[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 177 (Wednesday, September 12, 2018)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 46262-46341]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-19018]
[[Page 46261]]
Vol. 83
Wednesday,
No. 177
September 12, 2018
Part II
Environmental Protection Agency
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
40 CFR Part 63
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: 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. 83, No. 177 / Wednesday, September 12, 2018 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 46262]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 63
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0668, EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0669, EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0670; FRL-
9982-40-OAR]
RIN 2060-AT72
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: 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 Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing the
results of the residual risk and technology reviews (RTR) for three
rules--the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
(NESHAP) for the Surface Coating of Large Appliances; the NESHAP for
the Printing, Coating, and Dyeing of Fabrics and Other Textiles; and
the NESHAP for the Surface Coating of Metal Furniture. The EPA is
proposing to find the risks due to emissions of air toxics from these
source categories under the current standards to be acceptable and that
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 risk analyses or technology reviews. The EPA is
proposing no new requirements based on the technology review of the
NESHAP for the Printing, Coating, and Dyeing of Fabrics and Other
Textiles. The EPA is proposing to require the use of high efficiency
spray application equipment under the technology review for the two
rules that employ the use of coating spray application, the NESHAP for
the Surface Coating of Large Appliances and the NESHAP for the Surface
Coating of Metal Furniture, if the source is not using the emission
rate with add-on control compliance option. The EPA is also requesting
comment on whether the high efficiency spray equipment technology
requirement under the technology review is necessary in light of the
risk analyses indicating that there are ample margins of safety. The
EPA also is proposing to amend provisions addressing emissions during
periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction; to amend provisions
regarding electronic reporting of performance test results; and to make
miscellaneous clarifying and technical corrections.
DATES:
Comments. Comments must be received on or before October 29, 2018.
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), comments on the information
collection provisions are best assured of consideration if the Office
of Management and Budget (OMB) receives a copy of your comments on or
before October 12, 2018.
Public Hearing. If a public hearing is requested by September 17,
2018, 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/printing-coating-and-dyeing-fabrics-and-other-textiles-national, https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/surface-coating-large-appliances-national-emission-standards, and https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/surface-coating-metal-furniture-national-emission-standards. See SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
for information on requesting and registering for a public hearing.
ADDRESSES:
Comments. Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2017-0668 for 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 63, subpart
OOOO, Printing, Coating, and Dyeing of Fabrics and Other Textiles;
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0669 for 40 CFR part 63, subpart RRRR,
Surface Coating of Metal Furniture; or Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-
0670 for 40 CFR part 63, subpart NNNN, Surface Coating of Large
Appliances, as applicable, at https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the
online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments
cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. Regulations.gov is
our preferred method of receiving comments. However, other submission
methods are accepted. To ship or send mail via the United States Postal
Service, use the following address: U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, EPA Docket Center, Docket ID Nos. EPA-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. Use the following Docket Center address if you are using express
mail, commercial delivery, hand delivery, or courier: EPA Docket
Center, EPA WJC West Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue NW,
Washington, DC 20004. Delivery verification signatures will be
available only during regular business hours.
Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. See section I.C of this preamble
for instructions on submitting CBI. 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.
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.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For questions about this proposed
action for the Surface Coating of Large Appliances source category,
contact Ms. Kim Teal, Minerals and Manufacturing Group, Sector Policies
and Programs Division (Mail Code D243-04), Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 109 T.W.
Alexander Dr., Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711; telephone
number: (919) 541-5580; fax number: (919) 541-4991; and email address:
[email protected].
For questions about this proposed action for the Printing, Coating,
and Dyeing of Fabrics and Other Textiles source category, contact Ms.
Paula Hirtz, Minerals and Manufacturing Group, Sector Policies and
Programs Division (Mail Code D243-04), Office of Air Quality Planning
and Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 109 T.W. Alexander
Dr., Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711; telephone number:
(919) 541-2618; fax number: (919) 541-4991; and email address:
[email protected].
For questions about this proposed action for the Surface Coating of
Metal Furniture source category, contact Ms. J. Kaye Whitfield,
Minerals and Manufacturing Group, Sector Policies and Programs Division
(Mail Code D243-04), Office of Air Quality
[[Page 46263]]
Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 109 T.W.
Alexander Dr., Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711; telephone
number: (919) 541-2509; 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
(Mail Code 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].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Docket. The EPA has established three separate dockets for this
rulemaking. Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0668 has been established for
40 CFR part 63, subpart OOOO, Printing, Coating, and Dyeing of Fabrics
and Other Textiles (hereafter referred to as the Fabrics and Other
Textiles Docket). Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0669 has been
established for 40 CFR part 63, subpart RRRR, Surface Coating of Metal
Furniture (hereafter referred to as the Metal Furniture Docket). Docket
ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0670 has been established for 40 CFR part 63,
subpart NNNN, Surface Coating of Large Appliances (hereafter referred
to as the Large Appliances Docket). All documents in the dockets are
listed in Regulations.gov. Although listed, some information is not
publicly available, e.g., 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, EPA WJC West Building, 1301 Constitution
Avenue NW, Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30
a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The
telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the
telephone number for the EPA Docket Center is (202) 566-1742.
Instructions. Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2017-0668 for 40 CFR part 63, subpart OOOO, Printing, Coating, and
Dyeing of Fabrics and Other Textiles; Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-
0669 for 40 CFR part 63, subpart RRRR, Surface Coating of Metal
Furniture; or Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0670 for 40 CFR part 63,
subpart NNNN, Surface Coating of Large Appliances, as applicable to
your comments. 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 in the
ADDRESSES section and section I.C of this preamble. The https://www.regulations.gov website allows you to submit your comments
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.
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
BACT best available control technology
CAA Clean Air Act
CalEPA California EPA
CBI Confidential Business Information
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
ECHO Enforcement and Compliance History Online
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
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, Version 1.1.0
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
mg/kg-day milligrams per kilogram per day
mg/m\3\ milligrams per cubic meter
MIR maximum individual risk
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
ppmv parts per million by volume
ppmw parts per million by weight
PTE permanent total enclosure
RACT reasonably available control technology
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
UMRA Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
URE unit risk estimate
VCS voluntary consensus standards
Organization of this Document. The information in this preamble is
organized as follows:
I. General Information
[[Page 46264]]
A. Does this action apply to me?
B. Where can I get a copy of this document and other related
information?
C. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for the EPA?
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
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 large appliances source category?
B. What are the analytical results and proposed decisions for
the printing, coating, and dyeing of fabrics and other textiles
source category?
C. What are the analytical results and proposed decisions for
the surface coating of metal furniture source category?
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
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), which
provides broad descriptions of the categories of major sources included
on the initial list, the Surface Coating of Large Appliances source
category includes any facility engaged in the surface coating of any
large appliance part or product. The category includes, but is not
limited to, coating of the following large, metal appliance parts or
products: ranges, conventional ovens, microwave ovens, refrigerators,
freezers, washers, dryers, dishwashers, water heaters or trash
compactors manufactured for household, commercial, or recreational use.
Facilities in this source category are also major sources of HAP
emissions. We estimate that 10 major source facilities engaged in large
appliance surface coating would be subject to this proposal. The
Printing, Coating, and Dyeing of Fabrics and Other Textiles source
category includes any facility engaged in those operations. In fabric
printing, a decorative pattern or design is applied to fabric by
methods such as roller, flat screen, or rotary screen. Fabric coating
is an operation that imparts to a textile substrate, additional
properties such as strength, stability, water or acid repellency, or
other specific characteristics of appearance. Fabric dyeing is the
process in which color is added to a substrate. This category includes,
but is not limited to, coating of industrial and electrical tapes, tire
cord, utility meter seals, imitation leathers, tarpaulins, shoe
material, and upholstery fabrics. We estimate that 43 major source
facilities engaged in the printing, coating, and dyeing of fabrics and
other textiles would be subject to this proposal. The Surface Coating
of Metal Furniture source category includes any facility engaged in the
surface coating and manufacture of metal furniture parts or products.
Such products may include chairs, tables, cabinets and bookcases. We
estimate that 16 major source facilities engaged in metal furniture
surface coating would be subject to this proposal.
Table 1--NESHAP and Industrial and Government Source Categories Affected
by This Proposed Action
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NESHAP and source category NAICS code \1\ Regulated entities \2\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Surface Coating of Large 335221 Household cooking
Appliances. 335222 equipment.
Household refrigerators
and freezers.
.......................
335224 Household laundry
335228 equipment.
Other major household
appliances.
333312 Commercial laundry, dry
333415 cleaning, and pressing
equipment.
Air-conditioners
(except motor
vehicle), comfort
furnaces, and
industrial
refrigeration units
and freezers (except
heat transfer coils
and large commercial
and industrial
chillers).
\3\ 333319 Other commercial/
service industry
machinery, e.g.,
commercial
dishwashers, ovens,
and ranges, etc.
Printing, Coating, and Dyeing 31321 Broadwoven fabric
of Fabrics and Other Textiles. 31322 mills.
Narrow fabric mills and
Schiffli machine
embroidery.
313241 Weft knit fabric mills.
313311 Broadwoven fabric
finishing mills.
313312 Textile and fabric
313320 finishing (except
broadwoven fabric)
mills.
Fabric coating mills.
[[Page 46265]]
314110 Carpet and rug mills.
326220 Rubber and plastics
hoses and belting and
manufacturing.
339991 Gasket, packing, and
sealing device
manufacturing.
Surface Coating of Metal 337124 Metal Household
Furniture. 337214 Furniture
Manufacturing.
Nonwood Office
Furniture
Manufacturing.
337127 Institutional Furniture
337215 Manufacturing.
Showcase, Partition,
Shelving, and Locker
Manufacturing.
337127 Institutional Furniture
332951 Manufacturing.
Hardware Manufacturing.
332116 Metal Stamping.
332612 Wire Spring
Manufacturing.
337215 Showcase, Partition,
335121 Shelving, and Locker
Manufacturing.
Residential Electric
Lighting Fixture
Manufacturing.
335122 Commercial, Industrial,
and Institutional
Electric Lighting
Fixture Manufacturing.
339111 Laboratory Furniture
Manufacturing.
339114 Dental Equipment
337127 Manufacturing.
Institutional Furniture
Manufacturing.
81142 Reupholstery and
922140 Furniture Repair
State correctional
institutions that
apply coatings to
metal furniture.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ North American Industry Classification System.
\2\ Regulated entities means major source facilities that apply surface
coatings to these parts or products.
\3\ Excluding special industry machinery, industrial and commercial
machinery and equipment, and electrical machinery equipment and
supplies not elsewhere classified.
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/printing-coating-and-dyeing-fabrics-and-other-textiles-national#rule-summary, https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/surface-coating-large-appliances-national-emission-standards,
and https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/surface-coating-metal-furniture-national-emission-standards. Following
publication in the Federal Register, the EPA will post the Federal
Register version of the proposal and key technical documents at 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 is available in the Fabrics and Other
Textiles Docket, Metal Furniture Docket, and Large Appliances Docket.
C. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for the EPA?
Submitting CBI. Do not submit information containing CBI to the EPA
through https://www.regulations.gov or email. Clearly mark the part or
all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information on
any digital storage media that you mail to the EPA, mark the outside of
the digital storage media as CBI and then identify electronically
within the digital storage media the specific information that is
claimed as CBI. In addition to one complete version of the comments
that includes information claimed as CBI, you must submit a copy of the
comments that does not contain the information claimed as CBI directly
to the public docket through the procedures outlined 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 (Mail Code C404-02), OAQPS, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, 109 T. W. Alexander Dr., Research Triangle Park,
North Carolina 27711, Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0668 for
Printing, Coating, and Dyeing of Fabrics and Other Textiles; Docket ID
No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0669 for Surface Coating of Metal Furniture; or
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0670 for Surface Coating of Large
Appliances, as applicable.
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 Clean Air Act (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 hazardous air pollutants
(HAP) from stationary sources. Generally, the first stage involves
establishing technology-based standards and the second stage involves
evaluating those standards that are based on maximum achievable control
technology (MACT) to determine whether additional standards are needed
to 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
eight 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
[[Page 46266]]
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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 Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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). Section 112(f)(2) of the CAA requires the EPA to
determine for source categories subject to MACT standards whether
promulgation of additional standards is needed to provide an ample
margin of safety to protect public health or to prevent an adverse
environmental effect. Section 112(d)(5) of the CAA provides that this
residual risk review is not required for categories of area sources
subject to GACT standards. Section 112(f)(2)(B) of the CAA further
expressly preserves the EPA's use of the two-step approach for
developing standards to address any residual risk and the Agency's
interpretation of ``ample margin of safety'' developed in the National
Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Benzene Emissions
from Maleic Anhydride Plants, Ethylbenzene/Styrene Plants, Benzene
Storage Vessels, Benzene Equipment Leaks, and Coke By-Product Recovery
Plants (Benzene NESHAP) (54 FR 38044, September 14, 1989). The EPA
notified Congress in the Risk Report that the Agency intended to use
the Benzene NESHAP approach in making CAA section 112(f) residual risk
determinations (EPA-453/R-99-001, p. ES-11). The EPA subsequently
adopted this approach in its residual risk determinations and the
United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
(the Court) upheld the EPA's interpretation that CAA section 112(f)(2)
incorporates the approach established in the Benzene NESHAP. See NRDC
v. EPA, 529 F.3d 1077, 1083 (DC 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 ``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. 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 eight 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 Large Appliances source category and
how does the current NESHAP regulate its HAP emissions?
a. Source Category Description
The NESHAP for the Surface Coating of Large Appliances source
category was promulgated on July 23, 2002 (67 FR 48254), and codified
at 40 CFR part 63, subpart NNNN. As promulgated in 2002, the Surface
Coating of Large Appliances NESHAP applies to the surface coating and
related operations at each new and existing affected source of HAP
emissions at facilities that are major sources and are engaged in the
surface coating of a large appliance part or product. The Surface
Coating of Large Appliances NESHAP (40 CFR 63.4081) defines a ``large
appliance part or product'' as ``a component of a large appliance
product manufactured for household, recreational, institutional,
commercial, or industrial use'' including, but not limited to,
``cooking equipment; refrigerators, freezers, and refrigerated cabinets
and cases; laundry equipment; dishwashers, trash compactors, and water
heaters; and heating, ventilation, and air-conditioning (HVAC) units,
air-conditioning (except motor vehicle) units, air-conditioning and
heating combination units, comfort furnaces, and electric heat pumps.
Specifically excluded are heat transfer coils and large commercial and
industrial chillers.''
Based on our search of the National Emission Inventory (NEI)
(www.epa.gov/air-emissions-inventories/national-emissions-inventory-nei) and the EPA's
[[Page 46267]]
Enforcement and Compliance History Online (ECHO) database
(www.echo.epa.gov) and a review of active air emissions permits, we
estimate that ten facilities are subject to the Surface Coating of
Large Appliances NESHAP. A complete list of facilities subject to the
Surface Coating of Large Appliances NESHAP is available in Table 1 of
Appendix 10 to the memorandum titled Residual Risk Assessment for the
Surface Coating of Large Appliances Source Category in Support of the
May 2018 Risk and Technology Review Proposed Rule (hereafter referred
to as the Large Appliances Risk Assessment Report) in the Large
Appliances Docket (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0670). The Surface
Coating of Large Appliances NESHAP also 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, and maskants. Decorative,
protective, or functional materials that consist only of protective
oils, acids, bases, or any combination of these substances are not
considered coatings for the purposes of this subpart.''
b. HAP Emission Sources
The primary HAP emitted from large appliance surface coating
operations are organic HAP and include xylene, glycol ethers, toluene,
methanol, ethyl benzene, methylene chloride, and methyl isobutyl ether.
Approximately 80 percent of the HAP emissions from the Surface Coating
of Large Appliances source category occur from the coating operations
and from the mixing and storage areas. At the time of the original rule
promulgation in 2002, most large appliance coating was applied either
by using a spray gun in a spray booth or by dipping the substrate in a
tank. Inorganic HAP emissions were considered in the development of the
Surface Coating of Large Appliances NESHAP. Inorganic HAP, including
chromium, cobalt, lead, and manganese compounds, are components of some
specialty coatings used by this source category. However, most of the
inorganic HAP components remain as solids in the dry coating film on
the parts being coated or are deposited onto the walls, floor, and
grates of the spray booths in which they are applied. The remaining
inorganic HAP particles are entrained in the spray booth exhaust air.
Spray booths in the large appliance industry typically have either
water curtains or dry filters to remove overspray particles from the
exhaust air. No inorganic HAP were reported in the cleaning materials
in the data collected to develop the Surface Coating of Large
Appliances NESHAP. No inorganic HAP were reported in the NEI data used
for this RTR for surface coating operations at major source large
appliance manufacturing facilities.
c. NESHAP Requirements for Control of HAP
We estimated that the Surface Coating of Large Appliances NESHAP
requirements would reduce the emissions of organic HAP from the source
category by 45 percent or 1,191 tons per year (67 FR 48259, July 23,
2002). The NESHAP specifies numerical emission limits for organic HAP
emissions from surface coating application operations. The organic HAP
emission limit for existing sources is 0.13 kilogram (kg) organic HAP/
liter (1.1 pound/gallon (lb/gal)) of coating solids and for new or
reconstructed sources is 0.022 kg organic HAP/liter (0.18 lb/gal) of
coating solids.
The Surface Coating of Large Appliances NESHAP provides existing
sources three compliance options: (1) Compliant coatings i.e., all
coatings have less than or equal to 0.13 kg organic HAP/liter (1.1
pound/gallon (lb/gal)) of coating solids; (2) emission rate without
add-on controls; or (3) emission rate with add-on controls.
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.
If the facility uses the emission rate with add-on controls option,
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, the coating operation(s) using that option. 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 Printing, Coating, and Dyeing of Fabrics and Other
Textiles source category and how does the current NESHAP regulate its
HAP emissions?
a. Source Category Description
The NESHAP for the Printing, Coating, and Dyeing of Fabrics and
Other Textiles source category was promulgated on May 29, 2003 (68 FR
32172), and codified at 40 CFR part 63, subpart OOOO. As promulgated in
2003, the Printing, Coating, and Dyeing of Fabrics and Other Textiles
NESHAP applies to the printing, coating, slashing, dyeing, or finishing
of fabrics and other textiles and related operations at each new and
existing affected source of HAP emissions at facilities that are major
sources and are engaged in the printing, coating, slashing, dyeing, or
finishing of fabrics and other textiles. The Printing, Coating, and
Dyeing of Fabrics and Other Textiles NESHAP (40 CFR 63.4371) defines a
fabric as any woven, knitted, plaited, braided, felted, or non-woven
material made of filaments, fibers, or yarns including thread. This
term includes material made of fiberglass, natural fibers, synthetic
fibers, or composite. The NESHAP defines textile as any one of the
following: (1) Staple fibers and filaments suitable for conversion to
or use as yarns, or for the preparation of woven, knit, or nonwoven
fabrics; (2) Yarns made from natural or manufactured fibers; (3)
Fabrics and other manufactured products made from staple fibers and
filaments and from yarn; and (4) Garments and other articles fabricated
from fibers, yarns, or fabrics.
Based on our search of the NEI and EPA's ECHO database and a review
of active air emission permits, we estimate that 43 facilities are
subject to the Printing, Coating, and Dyeing of Fabrics and Other
Textiles NESHAP. A complete list of facilities we identified as subject
to the Printing, Coating, and Dyeing of Fabrics and Other Textiles
NESHAP is available in Table 1 of Appendix 10 to the memorandum titled
Residual Risk Assessment for the Printing, Coating, and Dyeing of
Fabrics and Other Textiles Source Category in Support of the May 2018
Risk and Technology Review Proposed Rule) hereafter referred to as the
Fabrics and Other Textiles Risk Assessment Report), in the Fabrics and
Other Textiles Docket (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0668).
The Printing, Coating, and Dyeing of Fabrics and Other Textiles
NESHAP also defines a coating material as an elastomer, polymer, or
prepolymer material applied as a thin layer to a textile web. Such
materials include, but are not limited to, coatings, sealants, inks,
and adhesives. Decorative, protective, or functional materials that
consist only of acids, bases, or any combination of these substances
are not considered coating materials for the purposes of this subpart.
Thinning materials also are not included in this
[[Page 46268]]
definition of coating materials but are accounted for separately.
b. HAP Emission Sources
The primary HAP emitted from printing, coating, and dyeing
operations are organic HAP and include toluene, phenol, methanol, and
N,N-dimethylformamide. The majority of organic HAP emissions (greater
than 95 percent) come from the coating and printing subcategories, with
the remainder coming from dyeing and finishing.
Inorganic HAP emissions were considered in the development of the
Printing, Coating, and Dyeing of Fabrics and Other Textiles NESHAP.
Based on information reported in survey responses during the
development of the 2002 proposed NESHAP, inorganic HAP, including
chromium, cobalt, hydrogen chloride (HCl), lead, manganese compounds,
and nickel were components of some coatings, dyes, and finishes used by
this source category. However, we concluded that inorganic HAP are not
likely to be emitted from these sources because of the application
techniques used (67 FR 46032, July 11, 2002). No inorganic HAP were
reported in the NEI data used for this RTR for printing, coating, and
dyeing of fabrics and other textiles operations at major source
facilities.
c. NESHAP Requirements for Control of HAP
We estimated that the Printing, Coating, and Dyeing of Fabrics and
Other Textiles NESHAP requirements would reduce the emissions of
organic HAP from the source category by 60 percent or 4,100 tpy (68 FR
32172, May 29, 2003). The NESHAP specifies numerical emission limits
for organic HAP emissions from three subcategories of surface coating
application operations: Printing and coating; dyeing and finishing; and
slashing. The organic HAP emission limit for existing printing or
coating affected sources is 0.12 kg organic HAP/kg (lb/lb) of coating
solids applied and for new or reconstructed affected sources is 0.08 kg
organic HAP/kg (lb/lb) of coating solids applied. Printing or coating
affected sources may also demonstrate compliance by achieving at least
a 98-percent HAP reduction for new affected sources or a 97-percent HAP
reduction for existing sources. New and existing sources using a
thermal oxidizer may also comply by achieving a HAP concentration at
the oxidizer outlet of no greater than 20 parts per million by volume
(ppmv) on a dry basis and having an emission capture system with 100-
percent efficiency.
For new, reconstructed, or existing dyeing and finishing
operations, the emission limit for conducting dyeing operations is
0.016 kg organic HAP/kg (lb/lb) dyeing materials applied; the limit for
conducting finishing operations is 0.0003 kg organic HAP/kg (lb/lb)
finishing materials applied; and the limit for conducting both dyeing
and finishing operations is 0.016 kg organic HAP/kg (lb/lb) dyeing and
finishing materials applied. For new, reconstructed, or existing
slashing operations, the slashing materials must contain no organic HAP
(each organic HAP that is not an Occupational Safety and Health
Administration (OSHA)-defined carcinogen that is measured to be present
at less than one percent by weight is counted as zero).
For any coating, printing, or dyeing 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.
If the facility uses an add-on control device to demonstrate
compliance, 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, the coating operation(s) using that
option. 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.
3. What is the Surface Coating of Metal Furniture source category and
how does the current NESHAP regulate its HAP emissions?
a. Source Category Description
The NESHAP for the Surface Coating of Metal Furniture source
category was promulgated on May 23, 2003 (68 FR 28606), and codified at
40 CFR part 63, subpart RRRR. As promulgated in 2003, the Surface
Coating of Metal Furniture NESHAP applies to the surface coating and
related operations at each new and existing affected source of HAP
emissions at facilities that are major sources and are engaged, either
in part or in whole, in the surface coating of metal furniture. The
Surface Coating of Metal Furniture NESHAP (40 CFR 63.4881) defines
metal furniture as furniture or components of furniture constructed
either entirely or partially from metal. Metal furniture includes, but
is not limited to, components of the following types of products as
well as the products themselves: Household, office, institutional,
laboratory, hospital, public building, restaurant, barber and beauty
shop, and dental furniture; office and store fixtures; partitions;
shelving; lockers; lamps and lighting fixtures; and wastebaskets.
Based on our search of the NEI and the EPA's ECHO database and a
review of active air emission permits, we estimate that 16 facilities
are subject to the Surface Coating of Metal Furniture NESHAP. A
complete list of facilities subject to the Surface Coating of Metal
Furniture NESHAP is available in Table 1 of Appendix 10 to the
memorandum titled Residual Risk Assessment for the Surface Coating of
Metal Furniture Source Category in Support of the May 2018 Risk and
Technology Review Proposed Rule (hereafter referred to as the Metal
Furniture Risk Assessment Report), in the Metal Furniture Docket
(Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0669). The Surface Coating of Metal
Furniture 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, and maskants.''
b. HAP Emission Sources
Most of the organic HAP emissions from metal furniture surface
coating operations occur from the coating application operations and
the drying and curing ovens. In most cases, HAP emissions from surface
preparation, storage, and handling are relatively small for this source
category. The primary organic HAP emitted from metal furniture surface
coating operations are xylene, glycol ethers, ethylbenzene, toluene,
and cumene. These compounds account for more than 95 percent of this
category's nationwide organic HAP emissions from major sources.
Inorganic HAP emissions, such as chromium, lead, and manganese
compounds, were considered in the development of the Surface Coating of
Metal Furniture NESHAP, and the EPA determined that inorganic HAP
emissions would be very low (67 FR 20206, April 24, 2002). At that
time, approximately 680 coatings were reported in the survey responses
from the metal furniture industry, and only two coatings were reported
as containing inorganic HAP. In the NEI data used for this risk and
technology review, only one facility reported inorganic HAP emissions
(antimony, 0.015 tpy, and nickel, 0.003 tpy) from metal furniture
surface coating operations. According to the reporting facility, the
reported emissions in the
[[Page 46269]]
NEI were conservatively over-estimated by an approximate factor of
10.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Telephone communication between Kaye Whitfield, U.S. EPA and
Marley Ayres, Pinnacle Engineering, February 7, 2018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
c. NESHAP Requirements for Control of HAP
We estimated the Surface Coating of Metal Furniture NESHAP
requirements would reduce the emissions of organic HAP from the source
category by 73 percent or 16,300 tpy (68 FR 28606, May 23, 2003). The
NESHAP specifies numerical emission limits for organic HAP emissions
from surface coating application operations. The organic HAP emission
rate for existing sources is no more than 0.10 kg organic HAP/liter
(0.83 lb/gal) of coating solids used during each compliance period. A
new or reconstructed affected source can emit no organic HAP during any
compliance period unless a source requests approval from the
Administrator to use an alternative new source emission limit for
specific metal furniture components or types of components.
The Surface Coating of Metal Furniture NESHAP provides existing
sources three compliance options: (1) Use only compliant coatings i.e.,
all coatings have less than or equal to 0.10 kg organic HAP/liter (0.83
lb/gal) of coating solids used; (2) collectively manage the coatings
such that the monthly emission rate of organic HAP is less than or
equal to 0.10 kg organic HAP/liter (0.83 lb/gal) coating solids used;
or (3) use emission capture systems and control devices to achieve an
organic HAP emission rate of less than or equal to 0.10 kg organic HAP/
liter (0.83 lb/gal) coating solids used.
For any metal furniture 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.
If the facility uses an add-on control device to demonstrate
compliance, 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, the coating operation(s) using that
option. 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.
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
three 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. Additional information on the
development of the modeling file for each source category can be found
in Appendix 1 to the Large Appliances Risk Assessment Report in the
Large Appliances Docket (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0670), Appendix
1 to the Fabrics and Other Textiles Risk Assessment Report in the
Fabrics and Other Textiles Docket (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0668),
and Appendix 1 to the Metal Furniture Risk Assessment Report in the
Metal Furniture Docket (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0669).
For both the risk modeling and technology review portion of these
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. 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 facility owners or operators to confirm and clarify the
sources of emissions that were reported in the NEI. No formal
information collection request was performed.
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.
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 is a database that 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, if a facility is planning new construction or a
modification that will increase the air emissions by a large amount, an
NSR permit must be obtained. 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 Large
Appliance Category, August 2017 (hereafter referred to as the Large
Appliances Technology Review Memo), Technology Review for Printing,
Coating, and Dyeing Category, August 2017 (hereafter referred to as the
Fabrics and Other Textiles Technology Review Memo), and Technology
Review for Surface Coating Operations in the Metal Furniture Category,
September 2017 (hereafter referred to as the Metal Furniture Technology
Review Memo), available respectively in the Large Appliances Docket,
Fabrics and Other Textiles Docket, and Metal Furniture Docket.
D. What other relevant background information and data are available?
For the technology review for each source category, we reviewed the
NESHAP for various industries that were promulgated since the MACT
standards being reviewed in this action.
[[Page 46270]]
We reviewed the regulatory requirements and/or technical analyses
associated with these later regulatory actions to identify any
practices, processes, and control technologies considered in those
rulemakings that could be applied to emission sources in each of these
three source categories, as well as the costs, non-air impacts, and
energy implications associated with the use of those technologies. We
also reviewed information available in the American Coatings
Association's (ACA) Industry Market Analysis, 9th Edition (2014-
2019),\5\ for the Surface Coating of Metal Furniture and Surface
Coating of Large Appliances source categories. The ACA Industry Market
Analysis provided information on trends in coatings technology that can
affect emissions from the metal furniture and large appliance source
categories, but did not address the Printing, Coating, and Dyeing of
Fabrics and Other Textiles source category. Additional details
regarding our review of these information sources are contained in the
Large Appliances Technology Review Memo, the Fabrics and Other Textiles
Technology Review Memo, and the Metal Furniture Technology Review Memo,
available in the Large Appliances Docket, Fabrics and Other Textiles
Docket, and Metal Furniture Docket, respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Prepared for the American Coatings Association, Washington,
DC, by The ChemQuest Group, Inc., Cincinnati, Ohio. 2015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
III. Analytical Procedures
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 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
exposure to the HAP to the level at or below which no adverse
chronic noncancer effects are expected; 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 noncancer 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 ten 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. 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
[[Page 46271]]
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\ The EPA's responses to this and all other key
recommendations of the SAB's advisory on RTR risk assessment
methodologies (which is available at: https://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/
sabproduct.nsf/4AB3966E263D943A8525771F00668381/$File/EPA-SAB-10-
007-unsigned.pdf) are outlined in a memorandum to this rulemaking
docket from David Guinnup titled EPA's Actions in Response to the
Key Recommendations of the SAB Review of RTR Risk Assessment
Methodologies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In response to the SAB recommendations, the EPA is incorporating
certain cumulative risk analyses into its RTR risk assessments,
including those reflected in this proposal. Specifically, 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 HI from all noncarcinogens affecting the same target organ
system.
Although we look at the cumulative risks from all sources at
facilities within the category, we do not assess the cumulative risks
from facilities outside the category that may be in the vicinity. We
are interested in placing source category and facility-wide HAP risks
in the context of total HAP risks from all sources of HAP in the
vicinity of each source. However, because of the contribution to total
HAP risk from emission sources other than those that we have studied,
in depth, during this RTR review, such estimates of total HAP risks
would have significantly greater associated uncertainties than the
source category or facility-wide estimates. Such aggregate or
cumulative assessments would compound those uncertainties, making the
assessments too unreliable.
B. How do we perform the technology review?
Our technology 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, in order to inform our decision of whether
it is ``necessary'' to revise the emissions standards, we analyze the
technical feasibility of applying these developments and the estimated
costs, energy implications, and non-air environmental impacts, and we
also consider the emission reductions. In addition, we consider the
appropriateness of applying controls to future affected sources versus
retrofitting affected sources currently subject to the NESHAP.
For this exercise, we consider any of the following to be a
``development'':
Any add-on control technology or other equipment that was
not identified and considered during development of the original MACT
standards;
Any improvements in add-on control technology or other
equipment (that were identified and considered during development of
the original MACT standards) that could result in additional emissions
reduction;
Any work practice or operational procedure that was not
identified or considered during development of the original MACT
standards;
Any process change or pollution prevention alternative
that could be broadly applied to the industry and that was not
identified or considered during development of the original MACT
standards; and
Any significant changes in the cost (including cost
effectiveness) of applying controls (including controls the EPA
considered during the development of the original MACT standards).
In addition to reviewing the practices, processes, and control
technologies that were considered at the time we originally developed
the NESHAP (i.e., the 2002 Surface Coating of Large Appliances NESHAP;
the 2003 Printing, Coating, and Dyeing of Fabrics and Other Textiles
NESHAP; and the 2003 Surface Coating of Metal Furniture NESHAP), we
reviewed a variety of data sources in our investigation of potential
practices, processes, or controls that were not 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 since the MACT standards being reviewed in this action
(e.g., NESHAP for Miscellaneous Metal Parts and Products (40 CFR part
63, subpart MMMM)). We also reviewed the results of other technology
reviews for other surface coating source categories since the
promulgation of the NESHAP (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
Surface Coating of Large Appliances source category, the Printing,
Coating, and Dyeing of Fabrics and Other Textiles source category, and
the Surface Coating of Metal Furniture source category, 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-sponsored market analyses and trade journals, searching for
advancements in add-on controls, advancements in lower HAP technology
for coatings and solvents. For a more detailed discussion of our
methods for performing these technology reviews, refer to the Large
Appliances Technology Review Memo, the Fabrics and Other Textiles
Technology Review Memo, and the Metal Furniture Technology Review Memo,
available respectively in the Large Appliances Docket, Fabrics and
Other Textiles Docket, and Metal Furniture Docket.
C. How did we estimate post-MACT risks posed by these source
categories?
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 Large Appliances Docket, Fabrics
and Other Textiles Docket, and Metal Furniture Docket contain,
respectively, the Large Appliances Risk Assessment Report, the Fabrics
and Other Textiles Risk Assessment Report, and the Metal Furniture Risk
Assessment Report, which provide more information on the
[[Page 46272]]
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 and described in
their peer review report issued in 2010; \8\ 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, May 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 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 corrected 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 and emissions release characteristics, can be found in
Appendix 1 to the Large Appliances Risk Assessment Report in the Large
Appliances Docket, Appendix 1 to the Fabrics and Other Textiles Risk
Assessment Report in the Fabrics and Other Textiles Docket, and
Appendix 1 to the Metal Furniture Risk Assessment Report in the Metal
Furniture 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 Surface Coating of Large Appliances source category, the
EPA calculated allowable emissions by developing a source category-
specific multiplier of 1.2 that was applied to the current emissions to
estimate allowable emissions. The multiplier was calculated using
annual coating sales volumes provided in the ACA Industry Market
Analysis for appliance finishes in the years 2005 to 2014. For more
information on how the EPA calculated the MACT-allowable emissions for
the Surface Coating of Large Appliances source category, please see
Appendix 1 to the Large Appliances Risk Assessment Report in the Large
Appliances Docket (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0670).
For the Printing, Coating, and Dyeing of Fabrics and Other Textiles
source category, the EPA calculated allowable emissions by developing a
source category-specific multiplier of 1.1 that was applied to the
current emissions to estimate allowable emissions. We gathered current
and historical publicly available category-specific production data
from U.S. Census and based the calculation on plant capacity
utilization rates for six different NAICS codes related to fabric and
textile production for the years 2008 to 2016. We assumed the annual
plant capacity utilization rates represented industry annual production
rates. The multiplier of 1.1, or the ratio of the peak annual
utilization rate in 2013 to the average annual utilization rate for the
years 2008 to 2016, was applied to the actual emissions to estimate
allowable emissions. For more details on how the EPA calculated the
MACT-allowable emissions for the Printing, Coating, and Dyeing of
Fabrics and Other Textiles source category, please see Appendix 1 to
the Fabrics and Other Textiles Risk Assessment Report in the Fabrics
and Other Textiles Docket (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0668).
For the Surface Coating of Metal Furniture source category, the EPA
calculated allowable emissions by developing a source category-specific
multiplier of 1.8 that was applied to the current emissions to estimate
allowable emissions. The multiplier was calculated using annual coating
sales volumes from the ACA Industry Market Analysis for non-wood
furniture, fixture, and business equipment coatings from 2005 to 2014.
For more details on how the EPA calculated the MACT-allowable emissions
for the Surface Coating of Metal Furniture source category, please see
Appendix 1 to the Metal Furniture Risk Assessment Report in the Metal
Furniture Docket (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0669).
3. How did 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). The HEM-3
performs three primary risk assessment activities: (1) Conducting
dispersion modeling to estimate the concentrations of HAP in ambient
air, (2) estimating long-term and short-term inhalation exposures to
individuals residing within 50 kilometers (km) of the modeled sources,
and (3) estimating individual and population-level inhalation risks
using the exposure estimates and quantitative dose-response
information.
a. Dispersion Modeling
The air dispersion model AERMOD, used by the HEM-3 model, is one of
the EPA's preferred models for assessing air pollutant concentrations
from industrial facilities.\9\ 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 one 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 \10\ 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
[[Page 46273]]
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 dose-response
values are the latest values recommended by the EPA for HAP. They are
available at https://www.epa.gov/fera/dose-response-assessment-assessing-health-risks-associated-exposure-hazardous-air-pollutants and
are discussed in more detail later in this section.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ 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).
\10\ A census block is the smallest geographic area for which
census statistics are tabulated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
b. Risk From Chronic Exposure to HAP That May Cause Cancer
In developing the risk assessment for chronic exposures, we used
the estimated annual average ambient air concentrations of each HAP
emitted by each source for which we have emissions data in the source
categories. The air concentrations at each nearby census block centroid
were used as a surrogate for the chronic inhalation exposure
concentration for all the people who reside in that census block. We
calculated the MIR for each facility as the cancer risk associated with
a continuous lifetime (24 hours per day, seven days per week, 52 weeks
per year, for a 70-year period) exposure to the maximum concentration
at the centroid of inhabited census blocks. Individual cancer risks
were calculated by multiplying the estimated lifetime exposure to the
ambient concentration of each HAP (in micrograms per cubic meter) 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 one 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 the 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.
To estimate incremental individual lifetime cancer risks associated
with emissions from the facilities in the source categories, the EPA
summed the risks for each of the carcinogenic HAP \11\ emitted by the
modeled sources. Cancer incidence and the distribution of individual
cancer risks for the population within 50 km of the sources were also
estimated for the source category by summing individual risks. A
distance of 50 km is consistent with both the analysis supporting the
1989 Benzene NESHAP (54 FR 38044, September 14, 1989) and the
limitations of Gaussian dispersion models, including AERMOD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ The EPA 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 risks of these individual compounds to obtain the cumulative
cancer risks 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
c. Risk From Chronic Exposure to HAP That May Cause Health Effects
Other Than Cancer
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 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 (https://iaspub.epa.gov/sor_internet/registry/termreg/searchandretrieve/glossariesandkeywordlists/search.do?details=&vocabName=IRIS%20Glossary), 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.'' In cases where an RfC from
the EPA's IRIS database 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 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.
d. 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. We use the peak hourly emission rate (when
available),\12\ worst-case dispersion conditions, and, in accordance
with our mandate under section 112 of the CAA, the point of highest
off-site exposure to assess the potential risk to the maximally exposed
individual.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ In the absence of hourly emission data, we develop
estimates of maximum hourly emission rates by multiplying the
average actual annual emissions rates by a factor (either a
category-specific factor or a default factor of 10) and dividing by
the total number of hours in a year (8,760 hours) to account for
variability. This is documented in Large Appliances Risk Assessment
Report, Fabrics and Other Textiles Risk Assessment Report, and Metal
Furniture Risk Assessment Report and in Appendix 5 of the report:
Analysis of Data on Short-term Emission Rates Relative to Long-term
Emission Rates. These documents are available in the Large
Appliances Docket, Fabrics and Other Textiles Docket, and Metal
Furniture 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 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
[[Page 46274]]
for a specified exposure duration.'' \13\ 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 ten minutes to eight
hours.\14\ They are guideline levels for ``once-in-a-lifetime, short-
term exposures to airborne concentrations of acutely toxic, high-
priority chemicals.'' Id. at 21. The AEGL-1 is specifically defined as
``the airborne concentration (expressed as ppm (parts per million) or
mg/m\3\ (milligrams per cubic meter)) of a substance above which it is
predicted that the general population, including susceptible
individuals, could experience notable discomfort, irritation, or
certain asymptomatic nonsensory effects. However, the effects are not
disabling and are transient and reversible upon cessation of
exposure.'' The document also notes that ``Airborne concentrations
below AEGL-1 represent exposure levels that can produce mild and
progressively increasing but transient and nondisabling odor, taste,
and sensory irritation or certain asymptomatic, nonsensory effects.''
Id. AEGL-2 are defined as ``the airborne concentration (expressed as
parts per million or milligrams per cubic meter) of a substance above
which it is predicted that the general population, including
susceptible individuals, could experience irreversible or other
serious, long-lasting adverse health effects or an impaired ability to
escape.'' Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ 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.
\14\ 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.'' \15\ 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 one 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ 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.
For the Surface Coating of Large Appliances source category, we do
not expect to see substantial hour-to-hour variation in emissions
during routine operations because the industry employs the use of
compliant low HAP coatings in a continuous (non-batch) coating process.
Thus, applying the default emission factor of ten to estimate the
worst-case hourly emission rate is not reasonable for this category. We
expect that minimal variations in emissions could possibly occur due to
cleaning of process equipment during routine operations for coating
operations using the emission rate without add-on controls compliance
option. We calculated worst-case hourly emissions by developing a
source category-specific multiplier of 1.2 that was applied to the
annual emissions, which were then divided by the total number of hours
in a year (8,760 hours). The multiplier was based on historical data on
coating sales volumes from the ACA Industry Market Analysis for
appliance finishes 2005 to 2014. The multiplier was the ratio of the
peak coating sales volume (in gallons) in 2006 to the average sales
volume for the years 2005 to 2014. The peak coating sales volume in
2006 was assumed to represent the maximum utilization of the current
large appliance surface coating industry. A further discussion of why
this factor was chosen can be found in Appendix 1 to the Large
Appliances Risk Assessment Report in the Large Appliances Docket.
For the Printing, Coating, and Dyeing of Fabrics and Other Textiles
source category, we do not expect to see substantial hour-to-hour
variation in emissions during routine operations because the industry
employs the use of various compliance options, including add-on
controls, compliant low HAP coatings, or emission rate without add-on
controls option, in a continuous (non-batch) coating process that
achieve consistent emission rates. Thus, applying the default emission
factor of ten to estimate the worst-case hourly emission rate is not
reasonable for this category. We expect that minimal variations in
emissions could possibly occur during routine operations due to
cleaning of process equipment. We calculated acute emissions by
developing a source category-specific multiplier of 1.4 that was
applied to the annual emissions, which were then divided by the total
number of hours in a year (8,760 hours). The multiplier was based on
historical U.S. Census data on plant capacity utilization rates for six
different NAICS codes related to fabric and textile production for the
years 2008 to 2016. The multiplier was the ratio of the maximum
utilization rate (100 percent) to the peak utilization rate of 71.7
percent for the years 2008 to 2016. A further discussion of why this
factor was chosen can be found in Appendix 1 to the Fabrics and Other
Textiles Risk Assessment Report in the Fabrics and Other Textiles
Docket.
For the Surface Coating of Metal Furniture source category, we do
not expect to see substantial hour-to-hour variation in emissions
during routine operations because the industry employs the use of
compliant low HAP
[[Page 46275]]
coatings in a continuous (non-batch) coating process. Thus, applying
the default emission factor of ten to estimate the worst-case hourly
emission rate is not reasonable for this category. We expect that
minimal variations in emissions could possibly occur due to cleaning of
process equipment during routine operations for coating operations
using the emission rate without add-on controls compliance option. We
calculated worst-case hourly emissions by developing a source category-
specific multiplier of 1.8 that was applied to the annual emissions,
which were then divided by the total number of hours in a year (8,760
hours). The multiplier was based on historical data on coating sales
volumes from the ACA Industry Market Analysis for non-wood furniture,
fixture and business equipment coatings from 2005 to 2014. The
multiplier was the ratio of the peak coating sales volume (in gallons)
in 2005 to the average sales volume for the years 2005 to 2014. The
peak sales volume in 2005 was assumed to represent maximum utilization
of the current metal furniture surface coating industry. A further
discussion of why this factor was chosen can be found in Appendix 1 to
the Metal Furniture Risk Assessment Report in the Metal Furniture
Docket.
In our acute inhalation screening risk assessment, acute impacts
are deemed negligible for HAP where acute HQs are less than or equal to
one (even under the conservative assumptions of the screening
assessment), and no further analysis is performed for these HAP. In
cases where an acute HQ from the screening step is greater than 1, we
consider additional site-specific data to develop a more refined
estimate of the potential for acute impacts of concern. For all three
source categories, the acute data refinements employed consisted of
plotting the HEM-3 polar grid results for each HAP with an acute HQ
value greater than one 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 Large
Appliances Risk Assessment Report, the Fabrics and Other Textiles Risk
Assessment Report, and the Metal Furniture Risk Assessment Report,
available respectively in the Large Appliances Docket, Fabrics and
Other Textiles Docket, and Metal Furniture Docket.
4. How did we conduct the multipathway exposure and risk screening
assessment?
The EPA conducted 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 determined
whether any sources in the source categories emitted any HAP known to
be persistent and bioaccumulative in the environment (PB-HAP), as
identified in the EPA's Air Toxics Risk Assessment Library (See Volume
1, Appendix D, at https://www2.epa.gov/fera/risk-assessment-and-modeling-air-toxics-risk-assessment-reference-library).
For the Surface Coating of Large Appliances; the Printing, Coating,
and Dyeing of Fabrics and Other Textiles; and Surface Coating of Metal
Furniture source categories, we did not identify emissions of any PB-
HAP. Because we did not identify PB-HAP emissions, no further
evaluation of multipathway risk was conducted for these source
categories.
5. How did 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, mercury (both inorganic mercury and methyl mercury), and lead
compounds. The acid gases included in the screening assessment are 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 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 Large Appliances Risk
Assessment Report, the Fabrics and Other Textiles Risk Assessment
Report, and the Metal Furniture Risk Assessment Report, in the Large
Appliances Docket, Fabrics and Other Textiles Docket, and Metal
Furniture Docket, respectively.
b. Environmental Risk Screening Methodology
For the environmental risk screening assessment, the EPA first
determined whether any facilities in the Surface Coating of Large
Appliances; Printing, Coating, and Dyeing of Fabrics and Other
Textiles; and Surface Coating of Metal Furniture source categories
emitted any of the environmental HAP. For the Surface Coating of Large
Appliances source category, we identified emissions of HCl and HF. No
environmental HAP were emitted from the other two source categories.
Because one or more of the environmental HAP evaluated are emitted
by at least one facility in the Surface Coating of Large Appliances
[[Page 46276]]
source category, we proceeded to the second step of the evaluation for
that source category.
c. 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 acres and km\2\; the percentage of the
modeled area around each facility that exceeds the ecological benchmark
for each acid gas; and the area-weighted average screening value around
each facility (calculated by dividing the area-weighted average
concentration over the 50-km modeling domain by the ecological
benchmark for each acid gas). For further information on the
environmental screening assessment approach, see Appendix 9 of the
Large Appliances Risk Assessment Report in the Large Appliances Docket.
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 this source category, we conducted the facility-wide assessment
using a dataset compiled from the 2014 NEI. The source category records
of that NEI dataset were removed, evaluated, and updated as described
in section II.C of this preamble: ``What data collection activities
were conducted to support this action?'' Once a quality assured source
category dataset was available, it was placed back with the remaining
records from the NEI for that facility. The facility-wide file was then
used to analyze risks due to the inhalation of HAP that are emitted
``facility-wide'' for the populations residing within 50 km of each
facility, consistent with the methods used for the source category
analysis described above. For these facility-wide risk analyses, the
modeled source category risks were compared to the facility-wide risks
to determine the portion of the facility-wide risks that could be
attributed to the source 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 Large Appliances
Risk Assessment Report, the Fabrics and Other Textiles Risk Assessment
Report, and the Metal Furniture Risk Assessment Report, available
respectively in the Large Appliances Docket, Fabrics and Other Textiles
Docket, and Metal Furniture Docket, 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 Large Appliances Risk Assessment
Report, the Fabrics and Other Textiles Risk Assessment Report, and the
Metal Furniture Risk Assessment Report, available respectively in the
Large Appliances Docket, Fabrics and Other Textiles Docket, and Metal
Furniture Docket. If a multipathway site-specific assessment was
performed for this source category, a full discussion of the
uncertainties associated with that assessment can be found in Appendix
11 of that document, Site-Specific Human Health Multipathway Residual
Risk Assessment Report.
a. Uncertainties in the RTR Emissions 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
[[Page 46277]]
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 risks or the incidence, but the
shape of the distribution of risks may be affected. With respect to
outdoor exposures, actual exposures may not be as high if people spend
time indoors, especially for very reactive pollutants or larger
particles. For all factors, we reduce uncertainty when possible. For
example, with respect to census-block centroids, we analyze large
blocks using aerial imagery and adjust locations of the block centroids
to better represent the population in the blocks. We also add
additional receptor locations where the population of a block is not
well represented by a single location.
d. Uncertainties in Dose-Response Relationships
There are uncertainties inherent in the development of the dose-
response values used in our risk assessments for cancer effects from
chronic exposures and noncancer effects from both chronic and acute
exposures. Some uncertainties are generally expressed quantitatively,
and others are generally expressed in qualitative terms. We note, as a
preface to this discussion, a point on dose-response uncertainty that
is stated in the EPA's 2005 Cancer Guidelines \16\; 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'' (EPA's 2005 Cancer Guidelines,
pages 1-7). This is the approach followed here as summarized in the
next paragraphs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment, EPA/630/P-03/
001F, March 2005. (https://www.epa.gov/risk/guidelines-carcinogen-risk-assessment).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cancer UREs used in our risk assessments are those that have been
developed to generally provide an upper bound estimate of risk. 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).\17\ In some circumstances, the true risk could be as low as
zero; however, in other circumstances the risk could be greater.\18\
Chronic noncancer RfC and reference dose (RfD) values represent chronic
exposure levels that are intended to be health-protective levels. To
derive dose-response values that are intended to be ``without
appreciable risk,'' the methodology relies upon an uncertainty factor
(UF) approach \19\ which considers uncertainty, variability, and gaps
in the available data. The UFs are applied to derive dose-response
values that are intended to protect against appreciable risk of
deleterious effects.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ IRIS glossary (https://ofmpub.epa.gov/sor_internet/registry/termreg/searchandretrieve/glossariesandkeywordlists/search.do?details=&glossaryName=IRIS%20Glossary).
\18\ An exception to this is the URE for benzene, which is
considered to cover a range of values, each end of which is
considered to be equally plausible, and which is based on maximum
likelihood estimates.
\19\ U.S. EPA, 1993. Reference Dose (RfC); Description and Use
in Health Risk Assessments. (https://www.epa.gov/iris/reference-dose-rfd-description-and-use-health-risk-assessments). U.S. EPA,
1994b. Methods for Derivation of Inhalation Reference Concentrations
and Application of Inhalation Dosimetry. (https://www.epa.gov/risk/methods-derivation-inhalation-reference-concentrations-and-application-inhalation-dosimetry).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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., one 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 every effort is made to identify appropriate human health
effect dose-response values for all pollutants emitted by the sources
in this risk assessment, some HAP emitted by this source category are
lacking dose-response assessments. Accordingly, these pollutants cannot
be included in the quantitative risk assessment, which could result in
quantitative estimates understating HAP risk. To help to alleviate this
potential underestimate, where we conclude similarity with a HAP for
which a dose-response value is available, we use that value as a
surrogate for the assessment of the HAP for which no value is
available. To the extent use of surrogates indicates appreciable risk,
we may identify a need to increase priority for an IRIS assessment for
that substance. We additionally note that, generally speaking, HAP of
greatest concern due to environmental exposures and hazard are those
for which dose-response assessments have been performed, reducing the
likelihood of understating risk. Further, HAP not included in the
quantitative assessment are assessed qualitatively and considered in
the risk characterization that informs the risk management decisions,
including consideration of HAP reductions achieved by various control
options.
For a group of compounds that are unspeciated (e.g., glycol
ethers), we conservatively use the most protective dose-response value
of an individual compound in that group to estimate risk. Similarly,
for an individual compound in a group (e.g., ethylene glycol diethyl
ether) that does not have a specified dose-response value, we also
apply the most protective dose-response value from the other compounds
in the group to estimate risk.
e. Uncertainties in Acute Inhalation Screening Assessments
In addition to the uncertainties highlighted above, there are
several factors specific to the acute exposure assessment that the EPA
conducts as part of the risk review under section 112 of the CAA. The
accuracy of an acute inhalation exposure assessment depends on the
simultaneous occurrence of independent factors that may vary greatly,
such as hourly emissions rates, meteorology, and the presence of humans
at the location of the maximum concentration. In the acute screening
assessment that we conduct under the RTR program, we assume that peak
emissions from the source category and worst-case
[[Page 46278]]
meteorological conditions co-occur, thus resulting in maximum ambient
concentrations. These two events are unlikely to occur at the same
time, making these assumptions conservative. We then include the
additional assumption that a person is located at this point during
this same time period. For these source categories, these assumptions
would tend to be worst-case actual exposures as it is unlikely that a
person would be located at the point of maximum exposure during the
time when peak emissions and worst-case meteorological conditions occur
simultaneously.
f. Uncertainties in the Multipathway and Environmental Risk Screening
Assessments
For each source category, we generally rely on site-specific levels
of PB-HAP or environmental HAP emissions to determine whether a refined
assessment of the impacts from multipathway exposures is necessary or
whether it is necessary to perform an environmental screening
assessment. None of the three source categories in this action emit PB-
HAP, therefore, multipathway assessments were not conducted. Since no
environmental HAP are emitted from the Printing, Coating, and Dyeing of
Fabrics and Other Textiles source category or the Surface Coating of
Metal Furniture source category, an environmental risk screen was not
conducted for these categories. Small amounts of the environmental HAP,
HCl, and HF are emitted from the Surface Coating of Large Appliances
source category, therefore, an environmental risk screen was conducted.
The environmental screening assessment relies on the outputs from
AERMOD--that estimates environmental pollutant concentrations for two
acid gases (HCl and HF). Two important types of uncertainty associated
with the use of these models in RTR risk assessments and inherent to
any assessment that relies on environmental modeling are model
uncertainty and input uncertainty.\20\ Model uncertainty concerns
whether the model adequately represents the actual processes (e.g.,
movement and accumulation) that might occur in the environment. For
example, does the model adequately describe the movement of a pollutant
through the soil? This type of uncertainty is difficult to quantify.
However, based on feedback received from previous EPA SAB reviews and
other reviews, we are confident that the models used in the screening
assessments are appropriate and state-of-the-art for the environmental
screening risk assessment conducted in support of RTR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ In the context of this discussion, the term ``uncertainty''
as it pertains to exposure and risk encompasses both variability in
the range of expected inputs and screening results due to existing
spatial, temporal, and other factors, as well as uncertainty in
being able to accurately estimate the true result.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Input uncertainty is concerned with how accurately the models have
been configured and parameterized for the assessment at hand. 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.
IV. Analytical Results and Proposed Decisions
A. What are the analytical results and proposed decisions for the
Surface Coating of Large Appliances source category?
1. What are the results of the risk assessment and analyses?
As described in section III of this preamble, for the Surface
Coating of Large Appliances 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 Large Appliances
Risk Assessment Report in the Large Appliances Docket (Docket ID No.
EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0670).
a. Inhalation Risk Assessment Results
Table 2 of this preamble provides a summary of the results of the
inhalation risk assessment for the source category. As discussed in
section III.C.2 of this preamble, we set MACT-allowable HAP emission
levels at large appliance coating facilities equal to 1.2 times actual
emissions. For more detail about the MACT-allowable emission levels,
see Appendix 1 to the Large Appliances Risk Assessment Report in the
Large Appliances Docket.
Table 2--Surface Coating of Large Appliances Source Category Inhalation Risk Assessment Results
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum individual Estimated population Estimated annual Maximum chronic Maximum screening acute noncancer HQ \2\
cancer risk (in 1 at increased risk of cancer incidence noncancer TOSHI \1\ ---------------------------------------------------
million) cancer [gteqt] 1-in-1 (cases per year) ------------------------
------------------------ million ------------------------
Risk assessment ------------------------ Based on Based on Based
Based on Based on Based on Based on Based on Based on actual allowable Based on actual emissions allowable
actual allowable actual allowable actual allowable emissions emissions emissions
emissions emissions emissions emissions emissions emissions
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----------
Source Category................................ 0.9 1 0 50 0.0001 0.0002 0.07 0.08 HQREL = 2
Whole Facility................................. 6 .......... 600 .......... 0.0002 .......... 0.2 .......... ......................................
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The target organ specific hazard index (TOSHI) is the sum of the chronic noncancer hazard quotients 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 2 of this preamble, indicate that the maximum
individual cancer risk based on actual emissions (lifetime) could be up
to 0.9-in-1 million, the maximum chronic noncancer TOSHI value based on
actual emissions could be up to 0.07, and the maximum screening acute
noncancer HQ value (off-facility site) could be up to 2. The total
estimated annual cancer incidence (national) from these facilities
based on actual emission levels is 0.0001 excess cancer cases per year,
or one case in every 10,000 years.
b. Acute Risk Results
Table 2 of this preamble shows the acute risk results for the
Surface Coating of Large Appliances 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,
[[Page 46279]]
refer to the Large Appliances Risk Assessment Report in the Large
Appliances Docket.
c. Multipathway Risk Screening Results
There are no PB-HAP emitted by facilities in the Surface Coating of
Large Appliances 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 Surface Coating of Large Appliances
source category indicate that two environmental HAP are emitted by
sources within this source category: HCl and HF. Therefore, we
conducted a screening-level evaluation of the potential adverse
environmental risks associated with emissions of HCl and HF for the
Surface Coating of Large Appliances source category. 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
One facility has a facility-wide cancer MIR greater than or equal
to 1-in-1 million. The maximum facility-wide cancer MIR is 6-in-1
million, driven by chromium (VI) compounds from a cleaning/pretreatment
operation. The total estimated cancer incidence from the whole facility
is 0.0002 excess cancer cases per year, or one excess case in every
5,000 years. Approximately 600 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 ten facilities in this source category. The
maximum facility-wide TOSHI for the source category is estimated to be
0.2, driven by emissions of methylene diphenyl diisocyanate from foam
produced as part of plastic products manufacturing.
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 Surface Coating of
Large Appliances source category across different demographic groups
within the populations living near facilities.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ Demographic groups included in the analysis are: White,
African American, Native American, other races and multiracial,
Hispanic or Latino, children 17 years of age and under, adults 18 to
64 years of age, adults 65 years of age and over, adults without a
high school diploma, people living below the poverty level, people
living above the poverty level, and linguistically isolated people.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Results of the demographic analysis indicate that, for two of the
11 demographic groups, ``African American'' and ``Below the Poverty
Level,'' the percentage of the population living within 5 km of
facilities in the source category is greater than the corresponding
national percentage for the same demographic groups. When examining the
risk levels of those exposed to emissions from large appliance coating
facilities, we find that no one is exposed to a cancer risk at or above
1-in-1 million or to a chronic noncancer hazard index greater than one
based on actual emissions from the source category.
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 Surface
Coating of Large Appliances Source Category Operations, September 2017
(hereafter referred to as the Large Appliances Demographic Analysis
Report) in the Large Appliances 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 Surface Coating of Large Appliances source category, the
risk analysis indicates that the cancer risks to the individual most
exposed could be up to 0.9-in-1 million due to actual emissions and up
to 1-in-1 million 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 (0.0001 cases per year for actual emissions and 0.0002 cases
per year for allowable emissions), and we did not identify potential
for adverse chronic noncancer health effects. The acute noncancer risks
based on actual emissions are low at an HQ of 2 for glycol ethers at
one facility. 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
Surface Coating of Large Appliances source category are acceptable.
b. Ample Margin of Safety Analysis
Although we are proposing that the risks from the Surface Coating
of Large Appliances source category are acceptable, risk estimates for
approximately 50 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 Surface Coating of Large
Appliances 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 Surface Coating of Large Appliances source
category, and the EPA reviewed various information sources regarding
emission sources that are currently regulated by the Surface Coating of
Large Appliances NESHAP.
The only development identified in the technology review is the use
of high-efficiency spray equipment. We estimated no costs or emissions
reductions that would be achieved by switching to high efficiency
application methods for this source category because we expect that
large appliance surface coating facilities are already using high
efficiency coating application methods due to state VOC rules and the
economic incentives of using more efficient application methods.
Because quantifiable
[[Page 46280]]
reductions in risk are unlikely, we are proposing that the current
standards provide an ample margin of safety. As discussed below,
however, we are proposing to require this technology under the
technology review. We request comment on this proposed requirement and
whether any facilities in this source category do not currently use
high efficiency coating application methods.
c. Environmental Effects
The emissions data for the Surface Coating of Large Appliances
source category indicate that two environmental HAP are emitted by
sources within this source category: HCl and HF. The screening-level
evaluation of the potential for adverse environmental risks associated
with emissions of HCl and HF from the Surface Coating of Large
Appliances 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?
Our technology review focused on identifying developments in
practices, processes, and control technologies for the Surface Coating
of Large Appliances source category, and the EPA reviewed various
information sources regarding emission sources that are currently
regulated by the Surface Coating of Large Appliances NESHAP. These
emission sources include coating mixing; coating application; coating
curing; conveying coatings, thinners and cleaning materials; and waste
storage and handling. Based on our review, we identified, as outlined
below, one development in technology, the application of high-
efficiency spray equipment, for the Surface Coating of Large Appliances
source category. A brief summary of the EPA's findings in conducting
the technology review of large appliance surface coating operations
follows. For a detailed discussion of the EPA's findings, refer to the
Large Appliances Technology Review Memorandum in the Large Appliances
Docket.
The technology basis for the original MACT standards for existing
and new or reconstructed sources under the Surface Coating of Large
Appliance NESHAP was the use of lower-HAP coatings, thinners, and
cleaning materials. Add-on capture and control systems for organic HAP
were rarely used by the industry at that time (65 FR 81142, December
22, 2000). During development of that rulemaking, we identified and
considered three alternatives more stringent than the MACT floor level
of control for organic HAP: (1) Conversion to powder coatings; (2)
conversion to liquid coatings that have a very low, or no, organic HAP
content; and (3) use of add-on capture systems and control devices
(i.e., an emission capture system such as a spray booth) used in
conjunction with thermal recuperative oxidizers, regenerative thermal
oxidizers (RTO), catalytic oxidizers, or activated carbon adsorbers).
However, we did not adopt any of these alternatives because they were
not applicable beyond a small subset of facilities or would not be
cost-effective for the incremental emission reductions achieved beyond
the MACT floor level of control (65 FR 81143).
Using the EPA's NEI and the ECHO databases, we identified ten large
appliance surface coating facilities that are currently subject to the
Surface Coating of Large Appliances NESHAP. We reviewed their state
operating permits to determine whether any are using add-on control
technologies to comply with the NESHAP. Two of the ten facilities have
add-on controls, but the permits indicate that nine of the ten
facilities are using the compliant materials option or the emission
rate without add-on controls option to demonstrate compliance with the
NESHAP. One facility with an add-on control is using the add-on control
to comply with only a VOC emission limitation but not to comply with
the NESHAP. The second facility with add-on controls does not have add-
on controls on all coating operations, but a 2017 inspection report
indicates that the facility is using the emission rate with add-on
controls compliance option. This one facility differs from the others
complying with subpart NNNN in that it is a contract coating operation
that performs surface coating on parts of large appliances, but also
performs surface coating on parts for a variety of industries. All of
the other facilities are large appliance manufacturers. Therefore, the
result from this one facility is not applicable to other facilities
dedicated to manufacturing just large appliances. Our search of the
RBLC database did not identify any additional large appliance
manufacturers using an add-on control device or subject to an emission
limit more stringent than in subpart NNNN.
The use of a RTO and permanent total enclosure (PTE) was considered
during development of the Large Appliances NESHAP as a control
technology capable of achieving an efficiency of 95 percent, but was
rejected as not cost effective for the incremental emission reductions
that would be achieved relative to the MACT floor level of control. We
found no information that any improvements in PTE and add-on control
technology have occurred that would affect the cost-effectiveness of a
PTE and add-on control or result in additional emission reductions.
Therefore, EPA finds there have not been improvements in the RTO/PTE
since we promulgated the NESHAP to support requiring this technology
for the large appliance source category as part of the technology
review.
We have not identified any process change or pollution prevention
alternative that could be broadly applied to the large appliance
coating industry. We reviewed the ACA Industry Market Analysis for
recent trends in coating technology in the large appliance industry.
The ACA Industry Market Analysis reports that the large appliance
manufacturing industry has largely shifted from liquid coatings to
powder coatings and pre-coated metal coil substrate. Specifically, the
ACA Industry Market Analysis states that the volume of liquid finishes
used in appliance finishes decreased by 67 percent between 2007 and
2014 as a result of the shift to powder coatings and pre-coated metal
prepared by coil coating facilities. However, a substantial fraction of
the coatings used (23 percent of coatings applied by large appliance
coating facilities) are still liquid coatings, and the EPA is currently
unable to determine whether all surface coating operations can be
shifted to powder coatings or pre-coated metal coil substrate. The
shift to the use of more powder coatings on specific parts has occurred
as an expected industry response to comply with the original Surface
Coating of Large Appliances NESHAP, but the shift was not category-
wide, nor was it appropriate for all parts or segments of the industry.
Since it is not a technology that can be adopted more broadly, we are
not proposing to require use of powder coatings under the technology
review. One area of development identified in the ACA Industry Market
Analysis is the use of low-energy curing powders, such as
[[Page 46281]]
ultraviolet (UV)-cured powders, that can be used on plastic substrates.
UV-cured powders are powder coatings that use ultraviolet light as the
radiant energy source to initiate a photochemical reaction to generate
a crosslinked network of polymer on the substrate surface. However, we
were unable to find any information from our review of permits that UV-
cured powder coating has been applied at large appliance surface
coating facilities. For these reasons, EPA finds that there have not
been developments in powder coatings and/or pre-coated metal coil
substrates since we promulgated the NESHAP to support requiring this
technology for all the sources in the large appliance source category
as part of the technology review.
The technology review conducted for the Wood Furniture
Manufacturing Operations NESHAP (40 CFR part 63, subpart JJ) identified
air-assisted airless spraying, a more efficient coating application
technology, as a development in process equipment, and adopted
regulations preventing the use of conventional air-atomized coating
spray guns. Several other surface coating NESHAP specify that high
efficiency spray guns must be used for spray applied coatings (i.e., 40
CFR part 63, subparts GG and JJ) or the compliance demonstration takes
into account the transfer efficiency of the spray equipment, and the
standards are based on high-efficiency spray application (e.g., 40 CFR
part 63, subpart IIII). Using high-efficiency spray equipment reduces
the amount of coating applied compared to conventional spray equipment
and, therefore, reduces emissions.
The Surface Coating of Large Appliances NESHAP does not contain any
standards specifying the type of spray equipment that must be used when
coatings are spray-applied. However, many facilities complying with the
Surface Coating of Large Appliances NESHAP also are required by state
VOC regulations in Indiana, Ohio, and Wisconsin to use high-efficiency
spray guns for coatings that are spray applied. We expect that large
appliance surface coating facilities in other states are also using
high-efficiency application equipment for spray applied coatings as a
cost saving measure to reduce coating and spray booth filter
consumption and to reduce the amount of solid waste generated in the
form of used spray booth filters. Although we expect that the high-
efficiency application equipment would provide cost savings from an
engineering perspective, we are uncertain of other factors that
facilities may need to consider if choosing to switch to high-
efficiency application equipment. Due to the competitive marketplace
and the number of units going through these surface coating facilities,
there may be facility specific operational, coating adherence, coating
drying time, material compatibility, or other reasons that a facility
may not have chosen to switch to high-efficiency spray equipment. We
request comment on these and other aspects of facility decision making,
as the agency has limited information on the market penetration of this
technology and these other factors.
Based on these findings, we are proposing to revise the Surface
Coating of Large Appliances NESHAP for coating application operations
pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6) to require that, for each coating
operation for which coatings are spray applied, high efficiency spray
equipment must be used if the source is not using the emission rate
with add-on control compliance option. Specifically, all spray-applied
coating operations, where the source is not using the emission rate
with add-on control compliance option, must be demonstrated to achieve
transfer efficiency equivalent to or better than 65 percent. There are
four types of high efficiency spray equipment technologies that have
been applied in these applications that could achieve the transfer
efficiency equivalent to or better than 65 percent including high
volume, low pressure (HVLP) spray equipment, electrostatic application,
airless spray equipment, and air assisted airless spray equipment.
Alternative spray equipment technologies may also be used with
documentation demonstrating at least 65 percent transfer efficiency.
Spray application equipment sources not using the emission rate with
add-on control compliance option, and/or using alternative spray
application equipment technologies other than the four listed, must
follow procedures in the California South Coast Air Quality Management
District's, ``Spray Equipment Transfer Efficiency Test Procedure for
Equipment User, May 24, 1989'' to demonstrate that their spray
application equipment is capable of achieving transfer efficiency
equivalent to, or better than, 65 percent. Equivalency documentation
may be certified by manufacturers of the spray equipment, on behalf of
spray-applied coating operations sources, by following the
aforementioned procedure in conjunction with California South Coast Air
Quality Management District's ``Guidelines for Demonstrating
Equivalency with District Approved Transfer Efficient Spray Guns,
September 26, 2002.'' When using these equivalency procedures and/or
guidelines, facilities would not be required to submit an application
with the test plan or protocol to the Administrator, conduct the test
in the presence of an Administrator's representative, or submit test
results to the Administrator for review or approval. Instead, they
would be required to maintain records demonstrating the transfer
efficiency achieved, including a description of the procedures and/or
guidelines used. We are proposing that all spray equipment used for
spray-applied coating operations would be required to be operated
according to company procedures, local specified operating procedures,
or the manufacturer's specifications, whichever is determined to meet
the 65 percent transfer efficiency. Further, we are proposing related
definitions for ``airless and air-assisted airless spray,''
``electrostatic application,'' ``high-volume, low-pressure (HVLP) spray
equipment,'' ``spray-applied coating operations,'' ``and transfer
efficiency.''
Considering just the incremental cost of the high efficiency spray
equipment and savings due to using less material consumption, we expect
that all facilities have already switched to high efficiency
application methods. However, if a large appliance surface coating
facility not using the emission rate with add-on control compliance
option replaced their existing coating spray guns with a high-
efficiency spray gun required by this proposed rule, such as an air-
assisted airless spray gun, an estimated cost to do so would be
approximately $700 per device, based on vendor information. See the
memorandum titled Impacts of Prohibiting the Use of Conventional Spray
Guns in the Wood Manufacturing Operations Source Category (Docket ID
Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0786 EPA). Any potential costs would be offset
by savings in the cost of coatings, filters, and solid waste disposal
fees for handling the liners used to capture coating overspray. EPA
requests comment on this cost estimation, and whether other costs are
associated with switching to high-efficiency spray equipment that the
agency should consider in this technology review, such as operational
efficiency changes, ancillary equipment changes, repair and maintenance
costs, employee training or other factors
We have not estimated the emissions reductions achieved by
switching to high efficiency application methods for this source
category because we expect
[[Page 46282]]
that all large appliance surface coating facilities are using high
efficiency coating application methods. However, if any facilities
switch to high efficiency application equipment, there would likely be
emission reductions. As an example, using the Wood Furniture
Manufacturing Operations cost methodology, if a facility switched from
conventional spray guns with 45 percent transfer efficiency to air-
assisted airless spray guns with 65 percent transfer efficiency, to get
one unit of solids on the part, an air-assisted airless spray gun needs
1.54 gallons of coating, compared to 2.22 gallons for a conventional
spray gun. This increase transfer efficiency represents a 31 percent
decrease in coating consumption, leading to a corresponding decrease in
organic HAP emissions from coating application. For more information on
the Wood Furniture Manufacturing Operations cost methodology, including
the cost of spray gun equipment and calculation of potential HAP
emission reductions, see the memorandum titled Impacts of Prohibiting
the Use of Conventional Spray Guns in the Wood Manufacturing Operations
Source Category (EPA Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0786 EPA). We
request comment on whether facilities in the Large Appliances source
category are not using high efficiency spray equipment and why it is
not being used. Refer to section IV.A.5 of this preamble for a
discussion of the compliance schedule for using high efficiency spray
equipment
Finally, we identified no developments in work practices or
procedures for the Surface Coating of Large Appliances source category,
including work practices and procedures that are currently prescribed
in the NESHAP. The current Surface Coating of Large Appliances NESHAP
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, all coating
operations for which emission limits are established. The current work
practice requirements address the potential emission sources that are
normally located outside of the emission sources that are routed to the
control device, and no new measures have been identified to further
reduce the emissions from these sources. For further discussion of the
technology review results, refer to the Large Appliances Technology
Review Memorandum in the Large Appliances Docket.
In section III.B. above, we describe our typical approach for
conducting technology reviews and the types of information we gather
and evaluate as part of these reviews. In addition, we solicit comment
on the relationship between the CAA section 112(d)(6) technology review
and the CAA section 112(f) risk review. As we described in the preamble
of the Coke Ovens RTR Final rule published on April 15, 2005 (70 FR
20009), we believe that the results of a CAA section 112(f) risk
determination for a CAA section 112(d) standard should be key factors
in any subsequent CAA section 112(d)(6) determination for that
standard. In the Coke Ovens RTR final rule, the agency described
potential scenarios where it may not be necessary to revise the
standards based on developments in technologies, practices or processes
if the remaining risks associated with air emissions from a source
category have already been reduced to a level where we have determined
further reductions under CAA section 112(f) are not necessary. Under
one scenario, if the ample margin of safety analysis for the CAA
section 112(f) determination was not based on the availability or cost
of particular control technologies, then advances in air pollution
control technology would not necessarily be a cause to revise the MACT
standard pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6), because the CAA section
112(f) standard (or a CAA section 112(d) standard evaluated pursuant to
CAA section 112(f)) would continue to assure an adequate level of
safety. Under another scenario, if the ample margin of safety analysis
for a CAA section 112(f) standard (or a CAA section 112(d) standard
evaluated pursuant to CAA section 112(f)) shows that lifetime excess
cancer risks to the individual most exposed to emissions from a source
in the category is less than 1-in-1 million, and the remaining risk
associated with threshold pollutants falls below a similar threshold of
safety, then no further revision under CAA section 112(d)(6) would be
necessary, because an ample margin of safety has already been assured.
We solicit comment on whether revisions to the NESHAP are
``necessary'', as that term is used in CAA section 112(d)(6), in
situations where EPA has determined that CAA section 112(d) standards
evaluated pursuant to CAA section 112(f) provide an ample margin of
safety to protect public health and prevent an adverse environmental
effect. In other words, we solicit comment on our conclusion that, if
remaining risks associated with air emissions from a source category
have already been reduced to levels where we have determined under CAA
section 112(f) that further reductions are not necessary, then it is
not ``necessary'' to revise the standards based on developments in
technologies, practices or processes under CAA section 112(d)(6). See
CAA s. 112(d)(6) (``The Administrator shall review, and revise as
necessary . . .''). We also solicit comment on whether further
revisions under CAA section 112(d)(6) would be necessary if the CAA
section 112(f) ample margin of safety analysis shows lifetime excess
cancer risks to the individual most exposed to emissions from a source
in the category is less than 1-in-1 million or if other, either higher
or lower, cancer risk levels would be appropriate to consider if they
assured an ample margin of safety.
Though we believe the results of the ample margin of safety
analysis may eliminate the need to revise the emissions standards as
based on developments in technologies practices and processes, we
conducted a technology review to determine if any developments to
further reduce HAP emissions have occurred, and to consider whether the
current standards should be revised to reflect any such developments.
We believe that the use of high-efficiency spray equipment in the
Surface Coating of Large Appliances source category is cost effective,
presents minimal or no additional burden and achieves reductions in
actual or potential HAP emissions. Therefore, based on our technology
review, we are proposing to require the use of high-efficiency spray
application equipment for the Surface Coating of Large Appliances
source category. Note that the discussion directly above also applies
to the Printing, Coating, and Dyeing of Fabrics and Other Textiles and
Surface Coating of Metal Furniture source categories.
4. What other actions are we proposing?
In the Surface Coating of Large Appliances source category, we are
proposing to require electronic submittal of notifications, semi-annual
reports and compliance reports (which include performance test
reports). In addition, we are proposing revisions to the startup,
shutdown, and malfunction (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
[[Page 46283]]
from the requirement to comply with otherwise applicable CAA section
112(d) emission standards during periods of SSM. We also propose other
changes, including addition of EPA Method 18, 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.
Though we are not proposing to change reporting frequency currently
in the rule, we are requesting comment on changing the reporting
frequency for all reports to EPA from semi-annual to annual due to the
potential redundancy of these reporting requirements. We recognize that
Title V permits have a statutory requirement for semi-annual reports,
which are generally reported to state regulatory agencies. However, we
are not certain that changing the report frequency for just the reports
submitted to EPA in this NESHAP will result in a reporting and
recordkeeping burden reduction. We request comment and supporting
information on the burden impact of changing the reporting requirement
to annual for the reporting to EPA.
a. Electronic Reporting Requirements
The EPA proposes to require owners and operators of Surface Coating
of Large Appliances facilities to submit electronic copies of initial
notifications required in 40 CFR 63.9(b), notifications of compliance
status required in 40 CFR 63.9(h), performance test reports, and
semiannual reports through the EPA's Central Data Exchange (CDX), using
the Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface (CEDRI).\22\ For
further information regarding the electronic data submission process,
please refer to the memorandum titled Electronic Reporting for Surface
Coating of Large Appliances, Subpart NNNN, May 2018, in the Large
Appliances Docket. Note that the rule proposes to require that
performance test results collected using test methods that are not
supported by the ERT as listed on the EPA's ERT website at the time of
the test be submitted in portable document format (PDF) using the
attachment module of the ERT.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ https://www.epa.gov/electronic-reporting-air-emissions/compliance-and-emissions-data-reporting-interface-cedri.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA proposes that electronic submittal of notifications and
reports (initial notifications required in 40 CFR 63.9(b),
notifications of compliance status required in 40 CFR 63.9(h), and
semiannual reports) be required using electronic reporting forms that
the EPA will make available in CEDRI. No specific form is proposed at
this time for the initial notifications required in 40 CFR 63.9(b) and
notifications of compliance status required 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. For
semiannual reports, the EPA proposes that owners or operators use the
appropriate spreadsheet template in CEDRI for 40 CFR part 63, subpart
NNNN, or an alternate electronic file format consistent with the form's
extensible markup language schema. For further information regarding
the electronic data submission process, please refer to the spreadsheet
attached to the memorandum titled Electronic Reporting Template for
Surface Coating of Large Appliances, Subpart NNNN Semiannual Reports,
May 2018, in the Large Appliances Docket. We specifically request
comment on the format and usability of the template (e.g., filling out
and uploading a provided spreadsheet versus entering the required
information into an on-line fillable CEDRI web form), as well as the
content, layout, and overall design of the template. Prior to
availability of the final semiannual compliance report template in
CEDRI, owners or operators of affected sources will be required to
submit semiannual compliance reports as otherwise required by the
Administrator. After development of the final template, sources will be
notified about its availability via the CEDRI website and the
Clearinghouse for Inventories and Emissions Factors (CHIEF)
Listserv.\23\ We plan to finalize a required reporting format with the
final rule. The owner or operator would begin submitting reports
electronically with the next report that is due, once the electronic
template has been available for at least one year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ https://www.epa.gov/air-emissions-inventories/air-emissions-inventory-listservs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As noted above, we propose that 40 CFR part 63, subpart NNNN,
performance test reports be submitted through the EPA's Electronic
Reporting Tool (ERT). 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 (https://www3.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ert/ert_info.pdf) and the
agency has obtained an approved OMB control number consistent with the
requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act. Note that all but one of
the EPA test methods (optional EPA Method 18) listed under the
emissions destruction or removal efficiency section of 40 CFR part 63,
subpart NNNN, are currently supported by the ERT. As mentioned above,
the rule proposes that should an owner or operator choose to use Method
18, then its results would be submitted in PDF using the attachment
module of the ERT.
We propose to provide owners or operators of facilities with the
ability to seek extensions for submitting electronic reports for
circumstances beyond the control of the facility, i.e., for a possible
outage in the CDX or CEDRI or for a force majeure event in the time
just prior to a report's due date.
In 40 CFR 63.4121(d), we propose to address the situation where an
extension may be warranted due to outages of the EPA's CDX or CEDRI
that may prevent access to the system and submittal of the required
reports. If either the CDX or CEDRI is unavailable at any time
beginning five business days prior to the date that the submission is
due, and the unavailability prevents the submission of a report by the
required date, we propose to enable the owner or operator of a facility
to assert a claim of EPA system outage. We consider five business days
prior to the reporting deadline to be an appropriate timeframe because
if the system is down and returns to service prior to this time,
facilities will still have 1 week prior to the reporting deadline to
complete reporting once the system is back online. However, if the CDX
or CEDRI is down during the week a report is due, we realize that this
could greatly impact the ability to submit a required report on time.
We will notify owners or operators of facilities about known outages as
far in advance as possible by notification using the CHIEF Listserv,
posting on the CEDRI website, and posting on the CDX website so that
owners or operators can plan accordingly and still meet the reporting
deadlines. However, if a planned or unplanned outage of the EPA's CDX
or CEDRI occurs and an owner or operator of a facility believes that
the outage will affect or it has affected compliance with an electronic
reporting requirement, the proposed rule provides a process to assert
such a claim.
Also in 40 CFR 63.4121(e), we propose to address 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
[[Page 46284]]
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, equipment failures, or safety hazards that are
beyond the control of the facility. If such an event occurs, or is
still occurring, or if there are still lingering effects of the event
in the five business days prior to a submission deadline, the proposed
rule provides a process to assert a claim of force majeure.
While we propose these potential extensions to protect facilities
from noncompliance with reporting requirements in cases when a facility
cannot successfully submit a report by the reporting deadline for
reasons outside of its control as described above, we do not propose an
extension for other circumstances. Facility owners or operators should
register for CEDRI far in advance of the initial compliance date to
ensure that they can complete the identity proofing process prior to
the initial compliance date. Additionally, we recommend developing
reports early in case any questions arise during the reporting process.
As discussed in the Electronic Reporting for Surface Coating of
Large Appliances Subpart NNNN memorandum, electronic submittal of the
reports addressed in this proposed rulemaking will increase the
usefulness of those reports, and in keeping with current trends in data
availability, will further assist in the protection of public health
and the environment and will ultimately result in less burden on
regulated facilities. Electronic submittal will also improve compliance
by facilitating the ability of regulated facilities to demonstrate
compliance and the ability of air agencies and the EPA to assess and
determine compliance. Moreover, electronic reporting is consistent with
EPA's plan \24\ to implement Executive Order 13563 and agency-wide
policy to implement the White House's Digital Government Strategy \25\
by specifying that new regulations will require reports to be
electronic to the maximum extent possible. In addition to supporting
regulation development, control strategy development, and other air
pollution control activities, we believe that having an electronic
database populated with performance test data will save industry, air
agencies, and the EPA significant time, money, and effort while
improving the quality of emission inventories and air quality
regulations and enhancing the public's access to this important
information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ Improving Our Regulations: Final Plan for Periodic
Retrospective Reviews of Existing Regulations, August 2011.
Available at https://www.regulations.gov, Document ID No. EPA-HQ-OA-
2011-0156-0154.
\25\ Digital Government: Building a 21st Century Platform to
Better Serve the American People, May 2012. Available at https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/egov/digital-government/digitalgovernment-strategy/pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
b. Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction 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 United States Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia Circuit 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 NNNN of part 63 (Applicability of General
Provisions to Subpart NNNN, hereafter referred to as the ``General
Provisions table to subpart NNNN''), 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. We are also proposing to delete 40
CFR 63.4163(h), which specifies that deviations during SSM periods are
not violations. 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
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 reasons explained below, has
not proposed alternate standards for those periods. Startups and
shutdowns are part of normal operations for the Surface Coating of
Large Appliances source category. As currently specified in 40 CFR
63.4092(b), any coating operation(s) for which you use the emission
rate with add-on controls option must meet operating limits ``at all
times,'' except for solvent recovery systems for which you conduct
liquid-liquid material balances according to 40 CFR 63.4161(h). Also,
as currently specified in 40 CFR 63.4100(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 emission limit
in 40 CFR 63.4090 and work practice standards in 40 CFR 63.4093. This
means that during startup and shutdown periods, in order for a facility
using add-on controls 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
there are enough VOC for the combustion to be (nearly) self-sustaining.
The proposed language in 40 CFR 63.4100 requires 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.
Periods of startup, normal operations, and shutdown are all
predictable and routine aspects of a source's operations. Malfunctions,
in contrast, are neither predictable nor routine. Instead they are, by
definition sudden, infrequent and not reasonably preventable failures
of emissions control, process or monitoring equipment. (40 CFR 63.2)
(Definition of malfunction). The EPA interprets CAA section 112 as not
requiring emissions that occur during periods of malfunction to be
factored into development of CAA section 112 standards and this reading
has been upheld as reasonable by the Court in U.S. Sugar Corp. v. EPA,
830 F.3d 579, 606-610 (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
[[Page 46285]]
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 in the application of large
appliance surface coatings would result in a violation of the
standards. A malfunction would not lead to an increase in the HAP
content of the coatings or the amount of HAP emitted from those
coatings; therefore, it is unlikely that malfunctions at facilities
using the compliant material or emission rate without control option
would result in a violation in any case where compliant materials are
used. Finally, compliance with the large appliance surface coating
emission limits is based on a monthly compliance period, so any
malfunction that causes a short-term increase in emissions may not
cause a violation of the standard. Similarly, for facilities in the
surface coating of metal furniture source category using the emission
rate with add-on control compliance option or percent reduction
compliance option, the short-term malfunction of an emission capture
system or control device is also unlikely to lead to a violation if the
owner or operator operates and maintains the affected source in a
manner consistent with safety and good air pollution control practices
for minimizing emissions during that malfunction. Because compliance is
based on a monthly or a rolling 12-month compliance period, a short-
term malfunction is likely to represent only a small percent of the
total operating time of the affected source. A single malfunction is
also not likely to affect all of the emission units and control devices
within the affected source. Therefore, a malfunction is not likely to
result in a violation of the standards, and we have no information to
suggest that it is feasible or necessary to establish any type of
standard for malfunctions associated with the Surface Coating of Large
Appliances or the Surface Coating of Metal Furniture source categories.
We are requesting comment on the need to establish a standard
during periods of malfunction for the Fabric and Other Textiles source
category in this action, and we are seeking the specific information
described in section IV.B.4 of this preamble to support such a
standard. We believe a work practice standard would be appropriate for
a malfunction at facilities in this category. We are requesting comment
on two alternatives in this preamble. The work practice standard, if
included in the final rule, would include the following, or similar,
requirements.
In the first alternative if a malfunction of a control device or a
capture system that is used to meet the emission limits of this rule
occurs, the facility may elect to continue operation without the
control device for the period of the malfunction so long as it
continues to meet the emission limits for the current compliance
period. Each workstation would discontinue its application of coating
materials onto the web, and complete drying of any coating materials
already applied onto the web as of the start of the malfunction.
Draining coating materials from the
[[Page 46286]]
line's applicators, or from piping, pans, or related equipment that
deliver coating materials to the applicator, is not required.
Deviations of a monitored parameter of a control device or enclosure
are not malfunctions for purposes of this requirement.
A second alternative would require that repairs be immediately
initiated and completed as expeditiously as possible, but the line
would not have to cease operation. We note that this source category
compliance is based on a 12-month rolling average. Therefore, operating
a period of time without a control device would not necessarily result
in an exceedance of the emissions limit. However, the facility would
not be allowed to continue to operate the coating line once it becomes
apparent they will be unable to complete repairs before the 12-month
rolling average compliance limit will be exceeded. We request comment
on both of these approaches for the Fabrics and Other Textiles source
category.
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 will determine an appropriate response based on, among
other things, the good faith efforts of the source to minimize
emissions during malfunction periods, including preventative and
corrective actions, as well as root cause analyses to ascertain and
rectify excess emissions. The EPA 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
a. 40 CFR 63.4100(b) General Duty
We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table to subpart
NNNN (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 63.4100(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 63.4100(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 NNNN (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 63.4100(b).
b. SSM Plan
We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table to subpart
NNNN (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 NNNN, the current provisions requiring the SSM plan,
including 40 CFR 63.4100(d) and 63.4110(b)(9)(v). As noted, the EPA is
proposing to remove the SSM exemptions. Therefore, affected units will
be subject to an emission standard during such events. The
applicability of a standard during such events will ensure that sources
have ample incentive to plan for and achieve compliance, and, thus, the
SSM plan requirements are no longer necessary.
c. Compliance With Standards
We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table to subpart
NNNN (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.
We are also proposing to remove rule text in 40 CFR 63.4161(g)
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.
d. 40 CFR 63.4164 Performance Testing
We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table to subpart
NNNN (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 63.4164. 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 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 clarifying that the owner or operator must make such records
available to the Administrator upon request.
[[Page 46287]]
e. Monitoring
We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table to subpart
NNNN (table 2) entry for 40 CFR 63.8(c)(1)(i) and (iii) 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 the General
Provisions table to subpart NNNN (table 2) entry for 40 CFR
63.8(c)(1)(ii) by changing the ``yes'' in column 3 to a ``no.'' We have
determined that 40 CFR 63.8(c)(1)(ii) is redundant to the current
monitoring requirement in 40 CFR 63.4168(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 63.4168(a)(4) to specify ``readily
available.''
f. 40 CFR 63.4130 Recordkeeping
We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table to subpart
NNNN (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
NNNN (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 63.4130(j), which requires a record of
``the date, time, and duration of each deviation,'' which the EPA is
retaining. The regulatory text in 40 CFR 63.4130(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 63.4130(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.'' For
this reason, the EPA is proposing to add to 40 CFR 63.4130(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 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
NNNN (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 63.4130(j)(4).
We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table to subpart
NNNN (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
NNNN (table 2) entry for 40 CFR 63.10(c)(15) by changing the ``yes'' in
column 3 to a ``no.'' The EPA is proposing that 40 CFR 63.10(c)(15) no
longer applies. When applicable, the provision allows an owner or
operator to use the affected source's SSM plan or records kept to
satisfy the recordkeeping 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 63.4130(k)(1)
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 63.4130(k)(2).
g. 40 CFR 63.4120 Reporting
We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table to subpart
NNNN (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 63.4120. 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 NNNN
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
63.4120(d)(1), (g)(6), (g)(8), and (g)(13)) 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
[[Page 46288]]
63.4090 or operating limit in Table 1 to subpart NNNN, 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 associated with the emission
rate with add-on controls option (40 CFR 63.4120(g)(13)), 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 63.4100(b), 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.
Further, we are proposing to apply these same reporting requirements to
deviations from the proposed new equipment standards associated with
high efficiency spray equipment (see proposed revisions in 40 CFR
63.4120(d)(2)(vi), (e)(2), and (e)(2)(v).
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 63.4120(j) 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)(i) that contains the description of the
previously required SSM report format and submittal schedule from this
section. These specifications are no longer necessary because the
events will be reported in otherwise required reports with similar
format and submittal requirements.
We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table to subpart
NNNN (table 2) entry for 40 CFR 63.10(d)(5)(ii) by changing the ``yes''
in column 3 to a ``no.'' Section 63.10(d)(5)(ii) describes an immediate
report for startups, shutdown, 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 63.4120(g)(8)
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 63.4120(g)(10) 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 Surface Coating of Large Appliances
NESHAP
We propose to amend 40 CFR 63.4166(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 control compliance option can use either EPA Method 25 or
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 many exhaust streams from coating operations
may contain methane from natural gas combustion, we are proposing to
allow facilities the option to measure this methane using Method 18 and
to subtract this 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 reference in 40 CFR
63.4166(a) and (b) to 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 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.
EPA is proposing to amend 40 CFR 63.4141(a)(1)(i) and (4) to remove
reference to paragraph (d)(4) of OSHA's Hazard Communication standard,
which dealt with OSHA-defined carcinogens. EPA is proposing to replace
that reference with its own list of hazardous air pollutants that must
be regarded as potentially carcinogenic based on EPA guidelines.
Although paragraph (d)(4) of OSHA's standard was deleted when the
Agency adopted the Globally Harmonized System of Hazard Communication
in 2012, it was replaced by section A.6.4.2 of mandatory Appendix A of
that standard, which reads as follows:
``Where OSHA has included cancer as a health hazard to be
considered by classifiers for a chemical covered by 29 CFR part 1910,
subpart Z, Toxic and Hazardous Substances, chemical manufacturers,
importers, and employers shall classify the chemical as a carcinogen.''
Thus, where OSHA has regulated workplace exposure to a chemical based,
at least in part, on carcinogenic risk, OSHA requires the chemical to
be classified as a carcinogen. OSHA suggests that EPA should refer to
section A.6.4.2 of Appendix A of 29 CFR 1910.1200 in its discussion of
section 63.4141 and consider chemicals that meet this requirement be
considered ``OSHA-defined carcinogens.''
We are proposing to replace these references to carcinogens in 29
CFR 1910.1200(d)(4) with a list (in proposed new Table 5 to subpart
NNNN) 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 subpart
NNNN 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/
[[Page 46289]]
600/8-87/045, August 1987),\26\ 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ 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
temperature sensor referred to in 40 CFR 63.4168(c)(3) for purposes of
performing periodic calibration and verification checks.
We propose to renumber 40 CFR 63.4130(k)(8) and (9) to be 40 CFR
63.4130(k)(7) and (8) because current paragraph 40 CFR 63.4130(k) is
missing a paragraph (k)(7). This revision will address any confusion
over this missing paragraph. We also propose to revise the rule
citation ``Sec. 63.4130(k)(9)'' in 40 CFR 63.4163(e) to be ``Sec.
63.4130(k)(8),'' consistent with the proposed renumbering of 40 CFR
63.4130(k)(9) to (k)(8).
Current 40 CFR 63.4931(a) allows records, ``where appropriate,'' to
be maintained as ``electronic spreadsheets'' or a ``data base.'' We
propose to add clarification to this provision that 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 revise various erroneous rule citations. We propose
to revise one instance in 40 CFR 63.4160(a)(1) and three instances in
40 CFR 63.4160(b)(1) that an erroneous rule citation ``Sec. 63.4183''
is specified. Section 63.4183 does not exist in 40 CFR part 63, subpart
NNNN, and 40 CFR 63.4083 is the correct citation, providing the
compliance dates referred to in association with the erroneous rule
citation. We propose to change the erroneous citation to ``Sec.
63.4083.'' We propose to revise one instance in 40 CFR 63.4110(b)(10)
of an erroneous rule citation ``Sec. 63.4081(d).'' This rule citation
is specified in 40 CFR 63.4110(b)(10) as the source for the allowance
to comply with the requirements of another subpart in lieu of the
requirements of this subpart NNNN. The correct citation for this
allowance is 40 CFR 63.4081(e), and we propose to change the erroneous
citation to ``Sec. 63.4081(e).'' We propose to revise one instance in
40 CFR 63.4130(f) and one instance in 40 CFR 63.4130(g) of an erroneous
rule citation of ``Sec. 63.4141(a).'' This rule citation is specified
in each 40 CFR 63.4130(f) and (g) as the source for the allowance that
the volume solids determination is not required for coatings for which
the mass fraction of organic HAP of the coating equals zero. However,
it is the introductory paragraph to 40 CFR 63.4141, not 40 CFR
63.4141(a), that provides the allowance to not be required to determine
the volume solids for zero-HAP coatings. We propose to change the
erroneous citation to ``Sec. 63.4141.'' We propose to revise one
instance in 40 CFR 63.4168(c)(2) that an erroneous rule citation
``Sec. 63.6167(b)(1) and (2)'' is specified. Section 40 CFR
63.6167(b)(1) and (2) does not exist in 40 CFR part 63, subpart NNNN.
Section 40 CFR 63.4167(b)(1) and (2) is the correct citation,
describing how to establish operating limits for catalytic oxidizers as
referred to in association with the erroneous rule citation. We propose
to change the erroneous citation to ``Sec. 63.4167(b)(1) and (2).'' We
propose to revise two instances in Table 2 to Subpart NNNN of Part 63
of an erroneous rule citation ``Sec. 63.4120(b).'' This rule citation
is specified in the fourth column of the table entry for ``Sec.
63.10(d)(2),'' as the source for the requirements related to reporting
results of performance tests. Section 40 CFR 63.4120(b) does not
provide these types of requirements; however, 40 CFR 63.4120(h)
provides these requirements. The correct citation for this allowance is
40 CFR 63.4120(h), and we propose to change the erroneous citation to
``Sec. 63.4120(h).'' The rule citation ``Sec. 63.4120(b)'' is also
specified in the fourth column of the table entry for ``Sec.
63.10(e)(3),'' as the source for the contents of periodic compliance
reports. Section 40 CFR 63.4120(b) does not provide the contents of
periodic compliance reports; however, 40 CFR 63.4120(g) provides these
requirements. The correct citation for this allowance is 40 CFR
63.4120(g), and we propose to change the erroneous citation to ``Sec.
63.4120(g).'' Current 40 CFR 63.4152(c) requires inclusion in the
semiannual compliance report of a statement that the source was in
compliance with the emission limitations during the reporting period.
We propose to add clarification to this provision that the requirement
to submit this statement applies only if there were no deviations from
the emission limitations.
d. Requesting Comment on 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 Surface Coating of Large Appliance
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.
As mentioned by the Institute of Clean Air Companies (ICAC) in
their comments on proposed revisions to the NESHAP General Provisions
(72 FR 69, January 3, 2007), ongoing maintenance and checks of control
devices are necessary in order to ensure emissions control technology
remains effective.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ 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 Large
Appliance Docket for this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Given these comments from ICAC, suppliers of air pollution control
and monitoring technology, on the need for vigilance in maintaining
equipment to stem degradation, the EPA is requesting comment on what
steps, in addition to one-time initial emissions and capture efficiency
testing, along with ongoing temperature measurement, might better
ensure ongoing compliance with the standards.
The EPA specifically is requesting comment on whether performance
testing should be required anytime a source plans to undertake an
operational change that may adversely affect compliance with an
applicable standard, operating limit, or parametric monitoring value.
Any such requirement would include provisions to allow a source to make
the change, but limit the change to a specific time before a test is
required. We anticipate that a reasonable time limit under the new
operations change would be approximately 30 days to allow adequate time
for testing and developing a test report. The source would submit
temperature and flow rate data during the test to establish new
operating parameters. We specifically are requesting comment on this
potential provision, including the time a source would be allowed to
operate under the new parameters before they test, and what would
constitute an operational change requiring testing.
[[Page 46290]]
This approach on which we are requesting comment could also allow
an exception from periodic testing for facilities using instruments to
continuously measure emissions. Such continuous emissions monitoring
systems (CEMS) would show actual emissions. 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.
The approach on which we are requesting comment would 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 control efficiency measurements in the compliance calculations.
The approach would require 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. Emissions would be measured as total
gaseous organic mass emissions as carbon using either 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 Costs/Impacts of the 40 CFR part 63
Subparts NNNN, OOOO and RRRR Monitoring Review Revisions, in the Large
Appliances Docket.
5. What compliance dates are we proposing?
The EPA is proposing that affected sources that commenced
construction or reconstruction on or before September 12, 2018 must
comply with all of the amendments, with the exception of the proposed
electronic format for submitting notifications and semiannual
compliance reports, no later than 181 days after the effective date of
the final rule. Affected sources that commence construction or
reconstruction after September 12, 2018 must comply with all
requirements of the subpart, including the amendments being proposed,
with the exception of the proposed electronic format for submitting
notifications and semiannual compliance reports, no later than the
effective date of the final rule or upon startup, whichever is later.
All affected facilities would have to continue to meet the current
requirements of 40 CFR part 63, subpart NNNN 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
NNNN. 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 using the new
template. 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 timeframe 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 and new affected sources that commenced
construction or reconstruction on or before September 12, 2018 be in
compliance with all of this regulation's revised requirements, except
for the requirement to use high efficiency spray equipment discussed
below, within 181 days of the regulation's effective date.
Under CAA section 112(d), we are proposing compliance dates for the
proposed requirement to use high efficiency spray equipment if the
source is not using the emission rate with add-on control compliance
option. For existing affected sources under this proposed action, we
propose to provide sources three years after the effective date of the
final rule to comply with the proposed requirement to use high
efficiency spray equipment. We are proposing a 3-year compliance date
for facilities that have not switched to high efficiency spray
equipment because facilities that are not yet using high efficiency
spray equipment have multiple alternative equipment types to consider
under this proposed rule. The 3-year compliance period will provide all
facilities sufficient time to source and purchase the specific type of
spray application equipment compatible with their operations.
Furthermore, the compliance period provides time for sources to verify
that the spray equipment they choose meets the transfer efficiency
requirements in this proposed rule. In addition, because a spray gun's
useful lifespan is approximately two years, the proposed three-year
compliance period will provide enough time for facilities to source and
purchase replacement guns on their current equipment purchase cycle,
develop any necessary operational procedures, and perform training.
Finally, the 3-year compliance period will ensure that a facility is
not required to replace a spray gun before it has time to identify and
source new guns and develop bid specification and operation procedures.
For new affected sources under this proposed action, the proposed
compliance date is the effective date of the final rule or upon
startup, whichever is later.
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 46291]]
B. What are the analytical results and proposed decisions for the
Printing, Coating, and Dyeing of Fabrics and Other Textiles source
category?
1. What are the results of the risk assessment and analyses?
As described above in section III of this preamble, for the
Printing, Coating, and Dyeing of Fabrics and Other Textiles 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 Fabrics and Other Textiles Risk Assessment Report in the Fabrics
and Other Textiles Docket (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0668).
a. Inhalation Risk Assessment Results
Table 3 below provides a summary of the results of the inhalation
risk assessment for the source category. As discussed in section
III.C.2 of this preamble, we determined that MACT-allowable HAP
emission levels at fabrics and other textiles printing, coating, and
dyeing facilities are equal to 1.1 times the actual emissions. For more
detail about the MACT-allowable emission levels, see Appendix 1 to the
Fabrics and Other Textiles Risk Assessment Report in the Fabrics and
Other Textiles Docket.
Table 3--Printing, Coating, and Dyeing of Fabrics and Other Textiles Source Category Inhalation Risk Assessment Results
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum individual Estimated population Estimated annual Maximum chronic Maximum screening acute
cancer risk (in 1 at increased risk of cancer incidence noncancer TOSHI 1 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................ 9 10 8,500 10,000 0.002 0.002 0.3 0.3 HQREL = 0.6
Whole Facility................. 9 .......... 12,200 .......... 0.003 .......... 0.3 .......... .......................
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 3 above, indicate that the maximum individual
cancer risk based on actual emissions (lifetime) could be up to 9-in-1
million, the maximum chronic noncancer TOSHI value based on actual
emissions could be up to 0.3, and the maximum screening acute noncancer
HQ value (off-facility site) could be up to 0.6. The total estimated
annual cancer incidence (national) from these facilities based on
actual emission levels is 0.002 excess cancer cases per year, or one
case in every 500 years.
b. Acute Risk Results
Table 3 also shows the acute risk results for the Printing,
Coating, and Dyeing of Fabrics and Other Textiles source category. The
screening analysis for acute impacts was based on an industry-specific
multiplier of 1.4, to estimate the peak emission rates from the average
emission rates. For more detailed acute risk results refer to the
Fabrics and Other Textiles Risk Assessment Report in the Fabrics and
Other Textiles Docket.
c. Multipathway Risk Screening Results
We did not identify any PB-HAP emitted by facilities in this 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 Printing, Coating, and Dyeing of Fabrics
and Other Textiles source category indicate that no environmental HAP
are emitted by sources within this source category. Therefore, we did
not conduct a screening-level evaluation of the potential adverse
environmental risks associated with emissions for the Printing,
Coating, and Dyeing of Fabrics and Other Textiles source category. We
do not expect an adverse environmental effect as a result of HAP
emissions from this source category.
e. Facility-Wide Risk Results
The results of our facility-wide assessment indicate that 12
facilities have a facility-wide cancer MIR greater than or equal to 1-
in-1 million. The maximum facility-wide cancer MIR is 9-in-1 million,
driven by ethylene oxide from fabric finishing. The total estimated
cancer incidence from the whole facility assessment is 0.003 excess
cancer cases per year, or one excess case in every 330 years.
Approximately 12,200 people were estimated to have cancer risks above
1-in-1 million from exposure to HAP emitted from both MACT and non-MACT
sources collocated at the 43 facilities in this source category. The
maximum facility-wide TOSHI for the source category is estimated to be
0.3, driven by emissions of trichloroethylene from adhesive
application.
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 Printing, Coating, and
Dyeing of Fabrics and Other Textiles source category across different
demographic groups within the populations living near facilities.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The results of the demographic analysis are summarized in Table 4
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.
[[Page 46292]]
Table 4--Printing, Coating, and Dyeing of Fabrics and Other Textiles Source Category Demographic Risk Analysis
Results
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Population with cancer Population with chronic
risk at or above 1-in-1 noncancer HI above 1
million due to due to printing,
Nationwide printing, coating, and coating, and dyeing of
dyeing of fabrics and fabrics and other
other textiles textiles
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Population..................... 317,746,049 8,500 0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
White and Minority by Percent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
White................................ 62 54 0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minority............................. 38 46 0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minority Detail by Percent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
African American..................... 12 39 0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Native American...................... 0.8 0.02 0
Hispanic or Latino................... 18 5 0
Other and Multiracial................ 7 2 0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Income by Percent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Below the Poverty Level.............. 14 26 0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Above the Poverty Level.............. 86 74 0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Education by Percent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Over 25 Without High a School Diploma 14 21 0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Over 25 With a High School Diploma... 86 79 0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The results of the Printing, Coating, and Dyeing of Fabrics and
Other Textiles source category demographic analysis indicate that
emissions from the source category expose approximately 8,500 people to
a cancer risk at or above 1-in-1 million and no one to a chronic
noncancer hazard index greater than 1. The percentages of the at-risk
population in the following specific demographic groups are higher than
their respective nationwide percentages: ``African American,'' ``Over
25 Without a HS Diploma,'' 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 Printing, Coating,
and Dyeing of Fabrics and Other Textiles Source Category Operations,
September 2017 (hereafter referred to as the Fabrics and Other Textiles
Demographic Analysis Report), available in the Fabrics and Other
Textiles 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 Printing, Coating, and Dyeing of Fabrics and Other Textiles
source category, the risk analysis indicates that the cancer risks to
the individual most exposed could be up to 9-in-1 million due to actual
emissions and up to 10-in-1 million 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 (0.002 cases per year for actual
emissions and allowable emissions), and we did not identify potential
for adverse chronic noncancer health effects. The acute noncancer risks
based on actual emissions is below an HQ of one for all facilities
(maximum of 0.6 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 that the risks from the Printing,
Coating, and Dyeing of Fabrics and Other Textiles source category are
acceptable.
b. Ample Margin of Safety Analysis
Although we are proposing that the risks from the Printing,
Coating, and Dyeing of Fabrics and Other Textiles source category are
acceptable, risk estimates for approximately 8,500 individuals in the
exposed population are above 1-in-1 million at the actual emissions
level and 10,000 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 Printing, Coating, and
[[Page 46293]]
Dyeing of Fabrics and Other Textiles 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 Printing, Coating, and Dyeing of Fabrics
and Other Textiles source category, and we reviewed various information
sources regarding emission sources that are currently regulated by the
Printing, Coating, and Dyeing of Fabrics and Other Textiles NESHAP.
Based on our review, we did not identify any developments in add-on
control technologies, other equipment or work practices and procedures
since the promulgation of the Printing, Coating, and Dyeing of Fabrics
and Other Textiles NESHAP. We note, however, that the only facility
that reported ethylene oxide emissions no longer emits this HAP as a
result of a process change, as discussed below in the technology review
discussion. Therefore, 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 Printing, Coating, and Dyeing of Fabrics
and Other Textiles source category indicate that no environmental HAP
are emitted by sources within this source category and we are unaware
of any adverse environmental effects caused by HAP emitted from 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 Printing, Coating, and Dyeing of Fabrics
and Other Textiles source category, and the EPA reviewed various
information sources regarding emission sources that are currently
regulated by Fabrics and Other Textiles NESHAP. These emission sources
include coating and printing, dyeing and finishing, and slashing of
fabrics and other textiles. Based on our review, we identified one
potential development in technology, a process change that eliminated
the use of ethylene oxide at one facility. During a recent site visit
to the facility, we learned that the ethylene oxide emissions were, in
fact, overstated by the facility. The facility confirmed that it no
longer uses the ethylene oxide-containing material due to cost. We note
that this was the only facility that reported ethylene oxide emissions,
and we conclude that ethylene oxide-containing materials are no longer
used in the industry, based on our information. We did not identify any
other developments in add-on control technologies, other equipment, or
work practices and procedures since the promulgation of the Printing,
Coating, and Dyeing of Fabrics and Other Textiles NESHAP. A brief
summary of the EPA's findings in conducting the technology review of
fabric printing, coating, and dyeing operations follows. For a detailed
discussion of the EPA's findings, refer to the Fabrics and Other
Textiles Technology Review Memorandum in the Fabrics and Other Textiles
Docket.
The technology basis for coating and printing subcategory
operations under the original MACT standards in the Printing, Coating,
and Dyeing of Fabrics and Other Textiles NESHAP was emission capture
and add-on control with an overall control efficiency of 97 percent for
existing sources and 98 percent for new or reconstructed sources.
During development of that rulemaking, we evaluated the use of
alternative coatings (i.e., waterborne, ultraviolet-curable, electron-
beam (EB)-curable, and thermal (a.k.a., hot-melt)) and more stringent
standards than the MACT floor level of control for organic HAP. EB-
curable coatings are coatings that use an electron beam as the radiant
energy source to initiate a photochemical reaction to generate a
crosslinked network of polymer on the substrate surface. However, we
did not adopt any of these alternatives because they were not
universally applicable and could not achieve the needed characteristics
for numerous types of products (67 FR 46028, July 11, 2002).
The technology basis for dyeing and finishing subcategory
operations at existing sources and new or reconstructed sources under
the original MACT standards in the Printing, Coating, and Dyeing of
Fabrics and Other Textiles NESHAP was the use of low-HAP materials
(i.e., the purchased materials used in the dyes and finishes applied at
a facility). During development of that rulemaking, we found that add-
on capture and control systems for organic HAP were not used at that
time by the industry for dyeing and finishing operations, and no
beyond-the-floor technology was identified (67 FR 46028, July 11,
2002).
The technology basis for the slashing subcategory operations at
existing sources and new or reconstructed sources under original MACT
standards in the Printing, Coating, and Dyeing of Fabrics and Other
Textiles NESHAP was the use of zero organic HAP materials. For these
materials, each organic HAP that is not an OSHA-defined carcinogen that
is measured to be present at less than one percent by weight is counted
as zero. We found that no add-on emission capture and control systems
for organic HAP were used by the industry. During development of that
rulemaking, we identified no beyond-the-floor technology that could
achieve a lower organic HAP content in materials ``as purchased'' than
zero percent HAP (67 FR 46028, July 11, 2002).
Using the RBLC database, we identified seven entries for facilities
currently subject to the Printing, Coating, and Dyeing of Fabrics and
Other Textiles NESHAP. We reviewed the state operating permits for the
seven facilities to determine if any are using technologies that exceed
MACT. Six of the seven permits included VOC emission limitations issued
prior to promulgation of the Printing, Coating, and Dyeing of Fabrics
and Other Textiles NESHAP. All seven facilities entered in the RBLC
database indicated they were meeting their VOC limits using solvent
substitution, solvent reformulation, low VOC adhesives, or condensation
controls. However, the VOC limits for four facilities were either
annual, monthly, or daily VOC emission limits. The remaining limits for
three facilities were VOC limits that were at least several times
higher than the HAP content limits in 40 CFR part 63, subpart OOOO for
the same subcategories. Because none of these limitations were more
stringent than the HAP content limits, none of these limitations
represented a development in practices, processes, and control
technologies for this source category.
Using the EPA's NEI and the ECHO databases, we identified 43
facilities (including the seven facilities mentioned above) that are
currently subject to the Printing, Coating, and
[[Page 46294]]
Dyeing of Fabrics and Other Textiles NESHAP. We reviewed their state
operating permits to determine the subcategory operations being
performed and the type of control used for those subcategories to
comply with the NESHAP. Our review of the state operating permits found
that the facilities using PTEs and add-on controls (e.g., carbon
adsorbers and thermal or catalytic oxidizers) were using them only on
fabric coating lines. We did not find any facilities in the printing,
dyeing and finishing, or slashing subcategories using add-on controls
for any of the other subcategories. The use of add-on controls is found
for the same subcategories for which they were found at the time of
MACT development. That is, facilities in the coating and printing
subcategory are using add-on controls and facilities in the dyeing and
finishing subcategory are using low-HAP coatings and are not using add-
on controls. (We found very few facilities that were performing both
coating and printing and no facilities performing just printing; most
facilities subject to 40 CFR part 63, subpart OOOO were performing
coating, but not printing.)
For the dyeing and finishing, and slashing subcategories, no
facilities are using add-on controls to comply. The technology basis
for these subcategories was the use of low-HAP (dyeing and finishing)
and non-HAP materials (slashing). We have not identified any other
process change or pollution prevention alternatives that could be
applied to these two subcategories that would further reduce the
emissions from these two subcategories.
Finally, we identified no developments in work practices or
procedures for the Printing, Coating, and Dyeing of Fabrics and Other
Textiles source category. However, we note that the one facility that
previously reported ethylene oxide has eliminated its use through a
process change, and we solicit comment on whether the agency should ban
the use of ethylene oxide in this source category under the technology
review. The current Printing, Coating, and Dyeing of Fabrics and Other
Textiles NESHAP requires affected sources using add-on controls as a
compliance strategy to 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, all coating operations for which emission
limits are established. The current work practice requirements address
all of the potential emission sources that are normally located outside
of the PTE that is routed to the control device, and no new measures
have been identified to further reduce the emissions from these
sources.
Based on a finding of no new developments in practices, processes,
and control technologies in the technology review for printing,
coating, and dyeing operations, we are not proposing to revise the
Printing, Coating, and Dyeing of Fabrics and Other Textiles NESHAP
emission limit requirements pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6). For
further discussion of the technology review results, refer to the
Fabrics and Other Textiles Technology Review Memorandum in the Fabrics
and Other Textiles Docket.
4. What other actions are we proposing?
In the Printing, Coating, and Dyeing of Fabrics and Other Textiles
source category, we are proposing to require electronic submittal of
notifications, semiannual reports, and compliance reports (which
include performance test reports). 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 also are proposing the addition of EPA Method 18, IBR of an
alternative test method, and various technical and editorial changes.
Our analyses and proposed changes related to these issues are discussed
in the sections below.
Though we are not proposing to change reporting frequency currently
in the rule, we are requesting comment on changing the reporting
frequency for all reports to EPA from semi-annual to annual due to the
potential redundancy of these reporting requirements. We recognize that
Title V permits have a statutory requirement for semi-annual reports,
which are generally reported to state regulatory agencies. However, we
are not certain that changing the report frequency for just the reports
submitted to EPA in this NESHAP will result in a reporting and
recordkeeping burden reduction. We request comment and supporting
information on the burden impact of changing the reporting requirement
to annual for the reporting to EPA.
a. Electronic Reporting Requirements
The EPA is proposing that owners and operators of facilities
subject to the Printing, Coating, and Dyeing of Fabrics and Other
Textiles NESHAP submit electronic copies of initial notifications
required in 40 CFR 63.9(b), notifications of compliance status required
in 40 CFR 63.9(h), performance test reports, and semiannual reports
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 Printing, Coating, and Dyeing
of Fabrics and Other Textiles source category is the same as for the
Surface Coating of Large Appliances source category as discussed in
section IV.A.4.a of this preamble. For further information regarding
the electronic data submission process, please refer to the memorandum
titled Electronic Reporting for Printing, Coating, and Dyeing of
Fabrics and Other Textiles, Subpart OOOO, May 2018, in the Fabrics and
Other Textiles Docket. No specific form is proposed at this time for
the initial notifications required in 40 CFR 63.9(b) and notifications
of compliance status required 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 Clearinghouse for Inventories and Emissions
Factors (CHIEF) Listserv. For semiannual reports, the EPA proposes that
owners or operators use the appropriate spreadsheet template in CEDRI
for 40 CFR part 63, subpart OOOO, or an alternate electronic file
format consistent with the form's extensible markup language schema.
For further information regarding the electronic data submission
process, please refer to the spreadsheet template attached to the
memorandum titled Electronic Reporting Template for Printing, Coating,
and Dyeing of Fabrics and Other Textiles, Subpart OOOO Semiannual
Reports, May 2018, in the Fabrics and Other Textiles Docket. We
specifically request comment on the format and usability of the
template (e.g., filling and uploading a provided spreadsheet versus
entering the required information into a fillable CEDRI web form), as
well as the content, layout, and overall design of the template. Prior
to availability of the final semiannual compliance report template in
CEDRI, owners or operators of affected sources will be required to
submit semiannual compliance reports as otherwise required by the
Administrator. After development of the final template, we will notify
sources about its availability via the CEDRI website and the CHIEF
[[Page 46295]]
Listserv.\29\ We plan to finalize a required reporting format with the
final rule. The owner or operator would begin submitting reports
electronically with the next report that is due, once the electronic
template has been available for at least one year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\ https://www.epa.gov/air-emissions-inventories/air-emissions-inventory-listservs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regarding submittal of performance test reports via EPA's ERT, as
discussed in section IV.A.4.a of this preamble for the Surface Coating
of Large Appliances 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 Printing, Coating, and Dyeing of Fabrics and Other
Textiles NESHAP, most of the EPA test methods (including EPA Methods 25
and 25A) listed under 40 CFR part 63, subpart OOOO, are currently
supported by the ERT. As discussed in section IV.A.4.a of this
preamble, we are proposing that performance test results collected
using test methods that are not supported by the ERT as listed on the
EPA's ERT website at the time of the test 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
Surface Coating of Large Appliances 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 63.4311(f), we address the situation for
facilities subject to the Printing, Coating, and Dyeing of Fabrics and
Other Textiles 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
63.4311(g), we address the situation for facilities subject to the
Printing, Coating, and Dyeing of Fabrics and Other Textiles 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.
b. Startup, Shutdown and Malfunction Requirements
1. Proposed Elimination of the SSM Exemption
The EPA is proposing to eliminate the SSM exemption in the
Printing, Coating, and Dyeing of Fabrics and Other Textiles NESHAP. The
EPA's proposed rationale for the elimination of the SSM exemption for
the Printing, Coating, and Dyeing of Fabrics and Other Textiles source
category is the same as for the Surface Coating of Large Appliances
source category, which is discussed in section IV.A.4.b.1 of this
preamble. We are also proposing several revisions to Table 3 to subpart
OOOO of 40 CFR part 63 (Applicability of General Provisions to Subpart
OOOO, hereafter referred to as the ``General Provisions table to
subpart OOOO'') 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 delete 40 CFR
63.4342(h), which specifies that deviations during SSM periods are not
violations. 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 Surface Coating of Large
Appliances source category, has not proposed alternate standards for
those periods in the Printing, Coating, and Dyeing of Fabrics and Other
Textiles NESHAP. Although no statutory language compels the EPA to set
standards for malfunctions, the EPA has the discretion to do so where
feasible, as further discussed in section IV.A.4.b.1 of this preamble
for the Surface Coating of Large Appliances source category. It is
unlikely that a malfunction of sources in the Printing, Coating, and
Dyeing of Fabrics and Other Textiles source category would result in a
violation of the standards for those facilities using the compliant
material or the emission rate without add-on controls option, since
they meet the emission limits without using add-on controls. It also is
unlikely that facilities using the add-on control option to meet the
emission limits would experience a malfunction that would result in a
violation, since compliance with the surface coating emission limits is
based on a rolling 12-month compliance period. However, it is not
inevitable that a malfunction would result in a violation of the
standards for those facilities using add-on controls; therefore, we are
considering the need for a work practice for periods of malfunction for
these facilities. In fact, the EPA has received information that it is
possible that a control device malfunction for sources in the Printing,
Coating, and Dyeing of Fabrics and Other Textiles source category could
potentially result in an emissions increase and potential violation of
the emissions limit. During these periods, it is possible that an
immediate line shutdown may not be feasible due to safety concerns, and
concerns that an immediate shutdown would result in the unnecessary
generation of hazardous wastes. In those cases, it may be appropriate
to establish a standard for malfunctions. Given the fact that emissions
testing during malfunctions is both economically and technically
infeasible, we would anticipate that a separate standard would be in
the form of a work practice standard. We are, therefore, soliciting
information on industry best practices and the best level of emission
control during malfunction events for the Printing, Coating, and Dyeing
of Fabrics and Other Textiles source category. We are also soliciting
information on the cost savings associated with these practices. In
addition, we are soliciting specific supporting data on organic HAP
emissions during malfunction events for this category, including the
cause of malfunction, the frequency of malfunction, duration of
malfunction, and the estimate of organic HAP emitted during each
malfunction. We also are asking specifically for comment on the use of
CEMS by facilities in this source category as a method to better
quantify organic HAP emissions during malfunctions and normal
operation.
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
[[Page 46296]]
event for the Surface Coating of Large Appliances source category,
which applies to this source category.
2. Proposed Revisions to the General Provisions Applicability Table
a. 40 CFR 63.4300(b) General Duty
We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table to subpart
OOOO (table 3) 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 63.4300(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 63.4300(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 OOOO (table 3) 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 63.4300(b).
b. SSM Plan
We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table to subpart
OOOO (table 3) 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 OOOO, the current provisions requiring the SSM plan in
40 CFR 63.4300(c) and requiring reporting related to the SSM plan in 40
CFR 63.4310(c)(9)(iv). As noted, the EPA is proposing to remove the SSM
exemptions. Therefore, affected units will be subject to an emission
standard during such events. The applicability of a standard during
such events will ensure that sources have ample incentive to plan for
and achieve compliance, and, thus, the SSM plan requirements are no
longer necessary.
c. Compliance With Standards
We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table to subpart
OOOO (table 3) 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.
We are also proposing to remove rule text in 40 CFR 63.4341(e)(4)
and (f)(4) and 40 CFR 63.4351(d)(4) 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.
d. 40 CFR 63.4360 Performance Testing
We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table to subpart
OOOO (table 3) 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 63.4360. 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.
e. Monitoring
We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table to subpart
OOOO (table 3) entry for 40 CFR 63.8(c)(1)(i) and (iii) 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 the General
Provisions table to subpart NNNN (table 3) entry for 40 CFR
63.8(c)(1)(ii) by changing the ``yes'' in column 3 to a ``no.'' We have
determined that 40 CFR 63.8(c)(1)(ii) is redundant to the current
monitoring requirement in 40 CFR 63.4364(a)(6) (i.e., ``maintain the
monitoring system in proper working order including, but not limited
to, maintaining necessary parts for routine repairs of the monitoring
equipment''), except 40 CFR 63.8(c)(1)(ii) requires that necessary
parts be ``readily'' available. We are proposing to revise 40 CFR
63.4967(a)(4) to replace ``maintaining'' with specify ``keeping readily
available.''
f. 40 CFR 63.4312 Recordkeeping
We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table to subpart
OOOO (table 3) 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
OOOO (table 3) 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 63.4312(i), which requires a record of
``the date, time, and duration of each deviation,''
[[Page 46297]]
which the EPA is retaining. The regulatory text in 40 CFR 63.4312(i)
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 63.4312(i) 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 63.4312(i) 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). We also propose
to revise 40 CFR 63.4312(i) to clarify that, if an owner or operator
uses the equivalent emission rate option to comply with this subpart,
the applicable information reported as currently required in 40 CFR
63.4311(a)(8)(ii) through (iv) satisfies the requirement to keep a
record of the estimate of the quantity of each regulated pollutant for
which the source failed to meet the standard and a description of the
method used to estimate the emissions. 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
OOOO (table 3) 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 63.4312(i)(5).
We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table to subpart
OOOO (table 3) 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
OOOO (table 3) entry for 40 CFR 63.10(c)(15) by changing the ``yes'' in
column 3 to a ``no.'' The EPA is proposing that 40 CFR 63.10(c)(15) no
longer apply. 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 63.4312(j)(1)
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 63.4312(j)(2).
g. 40 CFR 63.4311 Reporting
We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table to subpart
OOOO (table 3) 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 63.4311. 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 OOOO
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 63.4311(a)(7)(vii), (a)(7)(ix), and (a)(7)(xiv)) 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 sources or
equipment. For deviation reports addressing deviations from an
applicable emission limit in Table 1 to subpart OOOO or operating limit
in Table 2 to subpart OOOO, 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 associated with the emission rate with add-on
controls option (see proposed revisions to 40 CFR 63.4311(a)(7)(xiv)),
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
63.4200(b), 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 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
[[Page 46298]]
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 63.4311(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)(i) that contains the description of the previously required
SSM report format and submittal schedule from this section. These
specifications are no longer necessary because the events will be
reported in otherwise required reports with similar format and
submittal requirements.
We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table to subpart
OOOO (table 3) entry for 40 CFR 63.10(d)(5)(ii) by changing the ``yes''
in column 3 to a ``no.'' Section 63.10(d)(5)(ii) describes an immediate
report for startups, shutdown, 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
63.4311(a)(7)(ix) 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
63.4311(a)(7)(xi) 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 Surface
Coating of Large Appliances source category, which also applies to this
source category.
c. Technical Amendments to the Printing, Coating, and Dyeing of Fabrics
and Other Textiles NESHAP
We propose to amend 40 CFR 63.4331, Equation 7; 40 CFR
63.4350(a)(3) and (b)(3); and 40 CFR 63.4351(a) and (e) to correct the
references to the alternative control device outlet organic HAP
concentration limit from 20 parts per million by weight (ppmw) to 20
ppmv. The reference to ppmw was incorrect and inconsistent with the
rest of the NESHAP.
We propose to amend 40 CFR 63.4362(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 control compliance option can use either EPA Method 25 or
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 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 reference in 40 CFR
63.4362(a) and (b) to 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 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.
EPA is proposing to amend 40 CFR 63.4321(e)(1)(i)(A) and
(e)(1)(iv), which describe how to demonstrate initial compliance with
the emission limitations using the compliant material option, to remove
reference to paragraph (d)(4) of OSHA's Hazard Communication standard,
which dealt with OSHA-defined carcinogens. EPA is proposing to replace
that reference with its own list of hazardous air pollutants that must
be regarded as potentially carcinogenic based on EPA guidelines.
Although paragraph (d)(4) of OSHA's standard was deleted when the
Agency adopted the Globally Harmonized System of Hazard Communication
in 2012, it was replaced by section A.6.4.2 of mandatory Appendix A of
that standard, which reads as follows:
``Where OSHA has included cancer as a health hazard to be
considered by classifiers for a chemical covered by 29 CFR part 1910,
subpart Z, Toxic and Hazardous Substances, chemical manufacturers,
importers, and employers shall classify the chemical as a carcinogen.''
Thus, where OSHA has regulated workplace exposure to a chemical based,
at least in part, on carcinogenic risk, OSHA requires the chemical to
be classified as a carcinogen. OSHA suggests that EPA should refer to
section A.6.4.2 of Appendix A of 29 CFR 1910.1200 in its discussion of
section 63.4141 and consider chemicals that meet this requirement be
considered ``OSHA-defined carcinogens.''
We also propose to remove the same reference in the definition of
``No organic HAP'' in 40 CFR 63.4371. We propose to replace these
references to OSHA-defined carcinogens at 29 CFR 1910.1200(d)(4) with a
list (in proposed new Table 6 to subpart OOOO) 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 6 to subpart
OOOO 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
temperature indicator referred to in 40 CFR 63.4364(c) for purposes of
performing periodic calibration and verification checks.
Current 40 CFR 63.4931(a) allows records, ``where appropriate,'' to
be maintained as ``electronic spreadsheets'' or a ``data base.'' We
propose to add clarification to this provision that 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
[[Page 46299]]
delegated air agency or the EPA as part of an on-site compliance
evaluation.
We propose to revise a reporting requirement in 40 CFR 63.4342(f)
to harmonize the requirement with the same reporting requirement in 40
CFR 63.4311(a)(4). Section 40 CFR 63.4342(f) requires ``If there were
no deviations from the applicable emission limit in Table 1 to this
subpart,'' then the source (i.e., coating/printing or dyeing/finishing
operation) must submit a statement that the source is ``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 Table 1 to this subpart, and
you achieved the operating limits required by Sec. 63.4292 and the
work practice standards required by Sec. 63.4293 during each
compliance period.'' We are proposing to revise the text; ``If there
were no deviations from the applicable emission limit in Table 1 to
this subpart,'' to read ``If there were no deviations from the
applicable emission limitations in Sec. Sec. 63.4290, 63.4292, and
63.4293.'' This revised text will be consistent with the same reporting
requirement in 40 CFR 63.4311(a)(4) that requires the same statement to
be reported if ``there were no deviations from the emission limitations
in Table 1 to this subpart and Sec. Sec. 63.4292, and 63.4293.'' Note
that ``emission limitation'' is defined in 40 CFR 63.4371 to mean an
emission limit, operating limit, or work practice standard.
We propose to revise one instance in 40 CFR 63.4311(a)(7)(i)(B) and
one instance in 40 CFR 63.4311(a)(7)(ii)(B) that reference an equation
that is missing. Each of these provisions specifies that ``Equations 4,
4A, 5, and 7 of Sec. 63.4331'' must be used to calculate the organic
HAP emission rate for dyeing/finishing operations; however, Equation 6
of Sec. 63.4331 should also be used, together with Equations 4, 4A, 5,
and 7 of Sec. 63.4331. We propose to add ``6'' to the list of
equations cited in 40 CFR 63.4311(a)(7)(i)(B) and 63.4311(a)(7)(ii)(B),
so that the citation reads ``Equations 4, 4A, 5, 6, and 7 of Sec.
63.4331.'' We propose to revise one instance in 40 CFR 63.4340(b)(3) in
which an erroneous rule citation ``Sec. 63.4561'' is specified.
Section 63.4561 does not exist in 40 CFR part 63, subpart OOOO, and 40
CFR 63.4341 is the correct citation, providing the calculations for
demonstrating initial compliance, referred to in association with the
erroneous rule citation. We propose to change the erroneous citation to
``Sec. 63.4341.'' We propose to revise one instance in Table 3 to
Subpart OOOO of Part 63 of an erroneous rule reference to ``sections
63.4342 and 63.4352.'' This rule citation is specified in the fourth
column of the table entry for ``Sec. 63.8(g)(1)-(5),'' as the source
for the requirements related to reducing monitoring data. Sections 40
CFR 63.4342 and 63.4352 do not provide requirements related to data
reduction; however, 40 CFR 63.4363 and 63.4364 do provide these
requirements and should be the correct citation. We propose to change
the erroneous citation to ``Sections 63.4363 and 63.4364.''
d. Requesting Comment on 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 Printing, Coating, and Dyeing of
Fabrics and Other Textiles 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.
As described more fully in section IV.A.4.d of this preamble for
the Surface Coating of Large Appliances source category, the ICAC, in
their comments on proposed revisions 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.\31\ These same comments apply to the Printing,
Coating, and Dyeing of Fabrics and Other Textiles source category.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\31\ 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 Fabrics
and Other Textiles Docket for this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Given these comments from ICAC, suppliers of air pollution control
and monitoring technology, on the need for vigilance in maintaining
equipment to stem degradation, the EPA is requesting comment on what
steps, in addition to one-time initial emissions and capture efficiency
testing, along with ongoing temperature measurement, might better
ensure ongoing compliance with the standards.
EPA specifically requests comment on whether air performance
testing should be required anytime a source plans to undertake an
operational change that may adversely affect compliance with an
applicable standard, operating limit, or parametric monitoring value.
This requirement would include provisions to allow a source to make the
change, but limit the change to a specific time before a test is
required. We anticipate that a reasonable time limit under the new
operations change would be approximately 30 days to allow adequate time
for testing and developing a test report. The source would submit
temperature and flow rate data during the test to establish new
operating parameters. We are specifically requesting comment on this
potential provision, including the time a source is allowed to operate
under the new parameters before they test, and what would constitute an
operational change requiring testing.
This approach would require 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. Emissions would be measured as
total gaseous organic mass emissions as carbon using either 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 Costs/Impacts of the 40 CFR part 63
Subparts NNNN, OOOO and RRRR Monitoring Review Revisions, in the
Fabrics and Other Textiles Docket.
5. What compliance dates are we proposing?
The EPA is proposing that affected sources that commenced
construction or reconstruction on or before September 12, 2018 must
comply with all of the amendments, with the exception of the proposed
electronic format for submitting notifications and semiannual
compliance reports, no later than 181 days after the effective date of
the final rule. Affected sources that commence construction or
reconstruction after September 12, 2018 must comply with all
requirements of the subpart, including the amendments being proposed,
with the exception of the proposed electronic format for submitting
notifications and semiannual compliance reports, no later than the
effective date of the final rule or upon startup, whichever is later.
All affected facilities would have to continue to meet the current
requirements of 40 CFR
[[Page 46300]]
part 63, subpart OOOO 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
OOOO. 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 using the new
template. 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 timeframe 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
all affected sources that commenced construction or reconstruction on
or before September 12, 2018 be in compliance with all of this
regulation's revised requirements within 181 days of the regulation's
effective date.
We solicit comment on the 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 aanalytical results and proposed decisions for the
Surface Coating of Metal Furniture source category?
1. What are the results of the risk assessment and analyses?
As described in section III of this preamble, for the Surface
Coating of Metal Furniture 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 Metal Furniture Risk
Assessment Report in the Metal Furniture Docket (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2017-0669).
a. Inhalation Risk Assessment Results
Table 5 of this preamble provides a summary of the results of the
inhalation risk assessment for the source category. As discussed in
section III.C.2 of this preamble, we set MACT-allowable HAP emission
levels at metal furniture coating facilities equal to 1.8 times actual
emissions. For more detail about the MACT-allowable emission levels,
see Appendix 1 to the Metal Furniture Risk Assessment Report in the
Metal Furniture Docket.
Table 5--Surface Coating of Metal Furniture Source Category Inhalation Risk Assessment Results
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum individual Estimated population Estimated annual Maximum chronic Maximum Screening Acute
cancer risk (in 1 at increased risk of cancer incidence noncancer TOSHI \1\ 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................ 7 10 2,100 4,200 0.0004 0.0008 0.2 0.3 HQREL = 2
Whole Facility................. 7 .......... 2,200 .......... 0.0005 .......... 0.1 .......... .......................
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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 5 of this preamble, indicate that the maximum
individual cancer risk based on actual emissions (lifetime) could be up
to 7-in-1 million, the maximum chronic noncancer TOSHI value based on
actual emissions could be up to 0.2, and the maximum screening acute
noncancer HQ value (off-facility site) could be up to 2. The total
estimated annual cancer incidence (national) from these facilities
based on actual emission levels is 0.0004 excess cancer cases per year
or one case in every 2,500 years.
b. Acute Risk Results
Table 5 of this preamble shows the acute risk results for the
Surface Coating of Metal Furniture source category. The screening
analysis for acute impacts was based on an industry specific multiplier
of 1.8, to estimate the peak emission rates from the average rates. For
more detailed acute risk results refer to the Metal Furniture Risk
Assessment Report in the Metal Furniture Docket.
c. Multipathway Risk Screening Results
We did not identify any PB-HAP emitted by facilities in this 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 Surface Coating of Metal Furniture
source category indicate that no environmental HAP are emitted by
sources within this source category. Therefore, we did not conduct a
screening-level evaluation of the potential adverse environmental risks
associated with emissions for the Surface Coating of Metal Furniture
source category. We do not expect an adverse environmental effect as a
result
[[Page 46301]]
of HAP emissions from this source category.
e. Facility-Wide Risk Results
Four facilities have a facility-wide cancer MIR greater than or
equal to 1-in-1 million. The maximum facility-wide cancer MIR is 7-in-1
million, driven by ethyl benzene. The total estimated cancer incidence
from the whole facility is 0.0005 excess cancer cases per year, or one
excess case in every 2,000 years. Approximately 2,200 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 16 facilities in
this source category. The maximum facility-wide TOSHI for the source
category is estimated to be 0.1.
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 Surface Coating of
Metal Furniture source category across different demographic groups
within the populations living near facilities.\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\32\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The results of the demographic analysis are summarized in Table 6
below. 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 6--Surface Coating of Metal Furniture Source Category Demographic Risk Analysis Results
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Population with cancer Population with chronic
risk at or above 1-in-1 noncancer hazard index
million due to Surface above 1 due to Surface
Nationwide Coating of Metal Coating of Metal
Furniture source Furniture source
category category
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Population..................... 317,746,049 2,100 0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
White and Minority
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
White................................ 62 62 0
Minority............................. 38 38 0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minority Detail by Percent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
African American..................... 12 7 0
Native American...................... 0.8 0 0
Hispanic or Latino................... 18 30 0
Other and Multiracial................ 7 2 .......................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Income by Percent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Below the Poverty Level.............. 14 23 0
Above the Poverty Level.............. 86 77 0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Education by Percent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Over 25 Without a High School Diploma 14 34 0
Over 25 With a High School Diploma... 86 66 0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The results of the Surface Coating of Metal Furniture source
category demographic analysis indicate that emissions from the source
category expose approximately 2,100 people to a cancer risk at or above
1-in-1 million and no one 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: ``Hispanic or Latino,'' ``Over 25 Without a HS Diploma,''
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
Metal Furniture Source Category Operations, October 2017, available in
the Metal Furniture 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 Surface Coating of Metal Furniture source category, the
risk analysis indicates that the cancer risks to the individual most
exposed could be up to 7-in-1 million due to actual emissions and up to
10-in-1 million 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 (0.0004 cases per year for actual emissions, or one case in
every
[[Page 46302]]
2,500 years, and 0.0008 cases per year for allowable emissions or one
case in every 1,250 years), and we did not identify potential for
adverse chronic noncancer health effects. The acute noncancer risks
based on actual emissions is an HQ of 2 for glycol ethers. 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
Surface Coating of Metal Furniture source category are acceptable.
b. Ample Margin of Safety Analysis
Although we are proposing that the risks from the Surface Coating
of Metal Furniture source category are acceptable, risk estimates for
approximately 2,100 individuals in the exposed population are above 1-
in-1 million at the actual emissions level and 4,200 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 Surface Coating of Metal Furniture 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 further reduce the risk from the source category. This
information was considered along with our determination of the health
risks 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 Surface Coating of Metal Furniture source
category, and the EPA reviewed various information sources regarding
emission sources that are currently regulated by the Surface Coating of
Metal Furniture NESHAP.
The only development identified in the technology review is the use
of high-efficiency spray equipment. We estimated no costs or emissions
reductions that would be achieved by switching to high efficiency
application methods for this source category because we expect that
metal furniture surface coating facilities are already using high
efficiency coating application methods due to state VOC rules and the
economic incentives of using more efficient application methods. As
discussed below, however, we are proposing to require this technology
under the technology review. We request comment on this proposed
requirement and whether any facilities in this source category do not
currently use high efficiency coating application methods.
Based on our review, we did not identify any developments in add-on
control technologies, other equipment, or work practices and procedures
that would reduce HAP from the industry. Therefore, 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 Surface Coating of Metal Furniture
source category indicate that no environmental HAP are emitted by
sources within this source category and we are unaware of any adverse
environmental effects caused by HAP emitted from 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 Surface Coating of Metal Furniture source
category, and the EPA reviewed various information sources regarding
emission sources that are currently regulated by the Surface Coating of
Metal Furniture NESHAP. These emission sources include coating mixing;
coating application; coating curing; conveying coatings, thinners and
cleaning materials; and waste storage and handling. Based on our
review, we identified, as outlined below, one development in
technology, the application of high-efficiency spray equipment, for the
Surface Coating of Metal Furniture source category. A brief summary of
the EPA's findings in conducting the technology review of metal
furniture surface coating operations follows. For a detailed discussion
of the EPA's findings, refer to the Metal Furniture Technology Review
Memorandum in the Metal Furniture Docket.
The technology basis for the original MACT standards for existing
sources under the Surface Coating of Metal Furniture NESHAP was a
combination of low-HAP liquid (high-solids and waterborne) coatings and
cleaning solvents, and powder coatings. During development of that
rulemaking, we found that add-on capture and control systems for
organic HAP were rarely used by the industry at that time; of the 22
existing sources that were the basis of the MACT analysis, only one
source was identified as using an add-on control (a carbon adsorber/
oxidizer system).\33\ The original MACT basis for new or reconstructed
sources under the NESHAP was the use of non-HAP coatings, including the
use of powder coatings and the use of non-HAP liquid coatings. Under
the final original MACT standards, new or reconstructed affected
sources must emit no organic HAP during each compliance period.
Existing affected sources must limit organic HAP emissions to no more
than 0.10 kg organic HAP/liter (0.83 lb/gal) of coating solids used
during each compliance period. The use of a PTE and add-on control was
considered during development of the Metal Furniture NESHAP, but was
rejected as not cost effective for the incremental emission reductions
that would be achieved relative to the MACT floor level of control.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\33\ National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
(NESHAP) for Source Category: Metal Furniture Surface Coating--
Background Information for Proposed Standards. EPA-453/R-01-010.
October 2001. Table 6-1, pp. 6-3 to 6-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Using the RBLC database, we identified entries for two facilities
currently subject to the Surface Coating of Metal Furniture NESHAP. We
reviewed the state operating permits for the two facilities in the RBLC
database, and for all other facilities known to be subject to 40 CFR
part 63, subpart RRRR to determine if any are using technologies that
exceed MACT or that were not considered during the development of the
original NESHAP. None of these facilities are using add-on controls to
comply with the Surface Coating of Metal Furniture NESHAP, and none of
these facilities are using any other technology that exceeds MACT or
that was not considered during the development of the original NESHAP.
We have also found no information that any improvements in PTE and
add-on control technology have occurred that would affect the cost
effectiveness of a PTE and add-on control or result in additional
emission reductions. We have not identified any changes that would
increase the efficiency of these controls or reduce their cost.
Therefore, the EPA does not consider the use of a PTE and add-on
control to be a
[[Page 46303]]
development in technology for the metal furniture source category. This
result is consistent with the technology review determinations for the
Wood Furniture Manufacturing Operations NESHAP (75 FR 80247, December
21, 2010) and for the Shipbuilding and Ship Repair (Surface Coating)
NESHAP (75 FR 80239, December 21, 2010) that the incremental emissions
reductions that would be achieved using PTE and add-on control would
not warrant the additional cost that each existing source would incur.
We considered PTEs and add-on controls in the development of the
original Surface Coating of Metal Furniture NESHAP, but we rejected
these systems as a beyond-the-floor options for MACT for the source
category because the additional reductions, compared to a combination
of low-HAP liquid coatings and powder coatings, would not justify the
additional costs (67 FR 20206, at 20216, April 24, 2002). None of the
facilities currently subject to the Metal Furniture NESHAP are using
add-on controls, and we have not identified any add-on control
technology or other equipment that has been developed that was not
identified and considered during MACT standard development. Similarly,
we have identified no improvements in add-on control technology or
other equipment, and no change in the cost effectiveness of add-on
controls that were identified and considered during MACT standard
development that could result in additional emission reductions.
We have not identified 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 Metal
Furniture MACT standard. We reviewed other sources for information on
recent trends in coating technology in the metal furniture industry.
The ACA Industry Market Analysis has reported that the technology for
non-wood (predominantly metal) furniture coating has been stable over
the period since the NESHAP was promulgated, with a slow and steady
increase in the use of powder and high-solids coatings. According to
the ACA Industry Market Analysis, liquid coatings still account for
about 75 percent of the coatings used on non-wood furniture and
fixtures, but greater than 80 percent of the liquid coatings are high-
solids coatings. Powder coatings and high solids (lower-HAP coatings)
were considered during development of the original NESHAP and are the
basis for the MACT standards, so these technologies do not represent
developments in practices, processes, or control technologies since the
Surface Coating of Metal Furniture NESHAP was promulgated. Rather, the
shift to use of more powder and higher solids coatings has occurred as
an expected response to comply with the original Surface Coating of
Metal Furniture NESHAP. The ACA Industry Market Analysis reported that
the growth in powder coating demand has slowed since 2005, as the
technology has matured and the powders are seen as commodities with
little product differentiation.
The technology review conducted for the Wood Furniture
Manufacturing Operations NESHAP (40 CFR part 63, subpart JJ) identified
the use of more efficient spray equipment as a development in process
equipment, and adopted regulations preventing the use of conventional
air-atomized spray guns. The Wood Furniture Manufacturing MACT
identified the use of air-assisted airless spraying as a more efficient
coating application technology.
The Surface Coating of Metal Furniture NESHAP does not contain any
standards specifying the type of spray equipment that must be used when
coatings are spray-applied. Several other surface coating NESHAP
specify that high efficiency spray guns must be used for spray applied
coatings (i.e., 40 CFR part 63, subparts GG and JJ) or the compliance
demonstration takes into account the transfer efficiency of the spray
equipment, and the standards are based on high-efficiency spray
application (e.g., 40 CFR part 63, subpart IIII). Using high-efficiency
spray equipment increases the amount of coating applied to the
substrate compared to conventional spray equipment and, therefore,
reduces emissions. Many facilities complying with 40 CFR part 63,
subpart RRRR are required by state VOC regulations in Indiana, Ohio,
and Wisconsin to use high-efficiency spray guns for coatings that are
spray applied. We expect that most other metal furniture surface
coating facilities also are using high-efficiency application equipment
for spray applied coatings as a cost saving measure to reduce coating
and spray booth filter consumption and to reduce the amount of solid
waste generated in the form of used spray booth filters. Although we
expect that the high-efficiency application equipment would provide
cost savings from an engineering perspective, we are uncertain of other
factors that facilities may need to consider if choosing to switch to
high-efficiency application equipment. Due to the competitive
marketplace and the number of units going through these surface coating
facilities, there may be facility specific operational, coating
adherence, coating drying time, material compatibility, or other
reasons that a facility may not have chosen to switch to high-
efficiency spray. We request comment on these and other aspects of
facility decision making as the agency has limited information on the
market penetration of this technology and these other factors.
Based on these findings, we are proposing to revise the Surface
Coating of Metal Furniture NESHAP for coating application operations
pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6) to require that, for each coating
operation for which coatings are spray applied, high efficiency spray
equipment must be used if the source is not using the emission rate
with add-on control compliance option. Specifically, all spray-applied
coating operations, where the source is not using the emission rate
with add-on control compliance option, must be demonstrated to achieve
transfer efficiency equivalent to or better than 65 percent. There are
four types of high efficiency spray equipment technologies that have
been applied in these applications that could achieve the transfer
efficiency equivalent to or better than 65 percent including high
volume, low pressure (HVLP) spray equipment, electrostatic application,
airless spray equipment, and air assisted airless spray equipment.
Alternative spray equipment technologies may also be used with
documentation demonstrating at least 65 percent transfer efficiency.
Spray application equipment sources not using the emission rate with
add-on control compliance option, and/or using alternative spray
application equipment technologies other than the four listed, must
follow procedures in the California South Coast Air Quality Management
District's, ``Spray Equipment Transfer Efficiency Test Procedure for
Equipment User, May 24, 1989'' to demonstrate that their spray
application equipment is capable of achieving transfer efficiency
equivalent to, or better than, 65 percent. Equivalency documentation
may be certified by manufacturers of the spray equipment, on behalf of
spray-applied coating operations sources, by following the
aforementioned procedure in conjunction with California South Coast Air
Quality Management District's ``Guidelines for Demonstrating
Equivalency with District Approved Transfer Efficient Spray Guns,
September 26, 2002.'' When using these equivalency procedures and/or
guidelines, facilities would not be required to submit an application
with
[[Page 46304]]
the test plan or protocol to the Administrator, conduct the test in the
presence of an Administrator's representative, or submit test results
to the Administrator for review or approval. Instead, they would be
required to maintain records demonstrating the transfer efficiency
achieved, including a description of the procedures and/or guidelines
used. We are proposing that all spray equipment used for spray-applied
coating operations would be required to be operated according to
company procedures, local specified operating procedures, or the
manufacturer's specifications, whichever is determined to meet the 65
percent transfer efficiency. Further, we are proposing related
definitions for ``airless and air-assisted airless spray,''
``electrostatic application,'' ``high-volume, low-pressure (HVLP) spray
equipment,'' ``spray-applied coating operations,'' ``and transfer
efficiency.''
Considering just the incremental cost of the high efficiency spray
equipment and savings due to using less material consumption, we expect
that all facilities have already switched to high efficiency
application methods for the reasons discussed in the technology review
section for surface coating of large appliances. We have not estimated
the emissions reductions achieved by switching to high efficiency
application methods for this source category because we expect that all
large appliance surface coating facilities are using high efficiency
coating application methods. However, if any facilities switch to high
efficiency application equipment, there would likely be emission
reductions of the same magnitude as would occur in the large appliance
surface coating source category. For more information on the cost of
spray gun equipment and potential HAP emission reductions, see the
memorandum titled Impacts of Prohibiting the Use of Conventional Spray
Guns in the Wood Manufacturing Operations Source Category (Docket ID
Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0786 EPA). Refer to section IV.A.5 of this
preamble for a discussion of the compliance schedule for using high
efficiency spray equipment.
Finally, we identified no developments in work practices or
procedures for the Surface Coating of Metal Furniture source category,
including work practices and procedures that are currently prescribed
in the NESHAP. The current Surface Coating of Metal Furniture NESHAP
standards require that, if a facility uses add-on controls to comply
with the emission limitations (and currently no facilities do this),
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, all coating operations for which emission
limits are established. The current work practice requirements address
all the potential emission sources that are normally located outside of
the PTE that is routed to the control device, and no new measures have
been identified to further reduce the emissions from these sources.
Refer to section IV.C.5 of this preamble for a discussion of the
compliance schedule for using high efficiency spray equipment. For
further discussion of the technology review results, refer to the Metal
Furniture Technology Review Memorandum in the Metal Furniture Docket.
4. What other actions are we proposing?
We are proposing to require electronic submittal of notifications,
semiannual reports, and compliance reports (which include performance
test reports). 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 (DC Cir.
2008), which vacated two provisions that exempted sources from the
requirement to comply with otherwise applicable CAA section 112(d)
emission standards during periods of SSM. We also are proposing the
addition of EPA Method 18, various technical and editorial changes, and
IBR of alternative test methods. Our analyses and proposed changes
related to these issues are discussed in the sections below.
Though we are not proposing to change reporting frequency currently
in the rule, we are requesting comment on changing the reporting
frequency for all reports to EPA from semi-annual to annual due to the
potential redundancy of these reporting requirements. We recognize that
Title V permits have a statutory requirement for semi-annual reports,
which are generally reported to state regulatory agencies. However, we
are not certain that changing the report frequency for just the reports
submitted to EPA in this NESHAP will result in a reporting and
recordkeeping burden reduction. We request comment and supporting
information on the burden impact of changing the reporting requirement
to annual for the reporting to EPA.
a. Electronic Reporting Requirements
The EPA is proposing that owners and operators of facilities
subject to the Surface Coating of Metal Furniture NESHAP submit
electronic copies of initial notifications required in 40 CFR 63.9(b),
notifications of compliance status required in 40 CFR 63.9(h),
performance test reports, and semiannual reports 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 Surface Coating of Metal Furniture source category
is the same as for the Surface Coating of Large Appliances source
category, which is discussed above in section IV.A.4.a of this
preamble. For further information regarding the electronic data
submission process, please refer to the memorandum titled Electronic
Reporting for Surface Coatings of Metal Furniture, May 2018, in the
Metal Furniture Docket. No specific form is proposed at this time for
the initial notifications required in 40 CFR 63.9(b) and notifications
of compliance status required 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, the
EPA proposes that owners or operators use the appropriate spreadsheet
template in CEDRI for 40 CFR part 63, subpart RRRR, or an alternate
electronic file format consistent with the form's extensible markup
language schema. For further information regarding the electronic data
submission process, please refer to the spreadsheet template attached
to the memorandum Electronic Reporting Template for Surface Coating of
Metal Furniture, Subpart RRRR Semiannual Reports, May 2018, in the
Metal Furniture Docket. We specifically request comment on the format
and usability of the template (e.g., filling and uploading a provided
spreadsheet versus entering the required information into a fillable
CEDRI web form), as well as the content, layout, and overall design of
the template. Prior to availability of the final semiannual compliance
report template in CEDRI, owners or operators of affected sources will
be required to submit semiannual compliance reports as otherwise
required by the Administrator. After development of the final template,
we will notify sources about its availability via the CEDRI website and
the CHIEF
[[Page 46305]]
Listserv.\34\ We plan to finalize a required reporting format with the
final rule. The owner or operator would begin submitting reports
electronically with the next report that is due, once the electronic
template has been available for at least one year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\34\ https://www.epa.gov/air-emissions-inventories/air-emissions-inventory-listservs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regarding submittal of performance test reports via the EPA's ERT,
as discussed in section IV.A.4.a of this preamble for the Surface
Coating of Large Appliances 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 Surface Coating of Metal Furniture
NESHAP, most of the current EPA test methods listed under 40 CFR part
63, subpart RRRR, are currently supported by the ERT, including EPA
Methods 25 and 25A. EPA Method 18, which is proposed for measuring and
subtracting methane from total organic compounds as measured by current
EPA Method 25 or 25A, is not supported by ERT. As discussed in section
IV.A.4.a of this preamble, we are proposing that performance test
results collected using test methods that are not supported by the ERT
as listed on the EPA's ERT website at the time of the test 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
Surface Coating of Large Appliances 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 63.4921(d), we address the situation for
facilities subject to the Surface Coating of Metal Furniture 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 40 CFR 63.4921(e), we address the situation for
facilities subject to the Surface Coating of Metal Furniture 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.
b. Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction Requirements
1. Proposed Elimination of the SSM Exemption
The EPA is proposing to eliminate the SSM exemption in the Surface
Coating of Metal Furniture NESHAP. The EPA's proposed rationale for the
elimination of the SSM exemption for the Surface Coating of Metal
Furniture source category is the same as for the Surface Coating of
Large Appliances 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 RRRR of 40 CFR part 63 (Applicability of General
Provisions to Subpart RRRR, hereafter referred to as the ``General
Provisions table to subpart RRRR'') 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 Surface Coating of Large
Appliances source category, has not proposed alternate standards for
those periods in the Surface Coating of Metal Furniture NESHAP.
Although no statutory language compels the EPA to set standards for
malfunctions, the EPA has the discretion to do so where feasible, as
further discussed in section IV.A.4.b.1 of this preamble for the
Surface Coating of Large Appliances source category. Further, it is
unlikely that a malfunction of sources in the Surface Coating of Metal
Furniture source category would result in a violation of the standards.
Because a malfunction of the coating operation would lead to defective
products, it would most likely be corrected by the owner/operator as
quickly as possible to minimize economic losses. Furthermore, a
malfunction would not lead to an increase in the HAP content of the
coatings or the amount of HAP emitted from those coatings; therefore,
it is unlikely that malfunctions at facilities using the compliant
material or emission rate without control option would result in a
violation. Finally, compliance with the surface coating emission limits
is based on a monthly compliance period, so any malfunction that causes
a short-term increase in emissions may not cause a violation of the
standard. We have no information to suggest that it is feasible or
necessary to establish any type of standard for malfunctions associated
with the Surface Coating of Metal Furniture source category. We
encourage commenters to provide any such information, if available.
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 Surface Coating of Large
Appliances source category, which applies to this source category.
2. Proposed Revisions to the General Provisions Applicability Table
a. 40 CFR 63.4900(b) General Duty
We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table to subpart
RRRR (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 63.4900(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 63.4900(b) does not include that language from 40
CFR 63.6(e)(1).
[[Page 46306]]
We are also proposing to revise the General Provisions table to
subpart RRRR (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 63.4900(b).
b. SSM Plan
We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table to subpart
RRRR (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 RRRR, the current provisions requiring the SSM plan,
including 40 CFR 63.4900(c) and 63.4910(c)(9)(v). As noted, the EPA is
proposing to remove the SSM exemptions. Therefore, affected units will
be subject to an emission standard during such events. The
applicability of a standard during such events will ensure that sources
have ample incentive to plan for and achieve compliance and thus the
SSM plan requirements are no longer necessary.
c. Compliance With Standards
We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table to subpart
RRRR (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.
We are also proposing to remove rule text in 40 CFR 63.4961(h)
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.
d. 40 CFR 63.4963 Performance Testing
We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table to subpart
RRRR (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 63.4963. We are also proposing to remove rule
text in 40 CFR 63.4963(a)(1) that states that periods of malfunction do
not constitute representative conditions for the purposes of conducting
a performance test. The performance testing requirements we are
proposing 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.
e. Monitoring
We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table to subpart
RRRR (table 2) entry for 40 CFR 63.8(c)(1)(i) and (iii) 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 the General
Provisions table to subpart NNNN (table 2) entry for 40 CFR
63.8(c)(1)(ii) by changing the ``yes'' in column 3 to a ``no.'' We have
determined that 40 CFR 63.8(c)(1)(ii) is redundant to the current
monitoring requirement in 40 CFR 63.4967(a)(4) (i.e., ``maintain the
CPMS at all times and have available necessary parts for routine
repairs of the monitoring equipment''), except 40 CFR 63.8(c)(1)(ii)
specifies ``readily available.'' We are proposing to revise 40 CFR
63.4967(a)(4) to specify ``readily available.''
f. 40 CFR 63.4930 Recordkeeping
We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table to subpart
RRRR (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
RRRR (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 63.4930(j), which requires a record of
``the date, time, and duration of each deviation,'' which the EPA is
retaining. The regulatory text in 40 CFR 63.4930(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 63.4930(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 63.4930(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 is proposing to require that
sources keep records of this information to ensure that there is
[[Page 46307]]
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
RRRR (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 63.4930(j)(4).
We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table to subpart
RRRR (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
RRRR (table 2) entry for 40 CFR 63.10(c)(15) by changing the ``yes'' in
column 3 to a ``no.'' The EPA is proposing that 40 CFR 63.10(c)(15) no
longer apply. 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 63.4930(k)(1)
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 63.4930(k)(2).
g. 40 CFR 63.4920 Reporting
We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table to subpart
RRRR (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 63.4920. 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 RRRR
of 40 CFR subpart 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'' or ``date and time'' to ``date, time, and
duration'' (see 40 CFR 63.4920(a)(5)(i), (a)(7)(ix), and (a)(7)(xi),
(a)(7)(xvi)) 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 63.4890 or operating limit in
Table 1 to subpart RRRR, 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
associated with the emission rate with add-on controls option (see
proposed revisions to 40 CFR 63.4920(a)(7)(xvi)), 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 63.4900(b), 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. Further, we
are proposing to apply these same reporting requirements to deviations
from the proposed new equipment standards associated with high
efficiency spray equipment (see proposed revisions in 40 CFR
63.4920(a)(5)(ii), (a)(5)(ii)(F), and (a)(5)(ii)(G)).
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 63.4920(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)(i) that contains the description of the
previously required SSM report format and submittal schedule from this
section. These specifications are no longer necessary because the
events will be reported in otherwise required reports with similar
format and submittal requirements.
We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table to subpart
RRRR (table 2) entry for 40 CFR 63.10(d)(5)(ii) by changing the ``yes''
in column 3 to a ``no.'' Section 63.10(d)(5)(ii) describes an immediate
report for startups, shutdown, 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.
[[Page 46308]]
We are proposing to remove the requirements in 40 CFR
63.4920(a)(7)(xiii) 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
63.4920(a)(7)(xi) 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.C.4.b.1 of this preamble for the Surface
Coating of Large Appliances source category, which also applies to this
source category.
c. Technical Amendments to the Surface Coating of Metal Furniture
NESHAP
We are proposing to amend 40 CFR 63.4965(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 control compliance option can use either EPA Method 25 or
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 many exhaust streams from coating operations
may contain methane from natural gas combustion, we are proposing to
allow facilities the option to measure the methane using Method 18 and
to subtract it 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 reference in 40 CFR
63.4965(a) and (b) to 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 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.
EPA is proposing to amend 40 CFR 63.4941(a)(1)(i) and (a)(4), which
describe how to demonstrate initial compliance with the emission
limitations using the compliant material option, to remove reference to
paragraph (d)(4) of OSHA's Hazard Communication standard, which dealt
with OSHA-defined carcinogens. EPA is proposing to replace that
reference with its own list of hazardous air pollutants that must be
regarded as potentially carcinogenic based on EPA guidelines. Although
paragraph (d)(4) of OSHA's standard was deleted when the Agency adopted
the Globally Harmonized System of Hazard Communication in 2012, it was
replaced by section A.6.4.2 of mandatory Appendix A of that standard,
which reads as follows:
``Where OSHA has included cancer as a health hazard to be
considered by classifiers for a chemical covered by 29 CFR part 1910,
subpart Z, Toxic and Hazardous Substances, chemical manufacturers,
importers, and employers shall classify the chemical as a carcinogen.''
Thus, where OSHA has regulated workplace exposure to a chemical based,
at least in part, on carcinogenic risk, OSHA requires the chemical to
be classified as a carcinogen. OSHA suggests that EPA should refer to
section A.6.4.2 of Appendix A of 29 CFR 1910.1200 in its discussion of
section 63.4141 and consider chemicals that meet this requirement be
considered ``OSHA-defined carcinogens.''
We are proposing 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 RRRR) 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 are including organic HAP in the proposed Table 5 to 40 CFR part
63, subpart RRRR 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We are also proposing to revise the monitoring provisions for
thermal and catalytic oxidizers to clarify that a thermocouple is part
of the temperature sensor referred to in 40 CFR 63.4967(c)(3) for
purposes of performing periodic calibration and verification checks.
Current 40 CFR 63.4931(a) allows records, ``where appropriate,'' to
be maintained as ``electronic spreadsheets'' or a ``data base.'' We
propose to add clarification to this provision that 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 revise the second sentence of 40 CFR 63.4920(a)(4) to
correct an erroneous reference to ``the emission limitations in Sec.
63.4890,'' to be ``the applicable emission limitations in Sec. Sec.
63.4890, 63.4892, and 63.4893.'' This provision is intended to provide
the criteria for all compliance options, for making a statement that
there were no deviations in the compliance period. For this provision
to apply to the emission rate with add-on control devices option cited
later in the sentence in ``Sec. 63.4962(f),'' the criteria for making
an affirmative statement of no deviations must address all three types
of emission limitations (as defined in 40 CFR 63.4981) in 40 CFR
63.4890, 63.4892, and 63.4893. To avoid confusion with the term
``emission limitation'' as defined in 40 CFR 63.4981, and harmonize the
terminology with 40 CFR 63.4890, we also propose to change ``emission
limitation'' in the first sentence of 40 CFR 63.4920(a)(4) to be
``emission limit.''
We propose to remove from 40 CFR 63.4951(c) the list of methods
that may be used to determine the density of each coating, thinner, and
cleaning material, and to retain the reference to 40 CFR 63.4941(c),
which provides the same list of methods. This list of methods is being
updated in 40 CFR 63.4941(c), including IBR of a new version of a
method, and this proposed approach minimizes redundancy in the rule and
removes the need to incorporate the revised method into two separate
provisions of the subpart.
We propose to revise one instance in Table 2 to Subpart RRRR of
Part 63 of an erroneous rule citation of ``Sec. 63.4920(a).'' This
rule citation is specified in the fourth column of the table entry for
``Sec. 63.10(e)(3),''as the source for the contents of periodic
compliance reports. Section 40 CFR 63.4920(a) does not provide the
contents of periodic compliance reports; they are provided in 40 CFR
63.4920(b), and we propose to change the erroneous citation to ``Sec.
63.4920(b).''
[[Page 46309]]
d. Requesting Comment on 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 Surface Coating of Metal Furniture
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.
As described more fully in section IV.A.4.d of this preamble for
the Surface Coating of Large Appliances source category, the ICAC, in
their comments on proposed revisions 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.\36\ These same comments apply to the Surface Coating
of Metal Furniture source category.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\36\ See Docket 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 Metal
Furniture Docket for this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Given these comments from ICAC, suppliers of air pollution control
and monitoring technology, on the need for vigilance in maintaining
equipment to stem degradation, the EPA is requesting comment on what
steps, in addition to one-time initial emissions and capture efficiency
testing, along with ongoing temperature measurement, might better
ensure ongoing compliance with the standards.
One approach on which the EPA is specifically requesting comment,
but which is not included in this proposed rule, would be to require
air performance testing anytime a source plans to undertake an
operational change that may adversely affect compliance with an
applicable standard, operating limit, or parametric monitoring value.
This requirement would include provisions to allow a source to make the
change, but limit the change to a specific time before a test is
required. We anticipate that a reasonable time limit under the new
operations change would be approximately 30 days to allow adequate time
for testing and developing a test report. The source would submit
temperature and flow rate data during the test to establish new
operating parameters. We are specifically requesting comment on this
potential provision, including the time a source is allowed to operate
under the new parameters before they test, and what would constitute an
operational change requiring testing.
This approach on which we are requesting comment could also allow
an exception from periodic testing for facilities using instruments to
continuously measure emissions. Such CEMS would show actual emissions.
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.
Of course, this approach on which we are requesting comment would
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 control efficiency measurements in the compliance
calculations.
This approach would require 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. Emissions would be measured as
total gaseous organic mass emissions as carbon using either 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 Costs/Impacts of the 40 CFR part 63
Subparts NNNN, OOOO and RRRR Monitoring Review Revisions, in the Metal
Furniture Docket.
5. What compliance dates are we proposing?
The EPA is proposing that affected sources that commenced
construction or reconstruction on or before September 12, 2018 must
comply with all of the amendments, with the exception of the proposed
electronic format for submitting notifications and semiannual
compliance reports, no later than 181 days after the effective date of
the final rule. Affected sources that commence construction or
reconstruction after September 12, 2018 must comply with all
requirements of the subpart, including the amendments being proposed,
with the exception of the proposed electronic format for submitting
notifications and semiannual compliance reports, no later than the
effective date of the final rule or upon startup, whichever is later.
All affected facilities would have to continue to meet the current
requirements of 40 CFR part 63, subpart RRRR 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
RRRR. 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 using the new
template. 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
[[Page 46310]]
our assessment of the timeframe 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 and new affected sources that
commenced construction or reconstruction on or before September 12,
2018 be in compliance with all of this regulation's revised
requirements, except for the requirement to use high efficiency spray
equipment discussed below, within 181 days of the regulation's
effective date.
Under CAA section 112(d), we are proposing compliance dates for the
proposed requirement to use high efficiency spray equipment if the
source is not using the emission rate with add-on control compliance
option. For existing affected sources under this proposed action, we
propose to provide sources three years after the effective date of the
final rule to comply with the proposed requirement to use high
efficiency spray equipment. We are proposing a three-year compliance
date for facilities that have not switched to high efficiency spray
equipment because facilities that are not yet using high efficiency
spray equipment have multiple alternative equipment types to consider
under this proposed rule. The three-year compliance period will provide
all facilities sufficient time to source and purchase the specific type
of spray application equipment compatible with their operations.
Furthermore, the compliance period provides time for sources to verify
that the spray equipment they choose meets the transfer efficiency
requirements in this proposed rule. In addition, because a spray gun's
useful lifespan is approximately two years, the proposed three-year
compliance period will provide enough time for facilities to source and
purchase replacement guns on their current equipment purchase cycle,
develop any necessary operational procedures, and perform training.
Finally, the three-year compliance period will ensure that a facility
is not required to replace a spray gun before it has time to identify
and source new guns and develop bid specification and operation
procedures. For new affected sources under this proposed action, the
proposed compliance date is the effective date of the final rule or
upon startup, whichever is later. 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.
V. Summary of Cost, Environmental, and Economic Impacts
A. What are the affected sources?
Currently, ten major sources subject to the Surface Coating of
Large Appliances NESHAP are 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 or to remove dried
coating (surface preparation), 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 coating or
cleaning material is applied and all subsequent points in the affected
source where organic HAP emissions from that coating or cleaning
material occur. There may be multiple coating operations in an affected
source.
Currently, 43 major sources subject to the Printing, Coating, and
Dyeing of Fabrics and Other Textiles NESHAP are operating in the United
States. The affected source under the NESHAP includes the following
three categories of operations: Web coating and printing operations,
slashing operations, and dyeing and finishing operations.
The web coating and printing operations subcategory is the
collection of all web coating and printing equipment used to apply
cleaning materials to a substrate on the coating or printing line to
prepare it for coating or printing material application, to apply
coating or printing materials to a substrate and to dry or cure the
coating or printing materials, or equipment used to clean web coating/
printing operation equipment; all containers used for storage and
vessels used for mixing coating, printing, thinning, or cleaning
materials; all equipment and containers used for conveying coating,
printing, thinning, or cleaning materials; all containers used for
storage, and all equipment and containers used for conveying waste
materials generated by a coating or printing operation; and all
equipment, structures, and/or devices(s) used to convey, treat, or
dispose of wastewater streams or residuals generated by a coating or
printing operation.
The slashing operations subcategory is the collection of all
slashing equipment used to apply and dry the sizing on the warp yarn
(the warp yarn are the vertical fibers, and a chemical compound
referred to as sizing is used to bind and stiffen the yarn to provide
abrasion resistance during weaving); all containers used for storage
and vessels used for mixing slashing materials; all equipment and
containers used for conveying slashing materials; all containers used
for storage and all equipment and containers used for conveying waste
materials generated by a slashing operation; and all equipment,
structures, and/or devices(s) used to convey, treat, or dispose of
wastewater streams or residuals generated by a slashing operation.
The dyeing and finishing subcategory is the collection of all
dyeing and finishing equipment used to apply dyeing or finishing
materials, to fix dyeing materials to the substrate, to rinse the
textile substrate, or to dry or cure the dyeing or finishing materials;
all containers used for storage and vessels used for mixing dyeing or
finishing materials; all equipment and containers used for conveying
dyeing or finishing materials; all containers used for storage, and all
equipment and containers used for conveying, waste materials generated
by a dyeing or finishing operation; and all equipment, structures, and/
or devices(s) used to convey, treat, or dispose of wastewater streams
or residuals generated by a dyeing or finishing operation.
Currently, 16 major sources subject to the Surface Coating of Metal
Furniture NESHAP are 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 and all pumps and piping within the affected
source used for conveying coatings, thinners, and cleaning materials;
and all storage containers, all pumps and piping, and all manual and
[[Page 46311]]
automated equipment and containers within the affected source 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 or to remove dried
or wet coating (surface preparation); to apply coating to a substrate
(coating application) and to dry or cure the coating after application;
and 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 coating or
cleaning material is applied and all subsequent points in the affected
source where organic HAP emissions from that coating or cleaning
material occur. There may be multiple coating operations in an affected
source.
B. What are the air quality impacts?
At the current level of control, estimated emissions of volatile
organic HAP from the Surface Coating of Large Appliances source
category are approximately 120 tpy. Current estimated emissions of
volatile organic HAP from the Printing, Coating, and Dyeing of Fabrics
and Other Textiles source category are approximately 737 tpy. Current
estimated emissions of volatile organic HAP from the Surface Coating of
Metal Furniture source category are approximately 145 tpy.
We do not estimate any volatile organic HAP emission reductions
from the proposed requirement to use high-efficiency coating spray
application equipment in the large appliance surface coating and the
metal furniture surface coating source categories. We did not quantify
these reductions; however, if a facility switched from spray guns with
50-percent transfer efficiency to those with 65-percent transfer
efficiency, the amount of coating reaching the part during spraying
would increase by 30 percent, and the total amount of coating needed to
complete the coating operation would be reduced by 23 percent, leading
to a corresponding decrease in organic HAP emissions. Due to a
combination of economic incentives and state rule requirements to use
high-efficiency coating spray application equipment, we expect that
facilities in this source category are already using high efficiency
coating spray application equipment. However, we are specifically
requesting information on any facilities not using high efficiency
spray application equipment.
All 69 major sources in the three source categories would be
required to comply with the relevant emission standards at all times
without the SSM exemption. We were unable to quantify the specific
emissions reductions associated with eliminating the SSM exemption.
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 the three source categories will
experience costs as a result of these proposed amendments for
reporting.
Facilities in the large appliances and metal furniture source
categories transitioning to high efficiency spray equipment may
experience costs to purchase new equipment. We do not have sufficient
information on current use of this type of equipment to develop a
potential industry-wide cost. However, based the following example from
a similar coating operation, we expect the change to result in a net
cost savings. Due to the increased transfer efficiency from 45 percent
with conventional spray guns to 65 percent with high volume low
pressure spray guns, the amount of coating used per part is expected to
decrease by approximately 31 percent. See the memorandum titled,
Impacts of Prohibiting the Use of Conventional Spray Guns in the Wood
Furniture Manufacturing Operations Source Category, October 19, 2010,
EPA Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0786. For either type of gun, the
annual costs are equal to the sum of the cost of the spray gun and the
cost of coatings. The cost of coatings is equal to the product of the
cost per volume of coating, the volume of coating used, and the number
of days. The capital cost of a convention spray gun is approximately
$200 and the cost of an air-assisted airless spray gun is approximately
$700.00. Invalid source specified. The cost differential between a
conventional spray gun and an air-assisted spray gun is $500.00, and,
and a typical coating costs $15.00 per gallon. If a facility operates
five days per week and 50 weeks per year, a typical year will contain
250 days of operation. Complete cost recovery will occur when the air-
assisted-airless gun is used at a rate of 1.21 gallons of coatings per
day for a year. If the coating cost is higher, the cost recovery will
occur in less than one year. For more information on this cost
analysis, see the memorandum titled Impacts of Prohibiting the Use of
Conventional Spray Guns in the Wood Furniture Manufacturing Operations
Source Category, (EPA Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0786).
We are specifically soliciting comments on the current use of high
efficiency spray equipment, the costs to transition from conventional
spray application equipment to high efficiency spray application
equipment (including costs for changes to coating delivery systems we
may have overlooked), and the actual coating cost savings realized due
to the change.
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 estimate that for the large appliances and metal furniture
source categories, should a source need to purchase and begin using
high efficiency spray equipment, the cost savings associated with less
coating material may offset the incremental equipment costs in typical
cases.
We are also soliciting comment on whether to require air emissions
performance testing in each source category using the emission rate
with add-on controls compliance option. We estimate that 15 facilities
subject to the Printing, Coating, and Dyeing of Fabrics and Other
Textiles NESHAP would incur costs to conduct air emissions performance
testing because they are currently using the emission rate with add-on
controls compliance option. These 15 facilities have a total of 18 add-
on controls. This total does not include other facilities in this
source category that have add-on controls and are already required to
perform air emissions performance testing as a
[[Page 46312]]
condition of their state operating permit. The cost for a facility to
conduct a destruction or removal efficiency air emissions performance
test using EPA Method 25 or 25A is estimated to be about $19,000, and
the total cost for all 15 facilities to test 18 add-on control devices
in a single year would be $340,000. One facility subject to the Surface
Coating of Large Appliances NESHAP is using the emission rate with add-
on controls compliance option and is already required to perform air
emissions performance testing as a condition of their state operating
permit, and would have no added costs if air emissions performance
testing were required under the NESHAP. No facilities subject to the
Surface Coating of Metal Furniture NESHAP are expected to incur costs
to conduct air emissions performance testing because none are using
add-on controls. For further information on the potential costs, see
the memoranda titled Estimated Costs/Impacts of the 40 CFR part 63
Subparts NNNN, OOOO and RRRR Monitoring Reviews, February 2018, in the
Large Appliances Docket, Fabrics and Other Textiles Docket, and Metal
Furniture Docket.
D. What are the economic impacts?
The economic impact analysis is designed to inform decision-makers
about the potential economic consequences of a regulatory action. For
the current proposals, the EPA estimated the cost of becoming familiar
with the rule and re-evaluating previously developed SSM record
systems. For the proposed revisions to the NESHAP for the Surface
Coating of Large Appliances, the total cost is estimated to be $23,000
for the ten affected entities and is expected to range from 0.000002 to
0.02 percent of annual sales revenue per affected entity. For the
proposed revisions to the NESHAP for the Printing, Coating, and Dyeing
of Fabrics and Other Textiles, the total cost is estimated to be
$90,000 for the 43 affected entities and is expected to range from
0.000005 to 0.42 percent of annual sales revenue per affected entity.
For the proposed revisions to the NESHAP for the Surface Coating of
Metal Furniture, the total cost is estimated to be $32,000 for the 16
affected entities and is expected to range from 0.00007 to 0.02 percent
of annual sales revenue per affected entity. For each of these sectors,
the 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 if 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
NESHAP for the Surface Coating of Large Appliances is a small entity.
The annualized costs associated with the proposed requirements for this
facility is 0.02 percent of the annual sales revenue for that facility.
Eighteen of the facilities potentially affected by the proposed
revisions to the NESHAP for the Printing, Coating, and Dyeing of
Fabrics and Other Textiles are small entities. The annualized costs
associated with the proposed requirements for these 18 affected small
entities range from 0.00067 to 0.25 percent of annual sales revenues
per affected entity. Six of the facilities potentially affected by the
proposed revisions to the NESHAP for the Surface Coating of Metal
Furniture are small entities. The annualized costs associated with the
proposed requirements for these six affected small entities range from
0.001 to 0.02 percent of annual sales revenues per affected entity. For
each of these sectors, there are no significant economic impacts on a
substantial number of small entities from the proposed amendments. More
information and details of this analysis is provided in the technical
documents titled Economic Impact and Small Business Screening
Assessments for Proposed Amendments to the National Emission Standards
for Hazardous Air Pollutants for the Surface Coating of Large
Appliances (Subpart NNNN), Economic Impact and Small Business Screening
Assessments for Proposed Amendments to the National Emission Standards
for Hazardous Air Pollutants for the Printing, Coating and Dyeing of
Fabrics and Other Textiles (Subpart OOOO), and Economic Impact and
Small Business Screening Assessments for Proposed Amendments to the
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for the
Surface Coating of Metal Furniture (Subpart RRRR), available in the
Large Appliances Docket, Fabrics and Other Textiles Docket, and Metal
Furniture Docket, respectively.
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. We also are unable to quantify potential emissions
reductions of organic HAP. However, any reduction in HAP emissions
would be expected to provide health benefits in the form of improved
air quality and less exposure to potentially harmful chemicals.
VI. Request for Comments
We solicit comments on all aspects of 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, including the data to estimate the acute
multipliers. 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.
We are also specifically soliciting comment on the following:
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 current use of high efficiency spray equipment, the
costs to transition from conventional spray application equipment to
high efficiency spray application equipment (including costs for
changes to coating delivery systems we may have overlooked), and the
actual coating cost savings realized due to the change. We also request
information on aspects of facility decision making concerning use of
high efficiency coating methods, and facility specific operational,
coating adherence, coating drying time, material compatibility, or
other reasons that a facility may not have chosen to switch to high-
efficiency spray.
The requirements for submitting electronic reports,
including the draft templates developed for report submittal, and
whether report frequency should be semiannual (as proposed) or annual
for all three source categories. We specifically request comment on the
format and usability of the template (e.g., filling out and uploading a
provided spreadsheet versus entering the required information into an
on-line fillable CEDRI web form), as well as the content, layout, and
overall design of the template.
The need to establish a standard during periods of
malfunction for the Fabric and Other Textiles source category in this
action, and we are seeking the specific information described in
section IV.B.4 of this preamble to support the standard. We also
request public comment and information pertaining to malfunction
[[Page 46313]]
periods for all sources in these source categories.
The need for ongoing compliance demonstrations, in
addition to one-time initial emissions and capture efficiency testing
through air emissions testing when a source uses an add-on control to
comply with the regulation.
The 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.
Whether the agency should ban the use of ethylene oxide in
the Fabric and Other Textiles source category under the technology
review.
The relationship between section 112(d)(6), technology
review, and 112(f), residual risk review. Specifically, we solicit
comment on the extent to which findings that underlie a section 112(f)
determination should be considered in making any determinations under
section 112(d)(6).
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://www3.epa.gov/ttn/atw/rrisk/rtrpg.html. 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, we request that you provide
documentation of the basis for the revised values to support your
suggested changes. To submit comments on the data downloaded from the
RTR website, complete the following steps:
1. Within this downloaded file, enter suggested revisions to the
data fields appropriate for that information.
2. Fill in the commenter information fields for each suggested
revision (i.e., commenter name, commenter organization, commenter email
address, commenter phone number, and revision comments).
3. Gather documentation for any suggested emissions revisions
(e.g., performance test reports, material balance calculations).
4. Send the entire downloaded file with suggested revisions in
Microsoft[reg] Access format and all accompanying documentation to
Large Appliances Docket, Fabrics and Other Textiles Docket, or Metal
Furniture 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[reg] Excel files that are
generated by the Microsoft[reg] Access file. These files are provided
on the RTR website at https://www3.epa.gov/ttn/atw/rrisk/rtrpg.html.
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 a significant regulatory action that was submitted
to OMB for review. Any changes made in response to OMB recommendations
have been documented in the docket.
B. Executive Order 13771: Reducing Regulations and Controlling
Regulatory Costs
This action is expected to be an Executive Order 13771 regulatory
action. Details on the estimated costs of this proposed rule can be
found in the EPA's analysis of the potential costs and benefits
associated with this action.
C. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
The information collection activities in this proposed rule 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 Large Appliances
The Information Collection Request (ICR) document that the EPA
prepared has been assigned EPA ICR number 1954.07. You can find a copy
of the ICR in the Large Appliances Docket (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2017-0670), and it is briefly summarized here.
As part of the RTR for the Large Appliances NESHAP, the EPA is
proposing to require that, for each coating operation for which
coatings are spray applied, high efficiency spray equipment must be
used, except when the facility is using the emission rate with add-on
controls compliance option. In addition, the EPA is proposing revisions
to the SSM provisions of the rule and proposing the use of electronic
data reporting for future performance test data submittals and semi-
annual reporting. This information would be collected to assure
compliance with 40 CFR part 63, subpart NNNN.
Respondents/affected entities: Facilities performing surface
coating of large appliances.
Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (40 CFR part 63,
subpart NNNN).
Estimated number of respondents: In the 3 years after the
amendments are final, approximately 10 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
30. Years 2 and 3 would have no responses.
Total estimated burden: The average annual burden to the large
appliance facilities over the 3 years if the amendments are finalized
is estimated to be 77 hours (per year). The average annual burden to
the Agency over the 3 years after the amendments are final is estimated
to be 15 hours (per year) for the Agency. Burden is defined at 5 CFR
1320.3(b).
Total estimated cost: The average annual cost to the large
appliance facilities is $7,700 in labor costs, in the first 3 years
after the amendments are final. There are no estimated capital and
operation and maintenance (O&M) costs. The total average annual Agency
cost over the first 3 years after the amendments are final is estimated
to be $700.
2. Printing, Coating, and Dyeing of Fabrics and Other Textiles
The ICR document that the EPA prepared has been assigned EPA ICR
number 2071.07. You can find a copy of the ICR in the Fabrics and Other
Textiles Docket (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0668), and it is briefly
summarized here.
The EPA is not proposing to revise the emission limitation
requirements for this subpart. The EPA is proposing revisions to the
SSM provisions of the rule, and proposing the use of electronic data
reporting for future performance test data submittals and semiannual
reports. This information is being collected to assure compliance with
40 CFR part 63, subpart OOOO.
Respondents/affected entities: Facilities performing printing,
coating, and dyeing of fabrics and other textiles.
[[Page 46314]]
Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (40 CFR part 63,
subpart OOOO).
Estimated number of respondents: In the 3 years after the
amendments are final, approximately 43 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
129. Years 2 and 3 would have no responses.
Total estimated burden: The average annual burden to the fabrics
and textiles coating facilities over the 3 years if the amendments are
finalized is estimated to be 330 hours (per year). The average annual
burden to the Agency over the 3 years after the amendments are final is
estimated to be 32 hours (per year) for the Agency. Burden is defined
at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).
Total estimated cost: The average annual cost to the fabrics and
textiles coating facilities is $30,000 in labor costs and no capital
and O&M costs, in the first 3 years after the amendments are final. The
average annual Agency cost over the first 3 years after the amendments
are final is estimated to be $1,500.
3. Surface Coating of Metal Furniture
The ICR document that the EPA prepared has been assigned EPA ICR
number 1952.07. You can find a copy of the ICR in the Metal Furniture
Docket (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0669), and it is briefly
summarized here.
As part of the RTR for the Metal Furniture NESHAP, the EPA is
proposing to require that, for each coating operation for which
coatings are spray applied, high efficiency spray equipment must be
used, except when the facility is using the emission rate with add-on
controls compliance option. In addition, the EPA is proposing revisions
to the SSM provisions of the rule and proposing the use of electronic
data reporting for future performance test data submittals and semi-
annual reporting. This information would be collected to assure
compliance with 40 CFR part 63, subpart RRRR.
Respondents/affected entities: Facilities performing surface
coating of metal furniture.
Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (40 CFR part 63,
subpart RRRR).
Estimated number of respondents: In the 3 years after the
amendments are final, approximately 16 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
48. Years 2 and 3 would have no responses.
Total estimated burden: The average annual burden to the large
appliance facilities over the 3 years if the amendments are finalized
is estimated to be 123 hours (per year). The average annual burden to
the Agency over the 3 years after the amendments are final is estimated
to be 25 hours (per year) for the Agency. Burden is defined at 5 CFR
1320.3(b).
Total estimated cost: The average annual cost to the metal
furniture facilities is $11,000 in labor costs, in the first 3 years
after the amendments are final. There are no estimated capital and O&M
costs. The total average annual Agency cost over the first 3 years
after the amendments are final is estimated to be $1,200.
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 October 12,
2018. 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. This
action will not impose any requirements on small entities.
E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
This action does not contain an unfunded mandate of $100 million or
more as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not
significantly or uniquely affect small governments. The action imposes
no enforceable duty on any state, local, or tribal governments or the
private sector.
F. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have
substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between
the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
G. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments
This action does not have tribal implications as specified in
Executive Order 13175. No tribal facilities are known to be engaged in
any of the industries that would be affected by this action (large
appliances surface coating; printing, coating, and dyeing of fabrics
and other textiles, surface coating of metal furniture). Thus,
Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.
H. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks
This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is
not economically significant as defined in Executive Order 12866, and
because the EPA does not believe the environmental health or safety
risks addressed by this action present a disproportionate risk to
children. This action's health and risk assessments are contained in
sections III.A and C, 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 Large Appliances Risk
Assessment Report, Fabrics and Other Textiles Risk Assessment Report,
and Metal Furniture Risk Assessment Report in the Large Appliances
Docket, Fabrics and Other Textiles Docket, and Metal Furniture Docket,
respectively.
I. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
This action is not a ``significant energy action'' because it is
not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply,
distribution, or use of energy. This action would not affect producers
of energy (e.g., coal, oil, or natural gas producers), and would not
affect electricity producers. This action would also not increase the
energy demands of the facilities potentially affected by this action
because it includes no proposed requirements that would be met through
the use of additional energy consuming equipment.
[[Page 46315]]
J. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) and 1 CFR
Part 51
This rulemaking involves technical standards. The EPA is proposing
to amend the three NESHAP in this action to provide owners and
operators with 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 subtract methane emissions from
measured total gaseous organic mass emissions as carbon.
We found three voluntary consensus standards (VCS) already allowed
in the Surface Coating of Large Appliances NESHAP that have been
replaced with newer versions of the methods. The first method, ASTM
method Dl475-13, ``Standard Test Method for Density of Liquid Coatings,
Inks, and Related Products,'' has replaced ASTM D1475-90, and it covers
the measurement of density of paints, inks, varnishes, lacquers, and
components thereof, other than pigments, when in fluid form; secondly,
ASTM D2697-03 (2014) ``Standard Test Method for Volume Nonvolatile
Matter in Clear or Pigmented Coatings'' has replaced ASTM D2697-86
(1998), which is applicable to the determination of the volume of
nonvolatile matter of a variety of coatings; and finally, ASTM D6093-97
(2016) ``Standard Test Method for Percent Volume Nonvolatile Matter in
Clear or Pigmented Coatings Using Helium Gas Pycnometer'' has replaced
ASTM D6093-97(2003) which covers the determination of the percent
volume nonvolatile matter of a variety of clear and pigmented coatings.
For the Surface Coating of Metal Furniture NESHAP, the Printing,
Coating and Dyeing of Fabrics and Other Textiles NESHAP, and the
Surface Coating of Large Appliances NESHAP, the EPA proposes to
incorporate by reference ASTM D2369-10 (2015), ``Test Method for
Volatile Content of Coatings,'' which describes a procedure for the
determination of the weight percent volatile content of solvent borne
and waterborne coatings, as an acceptable alternative to EPA Test
Method 24.
The ASTM standards are available from the American Society for
Testing and Materials (ASTM), 100 Barr Harbor Drive, Post Office Box
C700, West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959. See https://www.astm.org/.
The EPA is not proposing CARB Method 310, ``Determination of
Volatile Organic 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.
While the EPA has identified another 21 VCS each for Metal
Furniture and Large Appliances, and two VCS for Fabrics Printing and
Dyeing, as being potentially applicable to this proposed rule, we have
decided not to use these VCS in this rulemaking. The use of these VCS
would not be practical due to lack of equivalency, documentation,
validation date, and other important technical and policy
considerations. See the memoranda titled Voluntary Consensus Standard
Results for Surface Coating of Large Appliances, March 2018, Voluntary
Consensus Standard Results for Printing, Coating, and Dyeing of Fabrics
and Other Textiles, March 2018, and Voluntary Consensus Standard
Results for Surface Coating of Metal Furniture, March 2018, in the
Large Appliances Docket (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0670), Fabrics
and Other Textiles Docket (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0668), and
Metal Furniture Docket (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0669),
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, 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
Large Appliances Source Category Operations, September 2017, Risk and
Technology Review--Analysis of Demographic Factors for Populations
Living Near Surface Coating of Metal Furniture Source Category
Operations, October 2017, and Risk and Technology Review--Analysis of
Demographic Factors for Populations Living Near Printing, Coating, and
Dyeing of Fabrics and Other Textiles Source Category Operations,
September 2017, available in the Large Appliances Docket, Metal
Furniture Docket, and Fabrics and Other Textiles 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 Surface Coating of Large
Appliances source category, Printing, Coating, and Dyeing of Fabrics
and Other Textiles source category, and Surface Coating of Metal
Furniture source category across different social, demographic, and
economic groups within the populations living near operations
identified as having the highest risks.
The results of the Surface Coating of Large Appliances source
category demographic analysis indicate that no one is exposed to a
cancer risk at or above 1-in-1 million or to a chronic noncancer HI
greater than 1. The proximity results (irrespective of risk) indicate
that the population within 5 km of facilities in the Surface Coating of
Large Appliances source category are greater than the corresponding
national percentage for the following demographic percentages:
``African American'' and ``Below the Poverty Level.''
The results of the Printing, Coating and Dyeing of Fabrics and
Other Textiles source category demographic analysis indicate that
emissions from the source category expose approximately 8,500 people to
a cancer risk at or above 1-in-1 million and no one 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: ``African American,'' ``Over 25
Without a HS Diploma,'' and ``Below the Poverty Level.'' The proximity
results (irrespective of risk) indicate that the population percentages
for the below the poverty level demographic category within 5 km of
facilities in the Printing, Coating, and Dying of Fabric and Other
[[Page 46316]]
Textiles source category are greater than the corresponding national
percentage.
The results of the Surface Coating of Metal Furniture source
category demographic analysis indicate that emissions from the source
category expose approximately 2,100 people to a cancer risk at or above
1-in-1 million and no one 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: ``Hispanic or Latino,'' ``Over 25 Without a HS Diploma,''
and ``Below the Poverty Level.'' The proximity results (irrespective of
risk) indicate that the population within 5 km of facilities in the
Surface Coating of Metal Furniture source category are greater than the
corresponding national percentage for the following demographic
percentages: ``African American,'' ``Hispanic or Latino,'' ``Over 25
Without a HS Diploma,'' and ``Below the Poverty Level.''
We do not expect this proposal to achieve significant reductions in
HAP emissions. 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) 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, Risk and Technology Review--
Analysis of Demographic Factors for Populations Living Near Printing,
Coating, and Dyeing of Fabrics and Other Textiles Source Category
Operations, September 2017; Risk and Technology Review--Analysis of
Demographic Factors for Populations Living Near Surface Coating of
Metal Furniture Source Category Operations; October 2017; and Risk and
Technology Review--Analysis of Demographic Factors for Populations
Living Near Surface Coating of Large Appliances Source Category
Operations Demographic Analysis, September 2017, which are available in
the dockets for this action.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Hazardous
substances, Incorporation by reference, Surface Coating of Large
Appliances, Surface Coating of Metal Furniture, Printing, Coating, and
Dyeing of Fabrics and Other Textiles, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Appendix A.
Dated: August 8, 2018.
Andrew R. Wheeler,
Acting 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. Redesignating paragraphs (h)(13) through (h)(19) as paragraphs
(h)(14) through (h)(20), respectively; and adding a new paragraph
(h)(13);
0
b. Redesignating paragraphs (h)(20) through (h)(23) as paragraphs
(h)(22) through (h)(25), respectively; and adding a new paragraph
(h)(21);
0
c. Redesignating paragraphs (h)(24) through (h)(26) as paragraphs
(h)(27) through (h)(29), respectively; and adding new paragraph
(h)(26); and
0
d. Redesignating paragraphs (h)(27) through (h)(105) as paragraphs
(h)(31) through (h)(109), respectively; and adding a new paragraph
(h)(30).
The additions read as follows:
Sec. 63.14 Incorporations by reference.
* * * * *
(h) * * *
(13) ASTM Method D1475-13, Standard Test Method for Density of
Liquid Coatings, Inks, and Related Products, IBR approved for
Sec. Sec. 63.4141(b) and (c), and 63.4941(b) and (c).
* * * * *
(21) ASTM D2111-10 (2015), Standard Test Methods for Specific
Gravity of Halogenated Organic Solvents and Their Admixtures, IBR
approved for Sec. Sec. 63.4141(b) and (c).
* * * * *
(26) ASTM D2369-10 (2015), Test Method for Volatile Content of
Coatings, IBR approved for Sec. Sec. 63.4141(a) and (b), 63.4161(h),
63.4941(a) and (b), and 63.4961(j).
* * * * *
(30) ASTM D2697-03 (2014), Standard Test Method for Volume
Nonvolatile Matter in Clear or Pigmented Coatings, IBR approved for
Sec. Sec. 63.4141(b) and 63.4941(b).
* * * * *
Subpart NNNN--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants: Surface Coating of Large Appliances
0
3. Section 63.4094 is added to read as follows:
Sec. 63.4094 What transfer efficiency requirement must I meet?
(a) For any spray-applied coating operation(s) for which you use
the compliant material option or the emission rate without add-on
controls option, you are required to meet a transfer efficiency of 65
percent or use the spray coating application method specified in
paragraph (b) of this section. For any spray-applied coating
operation(s) for which you use the emission rate with add-on controls
option, the transfer efficiency requirement does not apply.
(b) As an alternative to the transfer efficiency requirement in
paragraph(a), for any spray-applied coating operation(s) for which you
use you use the compliant material option or the emission rate without
add-on controls option, you may apply all spray-applied coatings using
high-volume, low-pressure (HVLP) spray equipment; electrostatic
application; airless spray equipment; or air-assisted airless spray
equipment, except as specified in paragraphs (b)(1) of this section.
You must also meet the requirements in paragraph (b)(2) of this
section.
(1) You may apply spray-applied coatings using an alternative
coating spray application method if you demonstrate that the
alternative method achieves a transfer efficiency equivalent to or
better than 65 percent, using procedures equivalent to the California
South Coast Air Quality Management District's ``Spray Equipment
Transfer Efficiency Test Procedure for Equipment User, May 24, 1989''
(for availability, see Sec. 63.14) and following guidelines equivalent
to ``Guidelines for Demonstrating Equivalency with District Approved
Transfer Efficient Spray Guns, September 26, 2002'' (for availability,
see Sec. 63.14). For the purposes of this section, when using these
equivalent guidelines or procedures, you are not required to submit an
application with the test plan or protocol to the Administrator,
conduct the test in the presence of an Administrator, or submit test
results to the Administrator for review or approval. Instead you must
comply with the recordkeeping requirement in Sec. 63.4130(l).
(2) All spray application equipment must be operated according to
company procedures, local specified operating
[[Page 46317]]
procedures, and/or the manufacturer's specifications, whichever is most
stringent, at all times. If you modify spray application equipment, you
must maintain emission reductions or a transfer efficiency equivalent
to HVLP spray equipment, electrostatic application, airless spray
equipment, or air-assisted airless spray equipment, and you must
demonstrate equivalency according to paragraph (b)(1) of this section
and comply with the recordkeeping requirement in Sec. 63.4130(l).
0
4. Section 63.4100 is amended by revising paragraph (b) and removing
paragraph (d) to read as follows:
Sec. 63.4100 What are my general requirements for complying with this
subpart?
* * * * *
(b) 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.
* * * * *
0
5. Section 63.4110 is amended by revising paragraph (b)(9) introductory
text and removing paragraph (b)(9)(v) to read as follows:
Sec. 63.4110 What notifications must I submit?
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(9) For the emission rate with add-on controls option, you must
include the information specified in paragraphs (b)(9)(i) through (iv)
of this section, except that the requirements in paragraphs (b)(9)(i)
through (iii) of this section do not apply to solvent recovery systems
for which you conduct liquid-liquid material balances according to
Sec. 63.4161(h).
* * * * *
0
6. Section 63.4120 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraph (b) introductory text, paragraph (d) introductory
text, and paragraphs (d)(1) and (d)(4);
0
b. Adding paragraph (d)(5);
0
c. Revising paragraphs (e) introductory text and (e)(3);
0
d. Adding paragraph (e)(4);
0
e. Revising paragraph (g) introductory text and paragraphs (g)(3),
(g)(6) through (8), (g)(10), (g)(13), and (g)(14);
0
f. Adding paragraph (g)(15); and
0
g. Removing paragraphs (i) and (j).
The revisions and additions read as follows:
Sec. 63.4120 What reports must I submit?
* * * * *
(b) The semiannual compliance report must contain the information
specified in paragraphs (b)(1) through (4) of this section and the
information specified in paragraphs (c) through (h) of this section
that is applicable to your affected source.
* * * * *
(d) If you use the compliant material option and there was a
deviation from the applicable emission limit in Sec. 63.4090, the
semiannual compliance report must contain the information in paragraphs
(d)(1) through (5) of this section.
(1) Identification of each coating used that deviated from the
emission limit, each thinner and cleaning material used that contained
organic HAP, and the date, time, and duration each was used.
* * * * *
(4) A statement of the cause of each deviation (including unknown
cause, if applicable).
(5) 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 emission limit in Sec. 63.4090,
and a description of the method used to estimate the emissions.
(e) If you use the emission rate without add-on controls option and
there was a deviation from the applicable emission limit in Sec.
63.4090, the semiannual compliance report must contain the information
in paragraphs (e)(1) through (4) of this section.
* * * * *
(3) A statement of the cause of each deviation (including unknown
cause, if applicable).
(4) 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. 63.4090, and a description of
the method used to estimate the emissions.
* * * * *
(g) If you use the emission rate with add-on controls option and
there was a deviation from the applicable emission limit in Sec.
63.4090 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), the semiannual compliance
report must contain the information in paragraphs (g)(1) through (12),
(g)(14) and (g)(15) of this section. If you use the emission rate with
add-on controls option and there was a deviation from the work practice
standards in Sec. 63.4093(b), the semiannual compliance report must
contain the information in paragraph (g)(13) of this section.
* * * * *
(3) The date and time that each malfunction of the capture system
or add-on control devices started and stopped.
* * * * *
(6) 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.
(7) 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.
(8) 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 any bypass of the add-on control device.
* * * * *
(10) 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.
* * * * *
(13) For deviations from the work practice standards in Sec.
63.4093(b):
(i) Number of deviations.
(ii) For each deviation:
(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. 63.4100(b).
(B) The description required in paragraph (g)(13)(ii)(A) of this
section must include a list of the affected sources or equipment for
which a deviation occurred and the cause of the
[[Page 46318]]
deviation (including unknown cause, if applicable).
(14) For deviations from an emission limit in Sec. 63.4090 or
operating limit in Table 1 to this subpart, a statement of the cause of
each deviation (including unknown cause, if applicable).
(15) For each deviation from an emission limit in Sec. 63.4090 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. 63.4090, and a description of the method used to estimate the
emissions.
* * * * *
0
7. Section 63.4121 is added to read as follows:
Sec. 63.4121 What are my electronic reporting requirements?
(a) You must submit the results of the performance test required in
Sec. 63.4120(h) following the procedure specified in paragraphs (a)(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 (a)(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/
OAQPS/CORE CBI Office, Attention: Group Leader, Measurement Policy
Group, MD C404-02, 4930 Old Page Road, 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 (a)(1) of this section.
(b) Beginning on [date 2 years 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. 63.4110(a)(2) and
(b) 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 confidential
business information (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 Road, 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.
(c) Beginning on [date 2 years after date of publication of final
rule in the Federal Register] or once the reporting template has been
available on the CEDRI website for one year, whichever date is later,
the owner or operator shall submit the semiannual compliance report
required in Sec. 63.4120 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
one 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 confidential business information (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 Road, 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.
(d) If you are required to electronically submit a report through
the CEDRI in the EPA's Central Data Exchange (CDX), and due to a
planned or actual outage of either the EPA's CEDRI or CDX systems
within the period of time beginning five 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
[[Page 46319]]
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.
(e) 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 five 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
8. Section 63.4130 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraph (j) and paragraph (k) introductory text;
0
b. Removing and reserving paragraphs (k)(1) and (k)(2); and
0
c. Redesignating paragraphs (k)(8) and (9) as paragraphs (k)(7) and
(8).
The revisions and additions read as follows:
Sec. 63.4130 What records must I keep?
* * * * *
(j) For each deviation from an emission limitation reported under
Sec. 63.4120(d), (e), and (g), 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. 63.4120(d), (e), and (g).
(2) A list of the affected sources or equipment for which the
deviation occurred and the cause of the deviation, as reported under
Sec. 63.4120(d), (e), and (g).
(3) An estimate of the quantity of each regulated pollutant emitted
over any applicable emission limit in Sec. 63.4090 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.
63.4120(d), (e), and (g).
(4) A record of actions taken to minimize emissions in accordance
with Sec. 63.4100(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.
* * * * *
0
9. Section 63.4131 is amended by revising paragraph (a) to read as
follows:
Sec. 63.4131 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. 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
10. Section 63.4141 is amended by revising paragraphs (a)(1)(i),
(a)(2), (a)(4), (b)(1), parameters ``mvolatiles'' and
``Davg'' of Equation 1 in paragraph (b)(3), and paragraph
(c) to read as follows:
Sec. 63.4141 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 organic HAP 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 (for example, 0.3791).
* * * * *
(2) Method 24 in appendix A-7 of part 60. For coatings, you may use
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 Method 24, you may use ASTM D2369-10 (2015),
``Test Method for Volatile Content of Coatings'' (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 they represent 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 organic HAP
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. 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.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(1) ASTM Method D2697-03 (2014) or D6093-97. You may use ASTM
Method D2697-03 (2014), ``Standard Test Method for Volume Nonvolatile
Matter in Clear or Pigmented Coatings,'' or D6093-97, ``Standard Test
Method for Percent Volume Nonvolatile Matter in Clear or Pigmented
Coatings Using a Helium Gas Pycnometer'' (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.
* * * * *
(3) * * *
mvolatiles = total volatile matter content of the
coating, including HAP, volatile organic compounds (VOC), water, and
exempt
[[Page 46320]]
compounds, determined according to Method 24 in appendix A-7 of part
60, or according to ASTM D2369-10 (2015) Standard Test Method for
Volatile Content of Coatings (incorporated by reference, see Sec.
63.14), grams volatile matter per liter coating.
Davg = average density of volatile matter in the
coating, grams volatile matter per liter volatile matter, determined
from test results using ASTM Method D1475-13, ``Standard Test Method
for Density of Liquid Coatings, Inks, and Related Products''
(incorporated by reference, see Sec. 63.14), ASTM D2111-10 (2015),
``Standard Test Methods for Specific Gravity of Halogenated Organic
Solvents and Their Admixtures'' (incorporated by reference, see
Sec. 63.14; if you use this method, the specific gravity must be
corrected to a standard temperature), 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 Method D1475-13 or ASTM D2111-10 (2015)
test results and other information sources, the test results will
take precedence.
(c) Determine the density of each coating. Determine the density of
each coating used during the compliance period from test results using
ASTM Method D1475-13, ``Standard Test Method for Density of Liquid
Coatings, Inks, and Related Products'' (incorporated by reference, see
Sec. 63.14), ASTM D2111-10 (2015), ``Standard Test Methods for
Specific Gravity of Halogenated Organic Solvents and Their Admixtures''
(incorporated by reference, see Sec. 63.14; if you use this method,
the specific gravity must be corrected to a standard temperature),
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 test results from ASTM
Method D1475-13 or ASTM D2111-10 (2015) and the supplier's or
manufacturer's information, the test results will take precedence.
* * * * *
0
11. Section 63.4160 is amended by revising paragraphs (a)(1) and (b)(1)
to read as follows:
Sec. 63.4160 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
you use to demonstrate compliance must be installed and operating no
later than the applicable compliance date specified in Sec. 63.4083.
Except for solvent recovery systems for which you conduct liquid-liquid
material balances according to Sec. 63.4161(h), you must conduct a
performance test of each capture system and add-on control device
according to the procedures in Sec. Sec. 63.4164, 63.4165, and
63.4166, and establish the operating limits required by Sec. 63.4092
no later than the compliance date specified in Sec. 63.4083. For a
solvent recovery system for which you conduct liquid-liquid material
balances according to Sec. 63.4161(h), you must initiate the first
material balance no later than the compliance date specified in Sec.
63.4083.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(1) All emission capture systems, add-on control devices, and CPMS
you use to demonstrate compliance must be installed and operating no
later than the applicable compliance date specified in Sec. 63.4083.
Except for solvent recovery systems for which you conduct liquid-liquid
material balances according to Sec. 63.4161(h), you must conduct a
performance test of each capture system and add-on control device
according to the procedures in Sec. Sec. 63.4164, 63.4165, and
63.4166, and establish the operating limits required by Sec. 63.4092
no later than 180 days after the applicable compliance date specified
in Sec. 63.4083. For a solvent recovery system for which you conduct
liquid-liquid material balances according to Sec. 63.4161(h), you must
initiate the first material balance no later than 180 days after the
applicable compliance date specified in Sec. 63.4083.
* * * * *
0
12. Section 63.4161 is amended by revising paragraph (g) introductory
text and paragraph (h)(3) to read as follows:
Sec. 63.4161 How do I demonstrate initial compliance?
* * * * *
(g) Calculate the organic HAP emissions reduction for controlled
coating operations not using liquid-liquid material balance. For each
controlled coating operation using an emission capture system and add-
on control device other than a solvent recovery system for which you
conduct liquid-liquid material balances, calculate organic HAP
emissions reduction, using Equation 1 of this section, by applying the
emission capture system efficiency and add-on control device efficiency
to the mass of organic HAP contained in the coatings, thinners, and
cleaning materials that are used in the coating operation served by the
emission capture system and add-on control device during the compliance
period. For any period of time a deviation specified in Sec.
63.4163(c) or (d) occurs in the controlled coating operation, you must
assume zero efficiency for the emission capture system and add-on
control device. For the purposes of completing the compliance
calculations, you must treat the materials used during a deviation on a
controlled coating operation as if they were used on an uncontrolled
coating operation for the time period of the deviation. You must not
include those materials in the calculations of organic HAP emissions
reduction in Equation 1 of this section.
* * * * *
(h) * * *
(3) Determine the mass fraction of volatile organic matter for each
coating used in the coating operation controlled by the solvent
recovery system during the compliance period, kilogram, volatile
organic matter per kg coating. You may determine the volatile organic
matter mass fraction using Method 24 in appendix A-7 of part 60, ASTM
D2369-10 (2015), ``Test Method for Volatile Content of Coatings''
(incorporated by reference, see Sec. 63.14), or an EPA approved
alternative method. Alternatively, 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 Method 24, ASTM D2369-10 (2015), or an
approved alternative method, the test method results will govern.
* * * * *
0
13. Section 63.4163 is amended by revising paragraph (e) and removing
and reserving paragraph (h) to read as follows:
Sec. 63.4163 How do I demonstrate continuous compliance with the
emission limitations?
* * * * *
(e) You must demonstrate continuous compliance with the work
practice standards in Sec. 63.4093. If you did not develop a work
practice plan, did not implement the plan, or did not keep the records
required by Sec. 63.4130(k)(8), this is a deviation from the work
practice standards that must be reported as specified in Sec. Sec.
63.4110(b)(6) and 63.4120(g).
* * * * *
0
14. Section 63.4164 is amended by revising paragraph (a) introductory
text and paragraph (a)(1) to read as follows:
Sec. 63.4164 What are the general requirements for performance tests?
(a) You must conduct each performance test required by Sec.
63.4160 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
[[Page 46321]]
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
15. Section 63.4166 is amended by revising paragraph (b) introductory
text to read as follows:
Sec. 63.4166 How do I determine the add-on control device emission
destruction or removal efficiency?
* * * * *
(b) Measure total gaseous organic mass emissions as carbon at the
inlet and outlet of the add-on control device simultaneously, using
either Method 25 or 25A in appendix A-7 of part 60, as specified in
paragraphs (b)(1) through (3) of this section. You must use the same
method for both the inlet and outlet measurements. You may use Method
18 in appendix A-6 of part 60 to subtract methane emissions from
measured total gaseous organic mass emissions as carbon.
* * * * *
0
16. Section 63.4168 is amended by revising paragraphs (a)(4), (a)(5),
and (c)(3) introductory text to read as follows:
Sec. 63.4168 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. 63.4100(b) and have readily available necessary parts for routine
repairs of the monitoring equipment.
(5) You must operate the CPMS and collect emission capture system
and add-on control device parameter data at all times in accordance
with Sec. 63.4100(b).
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(3) For each gas temperature monitoring device, you must comply
with the requirements in paragraphs (c)(3)(i) through (vii) of this
section. For the purposes of this paragraph (c)(3), a thermocouple is
part of the temperature sensor.
* * * * *
0
17. Section 63.4181 is amended by adding, in alphabetical order,
definitions for ``Air-assisted airless spray'', ``Airless spray'',
``Electrostatic spray'', ``High-volume, Low-pressure spray'' and
revising the definition for ``Deviation'' to read as follows:
Sec. 63.4181 What definitions apply to this subpart?
* * * * *
Air-assisted airless spray means any paint spray technology that
spray uses compressed air to shape and distribute the fan of atomized
paint, but still uses fluid pressure to create the atomized paint.
Airless spray means any paint spray technology that relies solely
on the fluid pressure of the paint to create an atomized paint spray
pattern and does not apply any atomizing compressed air to the paint
before it leaves the paint nozzle.
* * * * *
Deviation means any instance in which an affected source subject to
this subpart or an owner or operator of such a source:
(1) Fails to meet any requirement or obligation established by this
subpart including but not limited to any emission limit, or operating
limit, or work practice standard; or
(2) Fails to meet any term or condition that is adopted to
implement an applicable requirement in this subpart and that is
included in the operating permit for any affected source required to
obtain such a permit.
* * * * *
Electrostatic spray is a method of applying a spray coating in
which an electrical charge is applied to the coating and the substrate
is grounded. The coating is attracted to the substrate by the
electrostatic potential between them.
* * * * *
High-volume, low-pressure spray means spray equipment that is used
to apply coating by means of a spray gun that operates at 10.0 psig of
atomizing air pressure or less at the air cap.
* * * * *
0
18. Table 2 to Subpart NNNN of Part 63 is revised to read as follows:
Table 2 to Subpart NNNN of Part 63--Applicability of General Provisions
to Subpart NNNN
You must comply with the applicable General Provisions requirements
according to the following table:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Applicable to subpart
Citation Subject NNNN Explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 63.1(a)(1)-(12)........... General Applicability.... Yes....................
Sec. 63.1(b)(1)-(3)............ Initial Applicability Yes.................... Applicability to subpart
Determination. NNNN is also specified
in Sec. 63.4081.
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 Sources. subject to subpart NNNN.
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.
63.4181.
Sec. 63.3(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 Approval Yes....................
of Construction/
Reconstruction.
Sec. 63.5(e)................... Approval of Construction/ Yes....................
Reconstruction.
Sec. 63.5(f)................... Approval of Construction/ Yes....................
Reconstruction Based on
Prior State Review.
Sec. 63.6(a)................... Compliance With Standards Yes....................
and Maintenance
Requirements--Applicabil
ity.
[[Page 46322]]
Sec. 63.6(b)(1)-(7)............ Compliance Dates for New Yes.................... Section 63.4083 specifies
and Reconstructed the compliance dates.
Sources.
Sec. 63.6(c)(1)-(5)............ Compliance Dates for Yes.................... Section 63.4083 specifies
Existing Sources. the compliance dates.
Sec. 63.6(e)(1)(i)............. Operation and Maintenance No..................... See Sec. 63.4900(b) for
general duty
requirement.
Sec. 63.6(e)(1)(ii)............ Operation and Maintenance No.....................
Sec. 63.6(e)(1)(iii)........... Operation and Maintenance Yes....................
Sec. 63.6(e)(3)................ SSM Plan................. No.....................
Sec. 63.6(f)(1)................ Compliance Except During No.....................
Startup, Shutdown, and
Malfunction.
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 NNNN 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--Applicabil sources. Additional
ity. requirements for
performance testing are
specified in Sec. Sec.
63.4164, 63.4165, and
63.4166.
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 standards.
Section 63.4160
specifies the schedule
for performance test
requirements that are
earlier than those
specified in Sec.
63.7(a)(2).
Sec. 63.7(a)(3)................ Performance Tests Yes....................
Required By the
Administrator.
Sec. 63.7(b)-(d)............... Performance Test Yes.................... Applies only to
Requirements--Notificati performance tests for
on, Quality Assurance capture system and add-
Facilities Necessary for on control device
Safe Testing, Conditions efficiency at sources
During Test. using these to comply
with the standard.
Sec. 63.7(e)(1)................ Conduct of performance No..................... See Sec. 63.4164(a)(1).
tests.
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 Method. used to determine
capture system
efficiency.
Sec. 63.7(g)-(h)............... Performance Test Yes.................... Applies only to
Requirements--Data performance tests for
Analysis, Recordkeeping, capture system and add-
Reporting, Waiver of on control device
Test. efficiency at sources
using these to comply
with the standard.
Sec. 63.8(a)(1)-(3)............ Monitoring Requirements-- Yes.................... Applies only to
Applicability. monitoring of capture
system and add-on
control device
efficiency at sources
using these to comply
with the standard.
Additional requirements
for monitoring are
specified in Sec.
63.4168.
Sec. 63.8(a)(4)................ Additional Monitoring No..................... Subpart NNNN does not
Requirements. have monitoring
requirements for flares.
Sec. 63.8(b)................... Conduct of Monitoring.... Yes....................
Sec. 63.8(c)(1)................ Continuous Monitoring No.....................
Systems (CMS) Operation
and Maintenance.
Sec. 63.8(c)(2)-(3)............ Continuous Monitoring Yes.................... Applies only to
Systems (CMS) Operation monitoring of capture
and Maintenance. 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.
63.4168.
Sec. 63.8(c)(4)................ CMS...................... No..................... Section 63.4168 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 NNNN does not
have opacity or visible
emission standards.
Sec. 63.8(c)(6)................ CMS Requirements......... No..................... Section 63.4168 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 63.4120 requires
Periods and Reporting. reporting of CMS out-of-
control periods.
Sec. 63.8(d)-(e)............... Quality Control Program No..................... Subpart NNNN does not
and CMS Performance require the use of CEMS.
Evaluation.
Sec. 63.8(f)(1)-(5)............ Use of an Alternative Yes....................
Monitoring Method.
Sec. 63.8(f)(6)................ Alternative to Relative No..................... Subpart NNNN does not
Accuracy Test. require the use of CEMS.
[[Page 46323]]
Sec. 63.8(g)(1)-(5)............ Data Reduction........... No..................... Sections 63.4167 and
63.4168 specify
monitoring data
reduction.
Sec. 63.9(a)-(d)............... Notification Requirements Yes....................
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 NNNN does not
Emissions/Opacity Test. have opacity or visible
emission standards.
Sec. 63.9(g)(1)-(3)............ Additional Notifications No..................... Subpart NNNN does not
When Using CMS. require the use of CEMS.
Sec. 63.9(h)................... Notification of Yes.................... Section 63.4110 specifies
Compliance Status. 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/Reporting-- Yes....................
Applicability and
General Information.
Sec. 63.10(b)(1)............... General Recordkeeping Yes.................... Additional requirements
Requirements. are specified in Sec.
Sec. 63.4130 and
63.4131.
Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(i)............ Recordkeeping of No..................... See Sec. 63.4130(j).
Occurrence and Duration
of Startups and
Shutdowns.
Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(ii)........... Recordkeeping of Failures No..................... See Sec. 63.4130(j).
to Meet Standards.
Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(iii).......... Recordkeeping Relevant to Yes....................
Maintenance of Air
Pollution Control and
Monitoring Equipment.
Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(iv)-(v)....... Actions Taken to Minimize No..................... See Sec. 63.4130(j)(4)
Emissions During SSM. for a record of actions
taken to minimize
emissions during a
deviation from the
standard.
Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(vi)........... Records for CMS No..................... See Sec. 63.4130(j) for
malfunctions. records of periods of
deviation from the
standard, including
instances where a CMS is
inoperative or out-of-
control.
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 NNNN 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 Recordkeeping Yes....................
Requirements for Sources
with CMS.
Sec. 63.10(c)(7)-(8)........... Additional Recordkeeping No..................... See Sec. 63.4130(j)(1)
Requirements for Sources for records of periods
with CMS. of deviation from the
standard, including
instances where a CMS is
inoperative or out-of-
control.
Sec. 63.10(c)(10)-(14)......... Additional Recordkeeping Yes....................
Requirements for Sources
with CMS.
Sec. 63.10(c)(15).............. Records Regarding the SSM No.....................
Plan.
Sec. 63.10(d)(1)............... General Reporting Yes.................... Additional requirements
Requirements. are specified in Sec.
63.4120.
Sec. 63.10(d)(2)............... Report of Performance Yes.................... Additional requirements
Test Results. are specified in Sec.
63.4120(h).
Sec. 63.10(d)(3)............... Reporting Opacity or No..................... Subpart NNNN 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 No..................... See Sec. 63.4120(g).
Malfunction Reports.
Sec. 63.10(e)(1)-(2)........... Additional CMS Reports... No..................... Subpart NNNN does not
require the use of CEMS.
Sec. 63.10(e)(3)............... Excess Emissions/CMS No..................... Section 63.4120(g)
Performance Reports. specifies the contents
of periodic compliance
reports.
Sec. 63.10(e)(4)............... COMS Data Reports........ No..................... Subpart NNNN does not
specify requirements for
opacity or COMS.
Sec. 63.10(f).................. Recordkeeping/Reporting Yes....................
Waiver.
Sec. 63.11..................... Control Device No..................... Subpart NNNN 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
19. Subpart NNNN of Part 63 is amended by adding Table 5 to read as
follows:
[[Page 46324]]
Table 5 to Subpart NNNN 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
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
[[Page 46325]]
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 OOOO--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants: Printing, Coating, and Dyeing of Fabrics and Other
Textiles
0
20. Section 63.4300 is amended by revising paragraphs (a)(3)(i) and (b)
and removing paragraph (c) to read as follows:
Sec. 63.4300 What are my general requirements for complying with this
subpart?
(a) * * *
(3) * * *
(i) The web coating/printing or dyeing/finishing operation(s) must
be in compliance with the applicable emission limit in Table 1 to this
subpart at all times.
* * * * *
(b) 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.
0
21. Section 63.4310 is amended by revising paragraph (c)(9)(iv) to read
as follows:
Sec. 63.4310 What notifications must I submit?
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(9) * * *
(iv) A statement of whether or not you developed and implemented
the work practice plan required by Sec. 63.4293.
0
22. Section 63.4311 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraph (a)(5) introductory text and paragraphs (a)(5)(i)
and (a)(5)(iv);
0
b. Adding paragraph (a)(5)(v);
0
c. Revising paragraph (a)(6) introductory text and paragraph
(a)(6)(iii);
0
d. Adding paragraph (a)(6)(iv);
0
e. Revising paragraph (a)(7) introductory text and paragraphs
(a)(7)(iv), (a)(7)(vii) through (ix), (a)(7)(xi), and (a)(7)(xiv) and
(xv);
0
f. Adding paragraph (a)(7)(xvi);
0
g. Revising paragraph (a)(8) introductory text;
0
h. Adding paragraph (a)(8)(v);
0
i. Revising paragraph (c); and
0
j. Adding paragraphs (d) through (g).
The revisions and additions read as follows:
Sec. 63.4311 What reports must I submit?
(a) * * *
(5) Deviations: Compliant material option. If you use the compliant
material option, and there was a deviation from the applicable organic
HAP content requirements in Table 1 to this subpart, the semiannual
compliance report must contain the information in paragraphs (a)(5)(i)
through (v) of this section.
(i) Identification of each coating, printing, slashing, dyeing or
finishing material applied that deviated from the emission limit and
each thinning or cleaning material applied in web coating/printing
operations that contained organic HAP, and the date, time, and duration
each was applied.
* * * * *
(iv) A statement of the cause of each deviation (including unknown
cause, if applicable).
(v) 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 emission limit in Table 1 to this
subpart, and a description of the method used to estimate the
emissions.
(6) Deviations: Emission rate without add-on controls option. If
you use the emission rate without add-on controls option and there was
a deviation from the applicable emission limit in Table 1 to this
subpart, the semiannual compliance report must contain the information
in paragraphs (a)(6)(i) through (iv) of this section.
* * * * *
(iii) A statement of the cause of each deviation (including unknown
cause, if applicable).
(iv) 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 Table 1 to this subpart, and a
description of the method used to estimate the emissions.
(7) Deviations: Add-on controls options. If you use one of the add-
on controls options in Sec. 63.4291(a) or (c) and there was a
deviation from the applicable emission limit in Table 1 to this subpart
or the applicable operating limit(s) in Table 2 to this subpart
(including any periods when emissions bypassed the add-on control
device and were diverted to the atmosphere), the semiannual compliance
report must contain the information in paragraphs (a)(7)(i) through
(xiii), (a)(7)(xv), and (a)(7)(xvi) 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. 63.4293(b), the
semiannual compliance report must contain the information in paragraph
(a)(7)(xiv) of this section.
* * * * *
(iv) The date and time that each malfunction of the capture system
or add-on control devices started and stopped.
* * * * *
(vii) 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
[[Page 46326]]
unknown cause) for the CPMS being inoperative; and descriptions of
corrective actions taken.
(viii) 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.
(ix) The date, time, and duration of each deviation from an
operating limit in Table 2 to this subpart, and the date, time, and
duration of any bypass of the add-on control device.
* * * * *
(xi) A breakdown of the total duration of the deviations from the
operating limits in Table 2 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.
* * * * *
(xiv) For deviations from the work practice standards, the number
of deviations, and, for each deviation:
(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. 63.4300(b).
(B) The description required in paragraph (a)(7)(xiv)(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.
(xv) For deviations from an emission limit in Table 1 to this
subpart or operating limit in Table 2 to this subpart, a statement of
the cause of each deviation (including unknown cause, if applicable).
(xvi) For each deviation from an emission limit in Table 1 to this
subpart or operating limit in Table 2 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 Table 1 to this subpart, and a description of the
method used to estimate the emissions.
(8) Deviations: Equivalent Emission Rate Option. If you use the
equivalent emission rate option, and there was a deviation from the
operating scenarios, as defined in Sec. 63.4371, used to demonstrate
initial compliance, the semiannual compliance report must specify the
number of deviations during the compliance period and contain the
information in paragraphs (a)(8)(i) through (v) of this section.
* * * * *
(v) For each deviation, the date, time, and duration of the
deviation, a list of the affected sources or equipment, and a statement
of the cause of the deviation (including an unknown cause, if
applicable).
* * * * *
(c) You must submit the results of the performance test required in
paragraph (b) of this section following the procedure specified in
paragraphs (c)(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.
(d) Beginning on [date 2 years 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. 63.4310(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 confidential
business information (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 Road, 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.
(e) Beginning on [date 2 years after date of publication of final
rule in the Federal Register] or once the reporting template has been
available on the CEDRI website for one 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
[[Page 46327]]
available in CEDRI for one 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 confidential
business information (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 Road, 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) If you are required to electronically submit a report through
the Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface (CEDRI) in the
EPA's Central Data Exchange (CDX), and due to a planned or actual
outage of either the EPA's CEDRI or CDX systems within the period of
time beginning five 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.
(g) 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 five 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
23. Section 63.4312 is amended by revising paragraph (i) and paragraph
(j) introductory text, and removing and reserving paragraphs (j)(1) and
(2) to read as follows:
Sec. 63.4312 What records must I keep?
* * * * *
(i) For each deviation from an emission limitation reported under
Sec. 63.4311(a)(5) through (8), a record of the information specified
in paragraphs (i)(1) through (4) of this section, as applicable:
(1) The date, time, and duration of the deviation, as reported
under Sec. 63.4311(a)(5) through (8).
(2) A list of the affected sources or equipment for which the
deviation occurred and the cause of the deviation, as reported under
Sec. 63.4311(a)(5) through (8).
(3) An estimate of the quantity of each regulated pollutant emitted
over any applicable emission limit in Table 1 to this subpart or any
applicable operating limit in Table 2 to this subpart, and a
description of the method used to calculate the estimate, as reported
under Sec. 63.4311(a)(5) through (8). If you use the equivalent
emission rate option to comply with this subpart, a record of the
applicable information specified in Sec. 63.4311(a)(8)(ii) through
(iv) satisfies this recordkeeping requirement.
(4) A record of actions taken to minimize emissions in accordance
with Sec. 63.4300(b) and any corrective actions taken to return the
affected unit to its normal or usual manner of operation.
(j) If you use the emission rate with add-on controls option, the
organic HAP overall control efficiency option, or the oxidizer outlet
organic HAP concentration option, you must also keep the records
specified in paragraphs (j)(1) through (8) of this section.
* * * * *
0
24. Section 63.4313 is amended by revising paragraph (a) to read as
follows:
Sec. 63.4313 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. 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
25. Section 63.4321 is amended by revising paragraphs (e)(1)(i)(A) and
(e)(1)(iv) to read as follows:
Sec. 63.4321 How do I demonstrate initial compliance with the
emission limitations?
* * * * *
(e) * * *
(1) * * *
(i) * * *
(A) Count each organic HAP in Table 6 to this subpart that is
measured to be
[[Page 46328]]
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
6 to this subpart) is measured to be 0.5 percent of the material by
mass, you don't have to count it. Express the mass fraction of each
organic HAP you count as a value truncated to no more than four places
after the decimal point (e.g., 0.3791).
* * * * *
(iv) 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)(i) through (iii) of this
section, such as manufacturer's formulation data, if it represents each
organic HAP in Table 6 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 6 to 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 (e)(1)(i) through (iii) of this
section on coating, thinning, or cleaning material, then the test
method results will take precedence. Information from the supplier or
manufacturer of the printing, slashing, dyeing, or finishing material
is sufficient for determining the mass fraction of organic HAP.
* * * * *
0
26. Section 63.4341 is amended by revising paragraph (e)(4)
introductory text and paragraph (f)(4) introductory text to read as
follows:
Sec. 63.4341 How do I demonstrate initial compliance?
* * * * *
(e) * * *
(4) Calculate the organic HAP emission reduction for each
controlled web coating/printing operation not using liquid-liquid
material balance. For each controlled web coating/printing operation
using an emission capture system and add-on control device other than a
solvent recovery system for which you conduct liquid-liquid material
balances, calculate the organic HAP emissions reductions using Equation
1 of this section. The equation applies the emission capture system
efficiency and add-on control device efficiency to the mass of organic
HAP contained in the coating, printing, thinning, and cleaning
materials applied in the web coating/printing operation served by the
emission capture system and add-on control device during the compliance
period. For any period of time a deviation specified in Sec.
63.4342(c) or (d) occurs in the controlled web coating/printing
operation, then you must assume zero efficiency for the emission
capture system and add-on control device. Equation 1 of this section
treats the coating, printing, thinning, and cleaning materials applied
during such a deviation as if they were used on an uncontrolled web
coating/printing operation for the time period of the deviation.
* * * * *
(f) * * *
(4) Calculate the organic HAP emission reduction for each
controlled dyeing/finishing operation not using liquid-liquid material
balance. For each controlled dyeing/finishing operation using an
emission capture system and add-on control device other than a solvent
recovery system for which you conduct liquid-liquid material balances,
calculate the organic HAP emissions reductions using Equation 5 of this
section. The equation applies the emission capture system efficiency
and add-on control device efficiency to the mass of organic HAP
contained in the dyeing and finishing materials applied in the dyeing/
finishing operation served by the emission capture system and add-on
control device during the compliance period. For any period of time a
deviation specified in Sec. 63.4342(c) or (d) occurs in the controlled
dyeing/finishing operation, then you must assume zero efficiency for
the emission capture system and add-on control device. Equation 5 of
this section treats the dyeing and finishing materials applied during
such a deviation as if they were applied on an uncontrolled dyeing/
finishing operation for the time period of the deviation.
* * * * *
0
27. Section 63.4342 is amended by revising paragraph (f) and removing
and reserving paragraph (h) to read as follows:
Sec. 63.4342 How do I demonstrate continuous compliance with the
emission limitations?
* * * * *
(f) As part of each semiannual compliance report required in Sec.
63.4311, you must identify the coating/printing and dyeing/finishing
operation(s) for which you use the emission rate with add-on controls
option. If there were no deviations from the applicable emission
limitations in Sec. Sec. 63.4290, 63.4292, and 63.4293, you must
submit a statement that, as appropriate, the web coating/printing
operations or the dyeing/finishing operations 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 Table 1 to this subpart, and
you achieved the operating limits required by Sec. 63.4292 and the
work practice standards required by Sec. 63.4293 during each
compliance period.
* * * * *
0
28. Section 63.4351 is amended by revising paragraph (d)(4) to read as
follows:
Sec. 63.4351 How do I demonstrate initial compliance?
* * * * *
(d) * * *
(4) Calculate the organic HAP emissions reductions for controlled
web coating/printing operations not using liquid-liquid material
balance. For each controlled web coating/printing operation using an
emission capture system and add-on control device other than a solvent
recovery system for which you conduct liquid-liquid material balances,
calculate the organic HAP emissions reductions using Equation 1 of
Sec. 63.4341. The equation applies the emission capture system
efficiency and add-on control device efficiency to the mass of organic
HAP contained in the coating, printing, thinning, and cleaning
materials applied in the web coating/printing operation served by the
emission capture system and add-on control device during the compliance
period. For any period of time a deviation specified in Sec.
63.4352(c) or (d) occurs in the controlled web coating/printing
operation, then you must assume zero efficiency for the emission
capture system and add-on control device. Equation 1 of Sec. 63.4341
treats the coating, printing, thinning, and cleaning materials applied
during such a deviation as if they were applied on an uncontrolled web
coating/printing operation for the time period of the deviation.
* * * * *
Sec. 63.4352 [Amended]
0
29. Section 63.4352 is amended by removing and reserving paragraph (h).
0
30. Section 63.4360 is amended by revising paragraph (a) introductory
text and paragraph (a)(1) to read as follows.
Sec. 63.4360 What are the general requirements for performance tests?
(a) You must conduct each performance test required by Sec. Sec.
63.4340 or 63.4350 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).
[[Page 46329]]
(1) Representative web coating/printing or dyeing/finishing
operation operating conditions. You must conduct the performance test
under representative operating conditions for the web coating/printing
or dyeing/finishing 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
31. Section 63.4362 is amended by revising paragraph (b) introductory
text to read as follows:
Sec. 63.4362 How do I determine the add-on control device emission
destruction or removal efficiency?
* * * * *
(b) Measure the volatile organic matter concentration as carbon at
the inlet and outlet of the add-on control device simultaneously, using
Method 25 or 25A in appendix A-7 of part 60. If you are demonstrating
compliance with the oxidizer outlet organic HAP concentration limit,
only the outlet volatile organic matter concentration must be
determined. The outlet volatile organic matter concentration is
determined as the average of the three test runs. You may use Method 18
in appendix A-6 of part 60 to subtract methane emissions from measured
volatile organic matter concentration as carbon.
* * * * *
0
32. Section 63.4364 is amended by revising paragraphs (a)(6) through
(8) to read as follows:
Sec. 63.4364 What are the requirements for CPMS installation,
operation, and maintenance?
(a) * * *
(6) At all times, you must maintain the monitoring system in
accordance with Sec. 63.4300(b) and in proper working order including,
but not limited to, keeping readily available necessary parts for
routine repairs of the monitoring equipment.
(7) You must operate the CPMS and collect emission capture system
and add-on control device parameter data at all times in accordance
with Sec. 63.4300(b). Data recorded during monitoring malfunctions,
associated repairs, out-of-control periods, or required quality
assurance or control activities shall not be used for purposes of
calculating the emissions concentrations and percent reductions
specified in Table 1 to this subpart. You must use all the data
collected during all other periods in assessing compliance of the
control device and associated control system. A monitoring malfunction
is any sudden, infrequent, not reasonably preventable failure of the
monitoring system to provide valid data. Monitoring failures that are
caused in part by poor maintenance or careless operation are not
malfunctions.
(8) Except for periods of required quality assurance or control
activities, any averaging period during which the CPMS fails to operate
and record data continuously as required by paragraph (a)(1) of this
section, or which generates data that cannot be included in calculating
averages as specified in paragraph (a)(7) of this section, constitutes
a deviation, and you must notify the Administrator in accordance with
Sec. 63.4311(a).
* * * * *
0
33. Section 63.4371 is amended by adding, in alphabetical order,
definitions for ``Air-assisted airless spray'', ``Airless spray'',
``Electrostatic spray'', ``High-volume, Low-pressure spray'' and
revising the definitions of ``Deviation'' and ``No organic HAP'' to
read as follows:
Sec. 63.4371 What definitions apply to this subpart?
* * * * *
Air-assisted airless spray means any paint spray technology that
spray uses compressed air to shape and distribute the fan of atomized
paint, but still uses fluid pressure to create the atomized paint.
Airless spray means any paint spray technology that relies solely
on the fluid pressure of the paint to create an atomized paint spray
pattern and does not apply any atomizing compressed air to the paint
before it leaves the paint nozzle.
* * * * *
Deviation means any instance in which an affected source subject to
this subpart, or an owner or operator of such a source:
(1) Fails to meet any requirement or obligation established by this
subpart, including but not limited to any emission limit, or operating
limit, or work practice standard; or
(2) Fails to meet any term or condition that is adopted to
implement an applicable requirement in this subpart and that is
included in the operating permit for any affected source required to
obtain such a permit.
* * * * *
Electrostatic spray is a method of applying a spray coating in
which an electrical charge is applied to the coating and the substrate
is grounded. The coating is attracted to the substrate by the
electrostatic potential between them.
* * * * *
High-volume, low-pressure spray means spray equipment that is used
to apply coating by means of a spray gun that operates at 10.0 psig of
atomizing air pressure or less at the air cap.
* * * * *
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).
* * * * *
0
34. Table 3 to Subpart OOOO is revised to read as follows:
Table 3 to Subpart OOOO of Part 63--Applicability of General Provisions
to Subpart OOOO
You must comply with the applicable General Provisions requirements
according to the following table:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Applicable to subpart
Citation Subject OOOO Explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 63.1(a)(1)-(12)........... General Applicability.... Yes....................
Sec. 63.1(b)(1)-(3)............ Initial Applicability Yes.................... Applicability to subpart
Determination. OOOO is also specified
in Sec. 63.4281.
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 Sources. subject to subpart OOOO.
Sec. 63.1(c)(4)-(5)............ Extensions and Yes....................
Notifications.
[[Page 46330]]
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.
63.4371.
Sec. 63.3(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 Approval Yes....................
of Construction/
Reconstruction.
Sec. 63.5(e)................... Approval of Construction/ Yes....................
Reconstruction.
Sec. 63.5(f)................... Approval of Construction/ Yes....................
Reconstruction Based on
Prior State Review.
Sec. 63.6(a)................... Compliance With Standards Yes....................
and Maintenance
Requirements--Applicabil
ity.
Sec. 63.6(b)(1)-(7)............ Compliance Dates for New Yes.................... Section 63.4283 specifies
and Reconstructed the compliance dates.
Sources.
Sec. 63.6(c)(1)-(5)............ Compliance Dates for Yes.................... Section 63.4283 specifies
Existing Sources. the compliance dates.
Sec. 63.6(e)(1)(i)............. Operation and Maintenance No..................... See Sec. 63.4300(b) for
general duty
requirement.
Sec. 63.6(e)(1)(ii)............ Operation and Maintenance No.....................
Sec. 63.6(e)(1)(iii)........... Operation and Maintenance Yes....................
Sec. 63.6(e)(3)................ Startup, Shutdown, and No.....................
Malfunction Plan.
Sec. 63.6(f)(1)................ Compliance Except During No.....................
Startup, Shutdown, and
Malfunction.
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 OOOO 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--Applicabil sources. Additional
ity. requirements for
performance testing are
specified in Sec. Sec.
63.4360, 63.4361, and
63.4362.
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.
Sec. 63.7(a)(3)................ Performance Tests Yes....................
Required by the
Administrator.
Sec. 63.7(b)-(d)............... Performance Test Yes.................... Applies only to
Requirements--Notificati performance tests for
on, Quality Assurance, capture system and
Facilities Necessary for control device
Safe Testing, Conditions efficiency at sources
During Test. using these to comply
with the standard.
Sec. 63.7(e)(1)................ Conduct of performance No..................... See Sec. 63.4360.
tests.
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 Method. used to determine
capture system
efficiency.
Sec. 63.7(g)-(h)............... Performance Test Yes.................... Applies only to
Requirements--Data performance tests for
Analysis, Recordkeeping, capture system and add-
Waiver of Test. on control device
efficiency at sources
using these to comply
with the standards.
Sec. 63.8(a)(1)-(3)............ Monitoring Requirements-- Yes.................... Applies only to
Applicability. monitoring of capture
system and add-on
control device
efficiency at sources
using these to comply
with the standards.
Additional requirements
for monitoring are
specified in Sec.
63.4364.
Sec. 63.8(a)(4)................ Additional Monitoring No..................... Subpart OOOO does not
Requirements. have monitoring
requirements for flares.
Sec. 63.8(b)................... Conduct of Monitoring.... Yes....................
Sec. 63.8(c)(1)................ Continuous Monitoring No..................... Section 63.4364 specifies
Systems (CMS) Operation the requirements for the
and Maintenance. operation of CMS for
capture systems and add-
on control devices at
sources using these to
comply.
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 standards.
Additional requirements
for CMS operations and
maintenance are
specified in Sec.
63.4364.
[[Page 46331]]
Sec. 63.8(c)(4)................ CMS...................... No..................... Section 63.4364 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 OOOO does not
have opacity or visible
emission standards.
Sec. 63.8(c)(6)................ CMS Requirements......... No..................... Section 63.4364 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 63.4311 requires
Periods and Reporting. reporting of CMS out-of-
control periods.
Sec. 63.8(d)-(e)............... Quality Control Program No..................... Subpart OOOO does not
and CMS Performance require the use of CEMS.
Evaluation.
Sec. 63.8(f)(1)-(5)............ Use of Alternative Yes....................
Monitoring Method.
Sec. 63.8(f)(6)................ Alternative to Relative No..................... Subpart OOOO does not
Accuracy Test. require the use of CEMS.
Sec. 63.8(g)(1)-(5)............ Data Reduction........... No..................... Sections 63.4342 and
63.4352 specify
monitoring data
reduction.
Sec. 63.9(a)................... Applicability and General Yes....................
Information.
Sec. 63.9(b)................... Initial Notifications.... No..................... Subpart OOOO provides 1
year for an existing
source to submit an
initial notification.
Sec. 63.9(c)................... Request for Extension of Yes....................
Compliance.
Sec. 63.9(d)................... Notification that Source Yes....................
is Subject to Special
Compliance 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
standards.
Sec. 63.9(f)................... Notification of Visible No..................... Subpart OOOO does not
Emissions/Opacity Test. have opacity or visible
emission standards.
Sec. 63.9(g)(1)-(3)............ Additional Notifications No..................... Subpart OOOO does not
When Using CMS. require the use of CEMS.
Sec. 63.9(h)................... Notification of Yes.................... Section 63.4310 specifies
Compliance Status. 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/Reporting-- Yes....................
Applicability and
General Information.
Sec. 63.10(b)(1)............... General Recordkeeping Yes.................... Additional Requirements
Requirements. are specified in Sec.
Sec. 63.4312 and
63.4313.
Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(i)............ Recordkeeping of No..................... See Sec. 63.4312(i)
Occurrence and Duration
of Startups and
Shutdowns based on EPA
Guidance.
Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(ii)........... Recordkeeping of Failures No..................... See Sec. 63.4312(i).
to Meet Standards.
Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(iii).......... Recordkeeping Relevant to Yes....................
Maintenance of Air
Pollution Control and
Monitoring Equipment.
Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(iv)-(v)....... Actions Taken to Minimize No..................... See Sec. 63.4312(i)(5)
Emissions During for a record of actions
Startup, Shutdown, and taken to minimize
Malfunction. emissions during a
deviation from the
standard.
Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(vi)........... Recordkeeping for CMS No..................... See Sec. 63.4312(i) for
malfunctions. records of periods of
deviation from the
standard, including
instances where a CMS is
inoperative or out-of-
control.
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 OOOO 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 Recordkeeping Yes....................
Requirements for Sources
with CMS.
Sec. 63.10(c)(7)-(8)........... Additional Recordkeeping No..................... See Sec. 63.4312(i)(1)
Requirements for Sources for records of periods
with CMS. of deviation from the
standard, including
instances where a CMS is
inoperative or out-of-
control.
Sec. 63.10(c)(10)-(14)......... Additional Recordkeeping Yes....................
Requirements for Sources
with CMS.
Sec. 63.10(c)(15).............. Records Regarding the No.....................
Startup, Shutdown, and
Malfunction Plan.
Sec. 63.10(d)(1)............... General Reporting Yes.................... Addtional requirements
Requirements. are specified in Sec.
63.4311.
Sec. 63.10(d)(2)............... Report of Performance Yes.................... Additional requirements
Test Results. are specified in Sec.
63.4311(b).
[[Page 46332]]
Sec. 63.10(d)(3)............... Reporting Opacity or No..................... Subpart OOOO 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 No..................... See Sec. 63.4311(a)(7).
Malfunction Reports.
Sec. 63.10(e)(1)-(2)........... Additional CMS Reports... No..................... Subpart OOOO does not
require the use of CEMS.
Sec. 63.10(e)(3)............... Excess Emissions/CMS No..................... Section 63.4311(a)
Performance Reports. specifies the contents
of periodic compliance
reports.
Sec. 63.10(e)(4)............... COMS Data Reports........ No..................... Subpart OOOO does not
specify requirements for
opacity or COMS.
Sec. 63.10(f).................. Recordkeeping/Reporting Yes....................
Waiver.
Sec. 63.11..................... Control Device No..................... Subpart OOOO 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.................... ASNI/ASME PTC 19.10-1981,
Reference. Part 10
Sec. 63.15..................... Availability of Yes....................
Information/
Confidentiality.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0
35. Subpart OOOO of Part 63 is amended by adding Table 6 to read as
follows:
Table 6 to Subpart OOOO 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
[[Page 46333]]
Ethylene dibromide...................................... 106-93-4
Ethylene dichloride..................................... 107-06-2
Ethylene oxide.......................................... 75-21-8
Ethylene thiourea....................................... 96-45-7
Ethylidene dichloride (1,1-Dichloroethane).............. 75-34-3
Formaldehyde............................................ 50-00-0
Heptachlor.............................................. 76-44-8
Hexachlorobenzene....................................... 118-74-1
Hexachlorobutadiene..................................... 87-68-3
Hexachloroethane........................................ 67-72-1
Hydrazine............................................... 302-01-2
Isophorone.............................................. 78-59-1
Lindane (hexachlorocyclohexane, all isomers)............ 58-89-9
m-Cresol................................................ 108-39-4
Methylene chloride...................................... 75-09-2
Naphthalene............................................. 91-20-3
Nitrobenzene............................................ 98-95-3
Nitrosodimethylamine.................................... 62-75-9
o-Cresol................................................ 95-48-7
o-Toluidine............................................. 95-53-4
Parathion............................................... 56-38-2
p-Cresol................................................ 106-44-5
p-Dichlorobenzene....................................... 106-46-7
Pentachloronitrobenzene................................. 82-68-8
Pentachlorophenol....................................... 87-86-5
Propoxur................................................ 114-26-1
Propylene dichloride.................................... 78-87-5
Propylene oxide......................................... 75-56-9
Quinoline............................................... 91-22-5
Tetrachloroethene....................................... 127-18-4
Toxaphene............................................... 8001-35-2
Trichloroethylene....................................... 79-01-6
Trifluralin............................................. 1582-09-8
Vinyl bromide........................................... 593-60-2
Vinyl chloride.......................................... 75-01-4
Vinylidene chloride..................................... 75-35-4
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subpart RRRR--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants: Surface Coating of Metal Furniture
0
36. Section 63.4894 is added to read as follows:
Sec. 63.4894 What transfer efficiency requirement must I meet?
(a) For any spray-applied coating operation(s) for which you use
the compliant material option or the emission rate without add-on
controls option, you are required to meet a transfer efficiency of 65
percent or use the spray coating application method specified in
paragraph (b) of this section. For any spray-applied coating
operation(s) for which you use the emission rate with add-on controls
option, the transfer efficiency requirement does not apply.
(b) As an alternative to the transfer efficiency requirement in
paragraph (a) of this section, for any spray-applied coating
operation(s) for which you use the compliant material option or the
emission rate without add-on controls option, you may apply all spray-
applied coatings using high-volume, low-pressure (HVLP) spray
equipment; electrostatic application; airless spray equipment; or air-
assisted airless spray equipment, except as specified in paragraphs
(b)(1) of this section. You must also meet the requirements in
paragraph (b)(2) of this section.
(1) You may apply spray-applied coatings using an alternative
coating spray application method if you demonstrate that the
alternative method achieves a transfer efficiency equivalent to or
better than 65 percent, using a procedure equivalent to the California
South Coast Air Quality Management District's ``Spray Equipment
Transfer Efficiency Test Procedure for Equipment User, May 24, 1989''
(incorporated by reference, see Sec. 63.14 of subpart A of this part)
and following guidelines equivalent to ``Guidelines for Demonstrating
Equivalency with District Approved Transfer Efficient Spray Guns,
September 26, 2002'' (incorporated by reference, see Sec. 63.14 of
subpart A of this part). For the purposes of this section, when using
these equivalent guidelines or procedures, you are not required to
submit an application with the test plan or protocol to the
Administrator, conduct the test in the presence of an Administrator, or
submit test results to the Administrator for review or approval.
Instead you must comply with the recordkeeping requirement in Sec.
63.4130(l).
(2) All spray application equipment must be operated according to
company procedures, local specified operating procedures, and/or the
manufacturer's specifications, whichever is most stringent, at all
times. If you modify spray application equipment, you must maintain
emission reductions or a transfer efficiency equivalent to HVLP spray
equipment, electrostatic application, airless spray equipment, or air-
assisted airless spray equipment, and you must demonstrate equivalency
according to paragraph (b)(1) of this section and comply with the
recordkeeping requirement in Sec. 63.4130(l).
[[Page 46334]]
0
37. Section 63.4900 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 63.4900 What are my general requirements for complying with this
subpart?
(a) The affected source must be in compliance at all times with the
applicable emission limitations specified in Sec. Sec. 63.4890,
63.4892, and 63.4893.
(b) 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) Reserved.
0
38. Section 63.4910 is amended by revising paragraph (c)(9)
introductory text and removing paragraph (c)(9)(v) to read as follows:
Sec. 63.4910 What notifications must I submit?
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(9) For the emission rate with add-on controls option, you must
include the information specified in paragraphs (c)(9)(i) through (iv)
of this section. However, the requirements in paragraphs (c)(9)(i)
through (iii) of this section do not apply to solvent recovery systems
for which you conduct liquid-liquid material balances according to
Sec. 63.4961(j).
* * * * *
0
39. Section 63.4920 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraph (a)(3) introductory text, paragraph (a)(4), and
paragraphs (a)(5)(i) and (iv);
0
b. Adding new paragraph (a)(5)(v);
0
c. Revising paragraph (a)(6) introductory text and paragraph (a)(6)(v);
0
d. Adding new paragraph (a)(6)(vi);
0
e. Revising paragraph (a)(7) introductory text and paragraphs
(a)(7)(vi), (a)(7)(ix) through (xi), and (a)(7)(xiii), (xvi), and
(xvii);
0
f. Adding new paragraph (a)(7)(xviii); and
0
g. Removing and reserving paragraph (c).
The revisions and additions read as follows:
Sec. 63.4920 What reports must I submit?
(a) * * *
(3) General requirements. The semiannual compliance report must
contain the information specified in paragraphs (a)(3)(i) through (v)
of this section, and the information specified in paragraphs (a)(4)
through (7) of this section that is applicable to your affected source.
* * * * *
(4) No deviations. If there were no deviations from the emission
limits, operating limits, and work practice standards in Sec. Sec.
63.4890, 63.4892, and 63.4893, respectively, that apply to you, the
semiannual compliance report must include an affirmative statement that
there were no deviations from the emission limits, operating limits, or
work practice standards in Sec. Sec. 63.4890, 63.4892, and 63.4893
during the reporting period. If there were no deviations from these
emission limitations, the semiannual compliance report must include the
affirmative statement that is described in either Sec. 63.4942(c),
Sec. 63.4952(c), or Sec. 63.4962(f), as applicable. If you used the
emission rate with add-on controls option and there were no periods
during which the continuous parameter monitoring systems (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
as specified in Sec. 63.8(c)(7).
(5) * * *
(i) Identification of each coating used that deviated from the
emission limit, and of each thinner and cleaning material used that
contained organic HAP, and the date, time, and duration each was used.
* * * * *
(iv) A statement of the cause of each deviation (including unknown
cause, if applicable).
(v) 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 emission limit in Sec. 63.4890,
and a description of the method used to estimate the emissions.
(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 any applicable emission limit in Sec. 63.4890,
the semiannual compliance report must contain the information in
paragraphs (a)(6)(i) through (vi) of this section. You do not need to
submit background data supporting these calculations, for example,
information provided by materials suppliers or manufacturers, or test
reports.
* * * * *
(v) A statement of the cause of each deviation (including unknown
cause, if applicable).
(vi) 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. 63.4890, and a description of
the method used to estimate the emissions.
(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. 63.4890 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), the semiannual compliance report must
contain the information in paragraphs (a)(7)(i) through (xv),
(a)(7)(xvii), and (a)(7)(xviii) of this section. If you use the
emission rate with add-on controls option and there was a deviation
from the work practice standards in Sec. 63.4893(b), the semiannual
compliance report must contain the information in paragraph (a)(7)(xvi)
of this section. You do not need to submit background data supporting
these calculations, for example, information provided by materials
suppliers or manufacturers, or test reports.
* * * * *
(vi) The date and time that each malfunction of the capture system
or add-on control devices started and stopped.
* * * * *
(ix) 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.
(x) 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.
(xi) The date, time, and duration of each deviation from an
operating limit in Table 1 to this subpart; and the date,
[[Page 46335]]
time, and duration of any bypass of the add-on control device.
* * * * *
(xiii) 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.
* * * * *
(xvi) For deviations from the work practice standards in Sec.
63.4893(b), the number of deviations, and, for each deviation:
(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. 63.4900(b).
(B) The description required in paragraph (a)(7)(xvi)(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).
(xvii) For deviations from an emission limit in Sec. 63.4890 or
operating limit in Table 1 to this subpart, a statement of the cause of
each deviation (including unknown cause, if applicable).
(xviii) For each deviation from an emission limit in Sec. 63.4890
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. 63.4890, and a description of the method used to estimate the
emissions.
* * * * *
0
40. Section 63.4921 is added to read as follows:
Sec. 63.4921 What are my electronic reporting requirements?
(a) You must submit the results of the performance test required
Sec. 63.4920(b) following the procedure specified in paragraphs (a)(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. 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 (a)(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/
OAQPS/CORE CBI Office, Attention: Group Leader, Measurement Policy
Group, MD C404-02, 4930 Old Page Road, 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 (a)(1) of this section.
(b) Beginning on [date 2 years 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. 63.4910(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 Confidential Business Information
(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 Road, 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.
(c) Beginning on [date 2 years after date of publication of final
rule in the Federal Register] or once the reporting template has been
available on the CEDRI website for one year, whichever date is later,
the owner or operator shall submit the semiannual compliance report
required in Sec. 63.4920 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
one 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 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 Road, 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.
(d) If you are required to electronically submit a report through
the CEDRI in the EPA's Central Data Exchange (CDX), and due to a
planned or actual outage of either the EPA's CEDRI or CDX systems
within the period of time beginning five business
[[Page 46336]]
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.
(e) 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 five 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
41. Section 63.4930 is amended by revising paragraph (j) and paragraph
(k) introductory text, and removing and reserving paragraphs (k)(1) and
(2) to read as follows:
Sec. 63.4930 What records must I keep?
* * * * *
(j) For each deviation from an emission limitation reported under
Sec. 63.4920(a)(5), (a)(6), and (a)(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 each deviation, as reported
under Sec. 63.4920(a)(5), (a)(6), and (a)(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. 63.4920(a)(5), (a)(6), and (a)(7).
(3) An estimate of the quantity of each regulated pollutant emitted
over any applicable emission limit in Sec. 63.4890 or any applicable
operating limit(s) in Table 1 to this subpart, and a description of the
method used to calculate the estimate, as reported under Sec.
63.4920(a)(5), (a)(6), and (a)(7).
(4) A record of actions taken to minimize emissions in accordance
with Sec. 63.4900(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)(3) through (8)
of this section.
* * * * *
0
42. Section 63.4931 is amended by revising paragraph (a) introductory
text to read as follows:
Sec. 63.4931 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. 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
43. Section 63.4941 is amended by revising paragraphs (a)(1)(i), (a)(2)
and (4), (b)(1), parameters ``mvolatiles'' and
``Davg'' of Equation 1 of paragraph (b)(3), and paragraph
(c) to read as follows:
Sec. 63.4941 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 organic HAP 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 (for example, 0.3791).
* * * * *
(2) Method 24 in appendix A-7 of part 60. For coatings, you may use
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 Method 24, you may use ASTM D2369-10 (2015),
``Test Method for Volatile Content of Coatings'' (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 organic HAP
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. 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.
* * * * *
[[Page 46337]]
(b) * * *
(1) Test results. You may use ASTM Method D2697-03 (2014),
``Standard Test Method for Volume Nonvolatile Matter in Clear or
Pigmented Coatings'' (incorporated by reference, see Sec. 63.14), or
D6093-97, ``Standard Test Method for Percent Volume Nonvolatile Matter
in Clear or Pigmented Coatings Using a Helium Gas Pycnometer''
(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. Alternatively, you may use another test
method once you obtain approval from the Administrator according to the
requirements of Sec. 63.7(f).
* * * * *
(3) * * *
* * * * *
Mvolatiles = Total volatile matter content of the
coating, including HAP, volatile organic compounds (VOC), water, and
exempt compounds, determined according to Method 24 in appendix A-7
of part 60, or according to ASTM D2369-10 (2015) Standard Test
Method for Volatile Content of Coatings (incorporated by reference,
see Sec. 63.14), grams volatile matter per liter coating.
Davg = Average density of volatile matter in the
coating, grams volatile matter per liter volatile matter, determined
from test results using ASTM Method D1475-13, ``Standard Test Method
for Density of Liquid Coatings, Inks, and Related Products''
(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 Method D1475-13 test results and
other information sources, the test results will take precedence.
(c) Determine the density of each coating. You must determine the
density of each coating used during the compliance period from test
results using ASTM Method D1475-13, ``Standard Test Method for Density
of Liquid Coatings, Inks, and Related Products'' (incorporated by
reference, see Sec. 63.14), or information from the supplier or
manufacturer of the material. If there is disagreement between ASTM
Method D1475-13 test results and the supplier's or manufacturer's
information, the test results will take precedence.
* * * * *
0
44. Section 63.4951 is amended by revising paragraph (c) to read as
follows:
Sec. 63.4951 How do I demonstrate initial compliance with the
emission limitations?
* * * * *
(c) Determine the density of each material. You must determine the
density of each coating, thinner, and cleaning material used during the
compliance period according to the requirements in Sec. 63.4941(c).
* * * * *
0
45. Section 63.4961 is amended by revising paragraph (h) introductory
text and paragraph (j)(3) to read as follows:
Sec. 63.4961 How do I demonstrate initial compliance?
* * * * *
(h) Calculate the organic HAP emission reduction for controlled
coating operations not using liquid-liquid material balance. For each
controlled coating operation using an emission capture system and add-
on control device other than a solvent recovery system for which you
conduct liquid-liquid material balances, calculate the organic HAP
emission reduction, using Equation 1 of this section. The calculation
applies the emission capture system efficiency and add-on control
device efficiency to the mass of organic HAP contained in the coatings,
thinners, and cleaning materials that are used in the coating operation
served by the emission capture system and add-on control device during
the compliance period. For any period of time a deviation specified in
Sec. 63.4962(c) or (d) occurs in the controlled coating operation, you
must assume zero efficiency for the emission capture system and add-on
control device. Equation 1 of this section treats the materials used
during such a deviation as if they were used on an uncontrolled coating
operation for the time period of the deviation:
* * * * *
(j) * * *
(3) Determine the mass fraction of volatile organic matter for each
coating, thinner, and cleaning material used in the coating operation
controlled by the solvent recovery system during the compliance period.
You may determine the volatile organic matter mass fraction using
Method 24 in appendix A-7 of part 60, ASTM D2369-10 (2015), ``Test
Method for Volatile Content of Coatings'' (incorporated by reference,
see Sec. 63.14), or an EPA-approved alternative method. Alternatively,
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 Method 24, ASTM
D2369-10 (2015), or an approved alternative method, the test method
results will govern.
* * * * *
0
46. Section 63.4963 is amended by revising paragraph (a) introductory
text and paragraph (a)(1) to read as follows:
Sec. 63.4963 What are the general requirements for performance tests?
(a) You must conduct each performance test required by Sec.
63.4960 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
47. Section 63.4965 is amended by revising the paragraph (b)
introductory text to read as follows:
Sec. 63.4965 How do I determine the add-on control device emission
destruction or removal efficiency?
* * * * *
(b) Measure total gaseous organic mass emissions as carbon at the
inlet and outlet of the add-on control device simultaneously, using
either Method 25 or 25A in appendix A-7 of part 60, as specified in
paragraphs (b)(1) through (3) of this section. You must use the same
method for both the inlet and outlet measurements. You may use Method
18 in appendix A-6 of part 60 to subtract methane emissions from
measured total gaseous organic mass emissions as carbon.
* * * * *
0
48. Section 63.4967 is amended by revising paragraphs (a)(4) and (5)
and paragraph (c)(3) introductory text to read as follows:
Sec. 63.4967 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. 63.4900(b) and have readily available necessary parts for routine
repairs of the monitoring equipment.
(5) You must operate the CPMS and collect emission capture system
and add-on control device parameter data at
[[Page 46338]]
all times in accordance with Sec. 63.4900(b).
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(3) For each gas temperature monitoring device, you must meet the
requirements in paragraphs (a) and (c)(3)(i) through (vi) 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
49. Section 63.4981 is amended by revising the definition of
``Deviation'' to read as follows:
Sec. 63.4981 What definitions apply to this subpart?
* * * * *
Deviation means any instance in which an affected source subject to
this subpart, or an owner or operator of such a source:
(1) Fails to meet any requirement or obligation established by this
subpart including, but not limited to, any emission limit, or operating
limit, or work practice standard; or
(2) Fails to meet any term or condition that is adopted to
implement an applicable requirement in this subpart and that is
included in the operating permit for any affected source required to
obtain such a permit.
* * * * *
0
50. Table 2 to Subpart RRRR of Part 63 is revised to read as follows:
Table 2 to Subpart RRRR of Part 63--Applicability of General Provisions
to Subpart RRRR
You must comply with the applicable General Provisions requirements
according to the following table:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Citation Subject Applicable to subpart Explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 63.1(a)(1)-(12)........... General Applicability.... Yes....................
Sec. 63.1(b)(1)-(3)............ Initial Applicability Yes.................... Applicability to subpart
Determination. RRRR is also specified
in Sec. 63.4881.
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 Sources. subject to subpart RRRR.
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.
63.4981.
Sec. 63.3(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 Approval Yes....................
of Construction/
Reconstruction.
Sec. 63.5(e)................... Approval of Construction/ Yes....................
Reconstruction.
Sec. 63.5(f)................... Approval of Construction/ Yes....................
Reconstruction Based on
Prior State Review.
Sec. 63.6(a)................... Compliance With Standards Yes....................
and Maintenance
Requirements--Applicabil
ity.
Sec. 63.6(b)(1)-(7)............ Compliance Dates for New Yes.................... Section 63.4883 specifies
and Reconstructed the compliance dates.
Sources.
Sec. 63.6(c)(1)-(5)............ Compliance Dates for Yes.................... Section 63.4883 specifies
Existing Sources. the compliance dates.
Sec. 63.6(e)(1)(i)............. Operation and Maintenance No..................... See Sec. 63.4900(b) for
general duty
requirement.
Sec. 63.6(e)(1)(ii)............ Operation and Maintenance No.....................
Sec. 63.6(e)(1)(iii)........... Operation and Maintenance Yes....................
Sec. 63.6(e)(3)................ SSM Plan................. No.....................
Sec. 63.6(f)(1)................ Compliance Except During No.....................
Startup, Shutdown, and
Malfunction.
Sec. 63.6(f)(2)-(3)............ Methods for Determining Yes....................
Compliance.
Sec. 63.6(g)(1)-(3)............ Use of Alternative Yes....................
Standards.
Sec. 63.6(h)................... Compliance With Opacity/ No..................... Subpart RRRR 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--Applicabil sources using an add-on
ity. control device to comply
with the standards.
Additional requirements
for performance testing
are specified in Sec.
Sec. 63.4963, 63.4964,
and 63.4965.
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 standards.
Section 63.4960
specifies the schedule
for performance test
requirements that are
earlier than those
specified in Sec.
63.7(a)(2).
Sec. 63.7(a)(3)................ Performance Tests Yes....................
Required by the
Administrator.
[[Page 46339]]
Sec. 63.7(b)-(d)............... Performance Test Yes.................... Applies only to
Requirements--Notificati performance tests for
on, Quality Assurance, capture system and add-
Facilities Necessary on control device
Safe Testing, Conditions efficiency at sources
During Test. using these to comply
with the standards.
Sec. 63.7(e)(1)................ Conduct of performance No..................... See Sec. 63.4963(a)(1).
tests.
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 Method. used to determine
capture system
efficiency.
Sec. 63.7(g)-(h)............... Performance Test Yes.................... Applies only to
Requirements--Data performance tests for
Analysis, Recordkeeping, capture system and add-
Reporting, Waiver of on control device
Test. efficiency at sources
using these to comply
with the standards.
Sec. 63.8(a)(1)-(3)............ Monitoring Requirements-- Yes.................... Applies only to
Applicability. monitoring of capture
system and add-on
control device
efficiency at sources
using these to comply
with the standards.
Additional requirements
for monitoring are
specified in Sec.
63.4967.
Sec. 63.8(a)(4)................ Additional Monitoring No..................... Subpart RRRR does not
Requirements. have monitoring
requirements for flares.
Sec. 63.8(b)................... Conduct of Monitoring.... Yes....................
Sec. 63.8(c)(1)................ Continuous Monitoring No.....................
Systems (CMS) Operation
and Maintenance.
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 standards.
Additional requirements
for CMS operations and
maintenance are
specified in Sec.
63.4967.
Sec. 63.8(c)(4)................ CMS...................... No..................... Section 63.4967 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 RRRR does not
have opacity or visible
emissions standards.
Sec. 63.8(c)(6)................ CMS Requirements......... No..................... Section 63.4967 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 63.4920 requires
Periods Reporting. reporting of CMS out-of-
control periods.
Sec. 63.8(d)-(e)............... Quality Control Program No..................... Subpart RRRR does not
and CMS Performance require the use of CEMS.
Evaluation.
Sec. 63.8(f)(1)-(5)............ Use of an Alternative Yes.................... Sec. 63.8(f)(1)-(5).
Monitoring Method.
Sec. 63.8(f)(6)................ Alternative to Relative No..................... Subpart RRRR does not
Accuracy Test. require the use of CEMS.
Sec. 63.8(g)(1)-(5)............ Data Reduction........... No..................... Sections 63.4966 and
63.4967 specify
monitoring data
reduction.
Sec. 63.9(a)-(d)............... Notification Requirements Yes....................
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 RRRR does not
Emissions/Opacity Test. have opacity or visible
emission standards.
Sec. 63.9(g)(1)-(3)............ Additional Notifications No..................... Subpart RRRR does not
When Using CMS. require the use of CEMS.
Sec. 63.9(h)................... Notification of Yes.................... Section 63.4910 specifies
Compliance Status. 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/Reporting-- Yes....................
Applicability and
General Information.
Sec. 63.10(b)(1)............... General Recordkeeping Yes.................... Additional requirements
Requirements. are specified in Sec.
Sec. 63.4930 and
63.4931.
Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(i)............ Recordkeeping of No..................... See Sec. 63.4930(j).
Occurrence and Duration
of Startups and
Shutdowns.
Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(ii)........... Recordkeeping of Failures No..................... See Sec. 63.4930(j).
to Meet Standards.
Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(iii).......... Recordkeeping Relevant to Yes....................
Maintenance of Air
Pollution Control and
Monitoring Equipment.
Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(iv)-(v)....... Actions Taken to Minimize No..................... See Sec. 63.4930(j)(4)
Emissions During SSM. for a record of actions
taken to minimize
emissions during a
deviation from the
standard.
[[Page 46340]]
Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(vi)........... Recordkeeping for CMS No..................... See Sec. 63.4930(j) for
malfunctions. records of periods of
deviation from the
standard, including
instances where a CMS is
inoperative or out-of-
control.
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 RRRR 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 Recordkeeping Yes....................
Requirements for Sources
with CMS.
Sec. 63.10(c)(7)-(8)........... Additional Recordkeeping No..................... See Sec. 63.4930(j)(1)
Requirements for Sources for records of periods
with CMS. of deviation from the
standard, including
instances where a CMS is
inoperative or out-of-
control.
Sec. 63.10(c)(10)-(14)......... Additional Recordkeeping Yes....................
Requirements for Sources
with CMS.
Sec. 63.10(c)(15).............. Records Regarding the SSM No.....................
Plan.
Sec. 63.10(d)(1)............... General Reporting Yes.................... Additional requirements
Requirements. are specified in Sec.
63.4920.
Sec. 63.10(d)(2)............... Report of Performance Yes.................... Additional requirements
Test Results. are specified in Sec.
63.4920(b).
Sec. 63.10(d)(3)............... Reporting Opacity or No..................... Subpart RRRR 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 No..................... See Sec. 63.4920(a)(7).
Malfunction Reports.
Sec. 63.10(e)(1)-(2)........... Additional CMS Reports... No..................... Subpart RRRR does not
require the use of CEMS.
Sec. 63.10(e)(3)............... Excess Emissions/CMS No..................... Section 63.4920(b)
Performance Reports. specifies the contents
of periodic compliance
reports.
Sec. 63.10(e)(4)............... COMS Data Reports........ No..................... Subpart RRRR does not
specify requirements for
opacity or COMS.
Sec. 63.10(f).................. Recordkeeping/Reporting Yes....................
Waiver.
Sec. 63.11..................... Control Device No..................... Subpart RRRR 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
51. Subpart RRRR of Part 63 is amended to add Table 5 to read as
follows:
Table 5 to Subpart RRRR 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
[[Page 46341]]
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
Vinylidene chloride..................................... 75-35-4
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[FR Doc. 2018-19018 Filed 9-11-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P