46262 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 177 / Wednesday, September 12, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

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-fabricsand-other-textiles-national, https://

www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-airpollution/surface-coating-largeappliances-national-emissionstandards, and https://www.epa.gov/ 

stationary-sources-air-pollution/surfacecoating-metal-furniture-nationalemission-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 perry.nancy@epa.gov to request 

a public hearing, to register to speak at 

the public hearing, or to inquire as to 

whether a public hearing will be held. 

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: 

teal.kim@epa.gov. 

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: 

hirtz.paula@epa.gov. 

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 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 177 / Wednesday, September 12, 2018 / Proposed Rules 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: 

whitfield.kaye@epa.gov. 

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: sarsony.chris@epa.gov. 

For information about the 

applicability of any of these NESHAP to 

a particular entity, contact Mr. John 

Cox, Office of Enforcement and 

Compliance Assurance, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, EPA 

WJC South Building (Mail Code 2227A), 

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, 

Washington DC 20460; telephone 

number: (202) 564–1395; and email 

address: cox.john@epa.gov. 

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/m3 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 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2
46264 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 177 / Wednesday, September 12, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

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 Appliances ....... 335221 

335222 

Household cooking equipment. 

Household refrigerators and freezers. 

335224 

335228 

Household laundry equipment. 

Other major household appliances. 

333312 

333415 

Commercial laundry, dry 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 of Fabrics 

and Other Textiles.

31321 

31322 

Broadwoven fabric mills. 

Narrow fabric mills and Schiffli machine embroidery. 

313241 

313311 

Weft knit fabric mills. 

Broadwoven fabric finishing mills. 

313312 

313320 

Textile and fabric finishing (except broadwoven fabric) mills. 

Fabric coating mills. 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 177 / Wednesday, September 12, 2018 / Proposed Rules 46265 

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. 

TABLE 1—NESHAP AND INDUSTRIAL AND GOVERNMENT SOURCE CATEGORIES AFFECTED BY THIS PROPOSED ACTION— 

Continued 

NESHAP and source category NAICS code 1 Regulated entities 2

314110 

326220 

Carpet and rug mills. 

Rubber and plastics hoses and belting and manufacturing. 

339991 Gasket, packing, and sealing device manufacturing. 

Surface Coating of Metal Furniture .......... 337124 

337214 

Metal Household Furniture Manufacturing. 

Nonwood Office Furniture Manufacturing. 

337127 

337215 

Institutional Furniture Manufacturing. 

Showcase, Partition, Shelving, and Locker Manufacturing. 

337127 

332951 

Institutional Furniture Manufacturing. 

Hardware Manufacturing. 

332116 

332612 

Metal Stamping. 

Wire Spring Manufacturing. 

337215 

335121 

Showcase, Partition, Shelving, and Locker Manufacturing. 

Residential Electric Lighting Fixture Manufacturing. 

335122 Commercial, Industrial, and Institutional Electric Lighting Fixture Manufacturing. 

339111 Laboratory Furniture Manufacturing. 

339114 

337127 

Dental Equipment Manufacturing. 

Institutional Furniture Manufacturing. 

81142 

922140 

Reupholstery and 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. 

3Excluding 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-sourcesair-pollution/printing-coating-anddyeing-fabrics-and-other-textilesnational#rule-summary, https://

www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-airpollution/surface-coating-largeappliances-national-emissionstandards, and https://www.epa.gov/ 

stationary-sources-air-pollution/surfacecoating-metal-furniture-nationalemission-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 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2
46266 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 177 / Wednesday, September 12, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

2Although 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. 

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. 

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 twostep approach. In the first step, the EPA 

determines whether risks are acceptable. 

This determination ‘‘considers all health 

information, including risk estimation 

uncertainty, and includes a presumptive 

limit on maximum individual lifetime 

[cancer] risk (MIR) 2 of approximately 

[1-in-10 thousand] [i.e., 100-in-1 

million].’’ 54 FR 38045, September 14, 

1989. If risks are unacceptable, the EPA 

must determine the emissions standards 

necessary to bring risks to an acceptable 

level without considering costs. In the 

second step of the approach, the EPA 

considers whether the emissions 

standards provide an ample margin of 

safety ‘‘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. 

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 airconditioning (HVAC) units, airconditioning (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/nationalemissions-inventory-nei) and the EPA’s 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 177 / Wednesday, September 12, 2018 / Proposed Rules 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 addon 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 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2
46268 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 177 / Wednesday, September 12, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

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,Ndimethylformamide. 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 sitespecific 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 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 177 / Wednesday, September 12, 2018 / Proposed Rules 46269 

3Telephone communication between Kaye 

Whitfield, U.S. EPA and Marley Ayres, Pinnacle 

Engineering, February 7, 2018. 

4https://www.epa.gov/catc/ractbactlaerclearinghouse-rblc-basic-information. 

NEI were conservatively over-estimated 

by an approximate factor of 10.3

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 sitespecific 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 statemaintained 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 casespecific 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. 

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. 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2
46270 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 177 / Wednesday, September 12, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

5Prepared for the American Coatings Association, 

Washington, DC, by The ChemQuest Group, Inc., 

Cincinnati, Ohio. 2015. 

6The 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. 

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. 

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: 

‘‘[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 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 177 / Wednesday, September 12, 2018 / Proposed Rules 46271 

7The 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/EPASAB-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. 

the other sources (e.g., other facilities) to 

which an individual is exposed may be 

sufficient to result in increased risk of 

adverse noncancer health effects. In 

May 2010, the Science Advisory Board 

(SAB) advised the EPA ‘‘that RTR 

assessments will be most useful to 

decision makers and communities if 

results are presented in the broader 

context of aggregate and cumulative 

risks, including background 

concentrations and contributions from 

other sources in the area.’’ 7

In response to the SAB 

recommendations, the EPA is 

incorporating 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 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2
46272 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 177 / Wednesday, September 12, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

8U.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. 

9U.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). 

10A census block is the smallest geographic area 

for which census statistics are tabulated. 

risk assessment inputs and models. The 

methods used to assess risks (as 

described in the seven primary steps 

below) are consistent with those peerreviewed by a panel of the EPA’s SAB 

in 2009 and described in their peer 

review report issued in 2010; 8 they are 

also consistent with the key 

recommendations contained in that 

report. 

1. How did we estimate actual 

emissions and identify the emissions 

release characteristics? 

The actual emissions and the 

emission release characteristics for each 

facility were obtained primarily from 

either the 2011 NEI or the 2014 NEI. 

Most data were obtained from the 2011 

NEI, unless the 2014 NEI included HAP 

data for emission units or processes for 

which the 2011 NEI included only 

volatile organic compounds (VOC) or 

particulate matter. In some cases, the 

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 MACTallowable emissions? 

The available emissions data in the 

RTR emissions dataset include estimates 

of the mass of HAP emitted during a 

specified annual time period. These 

‘‘actual’’ emission levels are often lower 

than the emission levels allowed under 

the requirements of the current MACT 

standards. The emissions level allowed 

to be emitted under the MACT 

standards is referred to as the ‘‘MACTallowable’’ emissions level. We 

discussed the use of both MACTallowable and actual emissions in the 

final Coke Oven Batteries RTR (70 FR 

19998–19999, April 15, 2005) and in the 

proposed and final Hazardous Organic 

NESHAP RTRs (71 FR 34428, June 14, 

2006, and 71 FR 76609, December 21, 

2006, respectively). In those actions, we 

noted that assessing the risks at the 

MACT-allowable level is inherently 

reasonable since these risks reflect the 

maximum level facilities could emit and 

still comply with national emission 

standards. We also explained that it is 

reasonable to consider actual emissions, 

where such data are available, in both 

steps of the risk analysis, in accordance 

with the Benzene NESHAP approach. 

(54 FR 38044, September 14, 1989.) 

For the 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 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 177 / Wednesday, September 12, 2018 / Proposed Rules 46273 

11The 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/214C6E915BB04E

14852570CA007A682C/$File/ecadv02001.pdf. 

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 categoryspecific 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. 

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-responseassessment-assessing-health-risksassociated-exposure-hazardous-airpollutants and are discussed in more 

detail later in this section. 

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 doseresponse 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 doseresponse 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. 

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/searchand

retrieve/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-hotspots-program-guidance-manualpreparation-health-risk-0); or (3), as 

noted above, a scientifically credible 

dose-response value that has been 

developed in a manner consistent with 

the EPA guidelines and has undergone 

a peer review process similar to that 

used by the EPA. 

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. 

To characterize the potential health 

risks associated with estimated acute 

inhalation exposures to a HAP, we 

generally use multiple acute doseresponse values, including acute RELs, 

acute exposure guideline levels 

(AEGLs), and emergency response 

planning guidelines (ERPG) for 1-hour 

exposure durations), if available, to 

calculate acute HQs. The acute HQ is 

calculated by dividing the estimated 

acute exposure by the acute doseresponse 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 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2
46274 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 177 / Wednesday, September 12, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

13CalEPA 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-acute8-hour-and-chronic-reference-exposure-level-relsummary. 

14National 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). 

15ERPGS Procedures and Responsibilities. March 

2014. American Industrial Hygiene Association. 

Available at: https://www.aiha.org/get-involved/

AIHAGuidelineFoundation/EmergencyResponse

PlanningGuidelines/Documents/ERPG%20

Committee%20Standard%20Operating%20

Procedures%20%20-%20March%202014

%20Revision%20%28Updated%2010-2- 

2014%29.pdf. 

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/m3 (milligrams per cubic meter)) of 

a substance above which it is predicted 

that the general population, including 

susceptible individuals, could 

experience notable discomfort, 

irritation, or certain asymptomatic 

nonsensory effects. However, the effects 

are not disabling and are transient and 

reversible upon cessation of exposure.’’ 

The document also notes that ‘‘Airborne 

concentrations below AEGL–1 represent 

exposure levels that can produce mild 

and progressively increasing but 

transient and nondisabling odor, taste, 

and sensory irritation or certain 

asymptomatic, nonsensory effects.’’ Id. 

AEGL–2 are defined as ‘‘the airborne 

concentration (expressed as parts per 

million or milligrams per cubic meter) 

of a substance above which it is 

predicted that the general population, 

including susceptible individuals, could 

experience irreversible or other serious, 

long-lasting adverse health effects or an 

impaired ability to escape.’’ Id. 

ERPGs are ‘‘developed for emergency 

planning and are intended as healthbased guideline concentrations for 

single exposures to chemicals.’’ 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. 

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 addon 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 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 177 / Wednesday, September 12, 2018 / Proposed Rules 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 nonwood 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 offsite 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-assessmentand-modeling-air-toxics-riskassessment-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 watercolumn and benthic sediments), fish 

consumed by wildlife, and air. Within 

these four exposure media, we evaluate 

nine ecological assessment endpoints, 

which are defined by the ecological 

entity and its attributes. For PB–HAP 

(other than lead), both community-level 

and population-level endpoints are 

included. For acid gases, the ecological 

assessment evaluated is terrestrial plant 

communities. 

An ecological benchmark represents a 

concentration of HAP that has been 

linked to a particular environmental 

effect level. For each environmental 

HAP, we identified the available 

ecological benchmarks for each 

assessment endpoint. We identified, 

where possible, ecological benchmarks 

at the following effect levels: Probable 

effect levels, lowest-observed-adverseeffect level, and no-observed-adverseeffect level. In cases where multiple 

effect levels were available for a 

particular PB–HAP and assessment 

endpoint, we use all of the available 

effect levels to help us to determine 

whether ecological risks exist and, if so, 

whether the risks could be considered 

significant and widespread. 

For further information on how the 

environmental risk screening 

assessment was conducted, including a 

discussion of the risk metrics used, how 

the environmental HAP were identified, 

and how the ecological benchmarks 

were selected, see Appendix 9 of the 

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 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2
46276 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 177 / Wednesday, September 12, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

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 singletier screening assessment that compares 

modeled ambient air concentrations 

(from AERMOD) to the ecological 

benchmarks for each acid gas. To 

identify potential adverse 

environmental effects (as defined in 

section 112(a)(7) of the CAA) from 

emissions of HCl and HF, we evaluate 

the following metrics: The size of the 

modeled area around each facility that 

exceeds the ecological benchmark for 

each acid gas, in acres and km2; the 

percentage of the modeled area around 

each facility that exceeds the ecological 

benchmark for each acid gas; and the 

area-weighted average screening value 

around each facility (calculated by 

dividing the area-weighted average 

concentration over the 50-km modeling 

domain by the ecological benchmark for 

each acid gas). For further information 

on the environmental screening 

assessment approach, see Appendix 9 of 

the 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 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 177 / Wednesday, September 12, 2018 / Proposed Rules 46277 

16 Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment, 

EPA/630/P–03/001F, March 2005. (https://

www.epa.gov/risk/guidelines-carcinogen-riskassessment). 

17 IRIS glossary (https://ofmpub.epa.gov/sor_

internet/registry/termreg/searchandretrieve/ 

glossariesandkeywordlists/search.do?details=&

glossaryName=IRIS%20Glossary). 

18An 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. 

19U.S. EPA, 1993. Reference Dose (RfC); 

Description and Use in Health Risk Assessments. 

(https://www.epa.gov/iris/reference-dose-rfddescription-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-referenceconcentrations-and-application-inhalationdosimetry). 

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. 

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. 

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 doseresponse assessments. Accordingly, 

these pollutants cannot be included in 

the quantitative risk assessment, which 

could result in quantitative estimates 

understating HAP risk. To help to 

alleviate this potential underestimate, 

where we conclude similarity with a 

HAP for which a dose-response value is 

available, we use that value as a 

surrogate for the assessment of the HAP 

for which no value is available. To the 

extent use of surrogates indicates 

appreciable risk, we may identify a need 

to increase priority for an IRIS 

assessment for that substance. We 

additionally note that, generally 

speaking, HAP of greatest concern due 

to environmental exposures and hazard 

are those for which dose-response 

assessments have been performed, 

reducing the likelihood of understating 

risk. Further, HAP not included in the 

quantitative assessment are assessed 

qualitatively and considered in the risk 

characterization that informs the risk 

management decisions, including 

consideration of HAP reductions 

achieved by various control options. 

For a group of compounds that are 

unspeciated (e.g., glycol ethers), we 

conservatively use the most protective 

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 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2
46278 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 177 / Wednesday, September 12, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

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. 

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 worstcase 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 worstcase 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. 

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

Risk assessment 

Maximum 

individual 

cancer 

risk 

(in 1 million) 

Estimated 

population 

at increased 

risk of cancer 

≥ 1-in-1 million 

Estimated 

annual 

cancer 

incidence 

(cases per year) 

Maximum 

chronic 

noncancer 

TOSHI 1

Maximum 

screening 

acute noncancer HQ 2

Based on 

actual 

emissions 

Based 

on allowable 

emissions 

Based on 

actual 

emissions 

Based 

on allowable 

emissions 

Based on 

actual 

emissions 

Based 

on allowable 

emissions 

Based on 

actual 

emissions 

Based 

on allowable 

emissions 

Based on 

actual 

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 ..................

1The 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. 2The 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, 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 177 / Wednesday, September 12, 2018 / Proposed Rules 46279 

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. 

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

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-in1 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 highefficiency 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 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2
46280 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 177 / Wednesday, September 12, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

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 offsite data point in the modeling domain) 

was below the ecological benchmarks 

for all facilities. In addition, we are 

unaware of any adverse environmental 

effects caused by HAP emitted by this 

source category. Therefore, we do not 

expect there to be an adverse 

environmental effect as a result of HAP 

emissions from this source category and 

we are proposing that it is not necessary 

to set a more stringent standard to 

prevent, taking into consideration costs, 

energy, safety, and other relevant 

factors, an adverse environmental effect. 

3. What are the results and proposed 

decisions based on our technology 

review? 

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. Addon 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 addon 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 costeffective 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 addon 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 categorywide, 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 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 177 / Wednesday, September 12, 2018 / Proposed Rules 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 highefficiency spray guns for coatings that 

are spray applied. We expect that large 

appliance surface coating facilities in 

other states are also using highefficiency 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 highefficiency 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 airassisted airless spray,’’ ‘‘electrostatic 

application,’’ ‘‘high-volume, lowpressure (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 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2
46282 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 177 / Wednesday, September 12, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

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-in1 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 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 177 / Wednesday, September 12, 2018 / Proposed Rules 46283 

22https://www.epa.gov/electronic-reporting-airemissions/compliance-and-emissions-datareporting-interface-cedri. 

23https://www.epa.gov/air-emissions-inventories/ 

air-emissions-inventory-listservs. 

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. 

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. 

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 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2
46284 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 177 / Wednesday, September 12, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

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. 

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. 

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 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 177 / Wednesday, September 12, 2018 / Proposed Rules 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 datagathering necessary to solve a problem. 

We generally defer to an agency’s 

decision to proceed on the basis of 

imperfect scientific information, rather 

than to ’invest the resources to conduct 

the perfect study.’’’) See also, 

Weyerhaeuser v. Costle, 590 F.2d 1011, 

1058 (D.C. Cir. 1978) (‘‘In the nature of 

things, no general limit, individual 

permit, or even any upset provision can 

anticipate all upset situations. After a 

certain point, the transgression of 

regulatory limits caused by 

‘uncontrollable acts of third parties,’ 

such as strikes, sabotage, operator 

intoxication or insanity, and a variety of 

other eventualities, must be a matter for 

the administrative exercise of case-bycase enforcement discretion, not for 

specification in advance by regulation.’’) 

In addition, emissions during a 

malfunction event can be significantly 

higher than emissions at any other time 

of source operation. For example, if an 

air pollution control device with 99- 

percent removal goes 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 wellperforming non-malfunctioning source. 

It is reasonable to interpret CAA section 

112 to avoid such a result. The EPA’s 

approach to malfunctions is consistent 

with CAA section 112 and is a 

reasonable interpretation of the statute. 

Although no statutory language 

compels the EPA to set standards for 

malfunctions, the EPA has the 

discretion to do so where feasible. For 

example, in the Petroleum Refinery 

Sector Risk and Technology Review, the 

EPA established a work practice 

standard for unique types of 

malfunctions that result in releases from 

pressure relief devices or emergency 

flaring events because we had 

information to determine that such work 

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 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2
46286 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 177 / Wednesday, September 12, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

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. 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 177 / Wednesday, September 12, 2018 / Proposed Rules 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 crossreferences to the general duty and SSM 

plan requirements in those 

subparagraphs are not necessary in light 

of other requirements of 40 CFR 63.8 

that require good air pollution control 

practices (40 CFR 63.8(c)(1)) and that set 

out the requirements of a quality control 

program for monitoring equipment (40 

CFR 63.8(d)). Further, we are proposing 

to revise 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 semiannual 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 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2
46288 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 177 / Wednesday, September 12, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

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 ‘‘OSHAdefined 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/ 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 177 / Wednesday, September 12, 2018 / Proposed Rules 46289 

26See https://www.epa.gov/fera/dose-responseassessment-assessing-health-risks-associatedexposure-hazardous-air-pollutants. 

27See 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. 

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). 

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 ‘‘§ 63.4130(k)(9)’’ in 40 CFR 

63.4163(e) to be ‘‘§ 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 ‘‘§ 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 ‘‘§ 63.4083.’’ We 

propose to revise one instance in 40 

CFR 63.4110(b)(10) of an erroneous rule 

citation ‘‘§ 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 ‘‘§ 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 

‘‘§ 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 

‘‘§ 63.4141.’’ We propose to revise one 

instance in 40 CFR 63.4168(c)(2) that an 

erroneous rule citation ‘‘§ 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 ‘‘§ 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 ‘‘§ 63.4120(b).’’ 

This rule citation is specified in the 

fourth column of the table entry for 

‘‘§ 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 

‘‘§ 63.4120(h).’’ The rule citation 

‘‘§ 63.4120(b)’’ is also specified in the 

fourth column of the table entry for 

‘‘§ 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 

‘‘§ 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

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. 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2
46290 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 177 / Wednesday, September 12, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

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 addon 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. 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 177 / Wednesday, September 12, 2018 / Proposed Rules 46291 

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. 

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 MACTallowable 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

Risk assessment 

Maximum individual 

cancer risk 

(in 1 million) 

Estimated population at 

increased risk of cancer 

≥1-in-1 million 

Estimated annual 

cancer incidence 

(cases per year) 

Maximum chronic 

noncancer 

TOSHI 1

Maximum 

screening acute 

noncancer HQ 2

Based on 

actual 

emissions 

Based on 

allowable 

emissions 

Based on 

actual 

emissions 

Based on 

allowable 

emissions 

Based on 

actual 

emissions 

Based on 

allowable 

emissions 

Based on 

actual 

emissions 

Based on 

allowable 

emissions 

Based on actual 

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 ..................

1The TOSHI is the sum of the chronic noncancer HQ for substances that affect the same target organ or organ system. 

2The 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 nonMACT 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

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. 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2
46292 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 177 / Wednesday, September 12, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 4—PRINTING, COATING, AND DYEING OF FABRICS AND OTHER TEXTILES SOURCE CATEGORY DEMOGRAPHIC RISK

ANALYSIS RESULTS

Nationwide 

Population with cancer 

risk at or above 1-in-1 

million due to printing, 

coating, and dyeing of 

fabrics and other textiles 

Population with chronic 

noncancer HI above 1 

due to printing, coating, 

and dyeing of fabrics 

and other 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-in1 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 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 177 / Wednesday, September 12, 2018 / Proposed Rules 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 oxidecontaining material due to cost. We note 

that this was the only facility that 

reported ethylene oxide emissions, and 

we conclude that ethylene oxidecontaining 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 beyondthe-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 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2
46294 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 177 / Wednesday, September 12, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

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 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 177 / Wednesday, September 12, 2018 / Proposed Rules 46295 

29https://www.epa.gov/air-emissions-inventories/ 

air-emissions-inventory-listservs. 

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. 

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 addon 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 addon 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 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2
46296 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 177 / Wednesday, September 12, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

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 crossreferences to the general duty and SSM 

plan requirements in those 

subparagraphs are not necessary in light 

of other requirements of 40 CFR 63.8 

that require good air pollution control 

practices (40 CFR 63.8(c)(1)) and that set 

out the requirements of a quality control 

program for monitoring equipment (40 

CFR 63.8(d)). Further, we are proposing 

to revise 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,’’ 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 177 / Wednesday, September 12, 2018 / Proposed Rules 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 productloss calculations, mass balance 

calculations, measurements when 

available, or engineering judgment 

based on known process parameters 

(e.g., coating HAP content and 

application rates and control device 

efficiencies). 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 semiannual 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 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2
46298 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 177 / Wednesday, September 12, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

30See https://www.epa.gov/fera/dose-responseassessment-assessing-health-risks-associatedexposure-hazardous-air-pollutants. 

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 ‘‘OSHAdefined 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). 

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 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 177 / Wednesday, September 12, 2018 / Proposed Rules 46299 

31See 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. 

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 § 63.4292 and the work practice 

standards required by § 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 §§ 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 §§ 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 § 63.4331’’ must be used to 

calculate the organic HAP emission rate 

for dyeing/finishing operations; 

however, Equation 6 of § 63.4331 should 

also be used, together with Equations 4, 

4A, 5, and 7 of § 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 

§ 63.4331.’’ We propose to revise one 

instance in 40 CFR 63.4340(b)(3) in 

which an erroneous rule citation 

‘‘§ 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 ‘‘§ 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 ‘‘§ 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. 

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 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2
46300 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 177 / Wednesday, September 12, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

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

Risk assessment 

Maximum individual 

cancer risk 

(in 1 million) 

Estimated population at 

increased risk of cancer ≥ 1-in-1 

million 

Estimated annual 

cancer incidence 

(cases per year) 

Maximum chronic noncancer 

TOSHI 1

Maximum 

Screening Acute 

Noncancer HQ2

Based on 

actual 

emissions 

Based on 

allowable 

emissions 

Based on 

actual 

emissions 

Based on 

allowable 

emissions 

Based on 

actual 

emissions 

Based on 

allowable 

emissions 

Based on 

actual 

emissions 

Based on 

allowable 

emissions 

Based on 

actual 

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 ..................

1The TOSHI is the sum of the chronic noncancer HQ for substances that affect the same target organ or organ system. 

2The 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 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 177 / Wednesday, September 12, 2018 / Proposed Rules 46301 

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. 

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 facilitywide 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

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

Nationwide 

Population with cancer 

risk at or above 1-in-1 

million due to Surface 

Coating of Metal 

Furniture source 

category 

Population with chronic 

noncancer hazard index 

above 1 due to Surface 

Coating of Metal 

Furniture source 

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 atrisk 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-in1 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 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2
46302 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 177 / Wednesday, September 12, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

33National 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. 

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 highefficiency 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. 

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 addon 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 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 177 / Wednesday, September 12, 2018 / Proposed Rules 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 addon 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 (lowerHAP 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 highefficiency 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 highefficiency 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 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2
46304 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 177 / Wednesday, September 12, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

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 airassisted airless spray,’’ ‘‘electrostatic 

application,’’ ‘‘high-volume, lowpressure (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 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 177 / Wednesday, September 12, 2018 / Proposed Rules 46305 

34https://www.epa.gov/air-emissions-inventories/ 

air-emissions-inventory-listservs. 

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. 

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). 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2
46306 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 177 / Wednesday, September 12, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

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 crossreferences to the general duty and SSM 

plan requirements in those 

subparagraphs are not necessary in light 

of other requirements of 40 CFR 63.8 

that require good air pollution control 

practices (40 CFR 63.8(c)(1)) and that set 

out the requirements of a quality control 

program for monitoring equipment (40 

CFR 63.8(d)). Further, we are proposing 

to revise 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 productloss calculations, mass balance 

calculations, measurements when 

available, or engineering judgment 

based on known process parameters 

(e.g., coating HAP content and 

application rates and control device 

efficiencies). The EPA is proposing to 

require that sources keep records of this 

information to ensure that there is 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 177 / Wednesday, September 12, 2018 / Proposed Rules 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 semiannual 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. 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2
46308 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 177 / Wednesday, September 12, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

35See https://www.epa.gov/fera/dose-responseassessment-assessing-health-risks-associatedexposure-hazardous-air-pollutants. 

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 ‘‘OSHAdefined 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 DoseResponse Values for Screening Risk 

Assessments (dated May 9, 2014) as a 

‘‘human carcinogen,’’ ‘‘probable human 

carcinogen,’’ or ‘‘possible human 

carcinogen’’ according to The Risk 

Assessment Guidelines of 1986 (EPA/ 

600/8–87/045, August 1987),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). 

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 § 63.4890,’’ to be 

‘‘the applicable emission limitations in 

§§ 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 ‘‘§ 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 

‘‘§ 63.4920(a).’’ This rule citation is 

specified in the fourth column of the 

table entry for ‘‘§ 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 ‘‘§ 63.4920(b).’’ 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 177 / Wednesday, September 12, 2018 / Proposed Rules 46309 

36See 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. 

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. 

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 addon 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 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2
46310 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 177 / Wednesday, September 12, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

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 addon 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 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 177 / Wednesday, September 12, 2018 / Proposed Rules 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 highefficiency 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 airassisted 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 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2
46312 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 177 / Wednesday, September 12, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

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-tohour 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 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 177 / Wednesday, September 12, 2018 / Proposed Rules 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® 

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® Excel 

files that are generated by the 

Microsoft® 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/lawsregulations/laws-and-executive-orders. 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review and Executive 

Order 13563: Improving Regulation and 

Regulatory Review 

This action is 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. 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2
46314 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 177 / Wednesday, September 12, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

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 OIRA_

submission@omb.eop.gov, Attention: 

Desk Officer for the EPA. Since OMB is 

required to make a decision concerning 

the ICR between 30 and 60 days after 

receipt, OMB must receive comments no 

later than October 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. 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 177 / Wednesday, September 12, 2018 / Proposed Rules 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, lowincome populations and/or indigenous 

peoples, as specified in Executive Order 

12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

The documentation for this decision 

is contained in sections IV.A.1 and 2, 

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 HAPrelated 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 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2
46316 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 177 / Wednesday, September 12, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

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 atrisk 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 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 63 

continues to read as follows: 

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

Subpart A—General Provisions 

■ 2. Section 63.14 is amended by 

■ a. Redesignating paragraphs (h)(13) 

through (h)(19) as paragraphs (h)(14) 

through (h)(20), respectively; and 

adding a new paragraph (h)(13); 

■ b. Redesignating paragraphs (h)(20) 

through (h)(23) as paragraphs (h)(22) 

through (h)(25), respectively; and 

adding a new paragraph (h)(21); 

■ c. Redesignating paragraphs (h)(24) 

through (h)(26) as paragraphs (h)(27) 

through (h)(29), respectively; and 

adding new paragraph (h)(26); and 

■ 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: 

§ 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 

§§ 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 

§§ 63.4141(b) and (c). 

* * * * * 

(26) ASTM D2369–10 (2015), Test 

Method for Volatile Content of Coatings, 

IBR approved for §§ 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 

§§ 63.4141(b) and 63.4941(b). 

* * * * * 

Subpart NNNN—National Emission 

Standards for Hazardous Air 

Pollutants: Surface Coating of Large 

Appliances 

■ 3. Section 63.4094 is added to read as 

follows: 

§ 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, lowpressure (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 § 63.14) and following guidelines 

equivalent to ‘‘Guidelines for 

Demonstrating Equivalency with 

District Approved Transfer Efficient 

Spray Guns, September 26, 2002’’ (for 

availability, see § 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 

§ 63.4130(l). 

(2) All spray application equipment 

must be operated according to company 

procedures, local specified operating 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 177 / Wednesday, September 12, 2018 / Proposed Rules 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 

§ 63.4130(l). 

■ 4. Section 63.4100 is amended by 

revising paragraph (b) and removing 

paragraph (d) to read as follows: 

§ 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. 

* * * * * 

■ 5. Section 63.4110 is amended by 

revising paragraph (b)(9) introductory 

text and removing paragraph (b)(9)(v) to 

read as follows: 

§ 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 liquidliquid material balances according to 

§ 63.4161(h). 

* * * * * 

■ 6. Section 63.4120 is amended by: 

■ a. Revising paragraph (b) introductory 

text, paragraph (d) introductory text, 

and paragraphs (d)(1) and (d)(4); 

■ b. Adding paragraph (d)(5); 

■ c. Revising paragraphs (e) 

introductory text and (e)(3); 

■ d. Adding paragraph (e)(4); 

■ e. Revising paragraph (g) introductory 

text and paragraphs (g)(3), (g)(6) through 

(8), (g)(10), (g)(13), and (g)(14); 

■ f. Adding paragraph (g)(15); and 

■ g. Removing paragraphs (i) and (j). 

The revisions and additions read as 

follows: 

§ 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 

§ 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 

§ 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 § 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 § 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 § 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 addon controls option and there was a 

deviation from the work practice 

standards in § 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 (lowlevel) 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 

§ 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 § 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 

§ 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 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2
46318 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 177 / Wednesday, September 12, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

deviation (including unknown cause, if 

applicable). 

(14) For deviations from an emission 

limit in § 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 § 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 § 63.4090, and a description of 

the method used to estimate the 

emissions. 

* * * * * 

■ 7. Section 63.4121 is added to read as 

follows: 

§ 63.4121 What are my electronic reporting 

requirements? 

(a) You must submit the results of the 

performance test required in 

§ 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/electronicreporting-air-emissions/electronicreporting-tool-ert) at the time of the test, 

you must submit the results of the 

performance test to the EPA via the 

Compliance and Emissions Data 

Reporting Interface (CEDRI). CEDRI can 

be accessed through the EPA’s Central 

Data Exchange (CDX) (https://

cdx.epa.gov/). Performance test data 

must be submitted in a file format 

generated through the use of the EPA’s 

ERT or an alternate electronic file 

format consistent with the extensible 

markup language (XML) schema listed 

on the EPA’s ERT website. 

(2) For data collected using test 

methods that are not supported by the 

EPA’s ERT as listed on the EPA’s ERT 

website at the time of the test, you must 

submit the results of the performance 

test to the Administrator at the 

appropriate address listed in § 63.13, 

unless the Administrator agrees to or 

specifies an alternate reporting method. 

(3) If you claim that some of the 

performance test information being 

submitted under paragraph (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 § 63.9(b) and the notification 

of compliance status required in 

§ 63.9(h) and § 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 § 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-airemissions/compliance-and-emissionsdata-reporting-interface-cedri). The date 

report templates become available will 

be listed on the CEDRI website. If the 

reporting form for the semiannual 

compliance report specific to this 

subpart is not available in CEDRI at the 

time that the report is due, you must 

submit the report to the Administrator 

at the appropriate addresses listed in 

§ 63.13. Once the form has been 

available in CEDRI for 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 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 177 / Wednesday, September 12, 2018 / Proposed Rules 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. 

■ 8. Section 63.4130 is amended by: 

■ a. Revising paragraph (j) and 

paragraph (k) introductory text; 

■ b. Removing and reserving paragraphs 

(k)(1) and (k)(2); and 

■ c. Redesignating paragraphs (k)(8) and 

(9) as paragraphs (k)(7) and (8). 

The revisions and additions read as 

follows: 

§ 63.4130 What records must I keep? 

* * * * * 

(j) For each deviation from an 

emission limitation reported under 

§ 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 

§ 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 § 63.4120(d), (e), and 

(g). 

(3) An estimate of the quantity of each 

regulated pollutant emitted over any 

applicable emission limit in § 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 

§ 63.4120(d), (e), and (g). 

(4) A record of actions taken to 

minimize emissions in accordance with 

§ 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. 

* * * * * 

■ 9. Section 63.4131 is amended by 

revising paragraph (a) to read as follows: 

§ 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 

§ 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. 

* * * * * 

■ 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: 

§ 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 § 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 § 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 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2
46320 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 177 / Wednesday, September 12, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

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 § 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 § 63.14), ASTM D2111–10 

(2015), ‘‘Standard Test Methods for Specific 

Gravity of Halogenated Organic Solvents and 

Their Admixtures’’ (incorporated by 

reference, see § 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 § 63.14), 

ASTM D2111–10 (2015), ‘‘Standard Test 

Methods for Specific Gravity of 

Halogenated Organic Solvents and Their 

Admixtures’’ (incorporated by reference, 

see § 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. 

* * * * * 

■ 11. Section 63.4160 is amended by 

revising paragraphs (a)(1) and (b)(1) to 

read as follows: 

§ 63.4160 By what date must I conduct 

performance tests and other initial 

compliance demonstrations? 

(a) * * * 

(1) All emission capture systems, addon control devices, and CPMS you use 

to demonstrate compliance must be 

installed and operating no later than the 

applicable compliance date specified in 

§ 63.4083. Except for solvent recovery 

systems for which you conduct liquidliquid material balances according to 

§ 63.4161(h), you must conduct a 

performance test of each capture system 

and add-on control device according to 

the procedures in §§ 63.4164, 63.4165, 

and 63.4166, and establish the operating 

limits required by § 63.4092 no later 

than the compliance date specified in 

§ 63.4083. For a solvent recovery system 

for which you conduct liquid-liquid 

material balances according to 

§ 63.4161(h), you must initiate the first 

material balance no later than the 

compliance date specified in § 63.4083. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(1) All emission capture systems, addon control devices, and CPMS you use 

to demonstrate compliance must be 

installed and operating no later than the 

applicable compliance date specified in 

§ 63.4083. Except for solvent recovery 

systems for which you conduct liquidliquid material balances according to 

§ 63.4161(h), you must conduct a 

performance test of each capture system 

and add-on control device according to 

the procedures in §§ 63.4164, 63.4165, 

and 63.4166, and establish the operating 

limits required by § 63.4092 no later 

than 180 days after the applicable 

compliance date specified in § 63.4083. 

For a solvent recovery system for which 

you conduct liquid-liquid material 

balances according to § 63.4161(h), you 

must initiate the first material balance 

no later than 180 days after the 

applicable compliance date specified in 

§ 63.4083. 

* * * * * 

■ 12. Section 63.4161 is amended by 

revising paragraph (g) introductory text 

and paragraph (h)(3) to read as follows: 

§ 63.4161 How do I demonstrate initial 

compliance? 

* * * * * 

(g) Calculate the organic HAP 

emissions reduction for controlled 

coating operations not using liquidliquid 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 § 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 § 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. 

* * * * * 

■ 13. Section 63.4163 is amended by 

revising paragraph (e) and removing and 

reserving paragraph (h) to read as 

follows: 

§ 63.4163 How do I demonstrate 

continuous compliance with the emission 

limitations? 

* * * * * 

(e) You must demonstrate continuous 

compliance with the work practice 

standards in § 63.4093. If you did not 

develop a work practice plan, did not 

implement the plan, or did not keep the 

records required by § 63.4130(k)(8), this 

is a deviation from the work practice 

standards that must be reported as 

specified in §§ 63.4110(b)(6) and 

63.4120(g). 

* * * * * 

■ 14. Section 63.4164 is amended by 

revising paragraph (a) introductory text 

and paragraph (a)(1) to read as follows: 

§ 63.4164 What are the general 

requirements for performance tests? 

(a) You must conduct each 

performance test required by § 63.4160 

according to the requirements in this 

section unless you obtain a waiver of 

the performance test according to the 

provisions in § 63.7(h). 

(1) Representative coating operation 

operating conditions. You must conduct 

the performance test under 

representative operating conditions for 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 177 / Wednesday, September 12, 2018 / Proposed Rules 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. 

* * * * * 

■ 15. Section 63.4166 is amended by 

revising paragraph (b) introductory text 

to read as follows: 

§ 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. 

* * * * * 

■ 16. Section 63.4168 is amended by 

revising paragraphs (a)(4), (a)(5), and 

(c)(3) introductory text to read as 

follows: 

§ 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 

§ 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 

§ 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. 

* * * * * 

■ 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: 

§ 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. 

* * * * * 

■ 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: 

Citation Subject Applicable to 

subpart NNNN Explanation 

§ 63.1(a)(1)–(12) ............ General Applicability ............................................. Yes.

§ 63.1(b)(1)–(3) .............. Initial Applicability Determination ......................... Yes ................. Applicability to subpart NNNN is also specified in 

§ 63.4081. 

§ 63.1(c)(1) .................... Applicability After Standard Established .............. Yes.

§ 63.1(c)(2)–(3) .............. Applicability of Permit Program for Area Sources No .................. Area sources are not subject to subpart NNNN. 

§ 63.1(c)(4)–(5) .............. Extensions and Notifications ................................ Yes.

§ 63.1(e) ........................ Applicability of Permit Program Before Relevant 

Standard is Set.

Yes.

§ 63.2 ............................. Definitions ............................................................. Yes ................. Additional definitions are Specified in § 63.4181. 

§ 63.3(a)–(c) .................. Units and Abbreviations ....................................... Yes.

§ 63.4(a)(1)–(5) .............. Prohibited Activities .............................................. Yes.

§ 63.4(b)–(c) .................. Circumvention/Severability ................................... Yes.

§ 63.5(a) ........................ Construction/Reconstruction ................................ Yes.

§ 63.5(b)(1)–(6) .............. Requirements for Existing, Newly Constructed, 

and Reconstructed Sources.

Yes.

§ 63.5(d) ........................ Application for Approval of Construction/Reconstruction.Yes.

§ 63.5(e) ........................ Approval of Construction/Reconstruction ............. Yes.

§ 63.5(f) ......................... Approval of Construction/Reconstruction Based 

on Prior State Review.

Yes.

§ 63.6(a) ........................ Compliance With Standards and Maintenance 

Requirements—Applicability.

Yes.


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2
46322 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 177 / Wednesday, September 12, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

Citation Subject Applicable to 

subpart NNNN Explanation 

§ 63.6(b)(1)–(7) .............. Compliance Dates for New and Reconstructed 

Sources.

Yes ................. Section 63.4083 specifies the compliance dates. 

§ 63.6(c)(1)–(5) .............. Compliance Dates for Existing Sources .............. Yes ................. Section 63.4083 specifies the compliance dates. 

§ 63.6(e)(1)(i) ................. Operation and Maintenance ................................. No .................. See § 63.4900(b) for general duty requirement. 

§ 63.6(e)(1)(ii) ................ Operation and Maintenance ................................. No.

§ 63.6(e)(1)(iii) ............... Operation and Maintenance ................................. Yes.

§ 63.6(e)(3) .................... SSM Plan ............................................................. No.

§ 63.6(f)(1) ..................... Compliance Except During Startup, Shutdown, 

and Malfunction.

No.

§ 63.6(f)(2)–(3) ............... Methods for Determining Compliance .................. Yes.

§ 63.6(g)(1)–(3) .............. Use of an Alternative Standard ............................ Yes.

§ 63.6(h) ........................ Compliance With Opacity/Visible Emission standards.No .................. Subpart NNNN does not establish opacity standards and does not require continuous opacity 

monitoring systems (COMS). 

§ 63.6(i)(1)–(16) ............. Extension of Compliance ..................................... Yes.

§ 63.6(j) .......................... Presidential Compliance Exemption .................... Yes.

§ 63.7(a)(1) .................... Performance Test Requirements—Applicability ... Yes ................. Applies to all affected sources. Additional requirements for performance testing are specified in §§ 63.4164, 63.4165, and 63.4166. 

§ 63.7(a)(2) .................... Performance Test Requirements—Dates ............ Yes ................. Applies only to 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 § 63.7(a)(2). 

§ 63.7(a)(3) .................... Performance Tests Required By the Administrator.Yes.

§ 63.7(b)–(d) .................. Performance Test Requirements—Notification, 

Quality Assurance Facilities Necessary for 

Safe Testing, Conditions During Test.

Yes ................. Applies only to performance tests for capture 

system and add-on control device efficiency at 

sources using these to comply with the standard. 

§ 63.7(e)(1) .................... Conduct of performance tests .............................. No .................. See § 63.4164(a)(1). 

§ 63.7(e)(2)–(4) .............. Conduct of performance tests .............................. Yes.

§ 63.7(f) ......................... Performance Test Requirements—Use of Alternative Test Method.Yes ................. Applies to all test methods except those used to 

determine capture system efficiency. 

§ 63.7(g)–(h) .................. Performance Test Requirements—Data Analysis, 

Recordkeeping, Reporting, Waiver of Test.

Yes ................. Applies only to performance tests for capture 

system and add-on control device efficiency at 

sources using these to comply with the standard. 

§ 63.8(a)(1)–(3) .............. Monitoring Requirements—Applicability ............... Yes ................. Applies only to monitoring of capture system and 

add-on control device efficiency at sources 

using these to comply with the standard. Additional requirements for monitoring are specified in § 63.4168. 

§ 63.8(a)(4) .................... Additional Monitoring Requirements .................... No .................. Subpart NNNN does not have monitoring requirements for flares. 

§ 63.8(b) ........................ Conduct of Monitoring .......................................... Yes.

§ 63.8(c)(1) .................... Continuous Monitoring Systems (CMS) Operation and Maintenance.No.

§ 63.8(c)(2)–(3) .............. Continuous Monitoring Systems (CMS) Operation and Maintenance.Yes ................. Applies only to monitoring of capture system and 

add-on control device efficiency at sources 

using these to comply with the standard. Additional requirements for CMS operations and 

maintenance are specified in § 63.4168. 

§ 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. 

§ 63.8(c)(5) .................... COMS ................................................................... No .................. Subpart NNNN does not have opacity or visible 

emission standards. 

§ 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. 

§ 63.8(c)(7) .................... CMS Out-of-Control Periods ................................ Yes.

§ 63.8(c)(8) .................... CMS Out-of-Control Periods and Reporting ........ No .................. Section 63.4120 requires reporting of CMS outof-control periods. 

§ 63.8(d)–(e) .................. Quality Control Program and CMS Performance 

Evaluation.

No .................. Subpart NNNN does not require the use of 

CEMS. 

§ 63.8(f)(1)–(5) ............... Use of an Alternative Monitoring Method ............ Yes.

§ 63.8(f)(6) ..................... Alternative to Relative Accuracy Test .................. No .................. Subpart NNNN does not require the use of 

CEMS. 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 177 / Wednesday, September 12, 2018 / Proposed Rules 46323 

Citation Subject Applicable to 

subpart NNNN Explanation 

§ 63.8(g)(1)–(5) .............. Data Reduction ..................................................... No .................. Sections 63.4167 and 63.4168 specify monitoring data reduction. 

§ 63.9(a)–(d) .................. Notification Requirements .................................... Yes.

§ 63.9(e) ........................ Notification of Performance Test .......................... Yes ................. Applies only to capture system and add-on control device performance tests at sources using 

these to comply with the standard. 

§ 63.9(f) ......................... Notification of Visible Emissions/Opacity Test ..... No .................. Subpart NNNN does not have opacity or visible 

emission standards. 

§ 63.9(g)(1)–(3) .............. Additional Notifications When Using CMS ........... No .................. Subpart NNNN does not require the use of 

CEMS. 

§ 63.9(h) ........................ Notification of Compliance Status ........................ Yes ................. Section 63.4110 specifies the dates for submitting the notification of compliance status. 

§ 63.9(i) .......................... Adjustment of Submittal Deadlines ...................... Yes.

§ 63.9(j) .......................... Change in Previous Information ........................... Yes.

§ 63.10(a) ...................... Recordkeeping/Reporting—Applicability and 

General Information.

Yes.

§ 63.10(b)(1) .................. General Recordkeeping Requirements ................ Yes ................. Additional requirements are specified in 

§§ 63.4130 and 63.4131. 

§ 63.10(b)(2)(i) ............... Recordkeeping of Occurrence and Duration of 

Startups and Shutdowns.

No .................. See § 63.4130(j). 

§ 63.10(b)(2)(ii) .............. Recordkeeping of Failures to Meet Standards .... No .................. See § 63.4130(j). 

§ 63.10(b)(2)(iii) ............. Recordkeeping Relevant to Maintenance of Air 

Pollution Control and Monitoring Equipment.

Yes.

§ 63.10(b)(2)(iv)–(v) ....... Actions Taken to Minimize Emissions During 

SSM.

No .................. See § 63.4130(j)(4) for a record of actions taken 

to minimize emissions during a deviation from 

the standard. 

§ 63.10(b)(2)(vi) ............. Records for CMS malfunctions ............................ No .................. See § 63.4130(j) for records of periods of deviation from the standard, including instances 

where a CMS is inoperative or out-of-control. 

§ 63.10(b)(2)(vii)–(xi) ..... Records ................................................................ Yes.

§ 63.10(b)(2)(xii) ............ Records ................................................................ Yes.

§ 63.10(b)(2)(xiii) ........... ............................................................................... No .................. Subpart NNNN does not require the use of 

CEMS. 

§ 63.10(b)(2)(xiv) ........... ............................................................................... Yes.

§ 63.10(b)(3) .................. Recordkeeping Requirements for Applicability 

Determinations.

Yes.

§ 63.10(c)(1)–(6) ............ Additional Recordkeeping Requirements for 

Sources with CMS.

Yes.

§ 63.10(c)(7)–(8) ............ Additional Recordkeeping Requirements for 

Sources with CMS.

No .................. See § 63.4130(j)(1) for records of periods of deviation from the standard, including instances 

where a CMS is inoperative or out-of-control. 

§ 63.10(c)(10)–(14) ........ Additional Recordkeeping Requirements for 

Sources with CMS.

Yes.

§ 63.10(c)(15) ................ Records Regarding the SSM Plan ....................... No.

§ 63.10(d)(1) .................. General Reporting Requirements ........................ Yes ................. Additional requirements are specified in 

§ 63.4120. 

§ 63.10(d)(2) .................. Report of Performance Test Results ................... Yes ................. Additional requirements are specified in 

§ 63.4120(h). 

§ 63.10(d)(3) .................. Reporting Opacity or Visible Emissions Observations.No .................. Subpart NNNN does not require opacity or visible emissions observations. 

§ 63.10(d)(4) .................. Progress Reports for Sources With Compliance 

Extensions.

Yes.

§ 63.10(d)(5) .................. Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction Reports ...... No .................. See § 63.4120(g). 

§ 63.10(e)(1)–(2) ............ Additional CMS Reports ....................................... No .................. Subpart NNNN does not require the use of 

CEMS. 

§ 63.10(e)(3) .................. Excess Emissions/CMS Performance Reports .... No .................. Section 63.4120(g) specifies the contents of periodic compliance reports. 

§ 63.10(e)(4) .................. COMS Data Reports ............................................ No .................. Subpart NNNN does not specify requirements for 

opacity or COMS. 

§ 63.10(f) ....................... Recordkeeping/Reporting Waiver ........................ Yes.

§ 63.11 ........................... Control Device Requirements/Flares ................... No .................. Subpart NNNN does not specify use of flares for 

compliance. 

§ 63.12 ........................... State Authority and Delegations .......................... Yes.

§ 63.13 ........................... Addresses ............................................................. Yes.

§ 63.14 ........................... Incorporation by Reference .................................. Yes.

§ 63.15 ........................... Availability of Information/Confidentiality .............. Yes.

■ 19. Subpart NNNN of Part 63 is 

amended by adding Table 5 to read as 

follows: 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2
46324 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 177 / Wednesday, September 12, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

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 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 177 / Wednesday, September 12, 2018 / Proposed Rules 46325 

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—Continued 

Chemical name CAS No. 

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 

■ 20. Section 63.4300 is amended by 

revising paragraphs (a)(3)(i) and (b) and 

removing paragraph (c) to read as 

follows: 

§ 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. 

■ 21. Section 63.4310 is amended by 

revising paragraph (c)(9)(iv) to read as 

follows: 

§ 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 § 63.4293. 

■ 22. Section 63.4311 is amended by: 

■ a. Revising paragraph (a)(5) 

introductory text and paragraphs 

(a)(5)(i) and (a)(5)(iv); 

■ b. Adding paragraph (a)(5)(v); 

■ c. Revising paragraph (a)(6) 

introductory text and paragraph 

(a)(6)(iii); 

■ d. Adding paragraph (a)(6)(iv); 

■ 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); 

■ f. Adding paragraph (a)(7)(xvi); 

■ g. Revising paragraph (a)(8) 

introductory text; 

■ h. Adding paragraph (a)(8)(v); 

■ i. Revising paragraph (c); and 

■ j. Adding paragraphs (d) through (g). 

The revisions and additions read as 

follows: 

§ 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 § 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 § 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 (lowlevel) and high-level checks, the date, 

time, and duration that the CPMS was 

inoperative; the cause (including 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2
46326 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 177 / Wednesday, September 12, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

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 

§ 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 

§ 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 § 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/electronicreporting-air-emissions/electronicreporting-tool-ert) at the time of the test, 

you must submit the results of the 

performance test to the EPA via the 

Compliance and Emissions Data 

Reporting Interface (CEDRI). (CEDRI can 

be accessed through the EPA’s Central 

Data Exchange (CDX) (https://

cdx.epa.gov/).) Performance test data 

must be submitted in a file format 

generated through the use of the EPA’s 

ERT or an alternate electronic file 

format consistent with the extensible 

markup language (XML) schema listed 

on the EPA’s ERT website. 

(2) For data collected using test 

methods that are not supported by the 

EPA’s ERT as listed on the EPA’s ERT 

website at the time of the test, you must 

submit the results of the performance 

test to the Administrator at the 

appropriate address listed in § 63.13, 

unless the Administrator agrees to or 

specifies an alternate reporting method. 

(3) If you claim that some of the 

performance test information being 

submitted under paragraph (c)(1) of this 

section is confidential business 

information (CBI), you must submit a 

complete file generated through the use 

of the EPA’s ERT or an alternate 

electronic file consistent with the XML 

schema listed on the EPA’s ERT 

website, including information claimed 

to be CBI, on a compact disc, flash 

drive, or other commonly used 

electronic storage medium to the EPA. 

The electronic medium must be clearly 

marked as CBI and mailed to U.S. EPA/ 

OAPQS/CORE CBI Office, Attention: 

Group Leader, Measurement Policy 

Group, MD C404–02, 4930 Old Page Rd., 

Durham, NC 27703. The same ERT or 

alternate file with the CBI omitted must 

be submitted to the EPA via the EPA’s 

CDX as described in paragraph (c)(1) of 

this section. 

(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 § 63.9(b) and the notification 

of compliance status required in 

§ 63.9(h) and § 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-airemissions/compliance-and-emissionsdata-reporting-interface-cedri). The date 

report templates become available will 

be listed on the CEDRI website. If the 

reporting form for the semiannual 

compliance report specific to this 

subpart is not available in CEDRI at the 

time that the report is due, you must 

submit the report to the Administrator 

at the appropriate addresses listed in 

§ 63.13. Once the form has been 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 177 / Wednesday, September 12, 2018 / Proposed Rules 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. 

■ 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: 

§ 63.4312 What records must I keep? 

* * * * * 

(i) For each deviation from an 

emission limitation reported under 

§ 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 

§ 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 § 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 

§ 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 

§ 63.4311(a)(8)(ii) through (iv) satisfies 

this recordkeeping requirement. 

(4) A record of actions taken to 

minimize emissions in accordance with 

§ 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. 

* * * * * 

■ 24. Section 63.4313 is amended by 

revising paragraph (a) to read as follows: 

§ 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 

§ 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. 

* * * * * 

■ 25. Section 63.4321 is amended by 

revising paragraphs (e)(1)(i)(A) and 

(e)(1)(iv) to read as follows: 

§ 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 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2
46328 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 177 / Wednesday, September 12, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

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. 

* * * * * 

■ 26. Section 63.4341 is amended by 

revising paragraph (e)(4) introductory 

text and paragraph (f)(4) introductory 

text to read as follows: 

§ 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 

§ 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 

§ 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. 

* * * * * 

■ 27. Section 63.4342 is amended by 

revising paragraph (f) and removing and 

reserving paragraph (h) to read as 

follows: 

§ 63.4342 How do I demonstrate 

continuous compliance with the emission 

limitations? 

* * * * * 

(f) As part of each semiannual 

compliance report required in § 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 §§ 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 § 63.4292 

and the work practice standards 

required by § 63.4293 during each 

compliance period. 

* * * * * 

■ 28. Section 63.4351 is amended by 

revising paragraph (d)(4) to read as 

follows: 

§ 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 § 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 

§ 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 § 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. 

* * * * * 

§ 63.4352 [Amended] 

■ 29. Section 63.4352 is amended by 

removing and reserving paragraph (h). 

■ 30. Section 63.4360 is amended by 

revising paragraph (a) introductory text 

and paragraph (a)(1) to read as follows. 

§ 63.4360 What are the general 

requirements for performance tests? 

(a) You must conduct each 

performance test required by §§ 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 § 63.7(h). 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 177 / Wednesday, September 12, 2018 / Proposed Rules 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. 

* * * * * 

■ 31. Section 63.4362 is amended by 

revising paragraph (b) introductory text 

to read as follows: 

§ 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. 

* * * * * 

■ 32. Section 63.4364 is amended by 

revising paragraphs (a)(6) through (8) to 

read as follows: 

§ 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 § 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 

§ 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 § 63.4311(a). 

* * * * * 

■ 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: 

§ 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 § 63.4321(e)(1). 

* * * * * 

■ 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: 

Citation Subject Applicable to 

subpart OOOO Explanation 

§ 63.1(a)(1)–(12) ............ General Applicability ............................................. Yes.

§ 63.1(b)(1)–(3) .............. Initial Applicability Determination ......................... Yes ................. Applicability to subpart OOOO is also specified 

in § 63.4281. 

§ 63.1(c)(1) .................... Applicability After Standard Established .............. Yes.

§ 63.1(c)(2)–(3) .............. Applicability of Permit Program for Area Sources No .................. Area sources are not subject to subpart OOOO. 

§ 63.1(c)(4)–(5) .............. Extensions and Notifications ................................ Yes.


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2
46330 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 177 / Wednesday, September 12, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

Citation Subject Applicable to 

subpart OOOO Explanation 

§ 63.1(e) ........................ Applicability of Permit Program Before Relevant 

Standard is Set.

Yes.

§ 63.2 ............................. Definitions ............................................................. Yes ................. Additional definitions are specified in § 63.4371. 

§ 63.3(a)–(c) .................. Units and Abbreviations ....................................... Yes.

§ 63.4(a)(1)–(5) .............. Prohibited Activities .............................................. Yes.

§ 63.4(b)–(c) .................. Circumvention/Severability ................................... Yes.

§ 63.5(a) ........................ Construction/Reconstruction ................................ Yes.

§ 63.5(b)(1)–(6) .............. Requirements for Existing, Newly Constructed, 

and Reconstructed Sources.

Yes.

§ 63.5(d) ........................ Application for Approval of Construction/Reconstruction.Yes.

§ 63.5(e) ........................ Approval of Construction/Reconstruction ............. Yes.

§ 63.5(f) ......................... Approval of Construction/Reconstruction Based 

on Prior State Review.

Yes.

§ 63.6(a) ........................ Compliance With Standards and Maintenance 

Requirements—Applicability.

Yes.

§ 63.6(b)(1)–(7) .............. Compliance Dates for New and Reconstructed 

Sources.

Yes ................. Section 63.4283 specifies the compliance dates. 

§ 63.6(c)(1)–(5) .............. Compliance Dates for Existing Sources .............. Yes ................. Section 63.4283 specifies the compliance dates. 

§ 63.6(e)(1)(i) ................. Operation and Maintenance ................................. No .................. See § 63.4300(b) for general duty requirement. 

§ 63.6(e)(1)(ii) ................ Operation and Maintenance ................................. No.

§ 63.6(e)(1)(iii) ............... Operation and Maintenance ................................. Yes.

§ 63.6(e)(3) .................... Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction Plan ............ No.

§ 63.6(f)(1) ..................... Compliance Except During Startup, Shutdown, 

and Malfunction.

No.

§ 63.6(f)(2)–(3) ............... Methods for Determining Compliance .................. Yes.

§ 63.6(g)(1)–(3) .............. Use of an Alternative Standard ............................ Yes.

§ 63.6(h) ........................ Compliance With Opacity/Visible Emission 

Standards.

No .................. Subpart OOOO does not establish opacity standards and does not require continuous opacity 

monitoring systems (COMS). 

§ 63.6(i)(1)–(16) ............. Extension of Compliance ..................................... Yes.

§ 63.6(j) .......................... Presidential Compliance Exemption .................... Yes.

§ 63.7(a)(1) .................... Performance Test Requirements—Applicability ... Yes ................. Applies to all affected sources. Additional requirements for performance testing are specified in §§ 63.4360, 63.4361, and 63.4362. 

§ 63.7(a)(2) .................... Performance Test Requirements—Dates ............ Yes ................. Applies only to performance tests for capture 

system and control device efficiency at 

sources using these to comply with the standard. 

§ 63.7(a)(3) .................... Performance Tests Required by the Administrator.Yes.

§ 63.7(b)–(d) .................. Performance Test Requirements—Notification, 

Quality Assurance, Facilities Necessary for 

Safe Testing, Conditions During Test.

Yes ................. Applies only to performance tests for capture 

system and control device efficiency at 

sources using these to comply with the standard. 

§ 63.7(e)(1) .................... Conduct of performance tests .............................. No .................. See § 63.4360. 

§ 63.7(e)(2)–(4) .............. Conduct of performance tests .............................. Yes.

§ 63.7(f) ......................... Performance Test Requirements—Use of Alternative Test Method.Yes ................. Applies to all test methods except those used to 

determine capture system efficiency. 

§ 63.7(g)–(h) .................. Performance Test Requirements—Data Analysis, 

Recordkeeping, Waiver of Test.

Yes ................. Applies only to performance tests for capture 

system and add-on control device efficiency at 

sources using these to comply with the standards. 

§ 63.8(a)(1)–(3) .............. Monitoring Requirements—Applicability ............... Yes ................. Applies only to monitoring of capture system and 

add-on control device efficiency at sources 

using these to comply with the standards. Additional requirements for monitoring are specified in § 63.4364. 

§ 63.8(a)(4) .................... Additional Monitoring Requirements .................... No .................. Subpart OOOO does not have monitoring requirements for flares. 

§ 63.8(b) ........................ Conduct of Monitoring .......................................... Yes.

§ 63.8(c)(1) .................... Continuous Monitoring Systems (CMS) Operation and Maintenance.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. 

§ 63.8(c)(2)–(3) .............. CMS Operation and Maintenance ........................ Yes ................. Applies only to monitoring of capture system and 

add-on control device efficiency at sources 

using these to comply with the standards. Additional requirements for CMS operations and 

maintenance are specified in § 63.4364. 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 177 / Wednesday, September 12, 2018 / Proposed Rules 46331 

Citation Subject Applicable to 

subpart OOOO Explanation 

§ 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. 

§ 63.8(c)(5) .................... COMS ................................................................... No .................. Subpart OOOO does not have opacity or visible 

emission standards. 

§ 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. 

§ 63.8(c)(7) .................... CMS Out of Control Periods ................................ Yes.

§ 63.8(c)(8) .................... CMS Out of Control Periods and Reporting ........ No .................. Section 63.4311 requires reporting of CMS outof-control periods. 

§ 63.8(d)–(e) .................. Quality Control Program and CMS Performance 

Evaluation.

No .................. Subpart OOOO does not require the use of 

CEMS. 

§ 63.8(f)(1)–(5) ............... Use of Alternative Monitoring Method .................. Yes.

§ 63.8(f)(6) ..................... Alternative to Relative Accuracy Test .................. No .................. Subpart OOOO does not require the use of 

CEMS. 

§ 63.8(g)(1)–(5) .............. Data Reduction ..................................................... No .................. Sections 63.4342 and 63.4352 specify monitoring data reduction. 

§ 63.9(a) ........................ Applicability and General Information .................. Yes.

§ 63.9(b) ........................ Initial Notifications ................................................ No .................. Subpart OOOO provides 1 year for an existing 

source to submit an initial notification. 

§ 63.9(c) ......................... Request for Extension of Compliance ................. Yes.

§ 63.9(d) ........................ Notification that Source is Subject to Special 

Compliance Requirements.

Yes.

§ 63.9(e) ........................ Notification of Performance Test .......................... Yes ................. Applies only to capture system and add-on control device performance tests at sources using 

these to comply with the standards. 

§ 63.9(f) ......................... Notification of Visible Emissions/Opacity Test ..... No .................. Subpart OOOO does not have opacity or visible 

emission standards. 

§ 63.9(g)(1)–(3) .............. Additional Notifications When Using CMS ........... No .................. Subpart OOOO does not require the use of 

CEMS. 

§ 63.9(h) ........................ Notification of Compliance Status ........................ Yes ................. Section 63.4310 specifies the dates for submitting the notification of compliance status. 

§ 63.9(i) .......................... Adjustment of Submittal Deadlines ...................... Yes.

§ 63.9(j) .......................... Change in Previous Information ........................... Yes.

§ 63.10(a) ...................... Recordkeeping/Reporting—Applicability and 

General Information.

Yes.

§ 63.10(b)(1) .................. General Recordkeeping Requirements ................ Yes ................. Additional Requirements are specified in 

§§ 63.4312 and 63.4313. 

§ 63.10(b)(2)(i) ............... Recordkeeping of Occurrence and Duration of 

Startups and Shutdowns based on EPA Guidance.

No .................. See § 63.4312(i) 

§ 63.10(b)(2)(ii) .............. Recordkeeping of Failures to Meet Standards .... No .................. See § 63.4312(i). 

§ 63.10(b)(2)(iii) ............. Recordkeeping Relevant to Maintenance of Air 

Pollution Control and Monitoring Equipment.

Yes.

§ 63.10(b)(2)(iv)–(v) ....... Actions Taken to Minimize Emissions During 

Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction.

No .................. See § 63.4312(i)(5) for a record of actions taken 

to minimize emissions during a deviation from 

the standard. 

§ 63.10(b)(2)(vi) ............. Recordkeeping for CMS malfunctions ................. No .................. See § 63.4312(i) for records of periods of deviation from the standard, including instances 

where a CMS is inoperative or out-of-control. 

§ 63.10(b)(2)(vii)–(xi) ..... Records ................................................................ Yes.

§ 63.10(b)(2)(xii) ............ Records ................................................................ Yes.

§ 63.10(b)(2)(xiii) ........... ............................................................................... No .................. Subpart OOOO does not require the use of 

CEMS. 

§ 63.10(b)(2)(xiv) ........... ............................................................................... Yes.

§ 63.10(b)(3) .................. Recordkeeping Requirements for Applicability 

Determinations.

Yes.

§ 63.10(c)(1)–(6) ............ Additional Recordkeeping Requirements for 

Sources with CMS.

Yes.

§ 63.10(c)(7)–(8) ............ Additional Recordkeeping Requirements for 

Sources with CMS.

No .................. See § 63.4312(i)(1) for records of periods of deviation from the standard, including instances 

where a CMS is inoperative or out-of-control. 

§ 63.10(c)(10)–(14) ........ Additional Recordkeeping Requirements for 

Sources with CMS.

Yes.

§ 63.10(c)(15) ................ Records Regarding the Startup, Shutdown, and 

Malfunction Plan.

No.

§ 63.10(d)(1) .................. General Reporting Requirements ........................ Yes ................. Addtional requirements are specified in 

§ 63.4311. 

§ 63.10(d)(2) .................. Report of Performance Test Results ................... Yes ................. Additional requirements are specified in 

§ 63.4311(b). 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2
46332 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 177 / Wednesday, September 12, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

Citation Subject Applicable to 

subpart OOOO Explanation 

§ 63.10(d)(3) .................. Reporting Opacity or Visible Emissions Observations.No .................. Subpart OOOO does not require opacity or visible emissions observations. 

§ 63.10(d)(4) .................. Progress Reports for Sources With Compliance 

Extensions.

Yes.

§ 63.10(d)(5) .................. Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction Reports ...... No .................. See § 63.4311(a)(7). 

§ 63.10(e)(1)–(2) ............ Additional CMS Reports ....................................... No .................. Subpart OOOO does not require the use of 

CEMS. 

§ 63.10(e)(3) .................. Excess Emissions/CMS Performance Reports .... No .................. Section 63.4311(a) specifies the contents of periodic compliance reports. 

§ 63.10(e)(4) .................. COMS Data Reports ............................................ No .................. Subpart OOOO does not specify requirements 

for opacity or COMS. 

§ 63.10(f) ....................... Recordkeeping/Reporting Waiver ........................ Yes.

§ 63.11 ........................... Control Device Requirements/Flares ................... No .................. Subpart OOOO does not specify use of flares for 

compliance. 

§ 63.12 ........................... State Authority and Delegations .......................... Yes.

§ 63.13 ........................... Addresses ............................................................. Yes.

§ 63.14 ........................... Incorporation by Reference .................................. Yes ................. ASNI/ASME PTC 19.10–1981, Part 10 

§ 63.15 ........................... Availability of Information/Confidentiality .............. Yes.

■ 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 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 177 / Wednesday, September 12, 2018 / Proposed Rules 46333 

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—Continued 

Chemical name CAS No. 

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 

■ 36. Section 63.4894 is added to read 

as follows: 

§ 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, lowpressure (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 § 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 § 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 

§ 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 

§ 63.4130(l). 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2
46334 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 177 / Wednesday, September 12, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

■ 37. Section 63.4900 is revised to read 

as follows: 

§ 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 §§ 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. 

■ 38. Section 63.4910 is amended by 

revising paragraph (c)(9) introductory 

text and removing paragraph (c)(9)(v) to 

read as follows: 

§ 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 liquidliquid material balances according to 

§ 63.4961(j). 

* * * * * 

■ 39. Section 63.4920 is amended by: 

■ a. Revising paragraph (a)(3) 

introductory text, paragraph (a)(4), and 

paragraphs (a)(5)(i) and (iv); 

■ b. Adding new paragraph (a)(5)(v); 

■ c. Revising paragraph (a)(6) 

introductory text and paragraph 

(a)(6)(v); 

■ d. Adding new paragraph (a)(6)(vi); 

■ e. Revising paragraph (a)(7) 

introductory text and paragraphs 

(a)(7)(vi), (a)(7)(ix) through (xi), and 

(a)(7)(xiii), (xvi), and (xvii); 

■ f. Adding new paragraph (a)(7)(xviii); 

and 

■ g. Removing and reserving paragraph 

(c). 

The revisions and additions read as 

follows: 

§ 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 §§ 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 §§ 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 

§ 63.4942(c), § 63.4952(c), or 

§ 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-ofcontrol as specified in § 63.8(c)(7), the 

semiannual compliance report must 

include a statement that there were no 

periods during which the CPMS were 

out-of-control during the reporting 

period as specified in § 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 

§ 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 

§ 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 § 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 

§ 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 

§ 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 (lowlevel) 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 

§ 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, 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 177 / Wednesday, September 12, 2018 / Proposed Rules 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 § 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 

§ 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 § 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 § 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 § 63.4890, and a description of 

the method used to estimate the 

emissions. 

* * * * * 

■ 40. Section 63.4921 is added to read 

as follows: 

§ 63.4921 What are my electronic reporting 

requirements? 

(a) You must submit the results of the 

performance test required § 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/electronicreporting-air-emissions/electronicreporting-tool-ert) at the time of the test, 

you must submit the results of the 

performance test to the EPA via the 

CEDRI. CEDRI can be accessed through 

the EPA’s Central Data Exchange (CDX) 

(https://cdx.epa.gov/). Performance test 

data must be submitted in a file format 

generated through the use of the EPA’s 

ERT or an alternate electronic file 

format consistent with the extensible 

markup language (XML) schema listed 

on the EPA’s ERT website. 

(2) For data collected using test 

methods that are not supported by the 

EPA’s ERT as listed on the EPA’s ERT 

website at the time of the test, you must 

submit the results of the performance 

test to the Administrator at the 

appropriate address listed in § 63.13, 

unless the Administrator agrees to or 

specifies an alternate reporting method. 

(3) If you claim that some of the 

performance test information being 

submitted under paragraph (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 § 63.9(b) and the notification 

of compliance status required in 

§ 63.9(h) and § 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 § 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-airemissions/compliance-and-emissionsdata-reporting-interface-cedri). The date 

report templates become available will 

be listed on the CEDRI website. If the 

reporting form for the semiannual 

compliance report specific to this 

subpart is not available in CEDRI at the 

time that the report is due, you must 

submit the report to the Administrator 

at the appropriate addresses listed in 

§ 63.13. Once the form has been 

available in CEDRI for 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 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2
46336 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 177 / Wednesday, September 12, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

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. 

■ 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: 

§ 63.4930 What records must I keep? 

* * * * * 

(j) For each deviation from an 

emission limitation reported under 

§ 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 

§ 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 § 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 § 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 

§ 63.4920(a)(5), (a)(6), and (a)(7). 

(4) A record of actions taken to 

minimize emissions in accordance with 

§ 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. 

* * * * * 

■ 42. Section 63.4931 is amended by 

revising paragraph (a) introductory text 

to read as follows: 

§ 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 

§ 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. 

* * * * * 

■ 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: 

§ 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 § 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. 

* * * * * 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 177 / Wednesday, September 12, 2018 / Proposed Rules 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 § 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 § 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 § 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 § 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 § 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 § 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. 

* * * * * 

■ 44. Section 63.4951 is amended by 

revising paragraph (c) to read as follows: 

§ 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 § 63.4941(c). 

* * * * * 

■ 45. Section 63.4961 is amended by 

revising paragraph (h) introductory text 

and paragraph (j)(3) to read as follows: 

§ 63.4961 How do I demonstrate initial 

compliance? 

* * * * * 

(h) Calculate the organic HAP 

emission reduction for controlled 

coating operations not using liquidliquid 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 § 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 § 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. 

* * * * * 

■ 46. Section 63.4963 is amended by 

revising paragraph (a) introductory text 

and paragraph (a)(1) to read as follows: 

§ 63.4963 What are the general 

requirements for performance tests? 

(a) You must conduct each 

performance test required by § 63.4960 

according to the requirements in this 

section unless you obtain a waiver of 

the performance test according to the 

provisions in § 63.7(h). 

(1) Representative coating operation 

operating conditions. You must conduct 

the performance test under 

representative operating conditions for 

the coating operation. Operations during 

periods of startup, shutdown, or 

nonoperation do not constitute 

representative conditions for purposes 

of conducting a performance test. The 

owner or operator may not conduct 

performance tests during periods of 

malfunction. You must record the 

process information that is necessary to 

document operating conditions during 

the test and explain why the conditions 

represent normal operation. Upon 

request, you must make available to the 

Administrator such records as may be 

necessary to determine the conditions of 

performance tests. 

* * * * * 

■ 47. Section 63.4965 is amended by 

revising the paragraph (b) introductory 

text to read as follows: 

§ 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. 

* * * * * 

■ 48. Section 63.4967 is amended by 

revising paragraphs (a)(4) and (5) and 

paragraph (c)(3) introductory text to 

read as follows: 

§ 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 

§ 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 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2
46338 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 177 / Wednesday, September 12, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

all times in accordance with 

§ 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. 

* * * * * 

■ 49. Section 63.4981 is amended by 

revising the definition of ‘‘Deviation’’ to 

read as follows: 

§ 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. 

* * * * * 

■ 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 

§ 63.1(a)(1)–(12) ............ General Applicability ............................................. Yes.

§ 63.1(b)(1)–(3) .............. Initial Applicability Determination ......................... Yes ................. Applicability to subpart RRRR is also specified in 

§ 63.4881. 

§ 63.1(c)(1) .................... Applicability After Standard Established .............. Yes.

§ 63.1(c)(2)–(3) .............. Applicability of Permit Program for Area Sources No .................. Area sources are not subject to subpart RRRR. 

§ 63.1(c)(4)–(5) .............. Extensions and Notifications ................................ Yes.

§ 63.1(e) ........................ Applicability of Permit Program Before Relevant 

Standard is Set.

Yes.

§ 63.2 ............................. Definitions ............................................................. Yes ................. Additional definitions are specified in § 63.4981. 

§ 63.3(a)–(c) .................. Units and Abbreviations ....................................... Yes.

§ 63.4(a)(1)–(5) .............. Prohibited Activities .............................................. Yes.

§ 63.4(b)–(c) .................. Circumvention/Severability ................................... Yes.

§ 63.5(a) ........................ Construction/Reconstruction ................................ Yes.

§ 63.5(b)(1)–(6) .............. Requirements for Existing, Newly Constructed, 

and Reconstructed Sources.

Yes.

§ 63.5(d) ........................ Application for Approval of Construction/Reconstruction.Yes.

§ 63.5(e) ........................ Approval of Construction/Reconstruction ............. Yes.

§ 63.5(f) ......................... Approval of Construction/Reconstruction Based 

on Prior State Review.

Yes.

§ 63.6(a) ........................ Compliance With Standards and Maintenance 

Requirements—Applicability.

Yes.

§ 63.6(b)(1)–(7) .............. Compliance Dates for New and Reconstructed 

Sources.

Yes ................. Section 63.4883 specifies the compliance dates. 

§ 63.6(c)(1)–(5) .............. Compliance Dates for Existing Sources .............. Yes ................. Section 63.4883 specifies the compliance dates. 

§ 63.6(e)(1)(i) ................. Operation and Maintenance ................................. No .................. See § 63.4900(b) for general duty requirement. 

§ 63.6(e)(1)(ii) ................ Operation and Maintenance ................................. No.

§ 63.6(e)(1)(iii) ............... Operation and Maintenance ................................. Yes.

§ 63.6(e)(3) .................... SSM Plan ............................................................. No.

§ 63.6(f)(1) ..................... Compliance Except During Startup, Shutdown, 

and Malfunction.

No.

§ 63.6(f)(2)–(3) ............... Methods for Determining Compliance .................. Yes.

§ 63.6(g)(1)–(3) .............. Use of Alternative Standards ............................... Yes.

§ 63.6(h) ........................ Compliance With Opacity/Visible Emission 

Standards.

No .................. Subpart RRRR does not establish opacity standards and does not require continuous opacity 

monitoring systems (COMS). 

§ 63.6(i)(1)–(16) ............. Extension of Compliance ..................................... Yes.

§ 63.6(j) .......................... Presidential Compliance Exemption .................... Yes.

§ 63.7(a)(1) .................... Performance Test Requirements—Applicability ... Yes ................. Applies to all affected sources using an add-on 

control device to comply with the standards. 

Additional requirements for performance testing are specified in §§ 63.4963, 63.4964, and 

63.4965. 

§ 63.7(a)(2) .................... Performance Test Requirements—Dates ............ Yes ................. Applies only to 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 § 63.7(a)(2). 

§ 63.7(a)(3) .................... Performance Tests Required by the Administrator.Yes.


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 177 / Wednesday, September 12, 2018 / Proposed Rules 46339 

Citation Subject Applicable to 

subpart Explanation 

§ 63.7(b)–(d) .................. Performance Test Requirements—Notification, 

Quality Assurance, Facilities Necessary Safe 

Testing, Conditions During Test.

Yes ................. Applies only to performance tests for capture 

system and add-on control device efficiency at 

sources using these to comply with the standards. 

§ 63.7(e)(1) .................... Conduct of performance tests .............................. No .................. See § 63.4963(a)(1). 

§ 63.7(e)(2)–(4) .............. Conduct of performance tests .............................. Yes.

§ 63.7(f) ......................... Performance Test Requirements—Use of Alternative Test Method.Yes ................. Applies to all test methods except those used to 

determine capture system efficiency. 

§ 63.7(g)–(h) .................. Performance Test Requirements—Data Analysis, 

Recordkeeping, Reporting, Waiver of Test.

Yes ................. Applies only to performance tests for capture 

system and add-on control device efficiency at 

sources using these to comply with the standards. 

§ 63.8(a)(1)–(3) .............. Monitoring Requirements—Applicability ............... Yes ................. Applies only to monitoring of capture system and 

add-on control device efficiency at sources 

using these to comply with the standards. Additional requirements for monitoring are specified in § 63.4967. 

§ 63.8(a)(4) .................... Additional Monitoring Requirements .................... No .................. Subpart RRRR does not have monitoring requirements for flares. 

§ 63.8(b) ........................ Conduct of Monitoring .......................................... Yes.

§ 63.8(c)(1) .................... Continuous Monitoring Systems (CMS) Operation and Maintenance.No.

§ 63.8(c)(2)–(3) .............. CMS Operation and Maintenance ........................ Yes ................. Applies only to monitoring of capture system and 

add-on control device efficiency at sources 

using these to comply with the standards. Additional requirements for CMS operations and 

maintenance are specified in § 63.4967. 

§ 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. 

§ 63.8(c)(5) .................... COMS ................................................................... No .................. Subpart RRRR does not have opacity or visible 

emissions standards. 

§ 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. 

§ 63.8(c)(7) .................... CMS Out-of-Control Periods ................................ Yes.

§ 63.8(c)(8) .................... CMS Out-of-Control Periods Reporting ............... No .................. Section 63.4920 requires reporting of CMS outof-control periods. 

§ 63.8(d)–(e) .................. Quality Control Program and CMS Performance 

Evaluation.

No .................. Subpart RRRR does not require the use of 

CEMS. 

§ 63.8(f)(1)–(5) ............... Use of an Alternative Monitoring Method ............ Yes ................. § 63.8(f)(1)–(5). 

§ 63.8(f)(6) ..................... Alternative to Relative Accuracy Test .................. No .................. Subpart RRRR does not require the use of 

CEMS. 

§ 63.8(g)(1)–(5) .............. Data Reduction ..................................................... No .................. Sections 63.4966 and 63.4967 specify monitoring data reduction. 

§ 63.9(a)–(d) .................. Notification Requirements .................................... Yes.

§ 63.9(e) ........................ Notification of Performance Test .......................... Yes ................. Applies only to capture system and add-on control device performance tests at sources using 

these to comply with the standards. 

§ 63.9(f) ......................... Notification of Visible Emissions/Opacity Test ..... No .................. Subpart RRRR does not have opacity or visible 

emission standards. 

§ 63.9(g)(1)–(3) .............. Additional Notifications When Using CMS ........... No .................. Subpart RRRR does not require the use of 

CEMS. 

§ 63.9(h) ........................ Notification of Compliance Status ........................ Yes ................. Section 63.4910 specifies the dates for submitting the notification of compliance status. 

§ 63.9(i) .......................... Adjustment of Submittal Deadlines ...................... Yes.

§ 63.9(j) .......................... Change in Previous Information ........................... Yes.

§ 63.10(a) ...................... Recordkeeping/Reporting—Applicability and 

General Information.

Yes.

§ 63.10(b)(1) .................. General Recordkeeping Requirements ................ Yes ................. Additional requirements are specified in 

§§ 63.4930 and 63.4931. 

§ 63.10(b)(2)(i) ............... Recordkeeping of Occurrence and Duration of 

Startups and Shutdowns.

No .................. See § 63.4930(j). 

§ 63.10(b)(2)(ii) .............. Recordkeeping of Failures to Meet Standards .... No .................. See § 63.4930(j). 

§ 63.10(b)(2)(iii) ............. Recordkeeping Relevant to Maintenance of Air 

Pollution Control and Monitoring Equipment.

Yes.

§ 63.10(b)(2)(iv)–(v) ....... Actions Taken to Minimize Emissions During 

SSM.

No .................. See § 63.4930(j)(4) for a record of actions taken 

to minimize emissions during a deviation from 

the standard. 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2
46340 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 177 / Wednesday, September 12, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

Citation Subject Applicable to 

subpart Explanation 

§ 63.10(b)(2)(vi) ............. Recordkeeping for CMS malfunctions ................. No .................. See § 63.4930(j) for records of periods of deviation from the standard, including instances 

where a CMS is inoperative or out-of-control. 

§ 63.10(b)(2)(vii)–(xi) ..... Records ................................................................ Yes.

§ 63.10(b)(2)(xii) ............ Records ................................................................ Yes.

§ 63.10(b)(2)(xiii) ........... ............................................................................... No .................. Subpart RRRR does not require the use of 

CEMS. 

§ 63.10(b)(2)(xiv) ........... ............................................................................... Yes.

§ 63.10(b)(3) .................. Recordkeeping Requirements for Applicability 

Determinations.

Yes.

§ 63.10(c)(1)–(6) ............ Additional Recordkeeping Requirements for 

Sources with CMS.

Yes.

§ 63.10(c)(7)–(8) ............ Additional Recordkeeping Requirements for 

Sources with CMS.

No .................. See § 63.4930(j)(1) for records of periods of deviation from the standard, including instances 

where a CMS is inoperative or out-of-control. 

§ 63.10(c)(10)–(14) ........ Additional Recordkeeping Requirements for 

Sources with CMS.

Yes.

§ 63.10(c)(15) ................ Records Regarding the SSM Plan ....................... No.

§ 63.10(d)(1) .................. General Reporting Requirements ........................ Yes ................. Additional requirements are specified in 

§ 63.4920. 

§ 63.10(d)(2) .................. Report of Performance Test Results ................... Yes ................. Additional requirements are specified in 

§ 63.4920(b). 

§ 63.10(d)(3) .................. Reporting Opacity or Visible Emissions Observations.No .................. Subpart RRRR does not require opacity or visible emissions observations. 

§ 63.10(d)(4) .................. Progress Reports for Sources With Compliance 

Extensions.

Yes.

§ 63.10(d)(5) .................. Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction Reports ...... No .................. See § 63.4920(a)(7). 

§ 63.10(e)(1)–(2) ............ Additional CMS Reports ....................................... No .................. Subpart RRRR does not require the use of 

CEMS. 

§ 63.10(e)(3) .................. Excess Emissions/CMS Performance Reports .... No .................. Section 63.4920(b) specifies the contents of periodic compliance reports. 

§ 63.10(e)(4) .................. COMS Data Reports ............................................ No .................. Subpart RRRR does not specify requirements for 

opacity or COMS. 

§ 63.10(f) ....................... Recordkeeping/Reporting Waiver ........................ Yes.

§ 63.11 ........................... Control Device Requirements/Flares ................... No .................. Subpart RRRR does not specify use of flares for 

compliance. 

§ 63.12 ........................... State Authority and Delegations .......................... Yes.

§ 63.13 ........................... Addresses ............................................................. Yes.

§ 63.14 ........................... Incorporation by Reference .................................. Yes.

§ 63.15 ........................... Availability of Information/Confidentiality .............. Yes.

■ 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 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 177 / Wednesday, September 12, 2018 / Proposed Rules 46341 

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—Continued 

Chemical name CAS No. 

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 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2