# NESHAP: Surface Coating of Automobiles and Light-Duty Trucks; Miscellaneous Metal Parts and Products; Plastic Parts and Products; Large Appliances; Printing, Coating, and Dyeing of Fabrics and Other Textiles; and Metal Furniture Residual Risk and Technology Reviews

> Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more.

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/fr%3A2020-05908

## Record

- **Collection:** Federal Register
- **Document type:** Rule
- **Published:** July 8, 2020
- **Citation:** 85 FR 41100

## Text

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 63
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0314, EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0312, EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0313, EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0670, EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0668, EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0669; FRL-10006-70-OAR]
RIN 2060-AT49 and RIN 2060-AT72
NESHAP: Surface Coating of Automobiles and Light-Duty Trucks; Miscellaneous Metal Parts and Products; Plastic Parts and Products; Large Appliances; Printing, Coating, and Dyeing of Fabrics and Other Textiles; and Metal Furniture Residual Risk and Technology Reviews

AGENCY:

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking final action on the residual risk and technology reviews (RTRs) conducted for the Surface Coating of Automobiles and Light-Duty Trucks (ALDT); Surface Coating of Miscellaneous Metal Parts and Products (MMPP); and the Surface Coating of Plastic Parts and Products (PPP) source categories regulated under national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP). These final amendments also address emissions during periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction (SSM); electronic reporting of performance test results and compliance reports; the addition of EPA Method 18 and updates to several measurement methods; and the addition of requirements for periodic performance testing. Several miscellaneous technical amendments were also made to improve the clarity of the rule requirements. We are making no revisions to the numerical emission limits based on these risk analyses or technology reviews. This notice also finalizes technical corrections to the NESHAP for Surface Coating of Large Appliances; NESHAP for Printing, Coating, and Dyeing of Fabrics and Other Textiles; and NESHAP for Surface Coating of Metal Furniture.

DATES:

This final rule is effective on July 8, 2020. The incorporation by reference (IBR) of certain publications listed in the rule is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of July 8, 2020. The incorporation by reference of certain other publications listed in the rule was approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of June 25, 2004.

ADDRESSES:

The EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0314 for 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 63, subpart IIII (ALDT Docket); Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0312 for 40 CFR part 63, subpart MMMM, Surface Coating of MMPP Docket; and Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0313 for 40 CFR part 63, subpart PPPP, Surface Coating of PPP Docket. All documents in the dockets are listed on the
https://www.regulations.gov/
website. Although listed, some information is not publicly available,
e.g.,
Confidential Business Information or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically through
https://www.regulations.gov/,
or in hard copy at the EPA Docket Center, WJC West Building, Room Number 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room hours of operation are 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Eastern Standard Time (EST), Monday through Friday. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the EPA Docket Center is (202) 566-1742.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

For questions about this final action for the Surface Coating of ALDT NESHAP, the Surface Coating of MMPP NESHAP, the Surface Coating of PPP NESHAP, and the technical corrections to the NESHAP for Surface Coating of Large Appliances and the NESHAP for Surface Coating of Metal Furniture contact Ms. J. Kaye Whitfield, Minerals and Manufacturing Group, Sector Policies and Programs Division (D243-04), Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711; telephone number: (919) 541-2509; fax number: (919) 541-4991; and email address:
whitfield.kaye@epa.gov.
For questions about the technical corrections to the Printing, Coating, and Dyeing of Fabrics and Other Textiles, contact Ms. Paula Hirtz, Minerals and Manufacturing Group, Sector Policies and Programs Division (D243-04), Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711; telephone number: (919) 541-2618; fax number: (919) 541-4991; and email address:
hirtz.paula@epa.gov.
For specific information regarding the risk modeling methodology, contact Mr. Chris Sarsony, Health and Environmental Impacts Division (C539-02), Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711; telephone number: (919) 541-4843; fax number: (919) 541-0840; and email address:
sarsony.chris@epa.gov.
For information about the applicability of the NESHAP to a particular entity, contact Mr. John Cox, Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, WJC South Building (Mail Code 2227A), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: (202) 564-1395; and email address:
cox.john@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Preamble acronyms and abbreviations.
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:

ALDT Automobile and Light-Duty Trucks

APA Administrative Procedures Act

CAA Clean Air Act

CDX Central Data Exchange

CEDRI Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface

CFR Code of Federal Regulations

CRA Congressional Review Act

EPA Environmental Protection Agency

ERT Electronic Reporting Tool

HAP hazardous air pollutant(s)

HF hydrogen fluoride

HI hazard index

HQ hazard quotient

HQREL hazard quotient reference exposure limit

IBR incorporation by reference

ICR Information Collection Request

km kilometer

MACT maximum achievable control technology

mg/m
3
milligrams per cubic meter

MIBK methyl isobutyl ketone

MIR maximum individual risk

MMPP Miscellaneous Metal Parts and Products

NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standard

NEI National Emission Inventory

NESHAP national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants

NTTAA National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

OMB Office of Management and Budget

OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration

PB-HAP persistent and bioaccumulative HAP

PPP Plastic Parts and Products

PRA Paperwork Reduction Act

RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act

RTR residual risk and technology review

SSM startup, shutdown, and malfunction

TOSHI target organ-specific hazard index

tpy tons per year

UMRA Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

VCS voluntary consensus standards

VOC volatile organic compound

Background information.
On November 1, 2019, the EPA proposed revisions to the Surface Coating of ALDT NESHAP, the Surface Coating of MMPP NESHAP, and the Surface Coating of PPP NESHAP based on our RTR (84 FR 58936). In this action, we are finalizing decisions and revisions for these rules. We summarize some of the more significant comments we timely received regarding the proposed rules and provide our responses in this preamble. A summary of all other public comments on the proposal and the EPA's responses to those comments is available in the “Summary of Public Comments and Responses for the Risk and Technology Reviews for the NESHAP for Surface Coating of ALDT; Surface Coating of MMPP; and Surface Coating of PPP,” in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0314 for 40 CFR part 63, subpart IIII, Surface Coating of ALDT, Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0312 for 40 CFR part 63, subpart MMMM, Surface Coating of MMPP, and Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0313 for 40 CFR part 63, subpart PPPP, Surface Coating of PPP. A “track changes” version of the regulatory language that incorporates the changes in this action is available in the docket for each subpart.

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

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

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

C. Judicial Review and Administrative Reconsideration

II. Background

A. What is the statutory authority for this action?

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

C. What changes did we propose for the source categories in our November 1, 2019, RTR proposal?

III. What is included in these final rules?

A. What are the final rule amendments based on the risk reviews for these source categories?

B. What are the final rule amendments based on the technology reviews for these source categories?

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

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

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

F. What are the requirements for submission of performance test data to the EPA?

IV. What is the rationale for our final decisions and amendments for these source categories?

A. Residual Risk Reviews

B. Technology Reviews

C. Electronic Reporting Provisions

D. SSM Provisions

E. Ongoing Compliance Demonstrations

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

A. What are the affected facilities?

B. What are the air quality impacts?

C. What are the cost impacts?

D. What are the economic impacts?

E. What are the benefits?

F. What analysis of environmental justice did we conduct?

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

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

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

B. Executive Order 13771: Reducing 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

L. Congressional Review Act (CRA)

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

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

Table 1—NESHAP and Industrial Source Categories Affected by This Final Action

NESHAP source category

NAICS code
1

Regulated entities

Surface Coating of ALDT
336111, 336112, 336211
ALDT assembly plants, producers of automobile and light-duty truck bodies.

Surface Coating of MMPP
335312, 336111, 336211, 336312, 33632, 33633, 33634, 33637, 336399
Automobile parts (engine parts, vehicle parts and accessories, brakes, axles, etc.).

331316, 331524, 332321, 332323
Extruded aluminum, architectural components, rod, and tubes.

33312, 333611, 333618
Heavy equipment (tractors, earth moving machinery).

332312, 332722, 332813, 332991, 332999, 334119, 336413, 339999
Job shops (making any of the products from the MMPP segments).

33612, 336211
Large trucks and buses.

331319, 331422, 335929
Magnet wire.

332311
Prefabricated metal buildings, carports, docks, dwellings, greenhouses, panels for buildings.

33242, 81131, 322214, 326199, 331513, 332439
Metal drums, kegs, pails, shipping containers.

331111, 33121, 331221, 331511
Metal pipe and foundry (plate, tube, rods, nails, spikes, etc.).

33651, 336611, 482111
Rail transportation (brakes, engines, freight cars, locomotives).

3369, 331316, 336991, 336211, 336112, 336213, 336214, 336399
Recreational vehicles (motorcycles, motor homes, semitrailers, truck trailers).

326291, 326299
Rubber to metal products (engine mounts, rubberized tank tread, harmonic balancers.

332311, 332312
Structural steel (joists, railway bridge sections, highway bridge sections).

336212, 336999, 33635, 56121, 8111. 56211
Miscellaneous transportation related equipment and parts.

Surface Coating of PPP
337214
Office furniture, except wood.

32614, 32615

Plastic foam products (
e.g.,
pool floats, wrestling mats, life jackets).

326199

Plastic products not elsewhere classified (
e.g.,
name plates, coin holders, storage boxes, license plate housings, cosmetic caps, cup holders).

333313
Office machines.

33422

Radio and television broadcasting and communications equipment (
e.g.,
cellular telephones).

336211
Motor vehicle body manufacturing.

336399
Motor vehicle parts and accessories.

336212
Truck trailer manufacturing.

336213
Motor home manufacturing.

336214
Travel trailer and camper manufacturing.

336999

Transportation equipment not elsewhere classified (
e.g.,
snowmobile hoods, running boards, tractor body panels, personal watercraft parts).

339111, 339112
Medical equipment and supplies.

33992
Sporting and athletic goods.

33995
Signs and advertising specialties.

339999

Manufacturing industries not elsewhere classified (
e.g.,
bezels, consoles, panels, lenses).

Surface Coating of Large Appliances
335221
Household cooking equipment.

335222
Household refrigerators and freezers.

335224
Household laundry equipment.

335228
Other major household appliances.

333312
Commercial laundry, dry cleaning, and pressing equipment.

333415
Air-conditioners (except motor vehicle), comfort furnaces, and industrial refrigeration units and freezers (except heat transfer coils and large commercial and industrial chillers).

333319

Other commercial/service industry machinery,
e.g.,
commercial dishwashers, ovens, and ranges, etc.

Printing, Coating, and Dyeing of Fabrics and Other Textiles
31321
Broadwoven fabric mills.

31322
Narrow fabric mills and Schiffli machine embroidery.

313241
Weft knit fabric mills.

313311
Broadwoven fabric finishing mills.

313312
Textile and fabric finishing (except broadwoven fabric) mills.

313320
Fabric coating mills.

314110
Carpet and rug mills.

326220
Rubber and plastics hoses and belting and manufacturing.

339991
Gasket, packing, and sealing device manufacturing.

Surface Coating of Metal Furniture
337124
Metal household furniture manufacturing.

337214
Nonwood office furniture manufacturing.

337127
Institutional furniture manufacturing.

337215
Showcase, partition, shelving, and locker manufacturing.

337127
Institutional furniture manufacturing.

332951
Hardware manufacturing.

332116
Metal stamping.

332612
Wire spring manufacturing.

335121
Residential electric lighting fixture manufacturing.

335122
Commercial, industrial, and institutional electric lighting fixture manufacturing.

339111
Laboratory furniture manufacturing.

339114
Dental equipment manufacturing.

81142
Reupholstery and furniture repair.

922140
State correctional institutions that apply coatings to metal furniture.

1
North American Industry Classification System.

Table 1 of this preamble is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather to provide a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by the final action for the source categories listed. To determine whether your facility is

affected, you should examine the applicability criteria in the appropriate NESHAP. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of any aspect of these NESHAP, please contact the appropriate person listed in the preceding
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section of this preamble.

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

In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of this final action will also be available on the internet. Following signature by the EPA Administrator, the EPA will post a copy of this final action at:
https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/surface-coating-automobiles-and-light-duty-trucks-national-emission, https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/surface-coating-miscellaneous-metal-parts-and-products-national,
and
https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/surface-coating-plastic-parts-and-products-national-emission.
Following publication in the
Federal Register
, the EPA will post the
Federal Register
version and key technical documents at these same websites.

Additional information is available on the RTR website at
https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/risk-and-technology-review-national-emissions-standards-hazardous.
This information includes an overview of the RTR program and links to project websites for the RTR source categories.

C. Judicial Review and Administrative Reconsideration

Under Clean Air Act (CAA) section 307(b)(1), judicial review of this final action is available only by filing a petition for review in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (the Court) by September 8, 2020. Under CAA section 307(b)(2), the requirements established by this final rule may not be challenged separately in any civil or criminal proceedings brought by the EPA to enforce the requirements.

Section 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA further provides that only an objection to a rule or procedure which was raised with reasonable specificity during the period for public comment (including any public hearing) may be raised during judicial review. This section also provides a mechanism for the EPA to reconsider the rule if the person raising an objection can demonstrate to the Administrator that it was impracticable to raise such objection within the period for public comment or if the grounds for such objection arose after the period for public comment (but within the time specified for judicial review) and if such objection is of central relevance to the outcome of the rule. Any person seeking to make such a demonstration should submit a Petition for Reconsideration to the Office of the Administrator, U.S. EPA, Room 3000, WJC South Building, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460, with a copy to both the person(s) listed in the preceding
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section, and the Associate General Counsel for the Air and Radiation Law Office, Office of General Counsel (Mail Code 2344A), U.S. EPA, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460.

II. Background

A. What is the statutory authority for this action?

Section 112 of the CAA establishes a two-stage regulatory process to address emissions of hazardous air pollutants (HAP) from stationary sources. In the first stage, we must identify categories of sources emitting one or more of the HAP listed in CAA section 112(b) and then promulgate technology-based NESHAP for those sources. “Major sources” are those that emit, or have the potential to emit, any single HAP at a rate of 10 tons per year (tpy) or more, or 25 tpy or more of any combination of HAP. For major sources, these standards are commonly referred to as maximum achievable control technology (MACT) standards and must reflect the maximum degree of emission reductions of HAP achievable (after considering cost, energy requirements, and non-air quality health and environmental impacts). In developing MACT standards, CAA section 112(d)(2) directs the EPA to consider the application of measures, processes, methods, systems, or techniques, including, but not limited to, those that: (1) Reduce the volume of or eliminate HAP emissions through process changes, substitution of materials, or other modifications; (2) enclose systems or processes to eliminate emissions; (3) collect, capture, or treat HAP when released from a process, stack, storage, or fugitive emissions point; (4) are design, equipment, work practice, or operational standards; or (5) any combination of the above.

For these MACT standards, the statute specifies certain minimum stringency requirements, which are referred to as MACT floor requirements, and which may not be based on cost considerations. See CAA section 112(d)(3). For new sources, the MACT floor cannot be less stringent than the emission control achieved in practice by the best-controlled similar source. The MACT standards for existing sources can be less stringent than floors for new sources, but they cannot be less stringent than the average emission limitation achieved by the best-performing 12 percent of existing sources in the category or subcategory (or the best-performing five sources for categories or subcategories with fewer than 30 sources). In developing MACT standards, we must also consider control options that are more stringent than the floor under CAA section 112(d)(2). We may establish standards more stringent than the floor, based on the consideration of the cost of achieving the emissions reductions, any non-air quality health and environmental impacts, and energy requirements.

In the second stage of the regulatory process, the CAA requires the EPA to undertake two different analyses, which we refer to as the technology review and the residual risk review. Under the technology review, we must review the technology-based standards and revise them “as necessary (taking into account developments in practices, processes, and control technologies)” no less frequently than every 8 years pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6). Under the residual risk review, we must evaluate the risk to public health remaining after application of the technology-based standards and revise the standards, if necessary, to provide an ample margin of safety to protect public health or to prevent, taking into consideration costs, energy, safety, and other relevant factors, an adverse environmental effect. The residual risk review is required within 8 years after promulgation of the technology-based standards, pursuant to CAA section 112(f). In conducting the residual risk review, if the EPA determines that the current standards provide an ample margin of safety to protect public health, it is not necessary to revise the MACT standards pursuant to CAA section 112(f).
1

For more information on the statutory authority for this rule, see the proposal preamble (84 FR 58936, November 1, 2019) and the memorandum,
CAA Section 112 Risk and Technology Reviews: Statutory Authority and Methodology,
December

14, 2017, in the ALDT Docket, MMPP Docket, and PPP Docket.

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

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

1. What is the surface coating of ALDT source category and how does the current NESHAP regulate its HAP emissions?

The NESHAP for the ALDT source category was promulgated on April 26, 2004 (69 FR 22602), and is codified at 40 CFR part 63, subpart IIII. Technical corrections and clarifying amendments were promulgated on December 22, 2006 (71 FR 76922), and April 24, 2007 (72 FR 20227). The ALDT NESHAP applies to any affected source that is a major source, is located at a major source, or is part of a major source of HAP emissions. The affected source is any coating operation that applies topcoats to new automobile or new light-duty truck bodies or body parts for new automobiles or new light-duty trucks and/or coatings to other new motor vehicle bodies or body parts for other new motor vehicles; parts intended for use in new automobiles, new light-duty trucks, or other new motor vehicles; or aftermarket repair or replacement parts for automobiles, light-duty trucks, or other motor vehicles. The source category covered by this MACT standard currently comprises 43 facilities.

The ALDT NESHAP (40 CFR 63.3176) defines an “automobile” as “a motor vehicle designed to carry up to eight passengers, excluding vans, sport utility vehicles, and motor vehicles designed primarily to transport light loads of property,” and defines “light-duty truck” as “vans, sport utility vehicles, and motor vehicles designed primarily to transport light loads of property with gross vehicle weight rating of 8,500 lbs [pounds] or less.”

The ALDT NESHAP defines a “coating” as “a material that is applied to a substrate for decorative, protective or functional purposes. Such materials include, but are not limited to, paints, sealants, caulks, inks, adhesives, primers, deadeners, and maskants. Decorative, protective, or functional materials that consist only of protective oils for metal, acids, bases, or any combination of these substances are not considered coatings for the purposes of this subpart.” (40 CFR 63.3176).

This source category is further described in the November 1, 2019, RTR proposal. See 84 FR 58941.

The primary HAP emitted from ALDT surface coating operations are organic HAP and include toluene, xylene, glycol ethers, methyl isobutyl ketone (MIBK), ethyl benzene, and methanol. The HAP emissions are from coating application and drying and curing ovens in the ALDT surface coating operations. Some emissions occur from the cleaning of spray booths and equipment. In most cases, HAP emissions from surface preparation, storage, and handling are relatively small (
i.e.,
not quantifiable) for this source category. Although inorganic HAP are reported components of coatings, no inorganic HAP are emitted because of the use of high efficiency spray equipment and filters on coating spray application operations.

The NESHAP specifies numerical emission limits for existing sources and for new and reconstructed sources for organic HAP emissions from (1) electrodeposition primer, primer-surfacer, topcoat, final repair, glass bonding primer, and glass bonding adhesive operations plus all coatings and thinners, except for deadener materials and for adhesive and sealer materials that are not components of glass bonding systems, used in coating operations; (2) primer-surfacer, topcoat, final repair, glass bonding primer, and glass bonding adhesive operation plus all coatings and thinners, except for deadener materials and for adhesive and sealer materials that are not components of glass bonding systems, used in coating operations; (3) adhesives and sealers, other than glass bonding adhesive materials; and (4) deadener materials.

The specific organic HAP emission limits are in 40 CFR 63.3090 (for new and reconstructed sources) and 40 CFR 63.3091 (for existing sources), and the operating limits are in 40 CFR 63.3093. The emission limits and operating limits are summarized in Tables 2 and 3, respectively, of the memorandum titled
Technology Review for Surface Coating Operations in the Automobiles and Light-Duty Trucks Source Category,
in the ALDT Docket.

Compliance with the ALDT NESHAP emission limits can be achieved using several different options, including a compliant material option, an emission rate without add-on controls option (emissions averaging option), and an emission rate with add-on controls option. For bake ovens used to cure electrodeposition primers, an alternative is to capture the emissions and duct them to a control device having a destruction or removal efficiency of at least 95 percent. Facilities that have multiple paint lines may choose to group operations from two or more paint lines together to demonstrate compliance, or to make a separate compliance demonstration for the operations from each paint line.

All ALDT facilities 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 operations. The plan must specify practices and procedures to ensure that a set of minimum work practices specified in the NESHAP are implemented.

Those ALDT facilities using add-on controls to comply with the NESHAP must also comply with site-specific operating limits for the emission capture and control system. These operating limits are established during the compliance test for the emission capture system and add-on control device. Alternatively, emission capture systems can meet design and air flow specifications to qualify as a permanent total enclosure with 100-percent capture efficiency.

2. What is the surface coating of MMPP source category and how does the current NESHAP regulate its HAP emissions?

The MMPP NESHAP was promulgated on January 2, 2004 (69 FR 130), and is codified at 40 CFR part 63, subpart MMMM. Technical corrections to the final rule were published on April 26, 2004 (69 FR 22602), and December 22, 2006 (71 FR 76922). The MMPP NESHAP applies to owners or operators of metal parts and products surface coating operations at facilities that are major sources of HAP. The source category covered by this MACT standard currently comprises 368 facilities.

The MMPP include, but are not limited to, metal components of the following types of products as well as the products themselves: Motor vehicle parts and accessories, bicycles and sporting goods, recreational vehicles, extruded aluminum structural components, railroad cars, heavy-duty trucks, medical equipment, lawn and garden equipment, electronic equipment, magnet wire, steel drums, industrial machinery, metal pipes, and numerous other industrial, household, and consumer products. The MMPP NESHAP does not apply to any surface coating or coating operation that meets the applicability criteria of any one of 11 other surface coating NESHAP,
e.g.,
surface coating of metal components of wood furniture (subpart JJ of 40 CFR part 63), surface coating of metal components of large appliances (subpart NNNN of 40 CFR part 63), and surface coating of metal components of ALDT

(subpart IIII of 40 CFR part 63). See 40 CFR 63. 3881(c) for a list of exclusions to the MMPP source category.

This source category is further described in the November 1, 2019, RTR proposal. See 84 FR 58942.

The primary HAP emitted from MMPP surface coating operations are organic HAP and include xylenes, toluene, glycol ethers, ethyl benzene, MIBK, methanol, ethylene glycol, and dimethyl phthalate. The majority of organic HAP emissions can be attributed to the application, drying, and curing of coatings.

Inorganic HAP emissions were considered in the development of the MMPP NESHAP, and the EPA determined that inorganic HAP emissions would be very low based on the coating application techniques in place at the time of the rule development. Given the combination of very low usage of coatings containing inorganic HAP in this source category, and the current and expected continued use of controls (dry filters and waterwash systems on spray booths and high efficiency equipment) to reduce overspray emissions, the EPA concluded that levels of inorganic HAP emissions did not warrant federal regulation because those regulations would increase regulatory burden but not be expected to result in additional emissions reduction.

The MMPP NESHAP establishes the organic HAP emissions limits for existing sources and for new and reconstructed sources for organic HAP emissions for five subcategories. The five subcategories are (1) general use coating, (2) high performance coating, (3) magnet wire coating, (4) rubber-to-metal coating, and (5) extreme performance fluoropolymer coating.

Compliance can be demonstrated with a compliant coatings option, where all coatings used have organic HAP contents that individually meet the organic HAP emissions limit, and all thinners and cleaning materials contain no organic HAP; an emission rate without add-on controls option, where the organic HAP emission rate, calculated as a rolling 12-month emission rate and determined on a monthly basis, is equal to or less than the organic HAP emissions limit; or an emission rate with add-on controls option, where the organic HAP emission rate, calculated as a rolling 12-month emissions rate and determined on a monthly basis, taking into account the emissions reduction achieved through the use of one or more emissions capture and control devices, is equal to or less than the organic HAP emissions limit. A facility using the add-on control option must also comply with work practice standards to minimize organic HAP emissions from the storage, mixing, and conveying of coatings, thinners, cleaning materials, and waste materials associated with the coating operation(s) and must also comply with operating limits for the emissions capture systems and add-on control devices.

The specific organic HAP emission limits for each coating subcategory can be found in 40 CFR 63.3890 and the operating limits in 40 CFR 63.3892. The emission limits and operating limits are summarized in Tables 4 and 5, respectively, of the memorandum titled
Technology Review for Surface Coating Operations in the Miscellaneous Metal Parts and Products Category.

3. What is the surface coating of PPP source category and how does the current NESHAP regulate its HAP emissions?

The NESHAP for the PPP source category was promulgated on April 19, 2004 (69 FR 20968), and is codified at 40 CFR part 63, subpart PPPP. Technical corrections to the final rule were published on December 22, 2006 (71 FR 76922), and April 24, 2007 (72 FR 20227). The PPP NESHAP applies to owners or operators of PPP surface coating operations at facilities that are major sources of HAP. The PPP include, but are not limited to, plastic components of the following types of products as well as the products themselves: Motor vehicle parts and accessories for automobiles, trucks, recreational vehicles; sporting and recreational goods; toys; business machines; laboratory and medical equipment; and household and other consumer products. The PPP NESHAP does not apply to the surface coating or coating operations that meet the applicability criteria of any of 11 other surface coating NESHAP,
e.g.,
surface coating of plastic components of wood furniture (subpart JJ of 40 CFR part 63), surface coating of plastic components of large appliances (subpart NNNN of 40 CFR part 63), and surface coating of plastic components of ALDT (subpart IIII of 40 CFR part 63). See 40 CFR 63. 4481(c) for a list of exclusions to the PPP source category.

This source category is further described in the November 1, 2019, RTR proposal. See 84 FR 58943.

The primary HAP emitted from PPP surface coating operations are organic HAP and, based on the 2011 National Emission Inventory (NEI), include xylene, toluene, MIBK, ethylbenzene, styrene, glycol ethers, and methanol, in order of decreasing emissions. These compounds account for about 96 percent of the nationwide HAP emissions from this source category, based on an analysis of the NEI. The source category covered by this MACT standard currently comprises 125 facilities.

No inorganic HAP are currently associated with the coatings used in this source category, based on the data in the NEI.

The PPP NESHAP specifies numerical emission limits for existing sources and for new and reconstructed sources for organic HAP emissions. The final rule contains four subcategories: (1) General use coating, (2) thermoplastic olefin coating, (3) automotive lamp coating, and (4) assembled on-road vehicle coating.

Compliance can be demonstrated with a compliant material option, where the HAP content of each coating used is less than or equal to the applicable organic HAP emissions limit and each thinner, additive, and cleaning material uses no organic HAP; an emission rate without add-on controls option, where the organic HAP emission rate, calculated as a rolling 12-month emission rate and determined on a monthly basis, is equal to or less than the organic HAP emissions limit; or an emission rate with add-on controls option, where the organic HAP emission rate, calculated as a rolling 12-month emissions rate and determined on a monthly basis, taking into account the emissions reduction achieved through the use of one or more emissions capture and control devices, is equal to or less than the organic HAP emissions limit. A facility using the add-on control option must also comply with work practice standards to minimize organic HAP emissions from the storage, mixing, and conveying of coatings, thinners, cleaning materials, and waste materials associated with the coating operation(s) and must also comply with operating limits for the emissions capture systems and add-on control devices.

The specific organic HAP emission limits for each coating subcategory can be found in 40 CFR 63.4490 and the operating limits in 40 CFR 63.4492. The organic HAP emission limits and operating limits are summarized in Tables 2 and 3, respectively, of the memorandum titled
Technology Review for the Plastic Parts and Products Surface Coating Operations Source Category.

4. What are the surface coating of large appliances; printing, coating, and dyeing of fabrics and other textiles; and surface coating of metal furniture source categories and how do the current NESHAP regulate their HAP emissions?

The three source categories that are the subject of the technical corrections that are being finalized in this action are described in the
Federal Register
document for the final RTR rule amendments (84 FR 9590, March 15, 2019).

C. What changes did we propose for the source categories in our November 1, 2019, RTR proposal?

On November 1, 2019, the EPA published a proposed rule in the
Federal Register
for the Surface Coating of ALDT NESHAP, the Surface Coatings of MMPP NESHAP, and the Surface Coating of PPP NESHAP, 40 CFR part 63, subpart IIII, 40 CFR 63, subpart MMMM, and 40 CFR 63, subpart PPPP, respectively, that took into consideration the RTR analyses.

We proposed to find that after compliance with the current NESHAP (
i.e.,
MACT standards) the risks to public health from each of the source categories are acceptable, and that for each source category additional emission controls are not necessary to provide an ample margin of safety. Based on our technology review, we did not identify any cost-effective developments in practices, processes, or control technologies for any of the three surface coating source categories. Accordingly, we proposed no changes to the existing emission control requirements in subparts IIII, MMMM, and PPPP pursuant to the RTR analyses.

We proposed the following amendments to improve rule effectiveness, provide regulatory flexibility, and comply with a legal ruling:

• For each source category, a requirement for electronic submittal of notifications, semi-annual reports, and compliance reports (which include performance test reports);

• for each source category, revisions to the SSM provisions of each NESHAP in order to ensure that they are consistent with the Court decision in
Sierra Club
v.
EPA,
551 F. 3d 1019 (D.C. Cir. 2008), which vacated two provisions that exempted source owners and operators from the requirement to comply with otherwise applicable CAA section 112(d) emission standards during periods of SSM;

• for each source category, adding 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;

• for each source category, removing references to paragraph (d)(4) of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) Hazard Communication standard (29 CFR 1910.1200), which dealt with OSHA-defined carcinogens, and replacing that reference with a list of HAP that must be regarded as potentially carcinogenic based on the EPA guidelines;

• for each source category, a requirement to perform performance testing and reestablish operating limits no less frequently than every 5 years for sources that are using add-on controls to demonstrate compliance; and

• for each source category, IBR of alternative test methods and references to updated alternative test methods.

We also proposed several minor editorial and technical changes in each subpart, as well as technical corrections to three other recently promulgated RTRs for the following source categories: Surface Coating of Large Appliances NESHAP (40 CFR 63, subpart NNNN); Printing, Coating, and Dyeing of Fabrics and Other Textiles NESHAP (40 CFR 63, subpart OOOO); and Surface Coating of Metal Furniture NESHAP (40 CFR 63, subpart RRRR).

III. What is included in these final rules?

This action finalizes the EPA's proposed determinations pursuant to the RTR provisions of CAA sections 112(d)(6) and (f)(2) for the Surface Coating of ALDT source category, the Surface Coatings of MMPP source category, and the Surface Coating of PPP source category. This action also finalizes other proposed changes to each NESHAP as proposed, including the following for each source category:

• A requirement for electronic submittal of notifications, semi-annual reports, and compliance reports (which include performance test reports);

• revisions to the SSM provisions of each NESHAP;

• adding 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;

• replacing a reference to OSHA's Hazard Communication standard (29 CFR 1910.1200(d)(4)) with a list of HAP that must be regarded as potentially carcinogenic based on the EPA guidelines;

• adding a requirement for sources to perform periodic control device testing if they are using add-on controls to demonstrate compliance; and

• IBR of alternative test methods and references to updated alternative test methods.

We are finalizing, as proposed, several minor editorial and technical changes in each subpart, including technical corrections to the Surface Coating of Large Appliances NESHAP (40 CFR 63, subpart NNNN); Printing, Coating, and Dyeing of Fabrics and Other Textiles NESHAP (40 CFR 63, subpart OOOO); and Surface Coating of Metal Furniture NESHAP (40 CFR 63, subpart RRRR).

A. What are the final rule amendments based on the risk reviews for these source categories?

This section describes the final amendments to the Surface Coating of ALDT NESHAP (40 CFR part 63, subpart IIII); the Surface Coating of Miscellaneous Metal Parts NESHAP (40 CFR part 63, subpart MMMM); and the Surface Coating of PPP NESHAP (40 CFR part 63, subpart PPPP) being promulgated pursuant to CAA section 112(f)(2). The EPA proposed no changes to these three subparts based on the risk reviews conducted pursuant to CAA section 112(f)(2). In this action, we are finalizing our proposed determination that, considering compliance with MACT, the public health risks from these three subparts are acceptable, and that the standards provide an ample margin of safety to protect public health and prevent an adverse environmental effect. The EPA received no new data or other information during the public comment period that causes us to change that proposed determination. Therefore, we are not requiring additional emission controls under CAA section 112(f)(2) for any of the three subparts in this action.

B. What are the final rule amendments based on the technology reviews for these source categories?

We determined that there are no cost-effective developments in practices, processes, and control technologies that warrant revisions to the MACT standards for the Surface Coating of ALDT, Surface Coating of MMPP, and Surface Coating of PPP source categories. Therefore, we are not finalizing revisions to the MACT standards under CAA section 112(d)(6) for any of the three subparts in this action.

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

We are finalizing the proposed amendments to the Surface Coating of ALDT NESHAP; the Surface Coating of MMPP NESHAP; and the Surface Coating of PPP NESHAP to remove and revise provisions related to SSM. In its 2008 decision in
Sierra Club
v.
EPA
551 F. 3d 1019 (D.C. Cir. 2008), the Court vacated portions of two provisions in the EPA's CAA section 112 regulations governing the emissions of HAP during periods of SSM. Specifically, the Court vacated the SSM exemption contained in 40 CFR 63.6(f)(1) and 40 CFR 63.6(h)(1), holding that under section 302(k) of the CAA, emissions standards or limitations must be continuous in nature and that the SSM exemption violates the CAA's requirement that some CAA section 112 standards apply continuously.

As detailed in section IV.A, B, and C of the November 1, 2019, proposal preamble, the ALDT NESHAP, MMPP NESHAP, and PPP NESHAP require that the standards apply at all times (see 40 CFR 63.3093(b), 63.3900(a)(2), and 63.4492(b), respectively), consistent with the Court decision in
Sierra Club
v.
EPA,
551 F. 3d 1019 (D.C. Cir. 2008). Table 2 to Subpart IIII of Part 63, Table 2 to Subpart MMMM of Part 63, and Table 2 to Subpart PPPP of Part 63 (General Provisions applicability tables) are being revised to change the specification of the requirements that apply during periods of SSM. We are eliminating or revising certain recordkeeping and reporting requirements related to the eliminated SSM exemption. The EPA is also making other harmonizing changes to remove or modify inappropriate, unnecessary, or redundant language in the absence of the SSM exemption. We have determined that facilities in these source categories can meet the applicable emission standards in the Surface Coating of ALDT NESHAP, the Surface Coating of MMPP NESHAP, and the Surface Coating of PPP NESHAP at all times, including periods of startup and shutdown. Therefore, the EPA has determined that no additional standards are needed to address emissions during these periods. The legal rationale and detailed changes for SSM periods that we are finalizing here are set forth in the November 1, 2019, preamble to the proposed rule. See 84 FR 58959 through 58963 for ALDT, 58971 through 58973 for MMPP, and 58980 through 58982 for PPP.

Further, the EPA is not finalizing standards for malfunctions. As discussed in section IV.A, B, and C of the November 1, 2019, proposal preamble, the EPA interprets CAA section 112 as not requiring emissions that occur during periods of malfunction to be factored into development of CAA section 112 standards, although the EPA has the discretion to set standards for malfunctions where feasible. For these source categories, it is unlikely that a malfunction would result in a violation of the standards, and no comments were submitted that would suggest otherwise. Refer to section IV.A, B, and C of the November 1, 2019, proposal preamble for further discussion of the EPA's rationale for the decision not to set standards for malfunctions, as well as a discussion of the actions a facility could take in the unlikely event that a facility fails to comply with the applicable CAA section 112 standards as a result of a malfunction event, given that 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.

We are finalizing revisions to the General Provisions tables to 40 CRF part 63, subparts IIII, MMMM, and PPPP, to eliminate requirements that include rule language providing an exemption for periods of SSM. Additionally, we are finalizing our proposal to eliminate language related to SSM that treats periods of startup and shutdown the same as periods of malfunction. Finally, we are finalizing our proposal to revise the Deviation Notification Report and related records as they relate to malfunctions. As discussed in detail in the proposal preamble, these revisions are consistent with the requirements in 40 CFR 63.3093(b), 63.3900(a)(2), and 63.4492(b) stating that the standards apply at all times.

We are finalizing a revision to the performance testing requirements at 40 CFR 63.3164(a)(1), 40 CFR 63.3964(a)(1), and 40 CFR 63.4564(a)(1). The final performance testing provisions prohibit performance testing during SSM as these conditions are not representative of steady state operating conditions. The final rules also require that operators maintain records to document that operating conditions during the tests represent steady state conditions.

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

These rules also finalize, as proposed, revisions to several other NESHAP requirements. We describe the revisions that apply to all the affected source categories in the following paragraphs.

To increase the ease and efficiency of data submittal and data accessibility, we are finalizing a requirement that owners or operators of facilities in the Surface Coating of ALDT; Surface Coating of MMPP; and Surface Coating of PPP source categories submit electronic copies of certain required performance test reports through the EPA's Central Data Exchange (CDX) website using an electronic performance test report tool called the Electronic Reporting Tool (ERT). We also are finalizing, as proposed, provisions that allow facility operators 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 Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface (CEDRI) or for a
force majeure
event in the time just prior to a report's due date, as well as the process to assert such a claim.

For each subpart, we also are changing the format of references to test methods in 40 CFR part 60, appendix A to indicate where, in the eight sections of appendix A, each method is found.

We are finalizing amendments to 40 CFR 63.3166(b), 40 CFR 63.3966(b), and 40 CFR 63.4566(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, when facilities are using EPA Method 25A to measure control device destruction efficiency.

For each subpart, we are finalizing the proposal to re-designate the list of organic HAP that must be used when a facility chooses to use the compliant material option (
i.e.,
for calculating total organic HAP content of a coating material present at 0.1 percent or greater by mass). To specify the applicable HAP, we are changing the rules to remove the references to paragraph (d)(4) of OSHA's Hazard Communication standard (29 CFR 1910.1200) and replace it with a new table in each subpart (Table 5 to 40 CFR part 63, subpart IIII; Table 5 to 40 CFR part 63, subpart MMMM; and Table 5 to 40 CFR part 63, subpart PPPP) that lists the applicable HAP. The organic HAP in these new tables are those HAP that 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)
2

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).

2
See
https://www.epa.gov/fera/dose-response-assessment-assessing-health-risks-associated-exposure-hazardous-air-pollutants.

We are including in the final rule for each subpart a requirement for facilities to conduct control device performance testing no less frequently than once every 5 years when using the emission rate with add-on controls compliance option. For facilities with title V permits that require comparable periodic testing prior to permit renewal, no additional testing is required, and we included provisions in the rule to allow facilities to harmonize the NESHAP testing schedule with a facility's current title V testing schedule.

1. Technical Amendments to the Surface Coating of ALDT NESHAP

We are revising the monitoring provisions for thermal and catalytic oxidizers, as proposed, to clarify that a thermocouple is part of the temperature sensor referred to in 40 CFR 63.3168(c)(3) for purposes of performing periodic calibration and verification checks.

We are adding, as proposed, a new paragraph 40 CFR 63.3130(p) and revising 40 CFR 63.3131(a) to allow that any records required to be maintained by 40 CFR part 63, subpart IIII that are submitted electronically via the EPA's CEDRI may be maintained in electronic format. We are also adding clarification that this ability to maintain electronic copies does not affect the requirement for facilities to make records, data, and reports available upon request to a delegated air agency or the EPA as part of an on-site compliance evaluation.

We are amending 40 CFR 63.3166(b) to add the option of conducting EPA Method 18 of appendix A-6 to 40 CFR part 60, “Measurement of Gaseous Organic Compound Emissions by Gas Chromatography,” to measure and subtract methane emissions from total gaseous organic mass emissions as carbon when facilities are using EPA Method 25A.

In the final rule, as proposed, we are adding and updating test methods that are incorporated by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is incorporating by reference the voluntary consensus standards (VCS) and other methods described in the amendments to 40 CFR 63.14:

• ASTM D1475-13, Standard Test Method for Density of Liquid Coatings, Inks, and Related Products, IBR approved for 40 CFR 63.3151(b);

• ASTM D2369-10 (Reapproved 2015)
e
, Standard Test Method for Volatile Content of Coatings, IBR approved for 40 CFR 63.3151(a)(2);

• ASTM D2697-03 (Reapproved 2014), Standard Test Method for Volume Nonvolatile Matter in Clear or Pigmented Coatings, IBR approved for 40 CFR 63.3161(f)(1);

• ASTM D5066-91 (Reapproved 2017), Standard Test Method for Determination of the Transfer Efficiency Under Production Conditions for Spray Application of Automotive Paints-Weight Basis, IBR approved for 40 CFR 63.3161(g);

• ASTM D5965-02 (Reapproved 2013), Standard Test Methods for Specific Gravity of Coating Powders, IBR approved for 40 CFR 63.3151(b);

• ASTM D6093-97 (Reapproved 2016), Standard Test Method for Percent Volume Nonvolatile Matter in Clear or Pigmented Coatings Using Helium Gas Pycnometer, IBR approved for 40 CFR 63.3161(f)(1);

• ASTM D6266-00a (Reapproved 2017), Standard Test Method for Determining the Amount of Volatile Organic Compound (VOC) Released from Waterborne Automotive Coatings and Available for Removal in a VOC Control Device (Abatement), IBR approved for 40 CFR 63.3165(e); and

• EPA-450/3-88-018, Protocol for Determining the Daily Volatile Organic Compound Emission Rate of Automobile and Light-Duty Truck Topcoat Operations, IBR approved for 40 CFR 63.3130(c), 63.3161(d) and (g), 63.3165(e), and appendix A to subpart IIII of part 63.

2. Technical Amendments to the Surface Coating of MMPP NESHAP

We are amending 40 CFR 63.3966(b) to add the option of conducting EPA Method 18 of appendix A to 40 CFR part 60, “Measurement of Gaseous Organic Compound Emissions by Gas Chromatography,” to measure and then subtract methane emissions from total gaseous organic mass emissions as carbon when facilities are using EPA Method 25A.

Current 40 CFR 63.3931 specifies how records must be maintained. We are adding clarification to this provision at 40 CFR 63.3931(a) that specifies the allowance to retain electronic records applies to all records that were submitted as reports electronically via the EPA's CEDRI. We are also adding 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.

In the final rule, as proposed, we are adding and updating test methods that are incorporated by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is incorporating by reference the VCS and other methods described in the amendments to 40 CFR 63.14:

• ASTM D1475-13, Standard Test Method for Density of Liquid Coatings, Inks, and Related Products, IBR approved for 40 CFR 63.3941(b)(4) and (c) and 63.3951(c);

• ASTM D2111-10 (Reapproved 2015), Standard Test Methods for Specific Gravity and Density of Halogenated Organic Solvents and Their Admixtures, IBR approved for 40 CFR 63.3951(c);

• ASTM Method D2369-10 (Reapproved 2015)
e
, Standard Test Method for Volatile Content of Coatings, IBR approved for 40 CFR 63.3961(j)(3);

• ASTM D2697-03 (Reapproved 2014), Standard Test Method for Volume Nonvolatile Matter in Clear or Pigmented Coatings, IBR approved for 40 CFR 63.3941(b)(1);

• ASTM Method D5965-02 (Reapproved 2013), Standard Test Methods for Specific Gravity of Coating Powders, IBR approved for 40 CFR 3951(c); and

• ASTM D6093-97 (Reapproved 2016), Standard Test Method for Percent Volume Nonvolatile Matter in Clear or Pigmented Coatings Using Helium Gas Pycnometer, IBR approved for 40 CFR 63.3941(b)(1).

3. Technical Amendments to the Surface Coating of PPP NESHAP

We are amending 40 CFR 63.4566(b)(4) to add the option of conducting EPA Method 18 of appendix A to 40 CFR part 60, “Measurement of Gaseous Organic Compound Emissions by Gas Chromatography,” to measure and then subtract methane emissions from total gaseous organic mass emissions as carbon when facilities are using EPA Method 25A.

Current 40 CFR 63.4530 specifies records that must be maintained. We are adding clarification to this provision at 40 CFR 63.4530(a) that specifies the allowance to retain electronic records applies to all records that were submitted as reports electronically via the EPA's CEDRI. We are also adding 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 are clarifying and harmonizing the general requirement in 40 CFR 63.4500(b) with the reporting requirement in 40 CFR 63.4520(a)(5), (6), and (7), and the recordkeeping requirement in 40 CFR 63.4530(h)(4).

In the final rule, as proposed, we are adding and updating test methods that are incorporated by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is incorporating by reference the following VCS described in the amendments to 40 CFR 63.14:

• ASTM D1475-13, Standard Test Method for Density of Liquid Coatings, Inks, and Related Products, IBR approved for 40 CFR 63.4551(c);

• ASTM D2111-10 (Reapproved 2015), Standard Test Methods for Specific Gravity and Density of Halogenated Organic Solvents and Their Admixtures, IBR approved for 40 CFR 63.4551(c); and

• ASTM D2369-10 (Reapproved 2015)
e
, Standard Test Method for Volatile Content of Coatings, IBR approved for 40 CFR 63.4541(a)(2), and 63.4561(j)(3).

4. Technical Amendments to Other Subparts

We are revising the NESHAP for Surface Coating of Large Appliances (40 CFR part 63, subpart NNNN); the NESHAP for Printing, Coating, and Dyeing of Fabrics and Other Textiles (40 CFR part 63, subpart OOOO); and the NESHAP for Surface Coating of Metal Furniture (40 CFR part 63, subpart RRRR) to make corrections after the three subparts were amended in a final rule published in the
Federal Register
on March 15, 2019 (84 FR 9590). The proposed corrections were published on November 1, 2019 (84 FR 58936), and no public comments on these corrections were received. Therefore, we are making the corrections to these three subparts as proposed.

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

The revisions to the MACT standards being promulgated in this action are effective on July 8, 2020.

For affected sources in the ALDT, MMPP, and PPP source categories, the compliance date is January 5, 2021, with the exception of the electronic format for submitting semiannual compliance reports. For the electronic format for submitting semiannual compliance reports, both existing and new (or reconstructed) affected sources must comply within 1 year after the electronic reporting templates are available on CEDRI, or 1 year after July 8, 2020, whichever is later. The EPA selected these compliance dates based on experience with similar industries and the EPA's detailed justification for the selected compliance dates is included in the preamble to the proposed rule (84 FR 58965, 58975, and 58984).

F. What are the requirements for submission of performance test data to the EPA?

As proposed, the EPA is taking a step to increase the ease and efficiency of data submittal and data accessibility. Specifically, the EPA is finalizing the requirement for owners or operators of facilities in the ALDT, MMPP, and PPP source categories to submit electronic copies of certain required performance test reports.

Performance test results collected using test methods that are supported by the EPA's ERT as listed on the ERT website (
https://www.epa.gov/electronic-reporting-air-emissions/electronic-reporting-tool-ert
) at the time of the test be submitted in the format generated through the use of the ERT. The ERT will generate an electronic report package which will be submitted to the CEDRI interface on the EPA's CDX. CEDRI can be accessed through the CDX website (
https://cdx.epa.gov/
).

The requirement to submit performance test data electronically to the EPA does not create any additional performance testing and will apply only to those performance tests conducted using test methods that are supported by the ERT. A listing of the pollutants and test methods supported by the ERT is available at the ERT website. Electronic reporting will save time in the performance test submittal process. The electronic submittal of reports increases the usefulness of the data contained in those reports, is in keeping with current trends in data availability, further assists in the protection of public health and the environment, and ultimately results in less burden on regulated facilities. It also will 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. Electronic storage of reports make data more accessible for review, analysis, and sharing. Electronic reporting also eliminates paper-based, manual processes; thereby saving time and resources, simplifying data entry, eliminating redundancies, minimizing data reporting errors, and providing data quickly and accurately to affected facilities, air agencies, the EPA, and the public. For a more thorough discussion of electronic reporting of performance tests, see the memorandum,
Electronic Reporting Requirements for New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) and National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) Rules,
August 8, 2018, in the ALDT Docket, MMPP Docket, and PPP Docket.

In summary, in addition to supporting regulation development, control strategy development, and other air pollution control activities, having an electronic database populated with performance test data will save industry, state/local/tribal agencies, and the EPA significant time, money, and effort while improving the quality of emission inventories and air quality regulations.

IV. What is the rationale for our final decisions and amendments for these source categories?

For each amendment, this section provides a description of what we proposed and what we are finalizing for the amendment, the EPA's rationale for the final decisions and amendments, and a summary of key comments and responses. For all comments not discussed in this preamble, comment summaries and the EPA's responses can be found in the comment summary and response document available in the ALDT Docket, MMPP Docket, and PPP Docket.

A. Residual Risk Reviews

1. What did we propose pursuant to CAA section 112(f)?

a. Surface Coating of ALDT (40 CFR part 63, subpart IIII) Source Category

Pursuant to CAA section 112(f)(2), the EPA conducted a residual risk review and presented the results of this review, along with our proposed decisions regarding risk acceptability and ample margin of safety, in the November 1, 2019, proposed rule for 40 CFR part 63, subpart IIII (84 FR 58954). The results of the risk assessment for the proposal are presented briefly below in Table 2 of this preamble. More detail is in the residual risk technical support document,
Residual Risk Assessment for the Surface Coating of Automobiles and Light-Duty Trucks Source Category in Support of the 2019 Risk and Technology Review Proposed Rule,
available in the ALDT Docket.

Table 2—Surface Coating of ALDT Source Category Inhalation Risk Assessment Results

Risk assessment

Maximum individual
cancer risk
(in 1 million)

Based on
actual
emissions

Based on
allowable
emissions

Estimated population at
increased risk of cancer
≥ 1-in-1 million

Based on
actual
emissions

Based on
allowable
emissions

Estimated annual cancer
incidence
(cases per year)

Based on
actual
emissions

Based on
allowable
emissions

Maximum chronic
noncancer target organ-specific hazard index

(TOSHI
1
)

Based on
actual
emissions

Based on
allowable
emissions

Maximum screening acute noncancer HQ
2

Source Category
10
10
15,000
19,000
0.01
0.01
0.3
0.3
hazard quotient reference exposure limit (HQREL) = 1.

Whole Facility
10

48,000

0.02

0.3

1
The TOSHI is the sum of the chronic noncancer hazard quotients (HQs) for substances that affect the same target organ or organ system.

2
The maximum estimated acute exposure concentration was divided by available short-term threshold values to develop HQ values (HQREL = HQ reference exposure level).

The results of the proposal 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) is 10-in-1 million (driven by naphthalene and ethyl benzene from miscellaneous industrial processes—other/not classified), the maximum chronic noncancer TOSHI value based on actual emissions is 0.3 (driven by hexamethylene-1,6-diisocyanate from a painting topcoat process), and the maximum screening acute noncancer HQ value (off-facility site) could be up to 1 (driven by formaldehyde). At proposal, the total annual cancer incidence (national) from these facilities based on actual emission levels was estimated to be 0.01 excess cancer cases per year, or one case in every 100 years.

The results of the proposal inhalation risk modeling using allowable emissions data, as shown in Table 2 of this preamble, indicate that the maximum individual cancer risk based on allowable emissions (lifetime) is 10-in-1 million (driven by naphthalene and ethyl benzene), and the maximum chronic noncancer TOSHI value based on allowable emissions is 0.3 (driven by hexamethylene-1,6-diisocyanate). At proposal, the total annual cancer incidence (national) from these facilities based on allowable emissions was estimated to be 0.01 excess cancer cases per year, or one case in every 100 years.

The maximum individual cancer risk (lifetime) for the whole facility was determined to be 10-in-1 million at proposal (driven by naphthalene and ethyl benzene). The maximum facility-wide TOSHI for the source category was estimated to be 0.3 (driven by emissions of hexamethylene-1,6-diisocyanate). At proposal, the total estimated cancer incidence from the whole facility was determined to be 0.02 excess cancer cases per year, or one excess case in every 50 years.

One persistent and bioaccumulative HAP (PB-HAP) is emitted by facilities in the source category: Lead. In evaluating the potential for multipathway effects from emissions of lead, we compared modeled annual lead concentrations to the National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for lead of 0.15 milligrams per cubic meter (mg/m
3
), arithmetic mean concentration over a 3-month period. The highest annual average lead concentration of 1.5 × 10
−5
mg/m
3
is below the NAAQS level for lead, indicating a low potential for multipathway impacts of concern due to lead even assuming a shorter averaging period is analyzed. Based on this evaluation, we proposed that there is no significant potential for human health multi-pathway risks as a result of HAP emissions from this source category. Three environmental HAP are emitted by sources within this source category: Lead, hydrochloric acid (HCl) and hydrogen fluoride (HF). Therefore, at proposal, we conducted a screening-level evaluation of the potential adverse environmental risks associated with emissions of lead, HCl, and HF for the ALDT source category. Based on this evaluation, we proposed that we do not expect an adverse environmental effect as a result of HAP emissions from this source category.

We weighed all health risk factors, including those shown in Table 2 of this preamble, in our risk acceptability determination and proposed that the residual risks from the Surface Coating of ALDT source category are acceptable (section IV.A.2.a of proposal preamble, 84 FR 58956, November 1, 2019).

We then considered whether 40 CFR part 63, subpart IIII provides an ample margin of safety to protect public health. In considering whether the standards should be tightened to provide an ample margin of safety to protect public health, we considered the same risk factors that we considered for our acceptability determination and also considered the costs, technological feasibility, and other relevant factors related to emissions control options that might reduce risk associated with emissions from the source category. Related to risk, the baseline risks were low, and regardless of the availability of further control options, little risk reduction could be realized. As discussed further in section IV.B of this preamble, we did not identify any cost-effective measures to further reduce HAP emissions for the Surface Coating of ALDT source category. Therefore, given the low baseline risks and lack of options for further risk reductions, we proposed that additional emission controls for this source category are not necessary to provide an ample margin of safety (section IV.A.2.b of proposal preamble, 84 FR 58956, November 1, 2019).

b. Surface Coating of MMPP (40 CFR part 63, subpart MMMM) Source Category

Pursuant to CAA section 112(f)(2), the EPA conducted a residual risk review and presented the results of this review, along with our proposed decisions regarding risk acceptability and ample margin of safety, in the November 1, 2019, proposed rule for 40 CFR part 63, subpart MMMM (84 FR 58966). The results of the risk assessment for the proposal are presented briefly below in Table 3 of this preamble. More detail is in the residual risk technical support document,
Residual Risk Assessment for the Surface Coating of MMPP Source Category in Support of the 2019 Risk and Technology Review Proposed Rule,
available in the MMPP Docket.

Table 3—Surface Coating of MMPP Source Category Inhalation Risk Assessment Results

Risk assessment

Maximum individual
cancer risk
(in 1 million)

Based on
actual
emissions

Based on
allowable
emissions

Estimated population at
increased risk of cancer
≥ 1-in-1 million

Based on
actual
emissions

Based on
allowable
emissions

Estimated annual cancer
incidence
(cases per year)

Based on
actual
emissions

Based on
allowable
emissions

Maximum chronic

noncancer TOSHI
1

Based on
actual
emissions

Based on
allowable
emissions

Maximum screening acute noncancer HQ
2

Source category
20
30
18,000
24,000
0.008
0.01
0.8
1
HQREL = 4.

Whole facility
100

370,000

0.04

1

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

2
The maximum estimated acute exposure concentration was divided by available short-term threshold values to develop HQ values (HQREL = HQ reference exposure level).

The results of the proposal inhalation risk modeling using actual emissions data, as shown in Table 3 of this preamble, indicate that the maximum individual cancer risk based on actual emissions (lifetime) is 20-in-1 million (driven by naphthalene and ethyl benzene from coating operations), the maximum chronic noncancer TOSHI value based on actual emissions is 0.8 (driven by antimony from coating operations), and the maximum screening acute noncancer HQ value (off-facility site) could be up to 4 (driven by glycol ethers). At proposal, the total annual cancer incidence (national) from these facilities based on actual emission levels was estimated to be 0.008 excess cancer cases per year, or one case in every 125 years.

The results of the proposal inhalation risk modeling using allowable emissions data, as shown in Table 3 of this preamble, indicate that the maximum individual cancer risk based on allowable emissions (lifetime) is 30-in-1 million (driven by naphthalene and ethyl benzene), and the maximum chronic noncancer TOSHI value based on allowable emissions is 1 (driven by antimony). At proposal, the total annual cancer incidence (national) from these facilities based on allowable emissions was estimated to be 0.01 excess cancer cases per year, or one case in every 100 years.

The maximum individual cancer risk (lifetime) for the whole facility was determined to be 100-in-1 million at proposal (driven by nickel from welding operations). The maximum facility-wide TOSHI for the source category was estimated to be 1 (driven by emissions of cobalt from a gel coating operation). At proposal, the total estimated cancer incidence from the whole facility was determined to be 0.04 excess cancer cases per year, or one excess case in every 25 years.

Three PB-HAP are emitted by facilities in the source category: Arsenic, cadmium, and lead. The PB-HAP emissions from these facilities did not exceed the Tier 1 multipathway screening value of 1 for cancer or noncancer. In evaluating the potential for multipathway effects from emissions of lead, we compared modeled annual lead concentrations to the NAAQS for lead of 0.15 mg/m
3
, arithmetic mean concentration over a 3-month period). The highest annual average lead concentration of 0.059 mg/m
3
is below the NAAQS level for lead, indicating a low potential for multipathway impacts of concern due to lead even assuming a shorter averaging period is analyzed. Based on this evaluation, we proposed that there is no significant potential for human health multi-pathway risks as a result of HAP emissions from this source category. Four environmental HAP are emitted by facilities in this source category: Arsenic, cadmium, lead and HCl. Therefore, at proposal, we conducted a screening-level evaluation of the potential adverse environmental effects associated with emissions of arsenic, cadmium, lead, and HCl for the MMPP source category. Based on this evaluation, we proposed that we do not expect an adverse environmental effect as a result of HAP emissions from this source category.

We weighed all health risk factors, including those shown in Table 3 of this preamble, in our risk acceptability determination and proposed that the residual risks from the Surface Coating of MMPP source category are acceptable (section IV.B.2.a of proposal preamble, 84 FR 58967, November 1, 2019).

We then considered whether 40 CFR part 63, subpart MMMM provides an ample margin of safety to protect public health. In considering whether the standards should be tightened to provide an ample margin of safety to protect public health, we considered the same risk factors that we considered for our acceptability determination and also considered the costs, technological feasibility, and other relevant factors related to emissions control options that might reduce risk associated with emissions from the source category. Based on our review (described in section IV.B of this preamble), we identified and evaluated the use of add-on control technologies for the rubber-to-metal bonding and high-performance coating subcategories.

We determined that the added costs and cost effectiveness for these two coating subcategories ($9,500 per ton of HAP reduced for the rubber-to-metal bonding subcategory and $11,700 per ton for the high-performance coating subcategory) are not justified. We proposed that these costs are unreasonable particularly because the risks are already low, and the risks would not be reduced in a meaningful manner by the control of these subcategories. Six facilities in the high-performance subcategory had a cancer risk above 1-in-1 million. The cancer risk for only one of these facilities would be reduced as a result of the add-on controls evaluated, going from 6-in-1 million to 2-in-1 million (based on actual emissions) because the facility would be required to reduce emissions. Only one facility in the rubber-to-metal bonding subcategory had a cancer risk above 1-in-1 million. The cancer risk for this facility would not be reduced as a result of the add-on controls evaluated because the facility is able to use averaging between the general-use subcategory and the rubber-to-metal bonding subcategory to meet the general-use emission limit and would not have to reduce emissions. Therefore, we proposed that additional emissions controls for this source category are not necessary to provide an ample margin of safety (section IV.B.2.b of proposal preamble, 84 FR 58968, November 1, 2019). Of the 40 facilities in the high-performance subcategory, there were six with cancer risk above 1-in-1 million. The cancer risk for only one of these facilities would be reduced as a result of the add-on controls evaluated, going from 6-in-1 million to 2-in-1 million (based on actual emissions). Of the 16 facilities in the rubber-to-metal bonding subcategory, only one had cancer risk

above 1-in-1 million. The cancer risk for this facility would not be reduced as a result of the add-on controls evaluated.

c. Surface Coating of PPP (40 CFR part 63, subpart PPPP) Source Category

Pursuant to CAA section 112(f)(2), the EPA conducted a residual risk review and presented the results of this review, along with our proposed decisions regarding risk acceptability and ample margin of safety, in the November 1, 2019, proposed action for 40 CFR part 63, subpart PPPP (84 FR 58976). The results of the risk assessment for the proposal are presented briefly below in Table 4 of this preamble. More detail is in the residual risk technical support document,
Residual Risk Assessment for the Surface Coating of PPP Source Category in Support of the 2019 Risk and Technology Review Proposed Rule,
available in the PPP Docket.

Table 4—Surface Coating of PPP Source Category Inhalation Risk Assessment Results

Risk assessment

Maximum individual
cancer risk
(in 1 million)

Based on
actual
emissions

Based on
allowable
emissions

Estimated population at
increased risk of cancer
≥ 1-in-1 million

Based on
actual
emissions

Based on
allowable
emissions

Estimated annual cancer
incidence
(cases per year)

Based on
actual
emissions

Based on
allowable
emissions

Maximum chronic

noncancer TOSHI
1

Based on
actual
emissions

Based on
allowable
emissions

Maximum screening acute noncancer HQ
2

Source Category
10
10
600
700
0.001
0.001
1
1
HQREL = 4.

Whole Facility
70

29,000

0.006

1

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

2
The maximum estimated acute exposure concentration was divided by available short-term threshold values to develop HQ values (HQREL = HQ reference exposure level).

The results of the proposal inhalation risk modeling using actual emissions data, as shown in Table 4 of this preamble, indicate that the maximum individual cancer risk based on actual emissions (lifetime) is 10-in-1 million (driven by formaldehyde, naphthalene, and ethyl benzene from coating operations), the maximum chronic noncancer TOSHI value based on actual emissions is 1 (driven by hexamethylene-1,6-diisocyanate from coating operations), and the maximum screening acute noncancer HQ value (off-facility site) could be up to 4 (driven by glycol ethers). At proposal, the total annual cancer incidence (national) from these facilities based on actual emission levels was estimated to be 0.001 excess cancer cases per year, or one case in every 1,000 years.

The results of the proposal inhalation risk modeling using allowable emissions data, as shown in Table 4 of this preamble, indicate that the maximum individual cancer risk based on allowable emissions (lifetime) is 10-in-1 million (driven by formaldehyde, naphthalene, and ethyl benzene), and the maximum chronic noncancer TOSHI value based on allowable emissions is 1 (driven by hexamethylene-1,6-diisocyanate from coating operations). At proposal, the total annual cancer incidence (national) from these facilities based on allowable emissions was estimated to be 0.001 excess cancer cases per year, or one case in every 1,000 years.

The maximum individual cancer risk (lifetime) for the whole facility was determined to be 70-in-1 million at proposal (driven by nickel and formaldehyde from a co-located boiler). The maximum facility-wide TOSHI for the source category was estimated to be 1 (driven by emissions of nickel and formaldehyde from a co-located boiler). At proposal, the total estimated cancer incidence from the whole facility was determined to be 0.006 excess cancer cases per year, or one excess case in every 200 years.

No PB-HAP are emitted by facilities in this source category; therefore, at proposal we did not estimate any human health multi-pathway risks from this source category. No environmental HAP are emitted by facilities in this source category; therefore, we proposed that we do not expect an adverse environmental effect as a result of HAP emissions from this source category.

We weighed all health risk factors, including those shown in Table 4 of this preamble, in our risk acceptability determination and proposed that the residual risks from the Surface Coating of PPP source category are acceptable (section IV.C.2.a of proposal preamble, 84 FR 58977, November 1, 2019).

We then considered whether 40 CFR part 63, subpart PPPP provides an ample margin of safety to protect public health. In considering whether the standards should be tightened to provide an ample margin of safety to protect public health, we considered the same risk factors that we considered for our acceptability determination and also considered the costs, technological feasibility, and other relevant factors related to emissions control options that might reduce risk associated with emissions from the source category. Based on our review at proposal (described in section IV.B of this preamble), we did not identify any measures to further reduce HAP. Therefore, we proposed that additional emissions controls for this source category are not necessary to provide an ample margin of safety (section IV.C.2.b of proposal preamble, 84 FR 58978, November 1, 2019).

2. How did the risk reviews change since proposal?

We have not changed any aspect of the risk assessments for any of the three source categories as a result of public comments received on the November 1, 2019, proposal for any of the three source categories.

3. What key comments did we receive on the risk reviews, and what are our responses?

We received comments in support of and against the proposed residual risk reviews and our determinations that no revisions were warranted under CAA section 112(f)(2) for all three source categories. Generally, the comments that were not supportive of the determination from the risk reviews suggested changes to the underlying risk assessment methodology. For example, some commenters stated that the EPA should lower the acceptability benchmark so that risks below 100-in-1 million are unacceptable, include emissions outside of the source categories in question in the risk assessment, and assume that pollutants with noncancer health risks have no safe level of exposure. After review of all the comments received, we determined that no changes to our Science Advisory Board-approved review process were necessary. The comments and our specific responses can be found in the document,

Summary of Public Comments and Responses for the Risk and Technology Reviews for Surface Coating Automobiles and Light-Duty Trucks, Surface Coating of Miscellaneous Metal Parts and Products, and Surface Coating of Plastic Parts and Products,
available in the dockets for this action (Docket ID Nos. EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0312, EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0313, and EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0314).

4. What is the rationale for our final approach and final decisions for the risk reviews?

As noted in our proposal, the EPA sets standards under CAA section 112(f)(2) using “a two-step standard-setting approach, with an analytical first step to determine an `acceptable risk' that considers all health information, including risk estimation uncertainty, and includes a presumptive limit on the maximum individual risk (MIR) of approximately 1-in-10 thousand” (see 54 FR 38045, September 14, 1989). We weigh all health risk factors in our risk acceptability determination, including the cancer MIR, cancer incidence, the maximum cancer TOSHI, the maximum acute noncancer HQ, the extent of noncancer risks, the distribution of cancer and noncancer risks in the exposed population, and the risk estimation uncertainties.

Since proposal, neither the quantitative risk assessment nor our determinations regarding risk acceptability, ample margin of safety, or adverse environmental effects have changed. For the reasons explained in the proposed rule and above, we find that the risks from the Surface Coating of ALDT, Surface Coating of MMPP, and Surface Coating of PPP source categories are acceptable, and the current standards provide an ample margin of safety to protect public health and prevent an adverse environmental effect. Therefore, we are not revising any of these three subparts to require additional controls pursuant to CAA section 112(f)(2) based on the residual risk review, and we are maintaining the existing standards under CAA section 112(f)(2).

B. Technology Reviews

1. What did we propose pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6)?

Based on our review, we did not identify any developments in practices, processes, or control technologies for the Surface Coating of ALDT source category, and, therefore, we did not propose any changes to the standards under CAA section 112(d)(6). A brief summary of the EPA's findings in conducting the technology review of ALDT surface coating operations was included in the preamble to the proposed action (84 FR 58957, November 1, 2019). For a detailed discussion of the EPA's findings, refer to the memorandum,
Technology Review for Surface Coating Operations in the Automobiles and Light-Duty Trucks Source Category,
June 2019, in the ALDT Docket.

In our technology review of the Surface Coating of MMPP source category, we identified and evaluated the use of add-on control technologies (
e.g.,
regenerative thermal oxidizers) for two coating subcategories, high-performance coating and rubber-to-metal coating, that had not been previously considered during development of the MMPP NESHAP. This analysis is described in detail in the preamble to the proposed action (84 FR 58969, November 1, 2019). However, we determined that the added costs and cost effectiveness for these two coating subcategories ($9,500 per ton of HAP reduced for the rubber-to-metal coating subcategory and $11,700 per ton for the high-performance subcategory) were not justified. Aside from this, we did not identify any new or improved process equipment, work practices, or procedures that would further reduce emissions. Therefore, the EPA proposed no revisions to the MMPP NESHAP pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6). For a detailed discussion of the EPA's findings, refer to the
MMPP Technology Review Memo
in the MMPP Docket.

Based on our review, we did not identify any developments in practices, processes, or control technologies for the Surface Coating of PPP source category, and, therefore, we did not propose any changes to the standards under CAA section 112(d)(6). A brief summary of the EPA's findings in conducting the technology review of plastic parts surface coating operations was included in the preamble to the proposed action (84 FR 58978, November 1, 2019). For a detailed discussion of the EPA's findings, refer to the memorandum,
Technology Review for the Plastic Parts and Products Surface Coating Operations Source Category,
June 2019, in the PPP Docket.

2. How did the technology reviews change since proposal?

We are making no changes to the conclusions of the technology review and are finalizing the results of the technology reviews for the Surface Coating of ALDT, Surface Coating of MMPP, and Surface Coating of PPP source categories as proposed.

3. What key comments did we receive on the technology reviews, and what are our responses?

We received several general comments supporting the results of our technology reviews for all three source categories and one comment objecting to our conclusion that there have been no technology developments in these three source categories.

Comment:
One commenter alleged that the EPA has failed to meet the statutory obligation to conduct a technology review under CAA section 112(d)(6). The commenter argued that the EPA has refused to complete the technology review by refusing to strengthen the emission standards for regulated pollutants based primarily on cost or cost effectiveness. The commenter argued that CAA section 112(d)(6) does not include that term “cost effectiveness,” and so the EPA's proposed action on the technology review is unlawful and arbitrary.

Response:
The EPA disagrees with the commenter that cost effectiveness cannot be considered in the technology reviews. CAA section 112(d)(6) does include the phrase “as necessary” and the EPA interprets “as necessary” to include a cost component, such as cost effectiveness. The EPA's interpretation that cost and cost effectiveness may be considered in technology reviews was affirmed by the Court in
Association of Battery Recyclers, Inc.
v.
EPA,
716 F.3d 667 (DC Cir. 2013).
3

Therefore, the technology review for the Surface Coating of MMPP source category completed at proposal is not being revised based on this comment.

3
See
Association of Battery Recyclers, Inc.
v.
EPA,
716 F.3d 667 (DC Cir. 2013), p. 673: Environmental petitioners next argue that the EPA impermissibly considered cost in revising emissions standards under CAA section 112(d)(6). But the statute only bars cost consideration in setting MACT floors under CAA section 112(d)(3), see
National Lime,
233 F.3d at 640; CAA section 112(d)(2) in contrast expressly directs the EPA to consider costs when setting beyond-the-floor standards, see 42 U.S.C. 7412(d)(2) (directing the Administrator to “tak[e] into consideration the cost of achieving . . . emission reduction”). Petitioners are correct that CAA section 112(d)(6) itself makes no reference to cost and that the Supreme Court has “refused to find implicit in ambiguous sections of the [CAA] an authorization to consider costs that has elsewhere, and so often, been expressly granted.”
Whitman
v.
American Trucking Associations, Inc.,
531 U.S. 457, 467, 121 S. Ct. 903, 149 L.Ed.2d 1 (2001). But given that the EPA has no obligation to recalculate the MACT floor when revising standards, see
supra
at 672-73, and given that CAA section 112(d)(2) expressly authorizes cost consideration in other aspects of the standard-setting process, we believe this clear statement rule is satisfied.

4. What is the rationale for our final approach and final decisions for the technology reviews?

For the reasons explained in the preamble to the proposed rules (84 FR 58597, 58969, and 58978, November 1, 2019), and in our analysis of public comments explained above in section IV.B.3 of this preamble, we are making no changes to any of the three subparts to require additional controls pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6) and are finalizing the results of the technology reviews as proposed.

C. Electronic Reporting Provisions

1. What did we propose?

In the November 1, 2019, document, we proposed to require owners and operators of surface coating facilities in all three source categories to submit electronic copies of notifications, reports, and performance tests through the EPA's CDX, using the CEDRI. These include the initial notifications required in 40 CFR 63.9(b); notifications of compliance status required in 40 CFR 63.9(h); the performance test reports required in 40 CFR 63.7(g); and the semiannual reports required in 40 CFR 63.3120(a) for ALDT surface coating, 40 CFR 63.3920(a) for MMPP surface coating, and 40 CFR 63.4520(a) for PPP surface coating. A description of the electronic submission process is provided in the memorandum,
Electronic Reporting Requirements for New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) and National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP),
August 8, 2018, in the ALDT, MMPP, and PPP Dockets. The proposed rule requirements would replace the current rule requirements to submit the notifications and reports to the Administrator at the appropriate address listed in 40 CFR 63.13. The proposed rule requirement would not affect submittals required by state air agencies.

2. What changed since proposal?

We are finalizing the electronic reporting provisions as proposed with no changes (84 FR 58958, 58970, and 58979, November 1, 2019).

3. What key comments did we receive and what are our responses?

Comment:
Several commenters requested that additional opportunity should be provided for public review and comment of the electronic reporting templates before they are final and facilities are required to use them for electronic reporting. One commenter also requested that the EPA provide a notice and comment period through a
Federal Register
document for all future changes in reporting templates because many industry members do not track changes to the CEDRI website where the EPA intends to make future template changes. The commenter argued that this would be consistent with the requirements of both the CAA and the Administrative Procedures Act (APA) because, the commenter argues, the development of the reporting template constitutes a rulemaking action.

Response:
The EPA disagrees that changes to the electronic reporting template constitute a rulemaking because the reporting template does not create new requirements, but instead, provides the mechanism by which the sources report the information required to be submitted pursuant to the underlying NESHAP.

The EPA promulgated the original MACT emissions standards and attendant monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements through notice and comment rulemaking, but the sources were not required to submit reports via electronic reporting at the time. The EPA is moving toward electronic reporting for all NESHAP and proposed to require electronic reporting for these source categories along with the RTR rulemaking. The electronic reporting template is the tool by which the sources will enter their required reports and data to CEDRI to comply with the NESHAP, but it does not establish, in itself, any requirements, including monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements. Any future revisions to the underlying NESHAP's monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements will be made through a proposed rulemaking that will be published in the
Federal Register
; thereby giving the public notice and an opportunity to comment. The changes to reporting templates, by contrast, are merely changes that are necessary to allow owners/operators to successfully submit reports (
e.g.,
resolving issues with template cells that are not properly formatted, unlocking inadvertently locked cells, and correcting regulatory citations). The EPA disagrees that the APA and the CAA require such changes undergo notice and comment rulemaking in the
Federal Register
.

We also note that if the reporting templates for these subparts are completed concurrently with the final rule publication, facilities will have 1 year after the final rule is published to submit semiannual compliance reports using the electronic reporting template in CEDRI. If the reporting templates are not finalized concurrently with the final rule publication, facilities will be required to submit semiannual compliance reports using the electronic reporting template in CEDRI once the reporting template has been available on the CEDRI website for one year. The dates that templates are initially made available in CEDRI are listed on the CEDRI website.

4. What is the rationale for our final approach for the electronic reporting provisions?

For the reasons explained in the preamble to the proposed rules (84 FR 58958, 58970, and 58979, November 1, 2019), and in the comment responses above in section IV.C.3 of this preamble, we are finalizing the electronic reporting provisions for 40 CFR parts 63, subparts IIII, MMMM, and PPPP, as proposed.

D. SSM Provisions

1. What did we propose?

In the November 1, 2019, action, we proposed amendments to the ALDT NESHAP, the MMPP NESHAP, and the PPP NESHAP to remove and revise provisions related to SSM that are not consistent with the statutory requirement that the standards apply at all times. More information concerning the elimination of SSM provisions is in the preamble to the proposed rules (84 FR 58959, 58971, and 58980, November 1, 2019).

2. What changed since proposal?

We are finalizing the SSM provisions as proposed except for some changes to the General Provisions references in Table 2 of 40 CFR part 63, subpart IIII (84 FR 58959, 58971, and 58980, November 1, 2019).

3. What key comments did we receive and what are our responses?

Comment:
One commenter argued that the proposed removal and revision of the SSM provisions would effectively eliminate a longstanding provision applicable to magnet wire coating operations that allows for extra HAP emissions during SSM events, so long as the permittee addresses those events according to its facility SSM plan. The commenter acknowledged that the EPA is compelled to take this action by the decision in
Sierra Club
v.
EPA,
551 F.3d 1019 (DC Cir. 2008), but the commenter reported that certain facilities now are challenged to find a methodology for emission calculations during SSM periods.

The commenter reported that magnet wire coaters—unless advised of an alternative approach—would account for SSM events in emission calculations by weighing coating hours in full compliance (with control percentage

determined through stack testing) v. coating hours during start-up, shutdown, and malfunction periods, where the default assumption during the latter is zero control. The commenter stated that the weighted efficiency ratio would then be applied to the total mass of HAP input to surface coating operations to determine estimated emissions.

Response:
The EPA agrees we are compelled to remove and revise the SSM provisions from each subpart consistent with
Sierra Club
v.
EPA,
551 F.3d 1019 (DC Cir. 2008).

The commenter has not provided enough detail for the EPA to determine whether the compliance approach described by the commenter is consistent with the current requirements of 40 CFR part 63, subpart MMMM. However, subpart MMMM already includes provisions to account for deviation periods, so the commenter's proposed approach should not be necessary. For example, for coating operations that use an add-on control device, Equation 1 of 40 CFR 63.3961 includes the term H
UNC
, which is the total mass in kilograms of organic HAP in the coatings, thinners, and/or other additives, and cleaning materials used during all deviations specified in 40 CFR 63.3963(c) and (d) that occurred during the month, as calculated in Equation 1D of 40 CFR 63.3961. The rest of subpart MMMM treats these HAP as being uncontrolled, which is consistent with the commenter's assumption of zero control during SSM events.

Comment:
One commenter recommended several changes to Table 2 (Applicability of General Provisions) to 40 CFR part 63, subpart IIII, as result of the changes made to reflect the SSM changes:

• Clarify that the provisions of 40 CFR 63.6(e)(3), 63.6(f)(1), 63.10(b)(2), and 63.10(d)(5) apply only to capture systems and add-on control devices used to comply with the standards, as in the current rule;

• correct an apparent drafting error and add back in a reference to 40 CFR 63.6(i)(16) with an indicator that it is still applicable to 40 CFR part 63, subpart IIII;

• do not finalize the applicability of 40 CFR 63.8(c)(7) from “No” to “Yes” unless the EPA provides further explanation of this change because it was not discussed in the preamble to the proposed rule; and

• combine the provisions of 40 CFR 63.9(h)(5) and (6) with the other notification of compliance status requirements in 40 CFR 63.9(h)(1) through (3).

Response:
We agree with the commenter that the language indicating that the provisions of 40 CFR 63.6(e)(3), 63.6(f)(1), 63.10(b)(2), and 63.10(d)(5) apply only to capture systems and add-on control devices used to comply with the standards is a useful clarification and it is being added back into the appropriate rows of Table 2 to 40 CFR part 63, subpart IIII suggested by the commenter.

The commenter is correct that 40 CFR 63.6(i)(16) is still applicable to 40 CFR part 63, subpart IIII and this has been added back into the final Table 2 to subpart IIII.

We proposed to change the applicability of 40 CFR 63.8(c)(7) in Table 2 to 40 CFR part 63, subpart IIII from “No” to “Yes” because that was an apparent error in the original Table 2 to subpart IIII. Facilities are required to comply with 40 CFR 63.8(c)(7) as specified in 40 CFR 63.3120(a)(4), and the Table 2 to subpart IIII should already have been “Yes” instead of “No.” New references to 40 CFR 63.8(c)(7) are also being added in 40 CFR 63.3120(a)(6)(vii) and (a)(8)(vi).

We agree with the commenter that the provisions of 40 CFR 63.9(h)(5) and (6) should be combined with the other notification of compliance status requirements in 40 CFR 63.9(h)(1) through (3). The provisions of 40 CFR 63.9(h)(5) and (6) were separated in drafting the revised table because 40 CFR 63.9(h)(4) is reserved, but we agree that keeping them together on one line as “§ 63.9(h)(1) through (3), (5), and (6)” would avoid confusion, so we are adopting that approach in the promulgated version of Table 2 to 40 CFR part 63, subpart IIII.

4. What is the rationale for our final approach for the SSM provisions?

For the reasons explained in the proposed rule and after evaluation of the comments on the proposed amendments to the SSM provisions for the ALDT NESHAP, MMPP NESHAP, and PPP NESHAP, we are finalizing the proposed revisions related to SSM so that they are now consistent with the requirement that the standards apply at all times. More information concerning the proposed amendments to the SSM provisions is in the preamble to the proposed rules (84 FR 58959, 58971, and 58980, November 1, 2019).

E. Ongoing Compliance Demonstrations

1. What did we propose?

In the November 1, 2019, action, we proposed to require owners and operators of ALDT, MMPP, and PPP surface coating facilities that use the emission rate with add-on controls compliance option to conduct periodic performance testing of add-on control devices on a regular frequency of every 5 years to ensure the equipment continues to operate properly. This proposed periodic testing requirement included an exception to the general requirement for periodic testing for facilities using the catalytic oxidizer control options and following catalyst maintenance procedures that are found in 40 CFR part 63, subparts IIII, MMMM, and PPPP. These catalyst maintenance procedures include annual testing of the catalyst and other maintenance procedures that provide ongoing demonstrations that the control system is operating properly and may, thus, be considered comparable to conducting a performance test. The proposed periodic performance testing requirement also allows an exception from periodic testing for facilities using continuous emission monitoring systems (CEMS) to show actual emissions. The use of CEMS to demonstrate compliance would obviate the need for periodic testing.

This proposed requirement did not require periodic testing or CEMS monitoring of facilities using the compliant materials option or the emission-rate without add-on controls compliance option because these two compliance options do not use any add-on controls or control efficiency measurements in the compliance calculations.

The proposed periodic performance testing requirement requires facilities complying with the standards using emission capture systems and add-on controls and which are not already on a 5-year testing schedule to conduct the first of the periodic performance tests within 3 years of the effective date of the revised standards. Afterward, they would conduct periodic testing before they renew their operating permits, but no longer than 5 years following the previous performance test. Additionally, facilities that have already tested as a condition of their permit within the last 2 years before the effective date would be permitted to maintain their current 5-year schedule.

2. What changed since proposal?

We have revised the proposed periodic testing language in 40 CFR part 63, subparts IIII, MMMM, and PPPP, since proposal to clarify that testing is only required for add-on control devices and is not for emission capture systems. We are also revising 40 CFR 63.3093(a) to clarify that facilities in the ALDT source category are not required to meet any operating limits for any coating

operations that do not use add-on controls to comply with the emission limits in 40 CFR 63.3090 or 63.3091.

3. What key comments did we receive and what are our responses?

Comment:
One commenter recommended that proposed rule language at 40 CFR 63.3163(c)(3) in subpart IIII should be revised to clarify that periodic performance testing is only required for the add-on control device and that capture system efficiency testing is not required. The commenter argued that the EPA provided no technical justification to require periodic capture efficiency testing, and that capture efficiency is not likely to change without structural or operational changes to the emission capture system.

Response:
The EPA agrees with the commenter and has revised the periodic performance testing language in 40 CFR part 63, subparts IIII, MMMM, and PPPP to clarify that the testing applies to the add-on control devices and does not include capture efficiency testing.

Comment:
One commenter requested that the final 40 CFR part 63, subpart IIII should clarify that timing of subsequent performance tests should be aligned with title V permit requirements for testing to avoid additional testing to comply with both the NESHAP and their title V permits. The commenter recommended that regulatory language should provide for periodic testing “within the 5-year term of the Title V permit” or “within 5 years of the most recent testing,” or something similar. The commenter stated that the EPA should not require testing within a specified time period from the issuance of the amended rule or by a specific date.

Response:
The EPA disagrees with the commenter that changes to the proposed rule language are needed because the proposed rule language already allows this flexibility. The proposed rule language at 40 CFR 63.3163(c)(3) stated,

“. . . You must conduct the first periodic performance test before [date 3 years after date of publications of final rule in the
Federal Register
], unless you are already required to complete periodic performance tests as a requirement of renewing your facility's operating permit under 40 CFR part 70 or 40 CFR part 71 and have conducted a performance test on or after [date 2 years before date of publications of final rule in the
Federal Register
]. Thereafter you must conduct a performance test no later than 5 years following the previous performance test. . . .”

Therefore, the proposed rule language already allows a facility to conduct a performance test within the 5-year period of a title V permit if testing is already required, and does not specify any additional testing, as long as the title V permit is renewed on a regular 5-year schedule as specified under 40 CFR part 70 and 40 CFR part 71.

Comment:
One commenter requested that the EPA should allow for performance testing extensions beyond the 5-year requirement when necessary to obtain representative conditions and when agreed to with the EPA or with an EPA-approved permitting authority. The commenter argued that if, for example, significant coating operation facility changes or product changes are planned near the end of a 5-year period, deferring testing until after the change occurs would be preferable to obtain a more representative result. The commenter noted that the General Provisions currently allow for delays in performance tests due to
force majeure
events or a waiver of subsequent performance tests under certain conditions, but the General Provisions do not specifically reference testing delays due to the need to establish representative conditions. The commenter provided two examples of permit language that allow for extensions of testing periods.

Response:
The EPA disagrees with the need to allow for testing delays and is not revising the proposed language to include the commenter's recommendation. The compliance calculations in 40 CFR part 63, subparts IIII, MMMM, and PPPP require a facility to use the organic HAP destruction or removal efficiency (DRE) of the add-on control device. The standards already require that tests be performed under representative coating operation operating conditions and under representative emission capture system and add-on control device operating conditions, which specifically exclude testing during periods of startup, shutdown, nonoperation, and malfunction. The EPA currently does not have sufficient information to define the conditions under which an extension should be granted, and no additional information was provided by the commenter. The commenter also provided no additional information to indicate whether and how the situations described by the commenter (
e.g.,
significant coating operation changes or product changes) would alter the DRE of an add-on control device.

The EPA also notes that the purpose of periodic compliance testing is to not only demonstrate future compliance, but to also confirm past compliance. If a facility is planning significant changes that would prevent testing according to the 5-year schedule, the facility may need to complete testing earlier so as to demonstrate that the facility was in compliance under the original configuration. It may be necessary for the facility to repeat testing under the new configuration to re-establish new operating limits and efficiency values for the emission capture and control system.

Comment:
One commenter requested that the EPA revise 40 CFR 63.3093(a) to clarify that facilities in the ALDT source category that do not use add-on controls to comply with the emission limits in 40 CFR 63.3090 or 63.3091 are not required to comply with the operating limits for add-on controls and emission capture systems. The commenters reported that the original language in 40 CFR 63.3093(a) only mentioned “coating operations without add-on controls” and this has led to confusion because many facilities have add-on controls to limit VOC emissions, but they are not needed to comply with the HAP emission limits.

Response:
The EPA agrees that this change will avoid confusion and we will make the change to the language in 40 CFR part 63, subpart IIII. Other surface coating NESHAP, such as 40 CFR part 63, subparts MMMM and PPPP, already have language that avoids similar confusion over the applicability of the operating limits.

4. What is the rationale for our final approach for the ongoing compliance demonstrations?

For the reasons explained in the preamble to the proposed rules (84 FR 58963, 58974, and 58983, November 1, 2019), and in the comment responses above in section IV.E.3 of this preamble, we are finalizing the periodic testing provisions for 40 CFR part 63, subparts IIII, MMMM, and PPPP, as proposed. As also described in section IV.E.3 of this preamble, we are also making changes to each NESHAP to clarify that testing is only required for add-on control devices and is not required for emission capture systems. We are also revising 40 CFR 63.3093(a) to clarify that facilities in the ALDT source category are not required to meet any operating limits for any coating operations that do not use add-on controls to comply with the emission limits in 40 CFR 63.3090 or 63.3091, as described in section IV.E.3 of this preamble.

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

A. What are the affected facilities?

Currently, we estimate 43 major source facilities are subject to the ALDT NESHAP and operating in the United

States. The affected source under the NESHAP is the collection of all coating operations; all storage containers and mixing vessels in which coatings, thinners, and cleaning materials are stored or mixed; all manual and automated equipment and containers used for conveying coatings, thinners, and cleaning materials; and all storage containers and all manual and automated equipment and containers used for conveying waste materials generated by a coating operation. A coating operation is defined as the equipment used to apply coating to a substrate (coating application) and to dry or cure the coating after application. A single coating operation always includes at least the point at which a coating is applied and all subsequent points in the affected source where organic HAP emissions from that coating occur. There may be multiple coating operations in an affected source. Coating application with hand-held nonrefillable aerosol containers, touchup bottles, touchup markers, marking pens, or pinstriping equipment is not a coating operation for the purposes of this subpart. The application of temporary materials such as protective oils and “travel waxes” that are designed to be removed from the vehicle before it is delivered to a retail purchaser is not a coating operation for the purposes of 40 CFR part 61, subpart IIII.

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

Currently, we estimate 125 major source facilities are subject to the PPP NESHAP and operating in the United States. The affected source under the NESHAP is the collection of coating operations; all storage containers and mixing vessels in which coatings, thinners, and cleaning materials are stored or mixed; all manual and automated equipment and containers used for conveying coatings, thinners, and cleaning materials; and all storage containers and all manual and automated equipment and containers used for conveying waste materials generated by a coating operation. A coating operation is defined as the equipment used to apply cleaning materials to a substrate to prepare it for coating application (surface preparation) or to remove dried coating; to apply coating to a substrate (coating application) and to dry or cure the coating after application; or to clean coating operation equipment (equipment cleaning). A single coating operation may include any combination of these types of equipment but always includes at least the point at which a given quantity of coating or cleaning material is applied to a given part and all subsequent points in the affected source where organic HAP are emitted from the specific quantity of coating or cleaning material on the specific part. There may be multiple coating operations in an affected source. Coating application with handheld, non-refillable aerosol containers, touch-up markers, or marking pens is not a coating operation for the purposes of 40 CFR part 63, subpart PPPP.

B. What are the air quality impacts?

At the current level of control, estimated emissions of volatile organic HAP from the 43 facilities in the ALDT source category are approximately 1,700 tpy. Current estimated emissions of volatile organic HAP from the 368 facilities in the MMPP source category are approximately 2,700 tpy. Current estimated emissions of volatile organic HAP from the 125 facilities in the PPP source category are approximately 760 tpy.

The amendments require that all major sources in the ALDT, MMPP, and PPP source categories comply with the relevant emission standards at all times, including periods of SSM. We were unable to quantify the emissions that occur during periods of SSM or the specific emissions reductions that will occur as a result of this action. However, eliminating the SSM exemption has the potential to reduce emissions by requiring facilities to meet the applicable standard at all times and to minimize SSM periods.

Indirect or secondary air emissions impacts are impacts that would result from, for example, the increased electricity, natural gas, or water 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 amendments would have no effect on the energy needs of t

[Text truncated at 120,000 characters. The full text is on the page linked above.]

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/fr%3A2020-05908. Public record. Not legal advice.