IV. Analytical Results and Proposed Decisions

A. What are the analytical results and proposed decisions for the
Surface Coating of Metal Cans source category?

1. What are the results of the risk assessment and analyses?
    As described in section III of this preamble, for the Surface
Coating of Metal Cans source category, we conducted a risk assessment
for all HAP emitted. We present results of the risk assessment briefly
below and in more detail in the Metal Cans Risk Assessment Report in
the Metal Cans Docket (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0684).
a. Inhalation Risk Assessment Results
    Table 2 of this preamble summarizes the results of the inhalation
risk assessment for the source category. As discussed in section
III.C.2 of this preamble, we set MACT-allowable HAP emission levels at
metal can coating facilities equal to 1.1 times actual emissions. For
more detail about the MACT-allowable emission levels, see Appendix 1 to
the Metal Cans Risk Assessment Report in the Metal Cans Docket.

                                Table 2--Surface Coating of Metal Cans Source Category Inhalation Risk Assessment Results
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  Maximum individual     Estimated population      Estimated annual         Maximum chronic      Maximum screening acute
                                   cancer risk (in 1     at increased risk of      cancer incidence       noncancer TOSHI \1\       noncancer HQ \2\
                                       million)             cancer >=1-in-1        (cases per year)    -------------------------------------------------
                               ------------------------         million        ------------------------
        Risk assessment                                ------------------------                          Based on    Based on
                                 Based on    Based on    Based on    Based on    Based on    Based on     actual     allowable       Based on actual
                                  actual     allowable    actual     allowable    actual     allowable   emissions   emissions          emissions
                                 emissions   emissions   emissions   emissions   emissions   emissions
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source Category...............           3           3         700         800      0.0009       0.001        0.02        0.02  HQREL = 0.4.
Whole Facility................           8  ..........       1,500  ..........       0.002  ..........         0.2  ..........  ........................
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The TOSHI is the sum of the chronic noncancer HQs for substances that affect the same target organ or organ system.
\2\ The maximum estimated acute exposure concentration was divided by available short-term threshold values to develop HQ values.

    The results of the inhalation risk modeling using actual emissions
data, as shown in Table 2 of this preamble, indicate that the maximum
individual cancer risk based on actual emissions (lifetime) could be up
to 3-in-1 million (driven by formaldehyde from a two-piece can coating
line), the maximum chronic noncancer TOSHI value based on actual
emissions could be up to 0.02 (driven by formaldehyde from a two-piece
can coating line), and the maximum screening acute noncancer HQ value
(off-facility site) could be up to 0.4 (driven by formaldehyde). The
total estimated annual cancer incidence (national) from these
facilities based on actual emission levels is 0.0009 excess

cancer cases per year or 1 case in every 1,100 years.
b. Acute Risk Results
    Table 2 of this preamble shows the acute risk results for the
Surface Coating of Metal Cans source category. The screening analysis
for acute impacts was based on an industry specific multiplier of 1.1,
to estimate the peak emission rates from the average rates. For more
detailed acute risk results, refer to the Metal Cans Risk Assessment
Report in the Metal Cans Docket.
c. Multipathway Risk Screening Results
    There are no PB-HAP emitted by facilities in the Surface Coating of
Metal Cans source category. Therefore, we do not expect any human
health multipathway risks as a result of emissions from this source
category.
d. Environmental Risk Screening Results
    The emissions data for the Surface Coating of Metal Cans source
category indicate that two environmental HAP are emitted by sources
within this source category: HCl and HF. Therefore, we conducted a
screening-level evaluation of the potential for adverse environmental
risks associated with emissions of HCl and HF for the Surface Coating
of Metal Cans source category. For both HCl and HF, each individual
concentration (i.e., each off-site data point in the modeling domain)
was below the ecological benchmarks for all facilities. Therefore, we
do not expect an adverse environmental effect as a result of HAP
emissions from this source category.
e. Facility-Wide Risk Results
    Three facilities have a facility-wide cancer MIR greater than or
equal to 1-in-1 million. The maximum facility-wide cancer MIR is 8-in-1
million, driven by formaldehyde from miscellaneous industrial processes
(other/not classified) and acetaldehyde from beer production (brew
kettle). The total estimated cancer incidence from the whole facility
is 0.002 excess cancer cases per year, or one excess case in every 500
years. Approximately 1,500 people were estimated to have cancer risks
above 1-in-1 million from exposure to HAP emitted from both MACT and
non-MACT sources at three of the five facilities in this source
category. The maximum facility-wide TOSHI for the source category is
estimated to be less than 1, mainly driven by emissions of acetaldehyde
from beer production (brew kettle primarily) and formaldehyde from
miscellaneous industrial processes (other/not classified).
f. What demographic groups might benefit from this regulation?
    To examine the potential for any environmental justice issues that
might be associated with the source category, we performed a
demographic analysis, which is an assessment of risks to individual
demographic groups of the populations living within 5 km and within 50
km of the facilities. In the analysis, we evaluated the distribution of
HAP-related cancer and noncancer risk from the Surface Coating of Metal
Cans source category across different demographic groups within the
populations living near facilities.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ Demographic groups included in the analysis are: White,
African American, Native American, other races and multiracial,
Hispanic or Latino, children 17 years of age and under, adults 18 to
64 years of age, adults 65 years of age and over, adults without a
high school diploma, people living below the poverty level, people
living above the poverty level, and linguistically isolated people.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The results of the demographic analysis are summarized in Table 3
of this preamble. These results, for various demographic groups, are
based on the estimated risk from actual emissions levels for the
population living within 50 km of the facilities.

            Table 3--Surface Coating of Metal Cans Source Category Demographic Risk Analysis Results
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 Population with cancer  Population with chronic
                                                                risk at or above 1-in-1    hazard index above 1
                                                  Nationwide     million due to Surface   due to Surface Coating
                                                                 Coating of Metal Cans        of Metal Cans
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Population..............................     317,746,049                      700                        0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 Race by Percent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
White.........................................              62                       92                        0
All Other Races...............................              38                        8                        0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 Race by Percent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
White.........................................              62                       92                        0
African American..............................              12                        0                        0
Native American...............................             0.8                        0                        0
Hispanic or Latino............................              18                        4                        0
Other and Multiracial.........................               7                        4                        0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                Income by Percent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Below the Poverty Level.......................              14                        4                        0
Above the Poverty Level.......................              86                       96                        0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              Education by Percent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Over 25 and Without High a School Diploma.....              14                        4                        0
Over 25 and With a High School Diploma........              86                       96                        0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The results of the Surface Coating of Metal Cans source category
demographic analysis indicate that emissions from the source category
expose approximately 700 people to a cancer risk at or above 1-in-1
million and no one to a chronic noncancer TOSHI greater than 1 (we note
that many of those in the first risk group are

the same as those in the second). None of the percentages of the at-
risk populations are higher than their respective nationwide
percentages.
    The methodology and the results of the demographic analysis are
presented in a technical report titled Risk and Technology Review--
Analysis of Demographic Factors for Populations Living Near Surface
Coating of Metal Cans Source Category Operations, May 2018 (hereafter
referred to as the Metal Cans Demographic Analysis Report) in the Metal
Cans Docket.
2. What are our proposed decisions regarding risk acceptability, ample
margin of safety, and adverse environmental effect?
a. Risk Acceptability
    As noted in section III.A of this preamble, we weigh all health
risk factors in our risk acceptability determination, including the
cancer MIR, the number of persons in various cancer and noncancer risk
ranges, cancer incidence, the maximum noncancer TOSHI, the maximum
acute noncancer HQ, the extent of noncancer risks, the distribution of
cancer and noncancer risks in the exposed population, and risk
estimation uncertainties (54 FR 38044, September 14, 1989).
    For the Surface Coating of Metal Cans source category, the risk
analysis indicates that the cancer risks to the individual most exposed
could be up to 3-in-1 million due to actual emissions or based on
allowable emissions. These risks are considerably less than 100-in-1
million, which is the presumptive upper limit of acceptable risk. The
risk analysis also shows very low cancer incidence (0.0009 cases per
year for actual emissions and 0.001 cases per year for allowable
emissions) and we did not identify potential for adverse chronic
noncancer health effects. The acute noncancer risks based on actual
emissions are low at an HQ of 0.4 for formaldehyde. Therefore, we find
there is little potential concern of acute noncancer health impacts
from actual emissions. In addition, the risk assessment indicates no
significant potential for multipathway health effects.
    Considering all the health risk information and factors discussed
above, including the uncertainties discussed in section III.C.7 of this
preamble, we propose to find that the risks from the Surface Coating of
Metal Cans source category are acceptable.
b. Ample Margin of Safety Analysis
    Although we are proposing that the risks from the Surface Coating
of Metal Cans source category are acceptable, risk estimates for
approximately 700 individuals in the exposed population are above 1-in-
1 million at the actual emissions level and 800 individuals at the
allowable emissions level. Consequently, we further considered whether
the MACT standards for the Surface Coating of Metal Cans source
category provide an ample margin of safety to protect public health. In
this ample margin of safety analysis, we investigated available
emissions control options that might reduce the risk from the source
category. We considered this information along with all the health
risks and other health information considered in our determination of
risk acceptability.
    As described in section III.B of this preamble, our technology
review focused on identifying developments in practices, processes, and
control technologies for the Surface Coating of Metal Cans source
category, and the EPA reviewed various information sources regarding
emission sources that are currently regulated by the Surface Coating of
Metal Cans NESHAP.
    The only development identified in the technology review for can
coating is the ongoing development and the potential future conversion
from conventional interior can coatings that contain bisphenol A (BPA)
to interior coatings that do not intentionally contain BPA (BPA-NI).
Since BPA and BPA-NI are not HAP, this change would have no effect on
the HAP emissions. There were no other technological developments
identified that affect HAP emissions for the Surface Coating of Metal
Cans source category. Therefore, we are proposing that additional
emission controls for this source category are not necessary to provide
an ample margin of safety.
c. Environmental Effects
    The emissions data for the Surface Coating of Metal Cans source
category indicate that two environmental HAP are emitted by sources
within this source category: HCl and HF. The screening-level evaluation
of the potential for adverse environmental risks associated with
emissions of HCl and HF from the Surface Coating of Metal Cans source
category indicated that each individual concentration (i.e., each off-
site data point in the modeling domain) was below the ecological
benchmarks for all facilities. In addition, we are unaware of any
adverse environmental effects caused by HAP emitted by this source
category. Therefore, we do not expect there to be an adverse
environmental effect as a result of HAP emissions from this source
category, and we are proposing that it is not necessary to set a more
stringent standard to prevent, taking into consideration costs, energy,
safety, and other relevant factors, an adverse environmental effect.
3. What are the results and proposed decisions based on our technology
review?
    As described in section III.B of this preamble, our technology
review focused on identifying developments in practices, processes, and
control technologies for the Surface Coating of Metal Cans source
category. The EPA reviewed various information sources regarding
emission sources that are currently regulated by the Surface Coating of
Metal Cans NESHAP to support the technology review. The information
sources included the following: The RBLC; state regulations, facility
operating permits, regulatory actions (including technology reviews
promulgated for other surface coating NESHAP subsequent to the Surface
Coating of Metal Cans NESHAP); a site visit and discussions with
individual can coating facilities and the industry trade association.
The primary emission sources for the technology review included the
following: The coating operations; all storage containers and mixing
vessels in which coatings, thinners, and cleaning materials are stored
or mixed; all manual and automated equipment and containers used for
conveying coatings, thinners, and cleaning materials; and all storage
containers and all manual and automated equipment and containers used
for conveying waste materials generated by a coating operation.
    Based on our review, we did not identify any add-on control
technologies, process equipment, work practices, or procedures that had
not been previously considered during development of the Surface
Coating of Metal Cans NESHAP, and we did not identify any new or
improved add-on control technologies that would result in additional
emission reductions. A brief summary of the EPA's findings in
conducting the technology review of can coating operations follows. For
a detailed discussion of the EPA's findings, refer to the Metal Cans
Technology Review Memorandum in the Metal Cans Docket.
    During the 2003 MACT development for the Surface Coating of Metal
Cans NESHAP, numerical emission limits were determined for each coating
type segment within the four subcategories for a total of 12 HAP
emission limits. The emission limits were based on industry survey
responses and the

industry's use of low- or no-HAP coatings and thinners and add-on
capture and control technologies. Alternately, the NESHAP provides
sources with the option of limiting HAP emissions with capture and add-
on control to achieve an overall control efficiency (OCE) of 97 percent
for new or reconstructed sources and 95 percent for existing sources.
Alternately, sources with add-on controls can choose the option of
meeting a HAP concentration limit of 20 ppm by volume dry at the
control device outlet. During development of that rulemaking, we
identified the beyond-the-floor option to require the use of capture
systems and add-on control devices for all metal can surface coating
operations. This option was rejected because we determined the
additional emission reductions achieved using the beyond-the-floor
option did not warrant the costs each affected source would incur (68
FR 2123).
    For this technology review, we used the EPA's NEI and the ECHO
databases to identify facilities that are currently subject to the
Surface Coating of Metal Cans NESHAP. The facility list was also
reviewed by the Can Manufacturers Institute (CMI). CMI provided
facility operating permits to confirm that only five facilities are
currently operating as major sources and are subject to the Surface
Coating of Metal Cans NESHAP.
    Our search of the RBLC database for improvements in can coating
technologies provided results for four metal can coating facilities
with permit dates of 2006 or later. All four of the results contained
information about the add-on controls used by the facilities. Two
facilities reported the use of regenerative thermal oxidizers (RTOs),
one reported the use of an induction heater and catalytic oxidation,
and one reported the use of thermal oxidation. All of these control
technologies were in use by the can coating industry during development
of the Surface Coating of Metal Cans NESHAP and were already considered
in the development of the Surface Coating of Metal Cans NESHAP.
Therefore, we concluded that the results of the search are consistent
with current Surface Coating of Metal Cans NESHAP requirements and did
not include any improvements in add-on control technology or other
equipment that were not identified and considered at that time.
    We also conducted a review of the state operating permits for the
can coating facilities that are subject to the Surface Coating of Metal
Cans NESHAP to determine whether any are using technologies that exceed
the MACT level of control or are using technologies that were not
considered during the development of the original NESHAP. The permits
show that two of the five facilities use no add-on controls (they use
the compliant material option or the material averaging option to meet
the NESHAP emission limits) and three of the five facilities had only
partial control (i.e., not all can coating lines had control). The
coating types are not specified in the permits for all facilities, but
one permit specified the use of ultraviolet (UV)-cured coatings. The
add-on controls in the permits included a thermal oxidizer and two
regenerative thermal oxidizers. As a result of the permit review, we
concluded that the add-on controls that are now available are
essentially the same and have the same emission reduction performance
(i.e., 95- or 97-percent VOC destruction efficiency) as those that were
available when the NESHAP was proposed and promulgated.
    We reviewed other surface coating NESHAP promulgated after the
Surface Coating of Metal Cans NESHAP to determine whether any
requirements exceed the Surface Coating of Metal Cans MACT level of
control or included technologies that were not considered during the
development of the original Surface Coating of Metal Cans NESHAP. These
NESHAP include Surface Coating of Miscellaneous Metal Parts and
Products (40 CFR part 63, subpart MMMM), Surface Coating of Plastic
Parts and Products (40 CFR part 63, subpart PPPP), and Surface Coating
of Automobiles and Light-Duty Trucks (40 CFR part 63, subpart IIII). We
also reviewed the results of the technology reviews for the following
NESHAP: Printing and Publishing (40 CFR part 63, subpart KK),
Shipbuilding and Ship Repair (40 CFR part 63, subpart II), and Wood
Furniture Manufacturing (40 CFR part 63, subpart JJ).
    Technology reviews for these NESHAP identified PTE and/or RTO as
improvements in add-on control technology. Because the Surface Coating
of Metal Cans NESHAP already includes a compliance option involving the
use of a PTE and an add-on control device, and because these measures
were considered in the development of the original Surface Coating of
Metal Cans NESHAP, we concluded that these measures do not represent an
improvement in control technology under CAA section 112(d)(6).
    The technology review conducted for the Wood Furniture
Manufacturing NESHAP identified the use of more efficient spray guns as
a technology review development and revised the requirements to
prohibit the use of conventional spray guns. Air-assisted airless
spraying was added as a more efficient coating application technology.
This development is not applicable to metal can coating because the
primary coating operations are performed using non-spray application
methods, such as lithographic printing and other types of direct
transfer coating application, or they already use airless spray
equipment for the inside spray, side seam spray, and repair coating
operations. In conclusion, we found no improvements in add-on control
technology or other equipment during review of the RBLC, the state
operating permits, and subsequent NESHAP that were not already
identified and considered during the Surface Coating of Metal Cans
NESHAP development.
    Alternatives to conventional solvent-borne coatings were identified
and considered during MACT development but were not considered to be
suitable for all can coating applications. These alternative coatings
include higher solids coatings, waterborne coatings, and low-energy
electron beam/ultraviolet cured coatings. Powder coating applications
are not common for metal containers. Waterborne and higher solids
coatings with lower HAP and VOC content were considered in the
development of the proposed and final standards and are reflected in
the HAP emission limitations in the final rule. Interior coatings used
for cans that contain food or beverages are subject to regulation by
the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), as well as internal
approval by the food and beverage manufacturers. The only anticipated
technology change in the area of coating reformulation for the Surface
Coating of Metal Cans source category is the replacement of coatings
that have no intentionally added BPA for both beverage and food cans,
referred to as BPA-NI coatings. The major can coating producers are
currently devoting much of their research and development efforts to
develop BPA-NI systems for new applications and to improve the BPA-NI
systems that already exist. However, a complete shift to these coatings
is not expected unless driven by FDA regulation or consumer opinion.
Therefore, the EPA did not identify any developments in coating
technology or other process changes or pollution prevention
alternatives that would represent a development relative to the coating
technologies on which the final rule is based.
    Finally, no improvements in work practices or operational
procedures were identified for the Surface Coating of Metal Cans source
category that were not previously identified and considered during MACT
development.

The current MACT standards require that, if a facility uses add-on
controls to comply with the emission limitations, the facility must
develop and implement a work practice plan to minimize organic HAP
emissions from the storage, mixing, and conveying of coatings,
thinners, and cleaning materials used in, and waste materials generated
by, those coating operations. If a facility is not using add-on
controls and is using either the compliant material option or the
emission rate without add on controls option, the facility does not
need to comply with work practice standards. Under the emission rate
option, HAP emitted from spills or from containers would be counted
against the facility in the compliance calculations, so facilities must
already minimize these losses to maintain compliance.
    Based on these findings, we conclude that there have not been any
developments in add-on control technology or other equipment not
identified and considered during MACT development, nor any improvements
in add-on controls, nor any significant changes in the cost (including
cost effectiveness) of the add-on controls. Therefore, we are proposing
no revisions to the Surface Coating of Metal Cans NESHAP pursuant to
CAA section 112(d)(6). For further discussion of the technology review
results, refer to the Metal Cans Technology Review Memorandum in the
Metal Cans Docket.
4. What other actions are we proposing for the Surface Coating of Metal
Cans source category?
    In addition to the proposed actions described above, we are
proposing additional revisions to the NESHAP. We are proposing to
require electronic submittal of notifications, semiannual reports, and
compliance reports (which include performance test reports) for metal
cans surface coating facilities. In addition, we are proposing
revisions to the SSM provisions of the MACT rule in order to ensure
that they are consistent with the Court decision in Sierra Club v. EPA,
551 F. 3d 1019 (D.C. Cir. 2008), which vacated two provisions that
exempted sources from the requirement to comply with otherwise
applicable CAA section 112(d) emission standards during periods of SSM.
We also propose other changes, including updating references to
equivalent test methods, making technical and editorial revisions, and
incorporation by reference (IBR) of alternative test methods. Our
analyses and proposed changes related to these issues are discussed in
the sections below.
a. Electronic Reporting Requirements
    In this action the EPA proposes to require owners and operators of
surface coating of metal can facilities to submit electronic copies of
the initial notifications required in 40 CFR 63.9(b) and 63.3510(b),
notifications of compliance status required in 40 CFR 63.9(h) and
63.3510(c), performance test reports required in 40 CFR 63.3511(b), and
semiannual reports required in 40 CFR 63.3511(a), through the EPA's
Central Data Exchange (CDX), using the Compliance and Emissions Data
Reporting Interface (CEDRI).\23\ 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 Metal Cans Docket. This proposed rule requirement would
replace the current rule requirement to submit the notifications and
reports to the Administrator at the appropriate address listed in 40
CFR 63.13. This proposed rule requirement does not affect submittals
required by state air agencies as required by 40 CFR 63.13.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ https://www.epa.gov/electronic-reporting-air-emissions/compliance-and-emissions-data-reporting-interface-cedri.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the performance test reports required in 40 CFR 63.3511(b),
results collected using test methods that are supported by the
Electronic Reporting Tool (ERT) as listed on the EPA's ERT website
(https://www3.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ert/ert_info.pdf) at the time of the
performance test are required to be submitted in the format generated
through the use of ERT. Performance test results collected using test
methods that are not supported by the ERT at the time of the
performance test are required to be submitted to the EPA electronically
in a portable document format (PDF) using the attachment module of the
ERT. Note that all but two of the EPA test methods (EPA Method 25 and
optional EPA Method 18) listed under the emissions destruction or
removal efficiency section of 40 CFR part 63, subpart KKKK, are
currently supported by the ERT. As mentioned above, the rule proposes
that, should an owner or operator use EPA Method 25 or EPA Method 18,
then its results would be submitted in PDF using the attachment module
of the ERT.
    For the semiannual reports required in 40 CFR 63.3511(a), the EPA
proposes that owners and operators use the final semiannual report
template, which will reside in CEDRI, one year after finalizing this
proposed action. The Proposed Electronic Reporting Template for Surface
Coating of Metal Cans Subpart KKKK Semiannual Report is available for
review and comment in the Metal Cans Docket as part of this action. We
specifically request comment on the format and usability of the
template (e.g., filling out and uploading a provided spreadsheet versus
entering the required information into an on-line fillable CEDRI web
form), as well as the content, layout, and overall design of the
template. Prior to availability of the final semiannual compliance
report template in CEDRI, owners and operators of affected sources will
be required to submit semiannual compliance reports as currently
required by the rule. When the EPA finalizes the semiannual compliance
report template, metal can sources will be notified about its
availability via the CEDRI website. We plan to finalize a required
reporting format with the final rule. The owner or operator would begin
submitting reports electronically with the next report that is due,
once the electronic template has been available for at least 1 year.
    For the electronic submittal of initial notifications required in
40 CFR 63.9(b), no specific form is available at this time, so these
notifications are required to be submitted electronically in PDF. If
electronic forms are developed for these notifications, we will notify
sources about their availability via the CEDRI website. For the
electronic submittal of notifications of compliance status reports
required in 40 CFR 63.9(h), the final semiannual report template
discussed above, which will reside in CEDRI, will also contain the
information required for the notifications of compliance status report
and will satisfy the requirement to provide the notifications of
compliance status information electronically, eliminating the need to
provide a separate notifications of compliance status report. As stated
above, the final semiannual report template will be available after
finalizing this proposed action and sources will be required to use the
form after one year. Prior to the availability of the final semiannual
compliance report template in CEDRI, owners and operators of affected
sources will be required to submit semiannual compliance reports as
currently required by the rule. As stated above, we will notify sources
about the availability of the final semiannual report template via the
CEDRI website.
    Additionally, the EPA has identified two broad circumstances in
which electronic reporting extensions may be provided. In both
circumstances, the decision to accept the claim of needing

additional time to report is within the discretion of the
Administrator, and reporting should occur as soon as possible. The EPA
is providing these potential extensions to protect owners and operators
from noncompliance in cases where they cannot successfully submit a
report by the reporting deadline for reasons outside of their control.
In 40 CFR 63.3511(f), we propose to address the situation where an
extension may be warranted due to outages of the EPA's CDX or CEDRI
that precludes an owner or operator from accessing the system and
submitting required reports. Also in 40 CFR 63.3511(g), we propose to
address the situation where an extension may be warranted due to a
force majeure event, which is defined as an event that will be or has
been caused by circumstances beyond the control of the affected
facility, its contractors, or any entity controlled by the affected
facility that prevents an owner or operator from complying with the
requirement to submit a report electronically as required by this rule.
Examples of such events are acts of nature, acts of war or terrorism,
and equipment failures or safety hazards that are beyond the control of
the facility.
    As discussed in the memorandum Electronic Reporting Requirements
for New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) and National Emission
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP), August 8, 2018,
electronic submittal of the reports addressed in this proposed action
will increase the usefulness of the data contained in those reports,
and in keeping with current trends in data availability and
transparency, will further assist in the protection of public health
and the environment, and will ultimately result in less burden on the
regulated facilities. Electronic submittal will also improve compliance
by facilitating the ability of regulated facilities to demonstrate
compliance and the ability of air agencies and the EPA to assess and
determine compliance. Moreover, electronic reporting is consistent with
the EPA's plan \24\ to implement Executive Order 13563 and the EPA's
agency-wide policy \25\ developed in response to the White House's
Digital Government Strategy.\26\ For more information on the benefits
of electronic reporting, see the memorandum Electronic Reporting
Requirements for New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) and National
Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP), August 8,
2018, available in the Metal Cans docket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ Improving Our Regulations: Final Plan for Periodic
Retrospective Reviews of Existing Regulations, August 2011.
Available at https://www.regulations.gov, Document ID No. EPA-HQ-OA-
2011-0156-0154.
    \25\ E-Reporting Policy Statement for EPA Regulations, September
2013, https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-03/documents/epa-ereporting-policy-statement-2013-09-30.pdf.
    \26\ Digital Government: Building a 21st Century Platform to
Better Serve the American People, May 2012. Available at http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/egov/digital-government/digitalgovernment-strategy/pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. SSM Requirements
1. Proposed Elimination of the SSM Exemption
    In its 2008 decision in Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F.3d 1019 (D.C.
Cir. 2008), the Court vacated portions of two provisions in the EPA's
CAA section 112 regulations governing the emissions of HAP during
periods of SSM. Specifically, the Court vacated the SSM exemption
contained in 40 CFR 63.6(f)(1) and 40 CFR 63.6(h)(1), holding that
under section 302(k) of the CAA, emissions standards or limitations
must be continuous in nature and that the SSM exemption violates the
CAA's requirement that some CAA section 112 standards apply
continuously.
    We are proposing the elimination of the SSM exemption in this rule.
Consistent with Sierra Club v. EPA, we are proposing standards in this
rule that apply at all times. We are also proposing several revisions
to Table 5 to Subpart KKKK of Part 63 (Applicability of General
Provisions to Subpart KKKK, hereafter referred to as the ``General
Provisions table to subpart KKKK''), as explained in more detail below
in section IV.A.4.b.2 of this preamble. For example, we are proposing
to eliminate the incorporation of the General Provisions' requirement
that the source develop an SSM plan. Further, we are proposing to
eliminate and revise certain recordkeeping and reporting requirements
related to the SSM exemption as further described below. The EPA has
attempted to ensure that the provisions we are proposing to eliminate
are inappropriate, unnecessary, or redundant in the absence of the SSM
exemption. We are seeking comment on the specific proposed deletions
and revisions and also whether additional provisions should be revised
to achieve the stated goal.
    In proposing these rule amendments, the EPA has taken into account
startup and shutdown periods and, for the reasons explained below, has
not proposed alternate standards for those periods. Startups and
shutdowns are part of normal operations for the Surface Coating of
Metal Cans source category. As currently specified in 40 CFR
63.3492(b), any coating operation(s) for which you use the emission
rate with add-on controls option must meet operating limits ``at all
times,'' except for solvent recovery systems for which you conduct
liquid-liquid material balances according to 40 CFR 63.3541(i).
(Solvent recovery systems for which you conduct a liquid-liquid
material balance require a monthly calculation of the solvent recovery
device's collection and recovery efficiency for volatile organic
matter.) Also, as currently specified in 40 CFR 63.3500(a)(2), any
coating operation(s) for which you use the emission rate with add-on
controls option or the control efficiency/outlet concentration option
must be in compliance ``at all times'' with the emission limits in 40
CFR 63.3490 and work practice standards in 40 CFR 63.3493. During
startup and shutdown periods, in order for a facility (using add-on
controls to meet the standards) to meet the emission and operating
standards, the control device for a coating operation needs to be
turned on and operating at specified levels before the facility begins
coating operations, and the control equipment needs to continue to be
operated until after the facility ceases coating operations. In some
cases, the facility needs to run thermal oxidizers on supplemental fuel
before VOC levels are sufficient for the combustion to be (nearly)
self-sustaining. Note that we are also proposing new related language
in 40 CFR 63.3500(b) to require that the owner or operator operate and
maintain the coating operation, including pollution control equipment,
at all times to minimize emissions. See section IV.A.4.b.2 of this
preamble for further discussion of this proposed revision.
    Periods of startup, normal operations, and shutdown are all
predictable and routine aspects of a source's operations. Malfunctions,
in contrast, are neither predictable nor routine. Instead they are, by
definition, sudden, infrequent and not reasonably preventable failures
of emissions control, process, or monitoring equipment. (40 CFR 63.2)
(Definition of malfunction). The EPA interprets CAA section 112 as not
requiring emissions that occur during periods of malfunction to be
factored into development of CAA section 112 standards and this reading
has been upheld as reasonable by the Court in U.S. Sugar Corp. v. EPA,
830 F.3d 579, 606-610 (2016). Under CAA section 112, emissions
standards for new sources must be no less stringent than the level
``achieved'' by the best controlled similar source and for

existing sources generally must be no less stringent than the average
emission limitation ``achieved'' by the best performing 12 percent of
sources in the category. There is nothing in CAA section 112 that
directs the Agency to consider malfunctions in determining the level
``achieved'' by the best performing sources when setting emission
standards. As the Court has recognized, the phrase ``average emissions
limitation achieved by the best performing 12 percent of'' sources
``says nothing about how the performance of the best units is to be
calculated.'' Nat'l Ass'n of Clean Water Agencies v. EPA, 734 F.3d
1115, 1141 (D.C. Cir. 2013). While the EPA accounts for variability in
setting emissions standards, nothing in CAA section 112 requires the
Agency to consider malfunctions as part of that analysis. The EPA is
not required to treat a malfunction in the same manner as the type of
variation in performance that occurs during routine operations of a
source. A malfunction is a failure of the source to perform in a
``normal or usual manner'' and no statutory language compels the EPA to
consider such events in setting CAA section 112 standards.
    As the Court recognized in U.S. Sugar Corp, accounting for
malfunctions in setting standards would be difficult, if not
impossible, given the myriad different types of malfunctions that can
occur across all sources in the category and given the difficulties
associated with predicting or accounting for the frequency, degree, and
duration of various malfunctions that might occur. Id. at 608 (``the
EPA would have to conceive of a standard that could apply equally to
the wide range of possible boiler malfunctions, ranging from an
explosion to minor mechanical defects. Any possible standard is likely
to be hopelessly generic to govern such a wide array of
circumstances.'') As such, the performance of units that are
malfunctioning is not ``reasonably'' foreseeable. See, e.g., Sierra
Club v. EPA, 167 F.3d 658, 662 (D.C. Cir. 1999) (``The EPA typically
has wide latitude in determining the extent of data-gathering necessary
to solve a problem. We generally defer to an agency's decision to
proceed on the basis of imperfect scientific information, rather than
to 'invest the resources to conduct the perfect study.' '') See also,
Weyerhaeuser v. Costle, 590 F.2d 1011, 1058 (D.C. Cir. 1978) (``In the
nature of things, no general limit, individual permit, or even any
upset provision can anticipate all upset situations. After a certain
point, the transgression of regulatory limits caused by `uncontrollable
acts of third parties,' such as strikes, sabotage, operator
intoxication or insanity, and a variety of other eventualities, must be
a matter for the administrative exercise of case-by-case enforcement
discretion, not for specification in advance by regulation.''). In
addition, emissions during a malfunction event can be significantly
higher than emissions at any other time of source operation. For
example, if an air pollution control device with 99-percent removal
goes off-line as a result of a malfunction (as might happen if, for
example, the bags in a baghouse catch fire) and the emission unit is a
steady state type unit that would take days to shut down, the source
would go from 99-percent control to zero control until the control
device was repaired. The source's emissions during the malfunction
would be 100 times higher than during normal operations. As such, the
emissions over a 4-day malfunction period would exceed the annual
emissions of the source during normal operations. As this example
illustrates, accounting for malfunctions could lead to standards that
are not reflective of (and significantly less stringent than) levels
that are achieved by a well-performing non-malfunctioning source. It is
reasonable to interpret CAA section 112 to avoid such a result. The
EPA's approach to malfunctions is consistent with CAA section 112 and
is a reasonable interpretation of the statute.
    Although no statutory language compels the EPA to set standards for
malfunctions, the EPA has the discretion to do so where feasible. For
example, in the Petroleum Refinery Sector Risk and Technology Review,
the EPA established a work practice standard for unique types of
malfunctions that result in releases from pressure relief devices or
emergency flaring events because we had information to determine that
such work practices reflected the level of control that applies to the
best performing sources (80 FR 75178, 75211-14, December 1, 2015). The
EPA will consider whether circumstances warrant setting standards for a
particular type of malfunction and, if so, whether the EPA has
sufficient information to identify the relevant best performing sources
and establish a standard for such malfunctions. We also encourage
commenters to provide any such information.
    It is unlikely that a malfunction would result in a violation of
the standards during metal can surface coating operations for
facilities using the compliant material option or the emission rate
without add-on controls option. Facilities using the compliant material
option have demonstrated that the organic HAP content of each coating
is less than or equal to the applicable emission limit and that each
thinner used contains no organic HAP. Facilities using the emission
rate without add-on controls option have demonstrated that the coatings
and thinners used in the coating operations are less than or equal to
the applicable emission limit calculated as a rolling 12-month emission
rate and determined on a monthly basis.
    A malfunction event is more likely for metal can coating facilities
that use the emission rate with add-on control options or the control
efficiency/outlet concentration compliance option. For these options,
facilities must demonstrate a reduction of total HAP of at least 97 or
95 percent or that the oxidizer outlet HAP concentration is no greater
than 20 ppmv and 100-percent capture efficiency. For this option,
facilities must demonstrate that their emission capture systems and
add-on control devices meet the operating limits established by the
Surface Coating of Metal Cans NESHAP. The capture and control device
operating limits are listed in Table 4 of the Surface Coating of Metal
Cans NESHAP and must be achieved continuously. Most are based on
maintaining an average temperature over a 3-hour block period, which
must not fall below the temperature limit established during the
facility's initial performance test. In addition, work practices are
also required when using this option to minimize organic HAP emissions
from the storage, mixing, and conveying of coatings, thinners, and
cleaning materials used in, and waste materials generated by, the
coating operation(s), but it is unlikely that a malfunction would
result in a violation of the work practice standards.
    We currently have no information to suggest that it is feasible or
necessary to establish any type of standard for malfunctions associated
with the Surface Coating of Metal Cans source category. We encourage
commenters to provide any such information, if available.
    In the event that a source fails to comply with the applicable CAA
section 112(d) standards as a result of a malfunction event, the EPA
will determine an appropriate response based on, among other things,
the good faith efforts of the source to minimize emissions during
malfunction periods, including preventative and corrective actions, as
well as root cause analyses to ascertain and rectify excess

emissions. The EPA will also consider whether the source's failure to
comply with the CAA section 112(d) standard was, in fact, sudden,
infrequent, not reasonably preventable, and was not instead caused, in
part, by poor maintenance or careless operation. 40 CFR 63.2
(definition of malfunction).
    If the EPA determines in a particular case that an enforcement
action against a source for violation of an emission standard is
warranted, the source can raise any and all defenses in that
enforcement action and the federal district court will determine what,
if any, relief is appropriate. The same is true for citizen enforcement
actions. Similarly, the presiding officer in an administrative
proceeding can consider any defense raised and determine whether
administrative penalties are appropriate.
    In summary, the EPA interpretation of the CAA and, in particular,
CAA section 112 is reasonable and encourages practices that will avoid
malfunctions. Administrative and judicial procedures for addressing
exceedances of the standards fully recognize that violations may occur
despite good faith efforts to comply and can accommodate those
situations. U.S. Sugar Corp. v. EPA, 830 F.3d 579, 606-610 (2016).
2. Proposed Revisions to the General Provisions Applicability Table
a. 40 CFR 63.3500(b) General Duty
    We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table to subpart
KKKK (Table 5) entry for 40 CFR 63.6(e)(1)(i) by changing the ``yes''
in column 3 to a ``no.'' Section 63.6(e)(1)(i) describes the general
duty to minimize emissions. Some of the language in that section is no
longer necessary or appropriate in light of the elimination of the SSM
exemption. We are proposing instead to add general duty regulatory text
at 40 CFR 63.3500(b) that reflects the general duty to minimize
emissions while eliminating the reference to periods covered by an SSM
exemption. The current language in 40 CFR 63.6(e)(1)(i) characterizes
what the general duty entails during periods of SSM. With the
elimination of the SSM exemption, there is no need to differentiate
between normal operations, startup and shutdown, and malfunction events
in describing the general duty. Therefore, the language the EPA is
proposing for 40 CFR 63.3500(b) does not include that language from 40
CFR 63.6(e)(1)(i).
    We are also proposing to revise the General Provisions table to
subpart KKKK (Table 5) entry for 40 CFR 63.6(e)(1)(ii) by changing the
``yes'' in column 3 to a ``no.'' Section 63.6(e)(1)(ii) imposes
requirements that are not necessary with the elimination of the SSM
exemption or are redundant with the general duty requirement being
added at 40 CFR 63.3500(b).
b. SSM Plan
    We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table to subpart
KKKK (Table 5) entry for 40 CFR 63.6(e)(3) by changing the ``yes'' in
column 3 to a ``no.'' Generally, these paragraphs require development
of an SSM plan and specify SSM recordkeeping and reporting requirements
related to the SSM plan. We are also proposing to remove from 40 CFR
part 63, subpart KKKK, the current provisions requiring the SSM plan at
40 CFR 63.3511(c). As noted, the EPA is proposing to remove the SSM
exemptions. Therefore, affected units will be subject to an emission
standard during such events. The applicability of a standard during
such events will ensure that sources have ample incentive to plan for
and achieve compliance, and, thus, the SSM plan requirements are no
longer necessary.
c. Compliance With Standards
    We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table to subpart
KKKK (table 5) entry for 40 CFR 63.6(f)(1) by changing the ``yes'' in
column 3 to a ``no.'' The current language of 40 CFR 63.6(f)(1) exempts
sources from non-opacity standards during periods of SSM. As discussed
above, the Court in Sierra Club vacated the exemptions contained in
this provision and held that the CAA requires that some CAA section 112
standards apply continuously. Consistent with Sierra Club, the EPA is
proposing to revise the standards in this rule to apply at all times.
    We are also proposing to remove rule text in 40 CFR 63.3541(h)
clarifying that, in calculating emissions to demonstrate compliance,
deviation periods must include deviations during an SSM period. Since
the EPA is removing the SSM exemption, this clarifying text is no
longer needed.
d. 40 CFR 63.4164 Performance Testing
    We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table to subpart
KKKK (Table 5) entry for 40 CFR 63.7(e)(1) by changing the ``yes'' in
column 3 to a ``no.'' Section 63.7(e)(1) describes performance testing
requirements. The EPA is instead proposing to add a performance testing
requirement at 40 CFR 63.3543 and 40 CFR 63.3553. The performance
testing requirements we are proposing to add differ from the General
Provisions performance testing provisions in several respects. The
regulatory text does not include the language in 40 CFR 63.7(e)(1) that
restated the SSM exemption and language that precluded startup and
shutdown periods from being considered ``representative'' for purposes
of performance testing. The proposed performance testing provisions
will also not allow performance testing during startup or shutdown. As
in 40 CFR 63.7(e)(1), performance tests conducted under this subpart
should not be conducted during malfunctions because conditions during
malfunctions are often not representative of normal operating
conditions. Section 63.7(e) requires that the owner or operator
maintain records of the process information necessary to document
operating conditions during the test and include in such records an
explanation to support that such conditions represent normal operation.
The EPA is proposing to add language clarifying that the owner or
operator must make such records available to the Administrator upon
request.
e. Monitoring
    We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table to subpart
KKKK (Table 5) entry for 40 CFR 63.8(c)(1) by changing the ``yes'' in
column 3 to a ``no.'' The cross-references to the general duty and SSM
plan requirements in 40 CFR 63.8(c)(1) are not necessary in light of
other requirements of 40 CFR 63.8 that require good air pollution
control practices (40 CFR 63.8(c)(1)) and that set out the requirements
of a quality control program for monitoring equipment (40 CFR 63.8(d)).
Further, we have determined that 40 CFR 63.8(c)(1)(ii) is redundant to
the current monitoring requirement in 40 CFR 63.3547(a)(4) and 40 CFR
63.3557(a)(4) (i.e., ``have available necessary parts for routine
repairs of the monitoring equipment''), except 40 CFR 63.8(c)(1)(ii)
specifies ``have readily available.'' We are proposing to revise 40 CFR
63.3547(a)(4) and 63.3557(a)(4) to specify ``readily available.''
f. 40 CFR 63.3512 Recordkeeping
    We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table to subpart
KKKK (Table 5) entry for 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(i) by changing the ``yes''
in column 3 to a ``no.'' Section 63.10(b)(2)(i) describes the
recordkeeping requirements during startup and shutdown. These recording
provisions are no longer necessary because the EPA is proposing that
recordkeeping and reporting applicable

to normal operations will apply to startup and shutdown. In the absence
of special provisions applicable to startup and shutdown, such as a
startup and shutdown plan, there is no reason to retain additional
recordkeeping for startup and shutdown periods.
    We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table to subpart
KKKK (Table 5) entry for 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(ii) by changing the ``yes''
in column 3 to a ``no.'' Section 63.10(b)(2)(ii) describes the
recordkeeping requirements during a malfunction, requiring a record of
``the occurrence and duration of each malfunction.'' A similar record
is already required in 40 CFR 63.3512(i), which requires a record of
``the date, time, and duration of each deviation,'' which the EPA is
retaining. The regulatory text in 40 CFR 63.3512(i) differs from the
General Provisions in that the General Provisions requires the creation
and retention of a record of the occurrence and duration of each
malfunction of process, air pollution control, and monitoring
equipment; whereas 40 CFR 63.3512(i) applies to any failure to meet an
applicable standard and is requiring that the source record the date,
time, and duration of the failure rather than the ``occurrence.'' For
this reason, the EPA is proposing to add to 40 CFR 63.3512(i) a
requirement that sources also keep records that include a list of the
affected source or equipment and actions taken to minimize emissions,
an estimate of the quantity of each regulated pollutant emitted over
the emission limit for which the source failed to meet the standard,
and a description of the method used to estimate the emissions.
Examples of such methods would include product-loss calculations, mass
balance calculations, measurements when available, or engineering
judgment based on known process parameters (e.g., coating HAP content
and application rates and control device efficiencies). The EPA is
proposing to require that sources keep records of this information to
ensure that there is adequate information to allow the EPA to determine
the severity of any failure to meet a standard, and to provide data
that may document how the source met the general duty to minimize
emissions when the source has failed to meet an applicable standard.
    We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table to subpart
KKKK (Table 5) entry for 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(iv)-(v) by changing the
``yes'' in column 3 to a ``no.'' When applicable, the provision
requires sources to record actions taken during SSM events when actions
were inconsistent with their SSM plan. The requirement in 40 CFR
63.10(b)(2)(iv) is no longer appropriate because SSM plans will no
longer be required. The requirement previously applicable under 40 CFR
63.10(b)(2)(iv)(B) to record actions to minimize emissions and record
corrective actions is now applicable by reference to 40 CFR
63.3512(i)(4). When applicable, the provision in Section 63.10(b)(2)(v)
requires sources to record actions taken during SSM events to show that
actions taken were consistent with their SSM plan. The requirement is
no longer appropriate because SSM plans will no longer be required.
    We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table to subpart
KKKK (Table 5) entry for 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(vi) by changing the ``yes''
in column 3 to a ``no.'' The provision requires sources to maintain
records during continuous monitoring system (CMS) malfunctions. Section
63.3512(i) covers records of periods of deviation from the standard,
including instances where a CMS is inoperative or out-of-control.
    We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table to subpart
KKKK (Table 5) entry for 40 CFR 63.10(c)(15) by changing the ``yes'' in
column 3 to a ``no.'' When applicable, the provision allows an owner or
operator to use the affected source's SSM plan or records kept to
satisfy the recordkeeping requirements of the SSM plan, specified in 40
CFR 63.6(e), to also satisfy the requirements of 40 CFR 63.10(c)(10)
through (12). The EPA is proposing to eliminate this requirement
because SSM plans would no longer be required, and, therefore, 40 CFR
63.10(c)(15) no longer serves any useful purpose for affected units.
    We are proposing to remove the requirement in 40 CFR 63.3512(j)(1)
that deviation records specify whether deviations from a standard
occurred during a period of SSM. This revision is being proposed due to
the proposed removal of the SSM exemption and because, as discussed
above in this section, we are proposing that deviation records must
specify the cause of each deviation, which could include a malfunction
period as a cause. We are also proposing to remove the requirement to
report the SSM records in 40 CFR 63.6(e)(3)(iii) through (v) by
deleting 40 CFR 63.3512(j)(2).
g. 40 CFR 63.3511 Reporting
    We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table to subpart
KKKK (Table 5) entry for 40 CFR 63.10(d)(5) by changing the ``yes'' in
column 3 to a ``no.'' Section 63.10(d)(5) describes the reporting
requirements for startups, shutdowns, and malfunctions. To replace the
General Provisions reporting requirement, the EPA is proposing to add
reporting requirements to 40 CFR 63.3511(a)(7) and (8). The replacement
language differs from the General Provisions requirement in that it
eliminates periodic SSM reports as a stand-alone report. We are
proposing language that requires sources that fail to meet an
applicable standard at any time to report the information concerning
such events in the semi-annual compliance report already required under
this rule. Subpart KKKK of 40 CFR part 63 currently requires reporting
of the date, time period, and cause of each deviation. We are
clarifying in the rule that, if the cause of a deviation from the
standard is unknown, this should be specified in the report. We are
also proposing to change ``date and time period'' to ``date, time, and
duration'' (see proposed revisions to 40 CFR 63.3511(a)(5)(i); 40 CFR
63.3511(a)(7)(vi), (a)(7)(vii), and (a)(7)(viii); 40 CFR
63.3511(a)(8)(v), (a)(8)(vi), and (a)(8)(xi)(A)) to use terminology
consistent with the recordkeeping section. Further, we are proposing
that the report must also contain the number of deviations from the
standard, and a list of the affected source or equipment. For deviation
reports addressing deviations from an applicable emission limit in 40
CFR 63.3490 or operating limit in Table 4 to 40 CFR part 63 subpart
KKKK, we are proposing that the report also include an estimate of the
quantity of each regulated pollutant emitted over any emission limit
for which the source failed to meet the standard, and a description of
the method used to estimate the emissions. For deviation reports
addressing deviations from work practice standards associated with the
emission rate with add-on controls option (40 CFR 63.3511(a)(8)(xiii)),
we are retaining the current requirement (including reporting actions
taken to correct the deviation), except that we are revising the rule
language to reference the new general duty requirement in 40 CFR
63.3500(b), we are clarifying that the description of the deviation
must include a list of the affected sources or equipment and the cause
of the deviation, we are clarifying that ``time period'' includes the
``time and duration,'' and we are requiring that the report include the
number of deviations from the work practice standards in the reporting
period.
    Regarding the proposed new requirement discussed above to estimate
the quantity of each regulated pollutant

emitted over any emission limit for which the source failed to meet the
standard, and a description of the method used to estimate the
emissions, examples of such methods would include product-loss
calculations, mass balance calculations, measurements when available,
or engineering judgment based on known process parameters (e.g.,
coating HAP content and application rates and control device
efficiencies). The EPA is proposing this requirement to ensure that the
EPA has adequate information to determine compliance, to allow the EPA
to determine the severity of the failure to meet an applicable
standard, and to provide data that may document how the source met the
general duty to minimize emissions during a failure to meet an
applicable standard.
    We will no longer require owners or operators to determine whether
actions taken to correct a malfunction are consistent with an SSM plan,
because plans would no longer be required. The proposed amendments,
therefore, eliminate 40 CFR 63.3511(c) that requires reporting of
whether the source deviated from its SSM plan, including required
actions to communicate with the Administrator, and the cross reference
to 40 CFR 63.10(d)(5)(ii) that contains the description of the
previously required SSM report format and submittal schedule from this
section. These specifications are no longer necessary because the
events will be reported in otherwise required reports with similar
format and submittal requirements.
    Section 63.10(d)(5)(ii) describes an immediate report for startups,
shutdown, and malfunctions when a source failed to meet an applicable
standard, but did not follow the SSM plan. We will no longer require
owners and operators to report when actions taken during a startup,
shutdown, or malfunction were not consistent with an SSM plan, because
plans would no longer be required.
    We are proposing to remove the requirements in 40 CFR 63.3511(a)(7)
and (a)(8) that deviation reports must specify whether deviation from
an operating limit occurred during a period of SSM. We are also
proposing to remove the requirements in 40 CFR 63.3511(a)(7)(x) and 40
CFR 63.3511(a)(8)(viii) to break down the total duration of deviations
into the startup and shutdown categories. As discussed above in this
section, we are proposing to require reporting of the cause of each
deviation. Further, the startup and shutdown categories no longer apply
because these periods are proposed to be considered normal operation,
as discussed in section IV.A.4.b.1 of this preamble.
c. Technical Amendments to the Surface Coating of Metal Cans NESHAP
    We propose to amend 40 CFR 63.3481(c)(5) to revise the reference to
``future subpart MMMM'' of this part by removing the word ``future''
because subpart MMMM was promulgated in 2004.
    We propose to revise the format of references to test methods in 40
CFR part 60. The current reference in 40 CFR 63.3545(a) and (b) to
Methods 1, 1A, 2, 2A, 2C, 2D, 2F, 2G, 3, 3A, 3B, 4, 25, and 25A specify
that each method is in ``appendix A'' of part 60. Appendix A of part 60
has been divided into appendices A-1 through A-8. We propose to revise
each reference to appendix A to indicate which of the eight sections of
appendix A applies to the method.
    We propose to amend 40 CFR 63.3521(a)(1)(i) and (4), which describe
how to demonstrate initial compliance with the emission limitations
using the compliant material option, to remove references to OSHA-
defined carcinogens as specified in 29 CFR 1910.1200(d)(4). The
reference to OSHA-defined carcinogens as specified in 29 CFR
1910.1200(d)(4) is intended to specify which compounds must be included
in calculating total organic HAP content of a coating material if they
are present at 0.1 percent or greater by mass. We are proposing to
remove this reference because 29 CFR 1910.1200(d)(4) has been amended
and no longer readily defines which compounds are carcinogens. We are
proposing to replace these references to OSHA-defined carcinogens and
29 CFR 1910.1200(d)(4) with a list (in proposed new Table 8 to 40 CFR
part 63, subpart KKKK) of those organic HAP that must be included in
calculating total organic HAP content of a coating material if they are
present at 0.1 percent or greater by mass.
    We propose to include organic HAP in proposed Table 8 to 40 CFR
part 63, subpart KKKK if they were categorized in the EPA's Prioritized
Chronic Dose-Response Values for Screening Risk Assessments (dated May
9, 2014) as a ``human carcinogen,'' ``probable human carcinogen,'' or
``possible human carcinogen'' according to The Risk Assessment
Guidelines of 1986 (EPA/600/8-87/045, August 1987),\27\ 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ See https://www.epa.gov/fera/dose-response-assessment-assessing-health-risks-associated-exposure-hazardous-air-pollutants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We propose to revise the monitoring provisions for thermal and
catalytic oxidizers to clarify that a thermocouple is part of the
temperature sensor referred to in 40 CFR 63.3547(c)(3) and 40 CFR
63.3557(c)(3) for purposes of performing periodic calibration and
verification checks.
    Current 40 CFR 63.3513(a) allows records, ``where appropriate,'' to
be maintained as ``electronic spreadsheets'' or a ``database.'' We
propose to add clarification to this provision that the allowance to
retain electronic records applies to all records that were submitted as
reports electronically via the EPA's CEDRI. We also propose to add text
to the same provision clarifying that this ability to maintain
electronic copies does not affect the requirement for facilities to
make records, data, and reports available upon request to a delegated
air agency or the EPA as part of an on-site compliance evaluation.
d. Ongoing Emissions Compliance Demonstrations Requirement
    As part of an ongoing effort to improve compliance with various
federal air emission regulations, the EPA reviewed the compliance
demonstration requirements in the Surface Coating of Metal Cans NESHAP.
Currently, if a source owner or operator chooses to comply with the
standards using add-on controls, the results of an initial performance
test are used to determine compliance; however, the rule does not
require ongoing periodic performance testing for these emission capture
systems and add-on controls. We are proposing periodic testing of add-
on control devices, in addition to the one-time initial emissions and
capture efficiency testing and ongoing parametric monitoring to ensure
ongoing compliance with the standards.
    Although ongoing monitoring of operating parameters is required by
the NESHAP, as the control device ages over time, the destruction
efficiency of the control device can be compromised due to various
factors. The EPA published several documents that identify potential
control device operational problems that could decrease control device
efficiency.\28\

These factors are discussed in more detail in the memorandum titled
Proposed Periodic Testing Requirement dated February 1, 2019, included
in the Metal Cans and Metal Coil Dockets.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ See Control Techniques for Volatile Organic Compound
Emissions from Stationary Sources, EPA/453/R-92-018, December 1992,
Control Technologies for Emissions from Stationary Sources, EPA/625/
6-91/014, June 1991, and Survey of Control for Low Concentration
Organic Vapor Gas Streams, EPA-456/R-95-003, May 1995. These
documents are included in the Metal Can and Metal Coil Dockets for
this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Institute of Clean Air Companies (ICAC), an industry trade
group currently representing 50 emission control device equipment
manufacturers, corroborated the fact that control equipment degrades
over time in their comments in a prior rulemaking. In their comments on
proposed revisions to the NESHAP General Provisions (72 FR 69, January
3, 2007), ICAC stated that ongoing maintenance and checks of control
devices are necessary in order to ensure emissions control technology
remains effective.\29\ ICAC identifies both thermal and catalytic
oxidizers as effective add-on control devices for VOC reduction and
destruction. Thermal oxidizers, in which ``. . . organic compounds are
converted into carbon dioxide and water . . .'' allow ``. . . for the
destruction of VOCs and HAP up to levels greater than 99-percent . .
.'' once ``. . . [t]he oxidation reaction . . .'' begins, typically ``.
. . in the 1450 [deg]F range.'' That temperature may need to be
elevated, depending on the organic compound to be destroyed. Along with
that destruction, ``. . . extreme heat, the corrosive nature of
chemical-laden air, exposure to weather, and the wear and tear of non-
stop use . . .'' affect thermal oxidizers such that ``. . . left
unchecked, the corrosive nature of the gases treated will create
equipment downtime, loss of operational efficiency, and eventually
failure of the thermal oxidizer.'' While catalytic oxidizers operate at
lower operating temperatures--typically 440 to 750 [deg]F--than thermal
oxidizers, catalytic oxidizers also provide VOC reduction and
destruction. In general, the catalyst ``. . . needs to be checked
periodically to verify the activity of the catalyst . . .'' because
that ``. . . activity or overall ability of the catalyst to convert
target emissions to other by-products will naturally diminish over
time.'' ICAC also mentions chemical poisoning (deactivation of the
catalyst by certain compounds) or masking of the catalyst bed, which
may occur due to changes in manufacturing processes, as means of
catalyst degradation. Finally, ICAC identifies electrical and
mechanical component maintenance as important, for if such components
are not operating properly, ``. . . the combustion temperature in the .
. . oxidizer could drop below the required levels and hazardous air
pollutant (HAP) destruction may not be achieved . . .'' ICAC closes by
noting ``. . . it costs more money to operate an oxidizer at peak
performance, and if not maintained, performance will deteriorate
yielding less destruction of HAP.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ See Docket Item No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2004-0094-0173, available at
www.regulations.gov. A copy of the ICAC's comments on the proposed
revisions to the General Provisions is also included in the Metal
Cans and Metal Coil Dockets for this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    State websites also provide on-line CAA violations and enforcement
actions that include performance issues associated with control
devices. A recent search resulted in identification of sources in Ohio
and Massachusetts that did not achieve compliance even though they
maintained the thermal oxidizer operating temperatures established
during previous performance tests, which further corroborates with the
ICAC comments and conclusions regarding control device degradation.
    Based on the need for vigilance in maintaining equipment to stem
degradation, we are proposing periodic testing of add-on control
devices once every 5 years, in addition to the one-time initial
emissions and capture efficiency testing and ongoing temperature
measurement to ensure ongoing compliance with the standards.
    In this action, we are proposing to require periodic performance
testing of add-on control devices on a regular frequency (e.g., every 5
years) to ensure the equipment continues to operate properly for
facilities using the emission rate with add-on controls compliance
option. We note that two of the state operating permits for metal can
coating existing sources already require such testing every 5 years
synchronized with 40 CFR part 70 air operating permit renewals. This
proposed periodic testing requirement includes an exception to the
general requirement for periodic testing for facilities using the
catalytic oxidizer control option at 40 CFR 63.3546(b) and following
the catalyst maintenance procedures in 40 CFR 63.3546(b)(4). This
exception is due to the catalyst maintenance procedures that already
require annual testing of the catalyst and other maintenance procedures
that provide ongoing demonstrations that the control system is
operating properly and may, thus, be considered comparable to
conducting a performance test.
    The proposed periodic performance testing requirement allows an
exception from periodic testing for facilities using instruments to
continuously measure emissions. Such continuous emissions monitoring
systems (CEMS) would show actual emissions. The use of CEMS to
demonstrate compliance would obviate the need for periodic oxidizer
testing. Moreover, installation and operation of a CEMS with a
timesharing component, such that values from more than one oxidizer
exhaust could be tabulated in a recurring frequency, could prove less
expensive (estimated to have an annual cost below $15,000) than ongoing
oxidizer testing.
    This proposed requirement does not require periodic testing or CEMS
monitoring of facilities using the compliant materials option or the
emission-rate without add-on controls compliance option because these
two compliance options do not use any add-on controls or control
efficiency measurements in the compliance calculations.
    The proposed periodic performance testing requirement requires
facilities complying with the standards using emission capture systems
and add-on controls and which are not already on a 5-year testing
schedule conduct the first of the periodic performance tests within 3
years of the effective date of the revised standards. Afterward, they
would conduct periodic testing before they renew their operating
permits, but no longer than 5 years following the previous performance
test. Additionally, facilities that have already tested as a condition
of their permit within the last 2 years before the effective date would
be permitted to maintain their current 5-year schedule and not be
required to move up the date of the next test to the 3-year date
specified above. This proposed requirement would require periodic air
emissions testing to measure organic HAP destruction or removal
efficiency at the inlet and outlet of the add-on control device, or
measurement of the control device outlet concentration of organic HAP.
The emissions would be measured as total gaseous organic mass emissions
as carbon using either EPA Method 25 or 25A of appendix A-7 to 40 CFR
part 60, which are the methods currently required for the initial
compliance demonstration.
    We estimate that the cost associated with this proposed
requirement, which includes a control device emissions destruction or
removal efficiency test using EPA Method 25 or 25A, would be
approximately $19,000 per control device. The cost estimate is included
in the memorandum titled Draft Costs/Impacts of the 40 CFR part 63
Subparts KKKK and SSSS Monitoring Review Revisions, in the Metal Cans
and Metal Coil Dockets. We have reviewed the

state operating permits for facilities subject to the Surface Coating
of Metal Cans NESHAP and found that one of the metal can coating
facilities employs three add-on control devices that are currently not
required to conduct periodic testing as a condition of their permit
renewal. Two other facilities using add-on controls are currently
required to conduct periodic performance tests as a condition of their
40 CFR part 70 operating permits. For these two facilities, the
periodic testing would not add any new testing requirements and the
estimated costs would not apply to these facilities. Periodic
performance tests ensure that any control systems used to comply with
the NESHAP in the future would be properly maintained over time,
thereby reducing the potential for acute emissions episodes and non-
compliance.
e. IBR of Alternative Test Methods Under 1 CFR Part 51
    The EPA is proposing new and updated test methods for the Surface
Coating of Metal Cans NESHAP that include IBR. In accordance with
requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is proposing to incorporate by
reference the following voluntary consensus standards (VCS) described
in the amendments to 40 CFR 63.14:
     ASTM Method D1475-13, Standard Test Method for Density of
Liquid Coatings, Inks, and Related Products, proposed to be IBR
approved for 40 CFR 63.3521(c) and 63.3531(c);
     ASTM D2111-10 (2015), Standard Test Methods for Specific
Gravity of Halogenated Organic Solvents and Their Admixtures, proposed
to be IBR approved for 40 CFR 63.3521(c) and 63.3531(c);
     ASTM D2369-10 (2015), Test Method for Volatile Content of
Coatings, proposed to be IBR approved for 40 CFR 63.3521(a)(2) and
63.3541(i)(3);
     ASTM D2697-03 (2014), Standard Test Method for Volume
Nonvolatile Matter in Clear or Pigmented Coatings, proposed to be IBR
approved for 40 CFR 63.3521(b)(1); and
     ASTM D6093-97 (2016), Standard Test Method for Percent
Volume Nonvolatile Matter in Clear or Pigmented Coatings Using Helium
Gas Pycnometer, proposed to be IBR approved for 40 CFR 63.3521(b)(1).
    Older versions of ASTM Methods, D2697 and D6093 were incorporated
by reference when the Surface Coating of Metal Cans NESHAP was
originally promulgated (68 FR 64432, November 13, 2003). We are
proposing to replace the older versions of these methods and ASTM
Method D1475 with updated versions, which requires IBR revisions. The
updated version of the method replaces the older version in the same
paragraph of the rule text. We are also proposing the addition of ASTM
Methods D2111 and D2369 to the Surface Coating of Metal Cans NESHAP for
the first time by incorporating these methods by reference in this
rulemaking. Refer to section VIII.J of this preamble for further
discussion of these VCS.
5. What compliance dates are we proposing?
    The EPA is proposing that affected sources must comply with all of
the amendments, with the exception of the proposed electronic format
for submitting semiannual compliance reports, no later than 181 days
after the effective date of the final rule, or upon startup, whichever
is later. All affected facilities would have to continue to meet the
current requirements of 40 CFR part 63, subpart KKKK until the
applicable compliance date of the amended rule. The final action is not
expected to be a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2), so the
effective date of the final rule will be the promulgation date as
specified in CAA section 112(d)(10).
    For existing sources, we are proposing one change that would impact
ongoing compliance requirements for 40 CFR part 63, subpart KKKK. As
discussed elsewhere in this preamble, we are proposing to add a
requirement that notifications, performance test results, and
semiannual compliance reports be submitted electronically. We are
proposing that the semiannual compliance report be submitted
electronically using a new template, which is available for review and
comment as part of this action. We are also proposing to change the
requirements for SSM by removing the exemption from the requirements to
meet the standard during SSM periods and by removing the requirement to
develop and implement an SSM plan. Our experience with similar
industries that are required to convert reporting mechanisms to install
necessary hardware and software, become familiar with the process of
submitting performance test results electronically through the EPA's
CEDRI, test these new electronic submission capabilities, and reliably
employ electronic reporting shows that a time period of a minimum of 90
days, and, more typically, 180 days, is generally necessary to
successfully accomplish these revisions. Our experience with similar
industries further shows that this sort of regulated facility generally
requires a time period of 180 days to read and understand the amended
rule requirements; to evaluate their operations to ensure that they can
meet the standards during periods of startup and shutdown as defined in
the rule and make any necessary adjustments; and to update their
operation, maintenance, and monitoring plan to reflect the revised
requirements. The EPA recognizes the confusion that multiple different
compliance dates for individual requirements would create and the
additional burden such an assortment of dates would impose. From our
assessment of the timeframe needed for compliance with the entirety of
the revised requirements, the EPA considers a period of 180 days to be
the most expeditious compliance period practicable and, thus, is
proposing that existing affected sources be in compliance with all of
this regulation's revised requirements within 181 days of the
regulation's effective date.
    We solicit comment on these proposed compliance periods, and we
specifically request submission of information from sources in this
source category regarding specific actions that would need to be
undertaken to comply with the proposed amended requirements and the
time needed to make the adjustments for compliance with any of the
revised requirements. We note that information provided may result in
changes to the proposed compliance dates.

B. What are the analytical results and proposed decisions for the
Surface Coating of Metal Coil source category?

1. What are the results of the risk assessment and analyses?
    As described above in section III of this preamble, for the Surface
Coating of Metal Coil source category, we conducted a risk assessment
for all HAP emitted. We present results of the risk assessment briefly
below and in more detail in the Metal Coil Risk Assessment Report in
the Metal Coil Docket (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0685).
a. Inhalation Risk Assessment Results
    Table 4 of this preamble summarizes the results of the inhalation
risk assessment for the source category. As discussed in section
III.C.2 of this preamble, we determined that MACT-allowable HAP
emission levels at coil coating facilities are equal to 1.1 times the
actual emissions. For more detail about the MACT-allowable emission
levels, see Appendix 1 to the Metal Coil Risk Assessment Report in the
Metal Coil Docket.

                                Table 4--Surface Coating of Metal Coil Source Category Inhalation Risk Assessment Results
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  Maximum individual     Estimated population      Estimated annual         Maximum chronic      Maximum screening acute
                                   cancer risk (in 1     at increased risk of      cancer incidence       noncancer TOSHI \1\       noncancer HQ \2\
                                       million)             cancer >=1-in-1        (cases per year)    -------------------------------------------------
                               ------------------------         million        ------------------------
        Risk assessment                                ------------------------                          Based on    Based on
                                 Based on    Based on    Based on    Based on    Based on    Based on     actual     allowable       Based on actual
                                  actual     allowable    actual     allowable    actual     allowable   emissions   emissions          emissions
                                 emissions   emissions   emissions   emissions   emissions   emissions
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source Category...............          10          10      19,000      24,000       0.005       0.006         0.1         0.1  HQREL = 3.
Whole Facility................          40  ..........     270,000  ..........        0.03  ..........           5  ..........  ........................
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The TOSHI is the sum of the chronic noncancer HQ for substances that affect the same target organ or organ system.
\2\ The maximum estimated acute exposure concentration was divided by available short-term threshold values to develop HQ values.

    The results of the inhalation risk modeling using actual emissions
data, as shown in Table 4 of this preamble, indicate that the maximum
individual cancer risk based on actual emissions (lifetime) could be up
to 10-in-1 million (driven by naphthalene from solvent storage), the
maximum chronic noncancer TOSHI value based on actual emissions could
be up to 0.1 (driven by glycol ethers from prime and finish coating
application), and the maximum screening acute noncancer HQ value (off-
facility site) could be up to 3 (driven by DGME). The total estimated
annual cancer incidence (national) from these facilities based on
actual emission levels is 0.005 excess cancer cases per year or one
case in every 200 years.
b. Acute Risk Results
    Table 4 of this preamble also shows the acute risk results for the
Surface Coating of Metal Coil source category. The screening analysis
for acute impacts was based on an industry-specific multiplier of 1.1,
to estimate the peak emission rates from the average emission rates.
For more detailed acute risk results refer to the Metal Coil Risk
Assessment Report in the Metal Coil Docket.
c. Multipathway Risk Screening Results
    The emissions data for the Surface Coating of Metal Coil source
category indicate that one PB-HAP is emitted by sources within this
source category: Lead. In evaluating the potential for multipathway
effects from emissions of lead, modeled maximum annual lead
concentrations were compared to the NAAQS for lead (0.15 [micro]g/
m\3\). Results of this analysis confirmed that the NAAQS for lead would
not be exceeded by any facility.
d. Environmental Risk Screening Results
    The emissions data for the Surface Coating of Metal Coil source
category indicate that two environmental HAP are emitted by sources
within this source category: HF and lead. Therefore, we conducted a
screening-level evaluation of the potential adverse environmental risks
associated with emissions of HF and lead for the Surface Coating of
Metal Coil source category. For HF, each individual concentration
(i.e., each off-site data point in the modeling domain) was below the
ecological benchmarks for all facilities. For lead, we did not estimate
any exceedances of the secondary lead NAAQS. Therefore, we do not
expect an adverse environmental effect as a result of HAP emissions
from this source category.
e. Facility-Wide Risk Results
    Sixteen facilities have a facility-wide cancer MIR greater than or
equal to 1-in-1 million. The maximum facility-wide cancer MIR is 40-in-
1 million, driven by naphthalene from equipment cleanup of metal coil
coating processes. The total estimated cancer incidence from the whole
facility is 0.02 excess cancer cases per year, or one excess case in
every 50 years. Approximately 270,000 people were estimated to have
cancer risks above 1-in-1 million from exposure to HAP emitted from
both MACT and non-MACT sources of the 48 facilities in this source
category. The maximum facility-wide TOSHI for the source category is
estimated to be 5, driven by emissions of chlorine from a secondary
aluminum fluxing process.
f. What demographic groups might benefit from this regulation?
    To examine the potential for any environmental justice issues that
might be associated with the source category, we performed a
demographic analysis, which is an assessment of risk to individual
demographic groups of the populations living within 5 km and within 50
km of the facilities. In the analysis, we evaluated the distribution of
HAP-related cancer and noncancer risk from the Surface Coating of Metal
Coil source category across different demographic groups within the
populations living near facilities.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ Demographic groups included in the analysis are: White,
African American, Native American, other races and multiracial,
Hispanic or Latino, children 17 years of age and under, adults 18 to
64 years of age, adults 65 years of age and over, adults without a
high school diploma, people living below the poverty level, people
living above the poverty level, and linguistically isolated people.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The results of the demographic analysis are summarized in Table 5
of this preamble. These results, for various demographic groups, are
based on the estimated risk from actual emissions levels for the
population living within 50 km of the facilities.

            Table 5--Surface Coating of Metal Coil Source Category Demographic Risk Analysis Results
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 Population with cancer  Population with chronic
                                                                risk at or above 1-in-1    hazard index above 1
                                                  Nationwide     million due to surface   due to surface coating
                                                                 coating of metal coil        of metal coil
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Population..............................     317,746,049                   19,000                        0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 Race by Percent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
White.........................................              62                       70                        0
All Other Races...............................              38                       30                        0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                 Race by Percent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
White.........................................              62                       70  .......................
African American..............................              12                       21                        0
Native American...............................             0.8                      0.1                        0
Hispanic or Latino............................              18                        4                        0
Other and Multiracial.........................               7                        5                        0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                Income by Percent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Below the Poverty Level.......................              14                       15                        0
Above the Poverty Level.......................              86                       85                        0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              Education by Percent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Over 25 and Without a High School Diploma.....              14                       10                        0
Over 25 and With a High School Diploma........              86                       90                        0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The results of the Surface Coating of Metal Coil source category
demographic analysis indicate that emissions from the source category
expose approximately 19,000 people to a cancer risk at or above 1-in-1
million and no one is exposed to a chronic noncancer TOSHI greater than
1 (we note that many of those in the first risk group are the same as
those in the second). The percentages of the at-risk population in each
demographic group (African American and Below the Poverty Level) are
greater than their respective nationwide percentages.
    The methodology and the results of the demographic analysis are
presented in a technical report, Risk and Technology Review--Analysis
of Demographic Factors for Populations Living Near Surface Coating of
Metal Coil Source Category Operations, May 2017 (hereafter referred to
as the Metal Coil Demographic Analysis Report), available in the Metal
Coil Docket.
2. What are our proposed decisions regarding risk acceptability, ample
margin of safety, and adverse environmental effects?
a. Risk Acceptability
    As noted in section III.A of this preamble, we weigh all health
risk factors in our risk acceptability determination, including the
cancer MIR, the number of persons in various cancer and noncancer risk
ranges, cancer incidence, the maximum noncancer TOSHI, the maximum
acute noncancer HQ, the extent of noncancer risks, the distribution of
cancer and noncancer risks in the exposed population, and risk
estimation uncertainties (54 FR 38044, September 14, 1989).
    For the Surface Coating of Metal Coil source category, the risk
analysis indicates that the cancer risks to the individual most exposed
could be up to 10-in-1 million due to actual emissions and allowable
emissions. These risks are considerably less than 100-in-1 million,
which is the presumptive upper limit of acceptable risk. The risk
analysis also shows very low cancer incidence (0.005 cases per year for
actual emissions and 0.006 cases per year for allowable emissions), and
we did not identify potential for adverse chronic noncancer health
effects.
    The acute screening analysis results in a maximum acute noncancer
HQ of 3 for DGME. Since there is not a specified acute dose-response
value for DGME, we applied the most protective dose-response value from
the other glycol ether compounds, the acute REL for ethylene glycol
monomethyl ether, to estimate risk. Given that ethylene glycol
monomethyl ether is more toxic than other glycol ethers, the use of
this surrogate is a health-protective choice in the EPA's risk
assessment.
    For acute screening analyses, to better characterize the potential
health risks associated with estimated worst-case acute exposures to
HAP, we examine a wider range of available acute health metrics than we
do for our chronic risk assessments. This is in acknowledgement that
there are generally more data gaps and uncertainties in acute reference
values than there are in chronic reference values. By definition, the
acute REL represents a health-protective level of exposure, with
effects not anticipated below those levels, even for repeated
exposures; however, the level of exposure that would cause health
effects is not specifically known. As the exposure concentration
increases above the acute REL, the potential for effects increases.
Therefore, when an REL is exceeded and an AEGL-1 or ERPG-1 level is
available (i.e., levels at which mild, reversible effects are
anticipated in the general population for a single exposure), we
typically use them as an additional comparative measure, as they
provide an upper bound for exposure levels above which exposed
individuals could experience effects. However, for glycol ethers, these
values are not available.
    Additional uncertainties in the acute exposure assessment that the
EPA conducts as part of the risk review under section 112 of the CAA
include several factors. The degree of accuracy of an acute inhalation
exposure assessment depends on the simultaneous occurrence of
independent factors that may vary greatly, such as hourly emissions
rates, meteorology, and the presence of a person at the location of the
maximum concentration. In the acute screening assessment that we
conduct under the RTR program, we include the conservative (health-
protective) assumptions that peak emissions from each emission point in
the source category and worst-case meteorological conditions co-occur,
thus, resulting in maximum ambient concentrations. These two events are
unlikely to occur at the same time, making these assumptions
conservative. We then include the additional assumption that a person
is located at this point during the same time period. For this source
category, these assumptions are likely to

overestimate the true worst-case actual exposures, as it is unlikely
that a person would be located at the point of maximum exposure during
the time when peak emissions and worst-case meteorological conditions
occur simultaneously. Thus, as discussed in the Metal Coil Risk
Assessment Report in the docket for this action, by assuming the co-
occurrence of independent factors for the acute screening assessment,
the results are intentionally biased high and are, thus, health-
protective. We conclude that adverse effects from acute exposure are
not anticipated due to emissions from this source category.
    In addition, the risk assessment indicates no significant potential
for multipathway health effects.
    Considering all the health risk information and factors discussed
above, including the uncertainties discussed in section III.C.7 of this
preamble, we propose that the risks from the Surface Coating of Metal
Coil source category are acceptable.
b. Ample Margin of Safety Analysis
    Although we are proposing that the risks from the Surface Coating
of Metal Coil source category are acceptable, risk estimates for
approximately 19,000 individuals in the exposed population are above 1-
in-1 million at the actual emissions level, and 24,000 individuals in
the exposed population are above 1-in-1 million at the allowable
emissions level. Consequently, we further considered whether the MACT
standards for the Surface Coating of Metal Coil source category provide
an ample margin of safety to protect public health. In this ample
margin of safety analysis, we investigated available emissions control
options that might reduce the risk from the source category. We
considered this information along with all the health risks and other
health information considered in our determination of risk
acceptability.
    As described in section III.B of this preamble, our technology
review focused on identifying developments in practices, processes, and
control technologies for the Surface Coating of Metal Coil source
category, and we reviewed various information sources regarding
emission sources that are currently regulated by the Surface Coating of
Metal Coil NESHAP. Based on our review, we did not identify any add-on
control technologies, other equipment, or work practices and procedures
that had not previously been considered during development of the
Surface Coating of Metal Coil NESHAP, and we did not identify any
developments since the promulgation of the NESHAP. Therefore, we are
proposing that additional emissions controls for this source category
are not necessary to provide an ample margin of safety.
c. Environmental Effects
    The emissions data for the Surface Coating of Metal Coil source
category indicate that two environmental HAP are emitted by sources
within this source category: HF and lead. The screening-level
evaluation of the potential for adverse environmental risks associated
with emissions of HF from the Surface Coating of Metal Coil source
category indicated that each individual concentration (i.e., each off-
site data point in the modeling domain) was below the ecological
benchmarks for all facilities. In addition, we are unaware of any
adverse environmental effects caused by HAP emitted by this source
category. For lead, we did not estimate any exceedances of the
secondary lead NAAQS. Therefore, we do not expect there to be an
adverse environmental effect as a result of HAP emissions from this
source category, and we are proposing that it is not necessary to set a
more stringent standard to prevent, taking into consideration costs,
energy, safety, and other relevant factors, an adverse environmental
effect.
3. What are the results and proposed decisions based on our technology
review?
    As described in section III.B of this preamble, our technology
review focused on identifying developments in practices, processes, and
control technologies for the Surface Coating of Metal Coil source
category. The EPA reviewed various information sources regarding
emission sources that are currently regulated by the Surface Coating of
Metal Coil NESHAP to support the technology review. The information
sources included the following: The RBLC; the California Statewide BACT
Clearinghouse; regulatory actions, including technology reviews
promulgated for other surface coating NESHAP subsequent to the Surface
Coating of Metal Coil NESHAP; state regulations; facility operating
permits; a site visit; and industry information from individual
facilities and the industry trade association. The primary emission
sources for the technology review are the coil coating application
stations and associated curing ovens.
    Based on our review, we did not identify any add-on control
technologies, process equipment, work practices, or procedures that had
not been previously considered during development of the Surface
Coating of Metal Coil NESHAP, and we did not identify any new or
improved add-on control technologies that would result in additional
emission reductions. A brief summary of the EPA's findings in
conducting the technology review of coil coating operations follows.
For a detailed discussion of the EPA's findings, refer to the Metal
Coil Technology Review memorandum in the Metal Coil Docket.
    The technology basis for MACT for metal coil coating operations in
the 2002 Surface Coating of Metal Coil NESHAP was emission capture and
add-on control with an OCE of 98 percent for new or reconstructed
sources and existing sources. This OCE represents the use of PTE to
achieve 100-percent capture of application station HAP emissions and a
thermal oxidizer to achieve a destruction efficiency of 98-percent. No
technology was identified at that time that could achieve a better OCE
than the use of a PTE to capture HAP emissions from the coating
application station and a thermal oxidizer to destroy HAP emissions
from the coating application and the curing oven. An alternative
facility HAP emission rate limit of 0.24 pounds of HAP per gallon of
solids applied was also established to provide a compliance option for
facilities that chose to limit their coating line HAP emissions either
through a combination of low-HAP coatings and add-on controls or
through the use of waterborne, high solids, or other pollution
prevention coatings. During development of that rulemaking, we
identified no beyond-the-floor technology that could achieve a higher
OCE.
    Using the EPA's NEI and the ECHO databases, we identified 48 major
source facilities that are currently subject to the Surface Coating of
Metal Coil NESHAP. A search of the RBLC database for improvements in
coil coating technologies resulted in no findings. Therefore, we
conducted a comprehensive review of state operating permits for 39 of
the 48 facilities that were available on-line to determine whether any
are using improved technologies or technologies that were not
considered during the development of the original NESHAP. The review
revealed that 37 of the 39 facilities had add-on controls (e.g.,
thermal oxidizers, catalytic oxidizers, and regenerative thermal
oxidizers) and three of the 39 facilities had only partial control
(i.e., not all coil coating lines had control).
    The state permits included VOC emission limitations issued prior to
promulgation of the Surface Coating of Metal Coil NESHAP. No permit had
a

VOC limit lower than the Metal Coil New Source Performance Standards
published in 1982 (40 CFR part 60, subpart TT). Because none of these
limitations were more stringent than the HAP content limit, and all
were based on control options considered in the development of the
NESHAP, we concluded that none of these limitations represented a
development in practices, processes, and control technologies for the
Surface Coating of Metal Coil source category.
    We reviewed other surface coating NESHAP promulgated subsequent to
the Surface Coating of Metal Coil NESHAP to determine whether any
requirements exceed the Metal Coil MACT level of control or include
technologies that were not considered during the development of the
original Surface Coating of Metal Coil NESHAP. These NESHAP include
Surface Coating of Miscellaneous Metal Parts and Products (40 CFR part
63, subpart MMMM), Surface Coating of Plastic Parts and Products (40
CFR part 63, subpart PPPP), and Surface Coating of Automobiles and
Light-Duty Trucks (40 CFR part 63, subpart IIII). We also reviewed the
results of the technology reviews for other surface coating NESHAP
promulgated after the Surface Coating of Metal Coil NESHAP. These
NESHAP include Printing and Publishing (40 CFR part 63, subpart KK),
Shipbuilding and Ship Repair (40 CFR part 63, subpart II), and Wood
Furniture Manufacturing (40 CFR part 63, subpart JJ). Technology
reviews for these NESHAP identified PTE and/or RTO as improvements in
add-on control technology. Because the Surface Coating of Metal Coil
NESHAP already includes a compliance option involving the use of a PTE
and an add-on control device, and because these measures were
considered in the development of the Surface Coating of Metal Coil
NESHAP, we concluded that these measures do not represent a development
in control technology under CAA section 112(d)(6). The technology
review conducted for the Wood Furniture Manufacturing NESHAP identified
the use of more efficient spray guns as a technology review development
and revised the requirements to prohibit the use of conventional spray
guns. Because the Surface Coating of Metal Coil source category does
not use spray equipment, this development is not applicable to metal
coil coating operations. In conclusion, we found no improvements in
add-on control technology or other equipment during review of the RBLC,
the state operating permits, and subsequent NESHAP that were not
already identified and considered during Surface Coating of Metal Coil
NESHAP development.
    Alternatives to solvent borne coatings were identified and
considered during MACT development but were not considered to be
suitable for all coil coating end-product applications. These
alternative coatings include waterborne coatings, low energy electron
beam/ultraviolet cured coatings, and powder coatings. These coatings
were used by about 10 percent of coil coating facilities according to
the MACT survey. Our permit review concluded that this trend continues
today and only about 10 percent of the facilities use these coatings to
meet the Surface Coating of Metal Coil NESHAP emission limits. Most
coil coaters have solvent destruction systems in place, which enables
them to use organic paint solvents as a fuel supplement. The only
anticipated technology change in the area of coating reformulation for
the metal coil surface coating category is the replacement of coatings
that contain the hexavalent chromate ion with more benign corrosion-
inhibiting species that provide the same long-term protection to
metals. The coil coating producers have worked unsuccessfully on this
coating reformulation for the past 20 years.
    Carbon adsorption was identified and considered for add-on control
during Metal Coil MACT development, and although it is technologically
feasible, no U.S. coil coaters used carbon adsorption due to the high
temperature of the oven exhaust. The high temperature would inhibit
adsorption of VOC on activated carbon in the adsorber beds. Therefore,
we do not consider these measures to represent a development under CAA
section 112(d)(6).
    Finally, we identified no developments in work practices or
procedures for the Surface Coating of Metal Coil source category,
including work practices and procedures that are currently prescribed
in the NESHAP that were not previously identified and considered during
MACT development. The facility survey, conducted during MACT
development, revealed that several types of work practices and
housekeeping techniques were being used. However, the final rule
applied only to the coating application stations and the associated
curing ovens (i.e., the affected source). The final rule did not apply
to coating storage and mixing/thinning operations and did not apply to
the equipment cleaning operations that are the primary operations to
which the work practices would have been applied.
    Based on these findings, we conclude that there have not been any
developments in add-on control technology or other equipment not
identified and considered during MACT development, nor any improvements
in add-on controls, nor any significant changes in the cost (including
cost effectiveness) of the add-on controls. Therefore, we are proposing
no revisions to the Surface Coating of Metal Coil NESHAP pursuant to
CAA section 112(d)(6). For further discussion of the technology review
results, refer to the Metal Coil Technology Review Memorandum in the
Metal Coil Docket.
4. What other actions are we proposing for the Surface Coating of Metal
Coil source category?
    In addition to the proposed actions described above, we are
proposing additional revisions to the NESHAP. We are proposing to amend
40 CFR 63.5090 to clarify that 40 CFR part 63, subpart SSSS does not
apply to the application to bare metal coils of markings (including
letters, numbers, or symbols) that are used for product identification
or for product inventory control. In the public comments on the
proposed initial MACT standard subpart SSSS (40 FR 44616, July 18,
2000),\31\ the request was made that the EPA clarify in the final rule
that subpart SSSS did not apply to incidental printing operations that
applied a company name or logo, or other markings to bare metal coils
for product identification or inventory control purposes. (See EPA Air
Docket A-97-47, item V-B-1, Report, National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants: Metal Coil Surface Coating Background
Information for Promulgated Standards, EPA: OAQPS, Publication number
EPA-453R-02-009, May 2002.) The commenters suggested revising the
definition of ``coil coating operation'' to read ``the collection of
equipment used to apply an organic coating to all or substantially all
of the surface width of a continuous metal strip.'' The EPA responded
at the time that it agreed that these types of markings applied to bare
metal were simply not considered to be part of a coil coating
operation, and therefore were not intended to be covered by the coil
coating NESHAP subpart SSSS. However, the EPA did not want to exclude
operations that applied a printed image to a coated metal coil from
coverage by subpart SSSS because they were considered integral to
certain

coil coating operations and part of the coil coating line and affected
source. During the development of these proposed amendments to subpart
SSSS, we were notified by steel coil manufacturers that the
applicability of subpart SSSS to the application of identification
markings to bare metal coils was still unresolved. The steel coil
manufacturers asked us to amend subpart SSSS be amended to clarify this
applicability issue and whether these identification markings are
subject to subpart SSSS. Therefore, we are proposing to clarify that
the application of identification markings (including letters, numbers,
or symbols) to bare metal coils is not part of a coil coating line and
not part of a coil coating affected source. However, we intend to
continue to regulate application of printed images to coated steel
coils as part of the coil coating affected source. Therefore, the
application of letters, numbers, or symbols to a coated metal coil is
still considered a coil coating process and part of the coil coating
source category.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ See National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants: Metal Coil Surface Coating Background Information for
Promulgated Standards, EPA-453/R-02-009, May 2002 in the Metal Coil
Docket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, we are proposing to require electronic submittal of
notifications (initial and compliance status), semiannual reports, and
performance test reports for metal coil surface coating facilities. We
are also proposing revisions to the SSM provisions of the MACT rule in
order to ensure that they are consistent with the Court decision in
Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F. 3d 1019 (D.C. Cir. 2008), which vacated two
provisions that exempted sources from the requirement to comply with
otherwise applicable CAA section 112(d) emission standards during
periods of SSM. And finally, we are proposing the IBR of optional EPA
Method 18, IBR of an alternative test method, and various technical and
editorial changes. Our analyses and proposed changes related to these
issues are discussed in the sections below.
a. Electronic Reporting Requirements
    The EPA is proposing that owners and operators of facilities
subject to the Surface Coating of Metal Coil NESHAP submit electronic
copies of initial notifications required in 40 CFR 63.9(b),
notifications of compliance status required in 40 CFR 63.9(h),
performance test reports, and semiannual reports through the EPA's CDX,
using the CEDRI. A description of the EPA's CDX and the EPA's proposed
rationale and details on the addition of these electronic reporting
requirements for the Surface Coating of Metal Coil source category is
the same as for the Surface Coating of Metal Cans source category, as
discussed in section IV.A.4.a of this preamble. 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 Metal Coil Docket. No specific form is proposed
at this time for the initial notifications required in 40 CFR 63.9(b).
Until the EPA has completed electronic forms for these notifications,
the notifications will be required to be submitted via CEDRI in PDF. If
electronic forms are developed for these notifications, we will notify
sources about their availability via the CEDRI website. For semiannual
reports, the EPA proposes that owners or operators use the final
semiannual report template that will reside in CEDRI one year after
finalizing this proposed action. The Proposed Electronic Reporting
Template for Surface Coating of Metal Coil Subpart SSSS Semiannual
Report is available for review and comment in the Metal Cans Docket as
part of this action. We specifically request comment on the format and
usability of the template (e.g., filling and uploading a provided
spreadsheet versus entering the required information into a fillable
CEDRI web form), as well as the content, layout, and overall design of
the template. Prior to availability of the final semiannual compliance
report template in CEDRI, owners or operators of affected sources will
be required to submit semiannual compliance reports as currently
required by the rule. After development of the final semiannual
compliance report template, metal coil sources will be notified about
its availability via the CEDRI website. We plan to finalize a required
reporting format with the final rule. The owner or operator would begin
submitting reports electronically with the next report that is due,
once the electronic template has been available for at least one year.
For the electronic submittal of notifications of compliance status
reports required in 40 CFR 63.9(h), the final semiannual report
template discussed above, which will reside in CEDRI, will also contain
the information required for the notifications of compliance status
report and will satisfy the requirement to provide the notifications of
compliance status information electronically, eliminating the need to
provide a separate notifications of compliance status report. As stated
above, the final semiannual report template will be available after
finalizing this proposed action and sources will be required to use the
form after one year. Prior to the availability of the final semiannual
compliance report template in CEDRI, owners and operators of affected
sources will be required to submit semiannual compliance reports as
currently required by the rule. As stated above, we will notify sources
about the availability of the final semiannual report template via the
CEDRI website.
    Regarding submittal of performance test reports via the EPA's ERT,
as discussed in section IV.A.4.a of this preamble for the Surface
Coating of Metal Cans NESHAP, the proposal to submit performance test
data electronically to the EPA applies only if the EPA has developed an
electronic reporting form for the test method as listed on the EPA's
ERT website. For the Surface Coating of Metal Coil NESHAP, all of the
EPA test methods listed under 40 CFR part 63, subpart SSSS, are
currently supported by the ERT, except for EPA Method 25 and EPA Method
18 (an optional test method proposed in this action), which appears in
the proposed text for 40 CFR 63.5160. As mentioned above, the rule
proposes that should an owner or operator choose to use EPA Method 25
or EPA Method 18, then its results would be submitted in PDF using the
attachment module of the ERT.
    Also, as discussed in section IV.A.4.a of this preamble for the
Surface Coating of Metal Cans NESHAP, we are proposing to provide
facilities with the ability to seek extensions for submitting
electronic reports for circumstances beyond the control of the
facility. In proposed 40 CFR 63.5181(d), we address the situation for
facilities subject to the Surface Coating of Metal Coil NESHAP where an
extension may be warranted due to outages of the EPA's CDX or CEDRI,
which may prevent access to the system and submittal of the required
reports. In proposed 40 CFR 63.5181(e), we address the situation for
facilities subject to the Surface Coating of Metal Coil NESHAP where an
extension may be warranted due to a force majeure event, which is
defined as an event that will be or has been caused by circumstances
beyond the control of the affected facility, its contractors, or any
entity controlled by the affected facility that prevents compliance
with the requirement to submit a report electronically as required by
this rule.
b. SSM Requirements
1. Proposed Elimination of the SSM Exemption
    The EPA is proposing to eliminate the SSM exemption in the Surface
Coating of Metal Coil NESHAP. The EPA's

proposed rationale for the elimination of the SSM exemption for the
Surface Coating of Metal Coil source category is the same as for the
Surface Coating of Metal Cans source category, which is discussed in
section IV.A.4.b.1 of this preamble. We are also proposing several
revisions to Table 2 to Subpart SSSS of 40 CFR part 63 (Applicability
of General Provisions to Subpart SSSS, hereafter referred to as the
``General Provisions table to subpart SSSS'') as is explained in more
detail below in section IV.B.4.b.2 of this preamble. For example, we
are proposing to eliminate the incorporation of the General Provisions'
requirement that the source develop an SSM plan. We are also proposing
to delete 40 CFR 63.4342(h), which specifies that deviations during SSM
periods are not violations. Further, we are proposing to eliminate and
revise certain recordkeeping and reporting requirements related to the
SSM exemption as further described below. The EPA has attempted to
ensure that the provisions we are proposing to eliminate are
inappropriate, unnecessary, or redundant in the absence of the SSM
exemption. We are specifically seeking comment on the specific proposed
deletions and revisions and also whether additional provisions should
be revised to achieve the stated goal.
    In proposing these rule amendments, the EPA has taken into account
startup and shutdown periods and, for the same reasons explained in
section IV.A.4.b.1 of this preamble for the Surface Coating of Metal
Cans source category, has not proposed alternate standards for those
periods in the Surface Coating of Metal Coil NESHAP. Startups and
shutdowns are part of normal operations for the Surface Coating of
Metal Coil source category. As currently specified in 40 CFR
63.5121(a), any coating operation(s) for which you use the emission
rate with add-on controls option must meet the applicable operating
limits in Table 1 to 40 CFR part 63, subpart SSSS ``at all times,''
except for solvent recovery systems for which you conduct liquid-liquid
material balances according to 40 CFR 63.5170(e)(1). (Solvent recovery
systems for which you conduct a liquid-liquid material balance require
a monthly calculation of the solvent recovery device's collection and
recovery efficiency for volatile organic matter.)
    Also, as currently specified in 40 CFR 63.3500(a)(2), any coating
operation(s) for which you use the emission rate with add-on controls
option or the control efficiency/outlet concentration option must be in
compliance ``at all times'' with the applicable emission limitations in
40 CFR 63.3500(a)(2). During startup and shutdown periods, in order for