. Section 63.4560 is amended by revising the section heading and
paragraphs (a)(1) and (4), (b)(1), and (c) introductory text to read as
follows:
Sec. 63.4560 By what date must I conduct performance tests and
initial compliance demonstrations?
(a) * * *
(1) All emission capture systems, add-on control devices, and CPMS
must be installed and operating no later than the applicable compliance
date specified in Sec. 63.4483. Except for solvent recovery systems
for which you conduct liquid-liquid material balances according to
Sec. 63.4561(j), you must conduct according to the schedule in
paragraphs (a)(1)(i) and (ii) of this section initial and periodic
performance tests of each capture system and add-on control device
according to the procedures in Sec. Sec. 63.4564, 63.4565, and 63.4566
and establish the operating limits required by Sec. 63.4492. For a
solvent recovery system for which you conduct liquid-liquid material
balances according to Sec. 63.4561(j), you must initiate the first
material balance no later than the applicable compliance date specified
in Sec. 63.4483.
(i) You must conduct the initial performance test and establish the
operating limits required by Sec. 63.4492 no later than 180 days after
the applicable compliance date specified in Sec. 63.4483.
(ii) You must conduct periodic performance tests and establish the
operating limits required by Sec. 63.4492 within 5 years following the
previous performance test. You must conduct the first periodic
performance test before [date 3 years after date of publications of
final rule in the Federal Register], unless you are already required to
complete periodic performance tests as a requirement of renewing your
facility's operating permit under 40 CFR
[[Page 59022]]
part 70 or 40 CFR part 71 and have conducted a performance test on or
after [date 2 years before date of publications of final rule in the
Federal Register]. Thereafter you must conduct a performance test no
later than 5 years following the previous performance test. Operating
limits must be confirmed or reestablished during each performance test.
For any control device for which you are using the catalytic oxidizer
control option at Sec. 63.4567(b) and following the catalyst
maintenance procedures in Sec. 63.4567(b)(4), you are not required to
conduct periodic control device performance testing as specified by
this paragraph. For any control device for which instruments are used
to continuously measure organic compound emissions, you are not
required to conduct periodic control device performance testing as
specified by this paragraph.
* * * * *
(4) For the initial compliance demonstration, you do not need to
comply with the operating limits for the emission capture system and
add-on control device required by Sec. 63.4492 until after you have
completed the initial performance tests specified in paragraph (a)(1)
of this section. Instead, you must maintain a log detailing the
operation and maintenance of the emission capture system, add-on
control device, and continuous parameter monitors during the period
between the compliance date and the performance test. You must begin
complying with the operating limits established based on the initial
performance tests specified in paragraph (a)(1) of this section for
your affected source on the date you complete the performance tests.
The requirements in this paragraph (a)(4) do not apply to solvent
recovery systems for which you conduct liquid-liquid material balances
according to the requirements in Sec. 63.4561(j).
(b) * * *
(1) All emission capture systems, add-on control devices, and CPMS
must be installed and operating no later than the applicable compliance
date specified in Sec. 63.4483. Except for solvent recovery systems
for which you conduct liquid-liquid material balances according to
Sec. 63.4561(j), you must conduct according to the schedule in
paragraphs (b)(1)(i) and (ii) of this section initial and periodic
performance tests of each capture system and add-on control device
according to the procedures in Sec. Sec. 63.4564, 63.4565, and 63.4566
and establish the operating limits required by Sec. 63.4492. For a
solvent recovery system for which you conduct liquid-liquid material
balances according to Sec. 63.4561(j), you must initiate the first
material balance no later than the compliance date specified in Sec.
63.4483.
(i) You must conduct the initial performance test and establish the
operating limits required by Sec. 63.4492 no later than 180 days after
the applicable compliance date specified in Sec. 63.4483.
(ii) You must conduct periodic performance tests and establish the
operating limits required by Sec. 63.4492 within 5 years following the
previous performance test. You must conduct the first periodic
performance test before [date 3 years after date of publications of
final rule in the Federal Register], unless you are already required to
complete periodic performance tests as a requirement of renewing your
facility's operating permit under 40 CFR part 70 or 40 CFR part 71 and
have conducted a performance test on or after [date 2 years before date
of publications of final rule in the Federal Register]. Thereafter you
must conduct a performance test no later than 5 years following the
previous performance test. Operating limits must be confirmed or
reestablished during each performance test. For any control device for
which you are using the catalytic oxidizer control option at Sec.
63.4567(b) and following the catalyst maintenance procedures in Sec.
63.4567(b)(4), you are not required to conduct periodic control device
performance testing as specified by this paragraph. For any control
device for which instruments are used to continuously measure organic
compound emissions, you are not required to conduct periodic control
device performance testing as specified by this paragraph.
* * * * *
(c) You are not required to conduct an initial performance test to
determine capture efficiency or destruction efficiency of a capture
system or control device if you receive approval to use the results of
a performance test that has been previously conducted on that capture
system or control device. Any such previous tests must meet the
conditions described in paragraphs (c)(1) through (3) of this section.
You are still required to conduct a periodic performance test according
to the applicable requirements of paragraphs (a)(1)(ii) and (b)(2)(ii)
of this section.
* * * * *
0
49. Section 63.4561 is amended by revising paragraphs (j)(3) and (n) to
read as follows:
Sec. 63.4561 How do I demonstrate initial compliance?
* * * * *
(j) * * *
(3) Determine the mass fraction of volatile organic matter for each
coating, thinner and/or other additive, and cleaning material used in
the coating operation controlled by the solvent recovery system during
the month, kg volatile organic matter per kg coating. You may determine
the volatile organic matter mass fraction using EPA Method 24 of 40 CFR
part 60, appendix A-7, ASTM D2369-10 (Reapproved 2015)\e\ (incorporated
by reference, see Sec. 63.14), or an EPA approved alternative method.
Alternatively, you may determine the volatile organic matter mass
fraction using information provided by the manufacturer or supplier of
the coating. In the event of any inconsistency between information
provided by the manufacturer or supplier and the results of EPA Method
24 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-7, ASTM D2369-10 (Reapproved 2015)\e\,
or an approved alternative method, the test method results will take
precedence unless, after consultation you demonstrate to the
satisfaction of the enforcement agency that the formulation data are
correct.
* * * * *
(n) Compliance demonstration. The organic HAP emission rate for the
initial compliance period, calculated using Equation 5 of this section,
must be less than or equal to the applicable emission limit for each
subcategory in Sec. 63.4490 or the predominant activity or facility-
specific emission limit allowed in Sec. 63.4490(c). You must keep all
records as required by Sec. Sec. 63.4530 and 63.4531. As part of the
notification of compliance status required by Sec. 63.4510, you must
identify the coating operation(s) for which you used the emission rate
with add-on controls option and submit a statement that the coating
operation(s) was (were) in compliance with the emission limitations
during the initial compliance period because the organic HAP emission
rate was less than or equal to the applicable emission limit in Sec.
63.4490, and for control devices other than solvent recovery system
using a liquid-liquid material balance, you achieved the operating
limits required by Sec. 63.4492 and the work practice standards
required by Sec. 63.4493.
0
50. Section 63.4563 is amended by revising paragraph (f) and adding
paragraph (g) to read as follows:
Sec. 63.4563 How do I demonstrate continuous compliance with the
emission limitations?
* * * * *
(f) As part of each semiannual compliance report required in Sec.
63.4520, you must identify the coating operation(s) for which you used
the emission rate with add-on controls
[[Page 59023]]
option. If there were no deviations from the emission limits in Sec.
63.4490, the operating limits in Sec. 63.34492, and the work practice
standards in Sec. 63.4493, submit a statement that you were in
compliance with the emission limitations during the reporting period
because the organic HAP emission rate for each compliance period was
less than or equal to the applicable emission limit in Sec. 63.4490,
and you achieved the operating limits required by Sec. 63.4492 and the
work practice standards required by Sec. 63.4493 during each
compliance period.
(g) On and after [date 181 days after date of publication of final
rule in the Federal Register], deviations that occur due to malfunction
of the emission capture system, add-on control device, or coating
operation that may affect emission capture or control device efficiency
are required to operate in accordance with Sec. 63.4500(b). The
Administrator will determine whether the deviations are violations
according to the provisions in Sec. 63.4500(b).
* * * * *
0
51. Section 63.4564 is amended by revising paragraphs (a) introductory
text and (a)(1) to read as follows:
Sec. 63.4564 What are the general requirements for performance tests?
(a) Before [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule
in the Federal Register], you must conduct each performance test
required by Sec. 63.4560 according to the requirements in Sec.
63.7(e)(1) and under the conditions in this section, unless you obtain
a waiver of the performance test according to the provisions in Sec.
63.7(h). On and after [date 181 days after date of publication of final
rule in the Federal Register], you must conduct each performance test
required by Sec. 63.4560 according to the requirements in this section
unless you obtain a waiver of the performance test according to the
provisions in Sec. 63.7(h).
(1) Representative coating operation operating conditions. You must
conduct the performance test under representative operating conditions
for the coating operation. Operations during periods of startup,
shutdown, or nonoperation do not constitute representative conditions
for purposes of conducting a performance test. The owner or operator
may not conduct performance tests during periods of malfunction. You
must record the process information that is necessary to document
operating conditions during the test and explain why the conditions
represent normal operation. Upon request, you must make available to
the Administrator such records as may be necessary to determine the
conditions of performance tests.
* * * * *
0
52. Section 63.4565 is amended by revising the introductory text to
read as follows:
Sec. 63.4565 How do I determine the emission capture system
efficiency?
You must use the procedures and test methods in this section to
determine capture efficiency as part of each performance test required
by Sec. 63.4560.
* * * * *
0
53. Section 63.4566 is amended by revising the introductory text and
paragraphs (a)(1) through (4) and (b) to read as follows:
Sec. 63.4566 How do I determine the add-on control device emission
destruction or removal efficiency?
You must use the procedures and test methods in this section to
determine the add-on control device emission destruction or removal
efficiency as part of the performance test required by Sec. 63.4560.
For each performance test, you must conduct three test runs as
specified in Sec. 63.7(e)(3) and each test run must last at least 1
hour.
(a) * * *
(1) Use EPA Method 1 or 1A of appendix A-1 to 40 CFR part 60, as
appropriate, to select sampling sites and velocity traverse points.
(2) Use EPA Method 2, 2A, 2C, 2D, or 2F of appendix A-1 to 40 CFR
part 60, or 2G of appendix A-2 to 40 CFR part 60, as appropriate, to
measure gas volumetric flow rate.
(3) Use EPA Method 3, 3A, or 3B of appendix A-2 to 40 CFR part 60,
as appropriate, for gas analysis to determine dry molecular weight.
(4) Use EPA Method 4 of appendix A-3 to 40 CFR part 60, to
determine stack gas moisture.
* * * * *
(b) Measure total gaseous organic mass emissions as carbon at the
inlet and outlet of the add-on control device simultaneously, using
either EPA Method 25 or 25A of appendix A-7 to 40 CFR part 60.
(1) Use EPA Method 25 of appendix A-7 if the add-on control device
is an oxidizer and you expect the total gaseous organic concentration
as carbon to be more than 50 parts per million (ppm) at the control
device outlet.
(2) Use EPA Method 25A of appendix A-7 if the add-on control device
is an oxidizer and you expect the total gaseous organic concentration
as carbon to be 50 ppm or less at the control device outlet.
(3) Use EPA Method 25A of appendix A-7 if the add-on control device
is not an oxidizer.
(4) You may use EPA Method 18 in appendix A-6 of part 60 to
subtract methane emissions from measured total gaseous organic mass
emissions as carbon.
* * * * *
0
54. Section 63.4567 is amended by revising the introductory text and
paragraphs (a)(1) and (2), (b)(1) through (3), (c)(1), (d)(1) and (2),
and (e)(1) through (4) to read as follows:
Sec. 63.4567 How do I establish the emission capture system and add-
on control device operating limits during the performance test?
During performance tests required by Sec. 63.4560 and described in
Sec. Sec. 63.4564, 63.4565, and 63.4566, you must establish the
operating limits required by Sec. 63.4492 according to this section,
unless you have received approval for alternative monitoring and
operating limits under Sec. 63.8(f) as specified in Sec. 63.4492.
(a) * * *
(1) During performance tests, you must monitor and record the
combustion temperature at least once every 15 minutes during each of
the three test runs. You must monitor the temperature in the firebox of
the thermal oxidizer or immediately downstream of the firebox before
any substantial heat exchange occurs.
(2) For each performance test, use the data collected during the
performance test to calculate and record the average combustion
temperature maintained during the performance test. This average
combustion temperature is the minimum operating limit for your thermal
oxidizer.
(b) * * *
(1) During performance tests, you must monitor and record the
temperature just before the catalyst bed and the temperature difference
across the catalyst bed at least once every 15 minutes during each of
the three test runs.
(2) For each performance test, use the data collected during the
performance test to calculate and record the average temperature just
before the catalyst bed and the average temperature difference across
the catalyst bed maintained during the performance test. These are the
minimum operating limits for your catalytic oxidizer.
(3) You must monitor the temperature at the inlet to the catalyst
bed and implement a site-specific inspection and maintenance plan for
your catalytic oxidizer as specified in paragraph (b)(4) of this
section. During performance
[[Page 59024]]
tests, you must monitor and record the temperature just before the
catalyst bed at least once every 15 minutes during each of the three
test runs. For each performance test, use the data collected during the
performance test to calculate and record the average temperature just
before the catalyst bed during the performance test. This is the
minimum operating limit for your catalytic oxidizer.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(1) During performance tests, you must monitor and record the total
regeneration desorbing gas (e.g., steam or nitrogen) mass flow for each
regeneration cycle, and the carbon bed temperature after each carbon
bed regeneration and cooling cycle for the regeneration cycle either
immediately preceding or immediately following the performance test.
* * * * *
(d) * * *
(1) During performance tests, you must monitor and record the
condenser outlet (product side) gas temperature at least once every 15
minutes during each of the three test runs of the performance test.
(2) For each performance test, use the data collected during the
performance test to calculate and record the average condenser outlet
(product side) gas temperature maintained during the performance test.
This average condenser outlet gas temperature is the maximum operating
limit for your condenser.
(e) * * *
(1) During performance tests, you must monitor and record the
desorption concentrate stream gas temperature at least once every 15
minutes during each of the three runs of the performance test.
(2) For each performance test, use the data collected during the
performance test to calculate and record the average temperature. This
is the minimum operating limit for the desorption concentrate gas
stream temperature.
(3) During each performance test, you must monitor and record the
pressure drop of the dilute stream across the concentrator at least
once every 15 minutes during each of the three runs of the performance
test.
(4) For each performance test, use the data collected during the
performance test to calculate and record the average pressure drop.
This is the minimum operating limit for the dilute stream across the
concentrator.
* * * * *
0
55. Section 63.4568 is amended by revising paragraphs (a)(4), (5), and
(7) and (c)(3) introductory text to read as follows:
Sec. 63.4568 What are the requirements for continuous parameter
monitoring system installation, operation, and maintenance?
(a) * * *
(4) Before [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule
in the Federal Register], you must maintain the CPMS at all times and
have available necessary parts for routine repairs of the monitoring
equipment. On and after [date 181 days after date of publication of
final rule in the Federal Register], you must maintain the CPMS at all
times in accordance with Sec. 63.4500(b) and keep necessary parts
readily available for routine repairs of the monitoring equipment.
(5) Before [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule
in the Federal Register], you must operate the CPMS and collect
emission capture system and add-on control device parameter data at all
times that a controlled coating operation is operating, except during
monitoring malfunctions, associated repairs, and required quality
assurance or control activities (including, if applicable, calibration
checks and required zero and span adjustments). On and after [date 181
days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register],
you must operate the CPMS and collect emission capture system and add-
on control device parameter data at all times in accordance with Sec.
63.4500(b).
* * * * *
(7) A monitoring malfunction is any sudden, infrequent, not
reasonably preventable failure of the CPMS to provide valid data.
Monitoring failures that are caused in part by poor maintenance or
careless operation are not malfunctions. Before [date 181 days after
date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register], any period
for which the monitoring system is out-of-control and data are not
available for required calculations is a deviation from the monitoring
requirements. On and after [date 181 days after date of publication of
final rule in the Federal Register], except for periods of required
quality assurance or control activities, any period for which the CPMS
fails to operate and record data continuously as required by paragraph
(a)(5) of this section, or generates data that cannot be included in
calculating averages as specified in (a)(6) of this section constitutes
a deviation from the monitoring requirements.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(3) For all thermal oxidizers and catalytic oxidizers, you must
meet the requirements in paragraphs (a) and (c)(3)(i) through (v) of
this section for each gas temperature monitoring device. For the
purposes of this paragraph (c)(3), a thermocouple is part of the
temperature sensor.
* * * * *
0
56. Section 63.4581 is amended by revising the definitions of
``Deviation'' and ``Non-HAP coating'' to read as follows:
Sec. 63.4581 What definitions apply to this subpart?
* * * * *
Deviation means:
(1) Before [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule
in the Federal Register], any instance in which an affected source
subject to this subpart, or an owner or operator of such a source:
(i) Fails to meet any requirement or obligation established by this
subpart including but not limited to, any emission limit or operating
limit or work practice standard;
(ii) Fails to meet any term or condition that is adopted to
implement an applicable requirement in this subpart and that is
included in the operating permit for any affected source required to
obtain such a permit; or
(iii) Fails to meet any emission limit, or operating limit, or work
practice standard in this subpart during startup, shutdown, or
malfunction, regardless of whether or not such failure is permitted by
this subpart; and
(2) On and after [date 181 days after date of publication of final
rule in the Federal Register], any instance in which an affected source
subject to this subpart or an owner or operator of such a source:
(i) Fails to meet any requirement or obligation established by this
subpart including but not limited to any emission limit, operating
limit, or work practice standard; or
(ii) Fails to meet any term or condition that is adopted to
implement an applicable requirement in this subpart and that is
included in the operating permit for any affected source required to
obtain such a permit.
* * * * *
Non-HAP coating means, for the purposes of this subpart, a coating
that contains no more than 0.1 percent by mass of any individual
organic HAP that is listed in Table 5 to this subpart and no more than
1.0 percent by mass for any other individual HAP.
* * * * *
0
57. Table 2 to Subpart PPPP of part 63 is revised to read as follows:
[[Page 59025]]
Table 2 to Subpart PPPP of Part 63--Applicability of General Provisions to Subpart PPPP of Part 63
You must comply with the applicable General Provisions requirements according to the following table:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Applicable to subpart
Citation Subject PPPP Explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 63.1(a)(1)-(12)............... General Applicability.. Yes. .......................
Sec. 63.1(b)(1)-(3)................ Initial Applicability Yes.................... Applicability to
Determination. subpart PPPP is also
specified in Sec.
63.4481.
Sec. 63.1(c)(1).................... Applicability After Yes. .......................
Standard Established.
Sec. 63.1(c)(2).................... Applicability of Permit No..................... Area sources are not
Program for Area subject to subpart
Sources. PPPP.
Sec. 63.1(c)(5).................... Extensions and Yes. .......................
Notifications.
Sec. 63.1(e)....................... Applicability of Permit Yes. .......................
Program Before
Relevant Standard is
Set.
Sec. 63.2.......................... Definitions............ Yes.................... Additional definitions
are specified in Sec.
63.4581.
Sec. 63.3.......................... Units and Abbreviations Yes. .......................
Sec. 63.4(a)(1)-(2)................ Prohibited Activities.. Yes. .......................
Sec. 63.4(b)-(c)................... Circumvention/ Yes. .......................
Fragmentation.
Sec. 63.5(a)....................... Construction/ Yes. .......................
Reconstruction.
Sec. 63.5(b)(1), (3), (4), (6)..... Requirements for Yes. .......................
Existing, Newly
Constructed, and
Reconstructed Sources.
Sec. 63.5(d)(1)(i)\(ii)(F), Application for Yes. .......................
(d)(1)(ii)(H), (d)(1)(ii)(J), Approval of
(d)(1)(iii), (d)(2)-(4). Construction/
Reconstruction.
Sec. 63.5(e)....................... Approval of Yes. .......................
Construction/
Reconstruction.
Sec. 63.5(f)....................... Approval of Yes. .......................
Construction/
Reconstruction Based
on Prior State Review.
Sec. 63.6(a)....................... Compliance With Yes. .......................
Standards and
Maintenance
Requirements--Applicab
ility.
Sec. 63.6(b)(1)-(5), (b)(7)........ Compliance Dates for Yes.................... Section 63.4483
New and Reconstructed specifies the
Sources. compliance dates.
Sec. 63.6(c)(1), (2), (5).......... Compliance Dates for Yes.................... Section 63.4483
Existing Sources. specifies the
compliance dates.
Sec. 63.6(e)(1)(i)-(ii)............ Operation and Yes before [date 181 See Sec. 63.4500(b)
Maintenance. days after date of for general duty
publication of final requirement.
rule in the Federal
Register] No on and
after [date 181 days
after date of
publication of final
rule in the Federal
Register].
Sec. 63.6(e)(1)(iii)............... Operation and Yes. .......................
Maintenance.
Sec. 63.6(e)(3)(i), (e)(3)(iii)- Startup, Shutdown, and Yes before [date 181 .......................
(ix). Malfunction Plan days after date of
(SSMP). publication of final
rule in the Federal
Register]. No on and
after [date 181 days
after date of
publication of final
rule in the Federal
Register].
Sec. 63.6(f)(1).................... Compliance Except Yes before [date 181 .......................
During Startup, days after date of
Shutdown, and publication of final
Malfunction. rule in the Federal
Register]. No on and
after [date 181 days
after date of
publication of final
rule in the Federal
Register].
Sec. 63.6(f)(2)-(3)................ Methods for Determining Yes. .......................
Compliance.
Sec. 63.6(g)....................... Use of an Alternative Yes. .......................
Standard.
Sec. 63.6(h)....................... Compliance With Opacity/ No..................... Subpart PPPP does not
Visible Emission establish opacity
Standards. standards and does not
require continuous
opacity monitoring
systems (COMS).
Sec. 63.6(i)(1)-(14), (16)......... Extension of Compliance Yes. .......................
Sec. 63.6(j)....................... Presidential Compliance Yes. .......................
Exemption.
Sec. 63.7(a)(1).................... Performance Test Yes.................... Applies to all affected
Requirements--Applicab sources. Additional
ility. requirements for
performance testing
are specified in Sec.
Sec. 63.4564,
63.4565, and 63.4566.
[[Page 59026]]
Sec. 63.7(a)(2), except (a)(2)(i)- Performance Test Yes.................... Applies only to
(viii). Requirements--Dates. performance tests for
capture system and
control device
efficiency at sources
using these to comply
with the standards.
Section 63.4560
specifies the schedule
for performance test
requirements that are
earlier than those
specified in Sec.
63.7(a)(2).
Sec. 63.7(a)(3)-(4)................ Performance Tests Yes. .......................
Required By the
Administrator, Force
Majeure.
Sec. 63.7(b)-(d)................... Performance Test Yes.................... Applies only to
Requirements--Notifica performance tests for
tion, Quality capture system and add-
Assurance, Facilities on control device
Necessary for Safe efficiency at sources
Testing, Conditions using these to comply
During Test. with the standards.
Sec. 63.7(e)(1).................... Conduct of Performance Yes before [date 181 See Sec. 63.4500 and
Tests. days after date of Sec. 63.4564(a).
publication of final
rule in the Federal
Register]. No on and
after [date 181 days
after date of
publication of final
rule in the Federal
Register].
Sec. 63.7(e)(2)-(4)................ Conduct of Performance Yes. .......................
Tests.
Sec. 63.7(f)....................... Performance Test Yes.................... Applies to all test
Requirements--Use methods except those
Alternative Test of used to determine
Method. capture system
efficiency.
Sec. 63.7(g)-(h)................... Performance Test Yes.................... Applies only to
Requirements--Data performance tests for
Analysis, capture system and add-
Recordkeeping, on control device
Reporting, Waiver of efficiency at sources
Test. using these to comply
with the standards.
Sec. 63.8(a)(1)-(2)................ Monitoring Yes.................... Applies only to
Requirements--Applicab monitoring of capture
ility. system and add-on
control device
efficiency at sources
using these to comply
with the standards.
Additional
requirements for
monitoring are
specified in Sec.
63.4568.
Sec. 63.8(a)(4).................... Additional Monitoring No..................... Subpart PPPP does not
Requirements. have monitoring
requirements for
flares.
Sec. 63.8(b)....................... Conduct of Monitoring.. Yes. .......................
Sec. 63.8(c)(1).................... Continuous Monitoring Yes before [date 181 Section 63.4568
System (CMS) Operation days after date of specifies the
and Maintenance. publication of final requirements for the
rule in the Federal operation of CMS for
Register]. No on and capture systems and
after [date 181 days add-on control devices
after date of at sources using these
publication of final to comply.
rule in the Federal
Register].
Sec. 63.8(c)(2)-(3)................ CMS Operation and Yes.................... Applies only to
Maintenance. monitoring of capture
system and add-on
control device
efficiency at sources
using these to comply
with the standard.
Additional
requirements for CMS
operations and
maintenance are
specified in Sec.
63.4568.
Sec. 63.8(c)(4).................... CMS.................... No..................... Section 63.4568
specifies the
requirements for the
operation of CMS for
capture systems and
add-on control devices
at sources using these
to comply.
Sec. 63.8(c)(5).................... COMS................... No..................... Subpart PPPP does not
have opacity or
visible emission
standards.
[[Page 59027]]
Sec. 63.8(c)(6).................... CMS Requirements....... No..................... Section 63.4568
specifies the
requirements for
monitoring systems for
capture systems and
add-on control devices
at sources using these
to comply.
Sec. 63.8(c)(7).................... CMS Out-of-Control Yes. .......................
Periods.
Sec. 63.8(c)(8).................... CMS Out-of-Control No..................... Section 63.4520
Periods and Reporting. requires reporting of
CMS out-of-control
periods.
Sec. 63.8(d)-(e)................... Quality Control Program No..................... Subpart PPPP does not
and CMS Performance require the use of
Evaluation. continuous emissions
monitoring systems.
Sec. 63.8(f)(1)-(5)................ Use of an Alternative Yes. .......................
Monitoring Method.
Sec. 63.8(f)(6).................... Alternative to Relative No..................... Subpart PPPP does not
Accuracy Test. require the use of
continuous emissions
monitoring systems.
Sec. 63.8(g)....................... Data Reduction......... No..................... Sections 63.4567 and
63.4568 specify
monitoring data
reduction.
Sec. 63.9(a)-(d)................... Notification Yes. .......................
Requirments.
Sec. 63.9(e)....................... Notification of Yes.................... Applies only to capture
Performance Test. system and add-on
control device
performance tests at
sources using these to
comply with the
standards.
Sec. 63.9(f)....................... Notification of Visible No..................... Subpart PPPP does not
Emissions/Opacity Test. have opacity or
visible emission
standards.
Sec. 63.9(g)....................... Additional No..................... Subpart PPPP does not
Notifications When require the use of
Using CMS. continuous emissions
monitoring systems.
Sec. 63.9(h)(1)-(3), (5)-(6)....... Notification of Yes.................... Section 63.4510
Compliance Status. specifies the dates
for submitting the
notification of
compliance status.
Sec. 63.9(i)....................... Adjustment of Submittal Yes. .......................
Deadlines.
Sec. 63.9(j)....................... Change in Previous Yes. .......................
Information.
Sec. 63.10(a)...................... Recordkeeping/ Yes. .......................
Reporting--Applicabili
ty and General
Information.
Sec. 63.10(b)(1)................... General Recordkeeping Yes.................... Additional requirements
Requirements. are specified in Sec.
Sec. 63.4530 and
63.4531.
Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(i)-(ii)........... Recordkeeping of Yes before [date 181 See Sec. 63.4530(h).
Occurrence and days after date of
Duration of Startups publication of final
and Shutdowns and of rule in the Federal
Failures to Meet Register]. No on and
Standards. after [date 181 days
after date of
publication of final
rule in the Federal
Register].
Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(iii).............. Recordkeeping Relevant Yes. .......................
to Maintenance of Air
Pollution Control and
Monitoring Equipment.
Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(iv)-(v)........... Actions Taken to Yes before [date 181 See Sec.
Minimize Emissions days after date of 63.4530(h)(4) for a
During Startup, publication of final record of actions
Shutdown, and rule in the Federal taken to minimize
Malfunction. Register]. No on and emissions during a
after [date 181 days deviation from the
after date of standard.
publication of final
rule in the Federal
Register].
Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(vi)............... Recordkeeping for CMS Yes before [date 181 See Sec. 63.4530(h)
Malfunctions. days after date of for records of periods
publication of final of deviation from the
rule in the Federal standard, including
Register]. No on and instances where a CMS
after [date 181 days is inoperative or out-
after date of of-control.
publication of final
rule in the Federal
Register].
Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(vii)-(xii)........ Records................ Yes. .......................
Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(xiii)............. ....................... No..................... Subpart PPPP does not
require the use of
continuous emissions
monitoring systems.
Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(xiv).............. ....................... Yes. .......................
[[Page 59028]]
Sec. 63.10(b)(3)................... Recordkeeping Yes. .......................
Requirements for
Applicability
Determinations.
Sec. 63.10(c)(1),(5)-(6)........... Additional Yes. .......................
Recordkeeping
Requirements for
Sources with CMS.
Sec. 63.10(c)(7)-(8)............... Additional No..................... See Sec. 63.4530(h)
Recordkeeping for records of periods
Requirements for of deviation from the
Sources with CMS. standard, including
instances where a CMS
is inoperative or out-
of-control.
Sec. 63.10(c)(10)-(14)............. Additional Yes. .......................
Recordkeeping
Requirements for
Sources with CMS.
Sec. 63.10(c)(15).................. Records Regarding the Yes before [date 181 .......................
Startup, Shutdown, and days after date of
Malfunction Plan. publication of final
rule in the Federal
Register]. No on and
after [date 181 days
after date of
publication of final
rule in the Federal
Register].
Sec. 63.10(d)(1)................... General Reporting Yes.................... Additional requirements
Requirements. are specified in Sec.
63.4520.
Sec. 63.10(d)(2)................... Report of Performance Yes.................... Additional requirements
Test Results. are specified in Sec.
63.4520(b).
Sec. 63.10(d)(3)................... Reporting Opacity or No..................... Subpart PPPP does not
Visible Emissions require opacity or
Observations. visible emissions
observations.
Sec. 63.10(d)(4)................... Progress Reports for Yes. .......................
Sources With
Compliance Extensions.
Sec. 63.10(d)(5)................... Startup, Shutdown, and Yes before [date 181 See Sec.
Malfunction Reports. days after date of 63.4520(a)(7).
publication of final
rule in the Federal
Register]. No on and
after [date 181 days
after date of
publication of final
rule in the Federal
Register].
Sec. 63.10(e)(1)-(2)............... Additional CMS Reports. No..................... Subpart PPPP does not
require the use of
continuous emissions
monitoring systems.
Sec. 63.10(e)(3)................... Excess Emissions/CMS No..................... Section 63.4520(b)
Performance Reports. specifies the contents
of periodic compliance
reports.
Sec. 63.10(e)(4)................... COMS Data Reports...... No..................... Subpart PPPP does not
specify requirements
for opacity or COMS.
Sec. 63.10(f)...................... Recordkeeping/Reporting Yes. .......................
Waiver.
Sec. 63.11......................... Control Device No..................... Subpart PPPP does not
Requirements/Flares. specify use of flares
for compliance.
Sec. 63.12......................... State Authority and Yes. .......................
Delegations.
Sec. 63.13......................... Addresses.............. Yes. .......................
Sec. 63.14......................... Incorporation by Yes. .......................
Reference.
Sec. 63.15......................... Availability of Yes. .......................
Information/
Confidentiality.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0
58. Table 5 to Subpart PPPP of part 63 is added to read as follows:
Table 5 to Subpart PPPP of Part 63--List of Hazardous Air Pollutants
That Must Be Counted Toward Total Organic HAP Content if Present at 0.1
Percent or More by Mass
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chemical name CAS No.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane............................... 79-34-5
1,1,2-Trichloroethane................................... 79-00-5
1,1-Dimethylhydrazine................................... 57-14-7
1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane............................. 96-12-8
1,2-Diphenylhydrazine................................... 122-66-7
1,3-Butadiene........................................... 106-99-0
1,3-Dichloropropene..................................... 542-75-6
[[Page 59029]]
1,4-Dioxane............................................. 123-91-1
2,4,6-Trichlorophenol................................... 88-06-2
2,4/2,6-Dinitrotoluene (mixture)........................ 25321-14-6
2,4-Dinitrotoluene...................................... 121-14-2
2,4-Toluene diamine..................................... 95-80-7
2-Nitropropane.......................................... 79-46-9
3,3'-Dichlorobenzidine.................................. 91-94-1
3,3'-Dimethoxybenzidine................................. 119-90-4
3,3'-Dimethylbenzidine.................................. 119-93-7
4,4'-Methylene bis(2-chloroaniline)..................... 101-14-4
Acetaldehyde............................................ 75-07-0
Acrylamide.............................................. 79-06-1
Acrylonitrile........................................... 107-13-1
Allyl chloride.......................................... 107-05-1
alpha-Hexachlorocyclohexane (a-HCH)..................... 319-84-6
Aniline................................................. 62-53-3
Benzene................................................. 71-43-2
Benzidine............................................... 92-87-5
Benzotrichloride........................................ 98-07-7
Benzyl chloride......................................... 100-44-7
beta-Hexachlorocyclohexane (b-HCH)...................... 319-85-7
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate.............................. 117-81-7
Bis(chloromethyl)ether.................................. 542-88-1
Bromoform............................................... 75-25-2
Captan.................................................. 133-06-2
Carbon tetrachloride.................................... 56-23-5
Chlordane............................................... 57-74-9
Chlorobenzilate......................................... 510-15-6
Chloroform.............................................. 67-66-3
Chloroprene............................................. 126-99-8
Cresols (mixed)......................................... 1319-77-3
DDE..................................................... 3547-04-4
Dichloroethyl ether..................................... 111-44-4
Dichlorvos.............................................. 62-73-7
Epichlorohydrin......................................... 106-89-8
Ethyl acrylate.......................................... 140-88-5
Ethylene dibromide...................................... 106-93-4
Ethylene dichloride..................................... 107-06-2
Ethylene oxide.......................................... 75-21-8
Ethylene thiourea....................................... 96-45-7
Ethylidene dichloride (1,1-Dichloroethane).............. 75-34-3
Formaldehyde............................................ 50-00-0
Heptachlor.............................................. 76-44-8
Hexachlorobenzene....................................... 118-74-1
Hexachlorobutadiene..................................... 87-68-3
Hexachloroethane........................................ 67-72-1
Hydrazine............................................... 302-01-2
Isophorone.............................................. 78-59-1
Lindane (hexachlorocyclohexane, all isomers)............ 58-89-9
m-Cresol................................................ 108-39-4
Methylene chloride...................................... 75-09-2
Naphthalene............................................. 91-20-3
Nitrobenzene............................................ 98-95-3
Nitrosodimethylamine.................................... 62-75-9
o-Cresol................................................ 95-48-7
o-Toluidine............................................. 95-53-4
Parathion............................................... 56-38-2
p-Cresol................................................ 106-44-5
p-Dichlorobenzene....................................... 106-46-7
Pentachloronitrobenzene................................. 82-68-8
Pentachlorophenol....................................... 87-86-5
Propoxur................................................ 114-26-1
Propylene dichloride.................................... 78-87-5
Propylene oxide......................................... 75-56-9
Quinoline............................................... 91-22-5
Tetrachloroethene....................................... 127-18-4
Toxaphene............................................... 8001-35-2
Trichloroethylene....................................... 79-01-6
Trifluralin............................................. 1582-09-8
Vinyl bromide........................................... 593-60-2
Vinyl chloride.......................................... 75-01-4
[[Page 59030]]
Vinylidene chloride..................................... 75-35-4
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subpart RRRR--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants: Surface Coating of Metal Furniture
0
59. Section 63.4965 is amended by adding paragraphs (b)(1) through (3)
to read as follows:
Sec. 63.4965 How do I determine the add-on control device emission
destruction or removal efficiency?
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(1) Use EPA Method 25 if the add-on control device is an oxidizer
and you expect the total gaseous organic concentration as carbon to be
more than 50 parts per million (ppm) at the control device outlet.
(2) Use EPA Method 25A if the add-on control device is an oxidizer
and you expect the total gaseous organic concentration as carbon to be
50 ppm or less at the control device outlet.
(3) Use EPA Method 25A if the add-on control device is not an
oxidizer.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2019-18345 Filed 10-25-19; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P