[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 132 (Thursday, July 9, 2020)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 41276-41319]
[FR Doc No: 2020-05854]

Vol. 85

Thursday,

No. 132

July 9, 2020

Part II

Environmental Protection Agency

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

40 CFR Part 63

National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Paper and
Other Web Coating Residual Risk and Technology Review; Final Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 132 / Thursday, July 9, 2020 / Rules
and Regulations

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 63

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2018-0416; FRL-10006-74-OAR]
RIN 20660-AU22

National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Paper
and Other Web Coating Residual Risk and Technology Review

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This action finalizes the residual risk and technology review
(RTR) conducted for the Paper and Other Web Coating (POWC) source
category regulated under national emission standards for hazardous air
pollutants (NESHAP). The Agency is finalizing the proposed
determination that risks due to emissions of air toxics are acceptable
from this source category and that the current NESHAP provides an ample
margin of safety to protect public health. Further, the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) identified no new cost-effective
controls under the technology review that would achieve significant
further emissions reductions, and, thus, is finalizing the proposed
determination that no revisions to the standards are necessary based on
developments in practices, processes, or control technologies. In
addition, the Agency is taking final action addressing startup,
shutdown, and malfunction (SSM). These final amendments address
emissions during SSM events, add a compliance demonstration equation
that accounts for retained volatiles in the coated web; add repeat
testing and electronic reporting requirements; and make technical and
editorial changes. The EPA is making these amendments to improve the
effectiveness of the NESHAP, and although these amendments are not
expected to reduce emissions of hazardous air pollutants (HAP), they
will improve monitoring, compliance, and implementation of the rule.

DATES: This final rule is effective on July 9, 2020. The incorporation
by reference (IBR) of certain publications listed in the rule is
approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of July 9, 2020.
The IBR of certain other publications listed in the rule is approved by
the Director of the Federal Register as of December 4, 2002.

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a docket for this action under
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2018-0416. All documents in the docket are
listed on the https://www.regulations.gov/ website. Although listed,
some information is not publicly available, e.g., Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted
by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is
not placed on the internet and will be publicly available only in hard
copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either
electronically through https://www.regulations.gov/, or in hard copy at
the EPA Docket Center, WJC West Building, Room Number 3334, 1301
Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room hours of
operation are 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Eastern Standard Time (EST),
Monday through Friday. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room
is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone number for the Docket Center is
(202) 566-1742.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For questions about this final action,
contact Dr. Kelley Spence, Sector Policies and Programs Division (E143-
03), Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711;
telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; and email
address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For specific information regarding the
risk modeling methodology, contact Mr. James Hirtz, Health and
Environmental Impacts Division (C539-02), Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research
Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
fax number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; and email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For
information about the applicability of the NESHAP to a particular
entity, contact Mr. John Cox, Office of Enforcement and Compliance
Assurance, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, WJC South Building
(Mail Code 2221A), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460;
telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; and email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Preamble acronyms and abbreviations. The EPA uses multiple acronyms
and terms in this preamble. While this list may not be exhaustive, to
ease the reading of this preamble and for reference purposes, the EPA
defines the following terms and acronyms here:

ASME American Society of Mechanical Engineers
ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials
CAA Clean Air Act
CDX Central Data Exchange
CEDRI Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
ERT Electronic Reporting Tool
HAP hazardous air pollutant(s)
HI hazard index
IBR incorporation by reference
ICR Information Collection Request
km kilometer
MACT maximum achievable control technology
MIR maximum individual risk
NESHAP national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants
NSPS new source performance standards
NTTAA National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
OMB Office of Management and Budget
PDF portable document format
POWC paper and other web coating
ppm parts per million
ppmv parts per million by volume
PRA Paperwork Reduction Act
RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act
RTR residual risk and technology review
SSM startup, shutdown, and malfunction
the Court United States Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia Circuit
TOSHI target organ-specific hazard index
tpy tons per year
UMRA Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
URE unit risk estimate
U.S.C. United States Code
VCS voluntary consensus standards
VOC volatile organic compound(s)

    Background information. On September 19, 2019, the EPA proposed
determinations regarding the POWC NESHAP RTR and proposed revisions to
the NESHAP to address emissions during SSM events and improve
monitoring, compliance, and implementation. In this action, the EPA is
finalizing the proposed RTR determinations and additional revisions for
the rule. The Agency summarizes the more significant comments we
received regarding the proposed rule and provide our responses in this
preamble. A summary of all other public comments on the proposal and
the EPA's responses to those comments is available in the National
Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Paper and Other Web
Coating (40 CFR part 63, subpart JJJJ) Residual Risk and Technology
Review, Final Amendments--Response to Public Comments on September 19,
2019 Proposal, in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2018-0416. A ``track
changes'' version of the regulatory language that incorporates the
changes in this action is available in the docket.
    Organization of this document. The information in this preamble is
organized as follows:

I. General Information
    A. Does this action apply to me?

    B. Where can I get a copy of this document and other related
information?
    C. Judicial Review and Administrative Reconsideration
II. Background
    A. What is the statutory authority for this action?
    B. What is the POWC source category and how does the NESHAP
regulate HAP emissions from the source category?
    C. What changes did we propose for the POWC source category in
our September 19, 2019, proposal?
III. What is included in this final rule?
    A. What are the final rule amendments based on the risk review
for the POWC source category?
    B. What are the final rule amendments based on the technology
review for the POWC source category?
    C. What are the final rule amendments addressing emissions
during periods of SSM?
    D. What other changes have been made to the NESHAP?
    E. What are the effective and compliance dates of the standards?
IV. What is the rationale for our final decisions and amendments for
the POWC source category?
    A. Residual Risk Review for the POWC Source Category
    B. Technology Review for the POWC Source Category
    C. Revisions to the SSM Provisions for the POWC Source Category
    D. Method For Determining Volatile Organic Matter Retained in
the Coated Web
    E. Periodic Performance Testing
    F. Electronic Reporting
    G. Temperature Sensor Validation
    H. Operating Parameter Clarification
    I. IBR Under 1 CFR part 51 for the POWC Source Category
    J. Technical and Editorial Changes
V. Summary of Cost, Environmental, and Economic Impacts and
Additional Analyses Conducted
    A. What are the affected facilities?
    B. What are the air quality impacts?
    C. What are the cost impacts?
    D. What are the economic impacts?
    E. What are the benefits?
    F. What analysis of environmental justice did we conduct?
    G. What analysis of children's environmental health did we
conduct?
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
    A. Executive Orders 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and
Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
    B. Executive Order 13771: Reducing Regulation and Controlling
Regulatory Costs
    C. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
    D. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
    E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
    F. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
    G. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With
Indian Tribal Governments
    H. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
    I. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
    J. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) and
1 CFR part 51
    K. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations
    L. Congressional Review Act (CRA)

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

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

 Table 1--NESHAP and Industrial Source Categories Affected by This Final
                                 Action
------------------------------------------------------------------------
        NESHAP and source  category                NAICS \1\ code
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paper and Other Web Coating...............  322220, 322121, 326113,
                                             326112, 325992, 327993
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ North American Industry Classification System.

    Table 1 of this preamble is not intended to be exhaustive, but
rather to provide a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be
affected by the final action for the source category listed. To
determine whether your facility is affected, you should examine the
applicability criteria in the appropriate NESHAP. If you have any
questions regarding the applicability of any aspect of this NESHAP,
please contact the appropriate person listed in the preceding FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble.

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

    In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of
this final action will also be available on the internet. Following
signature by the EPA Administrator, the EPA will post a copy of this
final action at: https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/paper-and-other-web-coating-national-emission-standards-hazardous-0.
Following publication in the Federal Register, the EPA will post the
Federal Register version and key technical documents at this same
website.
    Additional information is available on the RTR website at https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/risk-and-technology-review-national-emissions-standards-hazardous. This information
includes an overview of the RTR program and links to project websites
for the RTR source categories.

C. Judicial Review and Administrative Reconsideration

    Under Clean Air Act (CAA) section 307(b)(1), judicial review of
this final action is available only by filing a petition for review in
the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
(the Court) by September 8, 2020. Under CAA section 307(b)(2), the
requirements established by this final rule may not be challenged
separately in any civil or criminal proceedings brought by the EPA to
enforce the requirements.
    Section 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA further provides that only an
objection to a rule or procedure which was raised with reasonable
specificity during the period for public comment (including any public
hearing) may be raised during judicial review. This section also
provides a mechanism for the EPA to reconsider the rule if the person
raising an objection can demonstrate to the Administrator that it was
impracticable to raise such objection within the period for public
comment or if the grounds for such objection arose after the period for
public comment (but within the time specified for judicial review) and
if such objection is of central relevance to the outcome of the rule.
Any person seeking to make such a demonstration should submit a
Petition for Reconsideration to the Office of the Administrator, U.S.
EPA, Room 3000, WJC South Building, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW,
Washington, DC 20460, with a copy to both the person(s) listed in the
preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section, and the Associate
General Counsel for the Air and Radiation Law Office, Office of General
Counsel (Mail Code 2344A), U.S. EPA, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW,
Washington, DC 20460.

II. Background

A. What is the statutory authority for this action?

    Section 112 of the CAA establishes a two-stage regulatory process
to address emissions of HAP from stationary sources. In the first
stage, the Agency must identify categories of sources emitting one or
more of the HAP listed in CAA section 112(b) and then promulgate
technology-based NESHAP for those sources. ``Major sources'' are those
that emit, or have the potential to emit, any single HAP at a rate of
10 tons per year (tpy) or more, or 25 tpy or more of any combination of
HAP. For major sources, these standards are commonly

referred to as maximum achievable control technology (MACT) standards
and must reflect the maximum degree of emission reductions of HAP
achievable (after considering cost, energy requirements, and non-air
quality health and environmental impacts). In developing MACT
standards, CAA section 112(d)(2) directs the EPA to consider the
application of measures, processes, methods, systems, or techniques,
including, but not limited to, those that reduce the volume of or
eliminate HAP emissions through process changes, substitution of
materials, or other modifications; enclose systems or processes to
eliminate emissions; collect, capture, or treat HAP when released from
a process, stack, storage, or fugitive emissions point; are design,
equipment, work practice, or operational standards; or any combination
of the above.
    For these MACT standards, the statute specifies certain minimum
stringency requirements, which are referred to as MACT floor
requirements, and which may not be based on cost considerations. See
CAA section 112(d)(3). For new sources, the MACT floor cannot be less
stringent than the emission control achieved in practice by the best-
controlled similar source. The MACT standards for existing sources can
be less stringent than floors for new sources, but they cannot be less
stringent than the average emission limitation achieved by the best-
performing 12 percent of existing sources in the category or
subcategory (or the best-performing five sources for categories or
subcategories with fewer than 30 sources). In developing MACT
standards, the Agency must also consider control options that are more
stringent than the floor under CAA section 112(d)(2). The EPA may
establish standards more stringent than the floor, based on the
consideration of the cost of achieving the emissions reductions, any
non-air quality health and environmental impacts, and energy
requirements.
    In the second stage of the regulatory process, the CAA requires the
EPA to undertake two different analyses, which we refer to as the
technology review and the residual risk review. Under the technology
review, the EPA must review the technology-based standards and revise
them ``as necessary (taking into account developments in practices,
processes, and control technologies)'' no less frequently than every 8
years, pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6). Under the residual risk
review, the EPA must evaluate the risk to public health remaining after
application of the technology-based standards and revise the standards,
if necessary, to provide an ample margin of safety to protect public
health or to prevent, taking into consideration costs, energy, safety,
and other relevant factors, an adverse environmental effect. The
residual risk review is required within 8 years after promulgation of
the technology-based standards, pursuant to CAA section 112(f). In
conducting the residual risk review, if the EPA determines that the
current standards provide an ample margin of safety to protect public
health, it is not necessary to revise the MACT standards pursuant to
CAA section 112(f).\1\ For more information on the statutory authority
for this rule, see 84 FR 49382 (September 19, 2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

B. What is the POWC source category and how does the NESHAP regulate
HAP emissions From the source category?

    The EPA promulgated the POWC NESHAP on December 4, 2002 (67 FR
72330). The standards are codified at 40 CFR part 63, subpart JJJJ. The
POWC source category includes new and existing facilities that coat
paper and other web substrates that are major sources of HAP emissions.
For purposes of the regulation, a web is defined as a continuous
substrate that is capable of being rolled at any point during the
coating process. Further, a web coating line is any number of work
stations, of which one or more applies a continuous layer of coating
material along the entire width of a continuous web substrate or any
portion of the width of the web substrate, and any associated curing/
drying equipment between an unwind (or feed) station and a rewind (or
cutting) station. The source category covered by this NESHAP currently
includes 168 facilities.
    Web coating operations covered by other NESHAP (i.e., Printing and
Publishing, 40 CFR part 63, subpart KK; Magnetic Tape, 40 CFR part 63,
subpart EE; Metal Coil Coating, 40 CFR part 63, subpart SSSS; Fabric
Coating, 40 CFR part 63, subpart OOOO), and research and development
lines are excluded from the requirements of 40 CFR part 63, subpart
JJJJ. In addition, specific process exclusions include lithography,
screen printing, letterpress, and narrow web flexographic printing.
    Facilities subject to the POWC NESHAP utilize low-solvent coatings,
add-on controls, or a combination of both to meet the organic HAP
emission limits, as described in the preamble to the proposed rule (84
FR 49385, September 19, 2019). The NESHAP also includes various
operating limits, initial and continuous compliance requirements, and
recordkeeping and reporting requirements for the POWC source category.
The EPA reviewed these requirements and are updating them as part of
this action in conjunction with finalizing the RTR for this source
category

C. What changes did we propose for the POWC source category in our
September 19, 2019, proposal?

    On September 19, 2019, the EPA published a proposed rule in the
Federal Register for the POWC NESHAP, 40 CFR part 63, subpart JJJJ,
that took into consideration the RTR analyses. As discussed in the
preamble to the proposed rule, the technology review did not identify
any developments in practices, processes, or control technologies that
were widely applicable to the industry that would significantly reduce
HAP emissions, and, therefore, the Agency did not propose any changes
to the NESHAP based on the technology review. Further, as discussed in
the preamble to the proposed rule, the risk analysis indicated no
changes to the NESHAP are necessary to reduce risk to an acceptable
level, to provide an ample margin of safety to protect public health,
or to prevent an adverse environmental effect. In addition to and
separate from the proposed determinations based on our RTR analyses,
the EPA proposed the following:
     Revisions to the SSM provisions of the NESHAP 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;
     a new compliance calculation to account for retained
volatile organic content retained in the coated web;
     new periodic air emissions testing requirements for
facilities that use non-recovery control devices;
     new reporting provisions requiring affected sources to
electronically submit initial notifications, notification of compliance
status, semiannual compliance reports, performance test reports, and
performance evaluation reports;
     new temperature sensor validation requirements;
     operating parameter clarifications;

     IBR of several test methods; and
     technical and editorial changes to remove the Occupational
Safety and Health Administration (OSHA)-defined carcinogens reference,
clarify compliance demonstration options, clarify the definition of
coating materials, add a web coating line usage threshold, add a
printing activity exemption, clarify testing requirements, change
applicability of sources using only non-HAP coatings, clarify oxidizer
temperature monitoring compliance, and revise compliance report content
requirements.

III. What is included in this final rule?

    This action is finalizing the EPA's determinations pursuant to the
RTR provisions of CAA section 112 for the POWC source category. This
action is also finalizing other changes to the NESHAP, including
revisions to the SSM requirements; a compliance calculation to account
for retained volatile organic content retained in the coated web;
periodic testing requirements for add-on control devices; electronic
submittal of initial notifications, notification of compliance status,
semiannual compliance reports, performance test reports, and
performance evaluation reports; temperature sensor validation
requirements; operating parameter clarifications; IBR of several test
methods; and various technical and editorial changes.

A. What are the final rule amendments based on the risk review for the
POWC source category?

    The EPA proposed no changes to the POWC NESHAP based on the risk
review conducted pursuant to CAA section 112(f). The EPA is finalizing
the proposed determination that risks from the source category are
acceptable, considering all of the health information and factors
evaluated, and also considering risk estimation uncertainty. The Agency
is also finalizing the proposed determination that revisions to the
current standards are not necessary to reduce risk to an acceptable
level, to provide an ample margin of safety to protect public health,
or to prevent an adverse environmental effect. The EPA received no new
data or other information during the public comment period that
affected the proposed determinations. Therefore, the EPA is finalizing
the proposed determination and making no revisions to the NESHAP based
on the analyses conducted under CAA section 112(f), and we are
readopting the standards.

B. What are the final rule amendments based on the technology review
for the POWC source category?

    In the proposed rule, the EPA proposed to determine that there are
no developments in practices, processes, and control technologies that
warrant revisions to the MACT standards for this source category. The
EPA received no new data or other information during the public comment
period that affected our proposed determinations. Therefore, the EPA is
finalizing the proposed determination and making no revisions to the
MACT standards under CAA section 112(d)(6).

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

    The EPA proposed amendments to the POWC NESHAP to remove and revise
provisions related to SSM. The EPA is finalizing the amendments, as
proposed, with minor clarifications with this rulemaking. In its 2008
decision in Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F.3d 1019 (D.C. Cir. 2008), the
Court vacated portions of two provisions in the EPA's CAA section 112
regulations governing the emissions of HAP during periods of SSM.
Specifically, the Court vacated the SSM exemption contained in 40 CFR
63.6(f)(1) and 40 CFR 63.6(h)(1), holding that under section 302(k) of
the CAA, emissions standards or limitations must be continuous in
nature and that the SSM exemption violates the CAA's requirement that
some CAA section 112 standards apply continuously. As detailed in
section IV.D of the preamble to the proposed rule (84 FR 49382,
September 19, 2019), the amended POWC NESHAP requires that the
standards apply at all times (see 40 CFR 63.3320(b)), consistent with
the Court decision in Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F.3d 1019 (D.C. Cir.
2008). In addition to eliminating the SSM exemption, the EPA has
removed the requirement for sources to develop and maintain an SSM
plan, as well as certain recordkeeping and reporting provisions related
to the SSM exemption.
    The EPA is finalizing the SSM provisions as proposed without
setting a separate standard for startup and shutdown as discussed in
the preamble to the proposed rule in section IV.D. Further, the EPA is
not finalizing standards for malfunctions. As discussed in the
September 19, 2019, proposal, the EPA interprets CAA section 112 as not
requiring emissions that occur during periods of malfunction to be
factored into development of CAA section 112 standards, although the
EPA has the discretion to set standards for malfunctions where
feasible. For this action, it is unlikely that a malfunction would
result in a violation of the standards, and no comments were submitted
that would suggest otherwise. Refer to section IV.D of the preamble to
the proposed rule for further discussion of the EPA's rationale for the
decision not to set standards for malfunctions, as well as a discussion
of the actions a source could take in the unlikely event that a source
fails to comply with the applicable CAA section 112(d) standards as a
result of a malfunction event.
    As explained in more detail below, the EPA is finalizing revisions
to the General Provisions table to 40 CFR part 63, subpart JJJJ, to
eliminate requirements that include rule language providing an
exemption for periods of SSM. Additionally, the EPA is finalizing our
proposal to eliminate language related to SSM that treats periods of
startup and shutdown the same as periods of malfunction, as explained
further below. Finally, the EPA is finalizing the proposed amendments
to revise the reporting and recordkeeping requirements as they relate
to malfunctions, as further described below. As discussed in the
preamble to the proposed rule, these revisions are consistent with the
requirement in 40 CFR 63.3320(b) that the standards apply at all times.
Refer to sections IV.C of this preamble for a detailed discussion of
these amendments.

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

    Other changes that have been made to the regulation include
incorporation of a compliance calculation to account for retained
volatile organic content retained in the coated web; periodic
performance testing requirements; electronic submittal of initial
notifications, notification of compliance status, semiannual compliance
reports, performance test reports, and performance evaluation reports;
temperature sensor validation requirements; operating parameter
clarifications; IBR of several test methods; and various technical and
editorial changes. The EPA's analyses and changes related to these
issues are discussed below.
    Other changes to the NESHAP that do not fall into the categories in
the previous section include:
     Method for determining volatile organic matter retained in
the coated web. The EPA is finalizing the addition of an equation to
account for volatile organic matter retained in the coated

web as discussed in section IV.D of this preamble.
     Periodic performance testing. The EPA is finalizing a
periodic testing requirement for non-recovery add-on control devices to
ensure continued compliance, as discussed in section IV.E of this
preamble.
     Electronic reporting. The EPA is finalizing amendments to
the reporting requirements to require electronic reporting for initial
notifications, notifications of compliance status, semiannual
compliance reports, performance test reports, and performance
evaluation reports, as discussed in section IV.F of this preamble.
     Temperature sensor validation. The EPA is finalizing
amendments to remove the temperature sensor calibration requirement and
replace it with validation requirements to ensure continued compliance,
as discussed in section IV.G of this preamble.
     Operating parameter clarification. The EPA is finalizing,
as proposed, an operating parameter clarification, as discussed in
section IV.H of this preamble.
     IBR under 1 CFR part 51. The EPA is finalizing the IBR of
several test methods, as discussed in section IV.I of this preamble.
     Technical and editorial changes. The EPA is finalizing
technical and editorial changes, as discussed in section IV.J of this
preamble.

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

    The revisions to the NESHAP being promulgated in this action are
effective on July 9, 2020.\2\ The compliance date for affected existing
facilities is 365 days after the effective date of the final rule, with
the exception of electronic reporting of semiannual reports. Affected
source owners and operators that commence construction or
reconstruction after September 19, 2019, must comply with all
requirements of the subpart, including the amendments being finalized
with this action (except for the electronic reporting of semiannual
reports), no later than the effective date of the final rule or upon
startup, whichever is later. All affected sources must use the
Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface (CEDRI) reporting
template for semiannual reports for the subsequent semiannual reporting
period after the form has been available in CEDRI for 1 year. All
affected existing facilities must meet the current requirements of 40
CFR part 63, subpart JJJJ until the applicable compliance date of the
amended rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ This final action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5
U.S.C. 804(2), so the effective date of the final rule is the
promulgation date as specified in CAA section 112(d)(10).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As explained in the preamble to the proposed rule, the EPA proposed
a compliance period of 180 days for existing sources because the
amendments would impact ongoing compliance requirements (84 FR 79406,
September 19, 2019). Two significant amendments, the removal of the SSM
exemption and the addition of electronic reporting, were determined to
require additional time for changing reporting and recordkeeping
systems. As stated in the preamble to the proposed rule, the EPA's
experience with similar industries that are required to convert
reporting mechanisms; 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; reliably employ electronic reporting; and
convert logistics of reporting processes to different time-reporting
parameters, shows that a time period of a minimum of 90 days, and more
typically, 180 days, is generally necessary to successfully complete
these changes. Our experience with similar industries further shows
that owners or operators of this sort of regulated facility generally
requires a time period of 180 days to read and understand the amended
rule requirements; 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; adjust parameter
monitoring and recording systems to accommodate revisions; and update
their operations to reflect the revised requirements. The EPA
recognizes the confusion that multiple compliance dates for individual
requirements would create and the additional burden such an assortment
of dates would impose.
    In the preamble to the proposed rule, the EPA solicited comment on
whether the 180-day compliance period was reasonable and specifically
requested sources provide information regarding the specific actions
they would need to undertake to comply with the amended rule. The EPA
also noted that information provided in response to this request for
comment could result in changes to the proposed compliance date (84 FR
49406, September 19, 2019). Comments were provided suggesting that 180
days was not enough time to comply with the proposed changes and that a
minimum of 365 days was needed. Commenters noted that tasks that would
need to be completed during the compliance period were: Develop site-
specific implementation plan for changes to add-on control device
requirements; review startup and shutdown procedures; reprogram
electronic systems and automated alarms consistent with the removal of
the SSM provisions; revise the oxidizer temperature operating limit;
rework recordkeeping and reporting procedures and systems to match the
new CEDRI form; develop and communicate guidance to ensure consistent
implementation across a company's facilities; prepare permit
applications; acquire new permits; and develop and provide training for
facility staff on the amended requirements.
    The EPA reviewed the information provided by commenters regarding
tasks needed to be completed during the compliance period and agrees
that 180 days is not sufficient time, particularly for implementing the
changes to add-on control device requirements and for reworking
recordkeeping and reporting procedures to comply with the amendments,
including the removal of the SSM exemption. This source category needs
additional time for these changes because of the complexity of the
compliance calculations and the potential for a large variety of
products to be produced on the same equipment (which requires multiple
startup and shutdown events on a regular basis). From our assessment of
the time frame needed for compliance with the entirety of the revised
requirements and considering the public comments received, the EPA
considers a period of 365 days to be the most expeditious compliance
period practicable for the POWC source category, and, thus, the EPA is
finalizing that existing affected sources must be in compliance with
all of the POWC NESHAP amended requirements within 365 days of the
effective date.
    Additionally, comments were received from multiple commenters
requesting more time to develop and train on the CEDRI semiannual
reporting template. The Agency agrees with the commenters that more
time is needed to accurately develop the template and to train facility
staff on its use. As such, the EPA is finalizing that the electronic
reporting template is not required to be used for semiannual reports
until it has been available in CEDRI for 1 year. To prevent two
separate reports for one semiannual reporting period, the Agency is
finalizing that the reporting template should be used for the first
full semiannual reporting period after the template has been available
in CEDRI for 1 year. For example, if the template

becomes available in CEDRI on March 13, 2020, it would be used
beginning with the report submitted for the July 2021-December 2021
reporting period.

IV. What is the rationale for our final decisions and amendments for
the POWC source category?

    For each issue, this section provides a description of what the EPA
proposed and what the EPA is finalizing for the issue, a summary of key
comments and responses, and the EPA's rationale for the final decisions
and amendments. For all comments not discussed in this preamble,
comment summaries and the EPA's responses can be found in the comment
summary and response document available in the docket (Docket ID No.
EPA-HQ-OAR-2018-0416).

A. Residual Risk Review for the POWC Source Category

1. What did we propose pursuant to CAA section 112(f) for the POWC
source category?
    A residual risk analysis was conducted for the POWC source
category. Details of the risk analysis can be found in section IV of
the preamble to the proposed rule (84 FR 49382, September 19, 2019).
The results of the risk analyses, and decisions on risk acceptability
and ample margin of safety, as well as the results of the environmental
risk screening assessment, are summarized here.
    For the POWC source category risk assessment conducted prior to
proposal, the EPA estimated risks based on actual and allowable
emissions from POWC surface coating operations. The risk results for
the POWC source category indicate that both the actual and allowable
inhalation cancer risks to the individual most exposed are at least 14
times below the presumptive limit of acceptability of 100-in-1 million
(i.e., 1-in-10 thousand). The residual risk assessment for the POWC
source category \3\ estimated cancer incidence rate at 0.005 cases per
year based on actual emissions. Approximately 4,300 people are exposed
to a cancer risk equal to or above 1-in-1 million from the source
category based upon actual emissions from 11 facilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Residual Risk Assessment for the Paper and Other Web Coating
Source Category in Support of the 2020 Risk and Technology Review
Final Rule, Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2018-0416.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The maximum chronic noncancer target organ-specific hazard index
(TOSHI) due to inhalation exposures is less than 1 for actual and
allowable emissions. The results of the acute screening analysis show
that acute risks are below a level of concern for the source category
considering the conservative assumptions used that err on the side of
overestimating acute risk.
    Multipathway screen values are below a level of concern for both
carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic persistent and bioaccumulative HAP as
well as emissions of lead compounds. Maximum cancer and noncancer risks
due to ingestion exposures using health-protective risk screening
assumptions are below the presumptive limit of acceptability. The
maximum estimated excess cancer risk is below 1-in-1 million and the
maximum noncancer hazard quotient (HQ) for mercury is less than 1 based
upon the Tier 1 farmer/fisher exposure scenario.
    The risk assessment for the POWC source category is contained in
the report titled Residual Risk Assessment for the Paper and Other Web
Coating Source Category in Support of the 2020 Risk and Technology
Review Final Rule, which can be found in the docket for this action
(Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2018-0416).
2. How did the risk review change for the POWC source category?
    Neither the risk assessment nor the Agency's determinations
regarding risk acceptability, ample margin of safety, or adverse
environmental effects for the POWC source category have changed since
the proposal was published on September 19, 2019. Therefore, the EPA is
finalizing the risk review as proposed with no changes (84 FR 49398,
September 19, 2019).
3. What key comments did we receive on the risk review, and what are
our responses?
    Comments were received regarding the risk assessment inputs the EPA
used to conduct the POWC source category risk assessment. First,
commenters noted that the acute emissions multipliers should be less
than the value of 10 that the EPA used in its source category acute
risk assessment. The EPA agrees with the commenters that an acute
hourly multiplier of 10 likely over-estimates the emissions for this
source category, however, we did not reanalyze acute risk for this
final rulemaking because the risk values were already deemed acceptable
using the multiplier of 10 for the proposal and would have been further
reduced with a lower multiplier. Second, commenters noted that the
EPA's risk assessment was ``very conservative and likely overstates
both annual and short-term HAP emission rates'' because it used
allowable emissions as actual emissions where no other data were
available. The commenters are correct in their assessment that the EPA
used allowable emissions as actual emissions when no other data were
available to ensure that the risk analysis did not underestimate the
risk posed by the source category. Because risk was acceptable using
this conservative approach and would have been reduced further if
actual emissions data had been available, the results of this approach
further supports the EPA's conclusion.
    Additionally, comments were received regarding the risk assessment
methods the EPA used to conduct the POWC source category risk
assessment. Two commenters stated that the formaldehyde health value
used in the risk assessment was not based on the best available
science, and that the EPA should have used the value from the Chemical
Industry Institute of Technology (CIIT) biologically-based dose-
response model. We disagree with the commenters that the EPA should
have used the CIIT formaldehyde value because the EPA has a tiered
prioritized list of appropriate health benchmark values for use in the
residual risk assessment, and in general, the hierarchy places greater
weight on the EPA-derived health benchmarks than those from other
organizations. Even though the commenters claim the Integrated Risk
Information System (IRIS) value the EPA used was too high (i.e., the
value over-estimated risk), the EPA proposed, and is finalizing, that
the risks from formaldehyde from this source category are acceptable.
    Comments were also received supporting the EPA's use of the 99th
percentile concentration for modeling acute risk. Overall, the EPA
received no comments or new information demonstrating a need for the
Agency to reanalyze risk for the final rulemaking, and, therefore, the
risk assessment conducted for the proposed rule was used to support the
Agency's conclusions for the final rule.
    Additionally, the EPA received several comments supporting our
conclusions relating to risk acceptability and that additional
emissions reductions are not necessary to provide an ample margin of
safety. One commenter opposed our acceptability determination because
the EPA did not consider risk from emission sources from other source
categories. The EPA has the discretion to conduct a facility-wide risk
assessment which factors in emissions from process equipment outside of
the source category. The Agency examines facility-wide risks to provide
additional context for the source category risks. The development of
facility-wide risk estimates provides

additional information about the potential cumulative risks in the
vicinity of the source category emission units as one means of
informing potential risk-based decisions about the source category in
question. The Agency recognizes that, because these risk estimates were
derived from facility-wide emission estimates which have not generally
been subjected to the same level of engineering review as the source
category emission estimates, they may be less certain than our risk
estimates for the source category in question, but they remain
important for providing context as long as their uncertainty is taken
into consideration in the process.
    For detailed comment summaries regarding the residual risk review
and the corresponding responses, see the memorandum in the docket,
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Paper and
Other Web Coating (40 CFR part 63, subpart JJJJ) Residual Risk and
Technology Review, Final Amendments--Response to Public Comments on
September 19, 2019 Proposal.
4. What is the rationale for our final approach and final decisions for
the risk review?
    As noted in our proposal, the EPA sets standards under CAA section
112(f)(2) using ``a two-step standard-setting approach, with an
analytical first step to determine an `acceptable risk' that considers
all health information, including risk estimation uncertainty, and
includes a presumptive limit on maximum individual risk (MIR) of
`approximately 1-in-10 thousand''' (see 54 FR 38045, September 14,
1989). The EPA weighs all health risk factors in our risk acceptability
determination, including the cancer MIR, cancer incidence, the maximum
TOSHI, the maximum acute noncancer HQ, the extent of noncancer risks,
the distribution of cancer and noncancer risks in the exposed
population, and the risk estimation uncertainties.
    The EPA evaluated all of the comments on the risk review and
determined that no changes to the review are needed. For the reasons
explained in the proposal, the EPA determined that the risks from the
POWC source category are acceptable, and the current standards provide
an ample margin of safety to protect public health and prevent an
adverse environmental effect. Therefore, pursuant to CAA section
112(f)(2), the EPA is finalizing the residual risk review as proposed.

B. Technology Review for the POWC Source Category

1. What did we propose pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6) for the POWC
source category?
    Pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6), the EPA proposed to conclude
that no revisions to the current MACT standards for the POWC source
category are necessary (84 FR 49382, September 19, 2019). As described
in section III.B of the preamble to the proposed rule, the technology
review focused on identifying developments in practices, processes, and
control technologies for reduction of HAP emissions from POWC
facilities. In conducting the technology review, the EPA searched for
and reviewed information on practices, processes, and control
technologies that were not considered during the development of the
POWC NESHAP. The review included a search of the Reasonably Available
Control Technology/Best Available Control Technology/Lowest Achievable
Emission Rate (RACT/BACT/LAER) Clearinghouse database, reviews of title
V permits for POWC facilities, site visits to facilities with POWC
operations, and a review of relevant literature. We did not identify
any developments in practices, processes, or control technologies that
were widely applicable to the industry and would significantly reduce
HAP emissions, and, therefore, the EPA did not propose any changes to
the NESHAP based on the technology review. For more details on the
technology review, see the Technology Review Analysis for the Paper and
Other Web Coating Source Category memorandum, in the docket for this
rulemaking (Docket ID Item No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2018-0416-0086).
2. How did the technology review change for the POWC source category?
    No new information was received to change the Agency's conclusions
with respect to the technology review since the proposal was published
on September 19, 2019. Therefore, the EPA is finalizing the proposed
determination that no revisions to the NESHAP are necessary pursuant to
CAA section 112(d)(6).
3. What key comments did we receive on the technology review, and what
are our responses?
    The EPA received no comments that identified improved control
technology, work practices, operational procedures, process changes, or
pollution prevention approaches to reduce emissions in the category
since promulgation of the current NESHAP. The EPA received multiple
supportive comments on the proposed technology review. For detailed
comment summaries regarding the technology review and the corresponding
responses, see the memorandum in the docket, National Emission
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Paper and Other Web Coating (40
CFR part 63, subpart JJJJ) Residual Risk and Technology Review, Final
Amendments--Response to Public Comments on September 19, 2019 Proposal.
4. What is the rationale for our final approach for the technology
review?
    The technology review did not identify any changes in practices,
processes, or control technologies that would reduce emissions in this
category. The EPA did not identify any control equipment not previously
identified; improvements to existing controls; work practices, process
changes, or operational procedures not previously considered; or any
new pollution prevention alternatives for this source category. We
evaluated all of the comments on the technology review and determined
that no changes to the review are needed, therefore, the EPA is
finalizing the determination that no revisions to the NESHAP are
necessary pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6). Additional details of our
technology review can be found in the memorandum titled Technology
Review Analysis for the Paper and Other Web Coating Source Category, in
the docket for this rulemaking (Docket ID Item No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2018-
0416-0086).

C. Revisions to the SSM Provisions for the POWC Source Category

1. What did we propose pursuant to SSM provisions for the POWC source
category?
    The EPA proposed amendments to the POWC NESHAP to remove provisions
related to SSM that are not consistent with the requirement that the
standards apply at all times. More information concerning the
elimination of SSM provisions is in the preamble to the proposed rule
(84 FR 49399-49402, September 19, 2019).
2. How did the revisions to the SSM provisions change for the POWC
source category?
    The EPA is finalizing the SSM provisions as proposed with no
changes.
3. What key comments did we receive on the SSM provisions, and what are
our responses?
    The EPA received several comments related to the proposed removal
of the

SSM provisions. One commenter believed that the EPA is not required to
change the regulation to require sources to meet the emission standards
at all times, including periods of SSM. The EPA disagrees with the
commenter's assertion. The EPA believes the Sierra Club decision
(Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F.3d 1019) held that emission limitations
under CAA section 112 must apply continuously and meet minimum
stringency requirements, even during periods of SSM. Consistent with
this reading, the EPA proposed to remove the SSM exemption, and is
finalizing the removal with this action. Other commenters were
generally supportive of the SSM exemption removal and noted that it
would likely have minimal impacts on regulated facilities. For detailed
comment summaries regarding the removal of the SSM exemption and the
corresponding responses, see the memorandum in the docket, National
Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Paper and Other Web
Coating (40 CFR part 63, subpart JJJJ) Residual Risk and Technology
Review, Final Amendments--Response to Public Comments on September 19,
2019 Proposal.
4. What is the rationale for our final approach and final decisions for
the revisions to the SSM provisions?
    The rationale for each of the amendments the EPA is finalizing to
address SSM is in the preamble to the proposed rule (84 FR 49399-49402,
September 19, 2019). After evaluation of the comments received, the
EPA's rationale for revisions to the SSM provisions has not changed
since proposal and we are finalizing the approach for removing the SSM
provisions as proposed.

D. Method for Determining Volatile Organic Matter Retained in the
Coated Web

1. What did we propose?
    A portion of the HAP in coatings applied to paper and other web
substrates may be retained in the web instead of being volatilized as
air emissions. The existing NESHAP allows for the accounting of HAP
retained in the coated web in 40 CFR 63.3360(g), but stakeholders
indicated the requirement to ``develop a testing protocol to determine
the mass of volatile matter retained . . . and submit this protocol to
the Administrator for approval'' was vague and unworkable. As discussed
in the preamble to the proposed rule (84 FR 49402, September 19, 2019),
to provide clarity and reduce regulatory burden, the EPA proposed to
incorporate the utilization of an emission factor to account for
volatile organic matter retained in the coated web. As discussed in the
preamble to the proposed rule, the EPA proposed new language to allow
facilities to account for retained volatile organics in their
compliance demonstration calculations without requiring the submittal
of an alternative monitoring request to the EPA under the provisions of
40 CFR 63.8(f).
2. What changed since proposal?
    Two changes have been made to the proposed provisions for
determining volatile organic matter retained in the coated web. First,
the EPA has clarified that ``retained in the web'' means ``retained in
the coated web or otherwise not emitted.'' Second, the EPA has added
additional flexibility to allow any EPA-approved method, manufacturer's
emissions test data, or mass balance approach using modified EPA Method
24 to be used to develop the emission factor.
3. What are the key comments and what are our responses?
    The EPA received comments from four commenters supporting the
addition of the emission factor approach for determining the amount of
volatile matter retained in the web. Commenters suggested that the EPA
clarify that ``retained in the web'' means ``retained in the coated web
or otherwise not emitted.'' The EPA agrees that this is an appropriate
clarification and has revised the regulatory text accordingly.
    The EPA also received comments suggesting that we allow other
methods for developing the emission factor to determine the amount of
volatile organic matter retained. Commenters specifically requested the
ability to use other EPA-approved test methods, manufacturer's
emissions test data, or mass-balance type approaches using modified EPA
Method 24. The EPA agrees that allowing the use of these methods would
provide flexibility and still appropriately characterize emissions from
the web coating process.
    For detailed comment summaries regarding the methods used to
determine the volatile organic matter retained in the coated web and
the corresponding responses, see the memorandum in the docket, National
Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Paper and Other Web
Coating (40 CFR part 63, subpart JJJJ) Residual Risk and Technology
Review, Final Amendments--Response to Public Comments on September 19,
2019 Proposal.
4. What is the rationale for our final approach to determining volatile
matter retained in the coated web?
    The EPA reviewed the public comments and are finalizing the
proposed method of determining the volatile organic material retained
in the coated web with two changes as a result of public comment. The
EPA is clarifying that ``retained in the web'' means ``retained in the
coated web or otherwise not emitted'' in the regulatory text and is
allowing for additional test methods for use in the development of the
emission factor. Both of these changes provide regulatory clarity and
flexibility, but still appropriately characterize emissions from the
web coating process. The amendments add compliance flexibility and
reduce regulatory burden but do not alter the emission standard. This
approach quantifies emissions in a way that is representative of the
actual emissions from the coating operations instead of assuming that
all coating-HAP is emitted.

E. Periodic Performance Testing

1. What did we propose?
    The EPA proposed that facilities that use non-recovery control
devices (e.g., thermal and catalytic oxidizers) must conduct periodic
air emissions performance testing, with the first of the periodic
performance tests to be conducted within 3 years of the effective date
of the revised standards and thereafter every 5 years following the
previous test. The EPA also proposed that facilities using the emission
factor approach to account for volatile matter retained in the web must
conduct periodic performance testing every 5 years to re-establish the
emission factor.
2. What changed since proposal?
    The periodic performance testing requirements for catalytic
oxidizers and those for emission factor development have changed since
the September 2019 proposal in response to public comment. For
catalytic oxidizers, commenters suggested that annual catalyst activity
testing would be more indicative of oxidizer operation than 5-year
inlet/outlet emissions testing. The EPA is therefore finalizing that
catalytic oxidizers may do an annual catalyst activity test instead of
the 5-year inlet/outlet emissions testing. The EPA is finalizing
periodic performance testing requirements for thermal oxidizers as
proposed (84 FR 49403, September 19, 2019). The EPA has clarified that
the testing is only required for add-on control devices used to
demonstrate

compliance with the POWC NESHAP. The EPA is not finalizing the 5-year
requirement to re-establish emission factors used in determining the
amount of volatile organics retained in the coated web for 40 CFR
63.3360(g), but is finalizing a requirement that periodic performance
testing be done if there is a change in coating formulation, operation
conditions, or other change that could reasonably result in increased
emissions since the time of the last test used to establish the
emission factor.
3. What are the key comments and what are our responses?
    Comments were received both opposing and supporting the proposed 5-
year periodic emissions testing requirements. Commenters that opposed
the requirements noted that oxidizers are not used continuously in the
flexible packaging industry but only when compliant coatings are not
used and stated that testing does not show any evidence of degradation
in thermal oxidizers. Commenters noted that degradation may occur when
a catalytic oxidizer is used to control a process using silicon-
containing coatings, but that a catalyst activity test would be more
appropriate to determine performance. The EPA has reviewed these
comments and is finalizing repeat emissions performance testing for
catalytic oxidizers with the alternative to perform an annual catalyst
activity test. The EPA is finalizing the periodic emissions performance
test requirements for thermal oxidizers, as proposed. Both requirements
can be found in 40 CFR 63.3360(a)(2).
    Commenters suggested that periodic performance testing for re-
establishment of emission factors, such as for reactive coatings, is
not necessary in most cases and would be excessively burdensome and
unnecessary, except if the product's formulation or its process
conditions have changed in a way that would increase emissions. The EPA
has reviewed the commenters concerns and agrees that repeat testing to
re-establish emission factors for coatings used in the POWC industry
every 5 years could be burdensome and is not finalizing this
requirement in this action.
    Commenters requested clarification that the first periodic
emissions performance test can be conducted within either 3 years of
promulgation of the final amendments or within 60 months of the
previous test, whichever is later, to ensure that any facility that has
recently conducted a performance test will have the full 5 years
between tests. The EPA intended that performance tests recently
performed (within 3 years of promulgation of the final amendments) can
count towards the first periodic testing requirements. Commenters also
requested clarification if state-required volatile organic compound
(VOC) performance testing or HAP performance testing performed for
another MACT can count towards this requirement. The EPA agrees that
both testing for VOC destruction efficiency and HAP destruction
efficiency for another subpart are appropriate substitutions for the
periodic testing requirements in the POWC NESHAP because these tests
will demonstrate ongoing performance of the control device. Both of
these issues have been clarified in 40 CFR 63.3330(a)(2).
    Commenters requested clarification that only control devices used
to demonstrate compliance with the POWC NESHAP would need to be tested,
and that VOC tests required by the state permitting authority could be
used to meet the proposed requirements. The EPA agrees with the
commenters that add-on control devices not used to demonstrate
compliance with the POWC NESHAP (i.e., those used to demonstrate
compliance with new source performance standards (NSPS) or state VOC
requirements) are not required to be tested under the POWC NESHAP
amendments. The EPA also agrees that VOC tests required by the state
permitting authority could be used to meet the POWC repeat testing
requirements. The EPA's proposal was not intended to impose duplicative
testing requirements. Regulatory text has been amended throughout the
NESHAP to state that the requirements for add-on control devices are
only for those used to demonstrate compliance with 40 CFR 63.3320, and
that VOC tests required by state permitting authorities can be used to
meet the repeat performance testing requirements.
    For detailed comment summaries regarding the repeat testing
provisions and the corresponding responses, see the memorandum in the
docket, National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Paper
and Other Web Coating (40 CFR part 63, subpart JJJJ) Residual Risk and
Technology Review, Final Amendments--Response to Public Comments on
September 19, 2019 Proposal.
4. What is the rationale for our final approach and final decisions for
the periodic emissions testing requirement?
    Although ongoing monitoring of operating parameters is required by
the existing POWC NESHAP, as the control device ages over time, the
destruction efficiency of the control device can be compromised due to
various factors. These factors are discussed in more detail in the
memorandum titled Revised Periodic Testing of Control Devices Used to
Comply with the Paper and Other Web Coating NESHAP, in the docket for
this rulemaking (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2018-0416). After considering
the comments discussed above and based on the need for vigilance in
maintaining the control device equipment, the EPA is finalizing the
requirement for periodic testing of thermal oxidizers once every 5
years and the alternative of annual catalyst activity tests for
catalytic oxidizers.

F. Electronic Reporting

1. What did we propose?
    The EPA proposed amendments to the POWC NESHAP to require owners
and operators of POWC facilities to submit electronic copies of
required performance test reports (40 CFR 63.3400(f)), performance
evaluation reports (40 CFR 63.3400(g)), initial notifications (40 CFR
63.3400(b)), notification of compliance status (40 CFR 63.3400(e)), and
semiannual compliance reports (40 CFR 63.3400(c)) through the EPA's
Central Data Exchange (CDX) using CEDRI. A description of the
electronic data submission process is provided in the proposal (at 84
FR 49403, September 19, 2019) and in the memorandum, Electronic
Reporting Requirements for New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) and
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP)
Rules, Docket ID Item No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2018-0416-0091. The proposed
amendment replaces the previous rule requirement to submit the
notifications and reports to the Administrator at the appropriate
address listed in 40 CFR 63.13. This rule requirement does not affect
submittals required by state air agencies as required by 40 CFR 63.13.
    For the performance test reports required in 40 CFR 63.3400(f), the
amendments proposed required that performance test results collected
using test methods that are supported by the EPA's Electronic Reporting
Tool (ERT) as listed on the ERT website \4\ at the time of the test be
submitted in the format generated through the use of the ERT and that
other performance test results be submitted in portable document format
(PDF) using the attachment module of the ERT. Similarly, performance
evaluation results of continuous monitoring systems (CMS)

measuring relative accuracy test audit pollutants that are supported by
the ERT at the time of the test must be submitted in the format
generated through the use of the ERT and other performance evaluation
results be submitted in PDF using the attachment module of the ERT.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ https://www.epa.gov/electronic-reporting-air-emissions/electronic-reporting-tool-ert.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the proposed electronic submittal of initial notifications
required in 40 CFR 63.3400(b), no specific form is available at this
time, therefore, these notifications are required to be submitted in
PDF using the attachment module of the ERT. For electronic submittal of
notifications of compliance status reports required in 40 CFR
63.3400(e), it was proposed that the final semiannual report template
discussed above, would also contain the information required for the
notification of compliance status report.
    For semiannual compliance reports required in 40 CFR 63.3400(c),
the amendment proposed required that owners and operators use the final
semiannual report template to submit information to CEDRI. The template
will reside in CEDRI and was proposed to be used on and after 180 days
past finalization of the amendments. The proposed template for these
reports was included in the docket for public comment.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See POWC_Electronic_Reporting_Template.xlsx, available at
Docket ID Item No. EPA-HQ-2018-0416-0165.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additionally, in the proposal, the EPA 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
provided 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.
2. What changed since proposal?
    The EPA has changed the deadline to use the CEDRI semiannual
reporting template to be 1 year after the template has been available
in CEDRI, instead of the proposed 180 days after date of publication of
the final rule. The EPA has also changed the electronic submittal of
the notification of compliance status to be a PDF instead in the
semiannual reporting template. No other changes have been made to the
proposed requirement for owners and operators of POWC facilities to
submit initial notifications, performance test reports, performance
evaluation reports, and semiannual reports electronically using CEDRI.
3. What are the key comments and what are our responses?
    The EPA received one comment supporting the proposed amendment to
require electronic reporting. The commenter, however, believed that the
proposed force majeure language in 40 CFR 63.3400(j) should be removed
so there is no exemption from reporting due to force majeure events. As
explained in detail in the response-to-comments document, 40 CFR
63.3400(j) does not provide an exemption to reporting, only a method
for requesting an extension of the reporting deadline. The EPA has
retained the proposed language in 40 CFR 63.3400(j) for the final rule.
    Commenters expressed concern about potential inconsistencies
between the POWC electronic reporting requirements and state
requirements of paper copies of reports for VOC and title V compliance.
Commenters asked for clarification that the electronic reporting
requirements replace the POWC title V compliance reporting, including
timing. The Agency does not agree with the commenter's suggestion
concerning potential inconsistencies between state requirements for
paper reporting and federal requirements for VOC and title V permit
compliance. State requirements developed under the state's own
authorities are separate and apart from federal requirements developed
for this rule. As individual federal rules establish applicable
requirements--including electronic reporting--title V programs bundle
those individual requirements, except for adding appropriate periodic
monitoring when necessary, without change. Therefore, title V and the
individual rule's electronic reporting requirements are the same.
    Commenters also asked for clarification that the transition to the
new reporting methodology would apply to an entire reporting period
instead of becoming effective in the middle of a reporting period,
resulting in two different reports being prepared. The EPA's intent was
not to require two different reports to be prepared for one reporting
period. The EPA has clarified in this action that the reporting
template should be used at the beginning of the first full reporting
period after the template has been available in CEDRI for 1 year.
    Commenters expressed concern regarding the electronic reporting
template and asked for more time to meet with the EPA to develop and
understand the spreadsheet. Commenters also provided feedback on the
spreadsheet. The EPA agrees that more time is needed to develop the
template and to work with stakeholders to understand how to use the
spreadsheet. As such, the EPA is changing the compliance date for using
the spreadsheet template to be 1 year after the final template is
available in CEDRI. The EPA will work with stakeholders to develop the
spreadsheet and to provide training on CEDRI and how to complete the
spreadsheet. Because the EPA intends to work with stakeholders to
update the template in the future, it has not placed an updated version
of the template in the docket for this rulemaking.
    For detailed comment summaries regarding electronic reporting and
the corresponding responses, see the memorandum in the docket, National
Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Paper and Other Web
Coating (40 CFR part 63, subpart JJJJ) Residual Risk and Technology
Review, Final Amendments--Response to Public Comments on September 19,
2019 Proposal.
4. What is the rationale for our final approach and final decisions for
the electronic reporting requirement?
    The EPA is finalizing, as proposed, the requirement that owners or
operators of POWC facilities submit electronic copies of initial
notifications, notifications of compliance status, performance test
reports, performance evaluation reports, and semiannual compliance
reports using CEDRI. The EPA is finalizing that the deadline to use the
CEDRI semiannual reporting template is 1 year after the template has
been available in CEDRI. The EPA is finalizing that the electronic
submittal of the notice of compliance status should be in pdf form
instead of the semiannual reporting template. The EPA is also
finalizing, as proposed, provisions that allow facility owners or
operators a process to request extensions for submitting electronic
reports for circumstances beyond the control of the facility (i.e., for
a possible outage in the CDX or CEDRI or for a force majeure event).
The amendments will increase the usefulness of the data contained in
those reports; is in keeping with current trends in data availability
and transparency; will further assist in the protection of public
health and the environment; will improve compliance by facilitating the
ability of regulated facilities to demonstrate compliance with
requirements and by facilitating the ability of delegated state, local,
tribal, and territorial air agencies and

the EPA to assess and determine compliance; and will ultimately reduce
burden on regulated facilities, delegated air agencies, and the EPA.
For more information on the benefits of electronic reporting, see the
memorandum, Electronic Reporting Requirements for New Source
Performance Standards (NSPS) and National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) Rules, Docket ID Item No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2018-0416-0165.

G. Temperature Sensor Validation

1. What did we propose?
    As discussed in the preamble to the proposed rule (84 FR 49382,
September 19, 2019), at 40 CFR 63.3350(e)(9), the original POWC NESHAP
required facilities to conduct an electronic calibration of the
temperature monitoring device every 3 months or, if calibration could
not be performed, replace the temperature sensor. Facilities subject to
the standard have explained to the EPA that they are not aware of a
temperature sensor manufacturer that provides procedures or protocols
for conducting electronic calibration of temperature sensors.
Facilities have reported that because they cannot calibrate their
temperature sensors, the alternative is to replace them every 3 months.
Industry representatives explained that this is burdensome and
requested that an alternative approach to the current requirement in 40
CFR 63.3350(e)(9) be considered.
    The EPA proposed to modify 40 CFR 63.3350(e) to allow multiple
alternative approaches to temperature sensor validation. The first
alternative allows the use of a National Institute of Standards and
Technology (NIST) traceable temperature measurement device or simulator
to confirm the accuracy of any temperature sensor placed into use for
at least one quarterly period, where the accuracy of the temperature
measurement must be within 2.5 percent of the temperature measured by
the NIST traceable device or 5 degrees Fahrenheit, whichever is
greater. The second alternative allows the temperature sensor
manufacturer to certify the electrical properties of the temperature
sensor. The third alternative codifies the common practice of replacing
temperature sensors quarterly. The fourth alternative allows for the
permanent installation of a redundant temperature sensor as close as
practicable to the process temperature sensor. The redundant sensors
must read within 25 degrees Fahrenheit of each other for thermal and
catalytic oxidizers.
2. What changed since proposal?
    Comments were received on the temperature sensor validation
amendments requesting clarification on the requirements. The EPA has
clarified the requirements, as discussed below, in the final
rulemaking.
3. What are the key comments and what are our responses?
    Commenters identified inconsistencies between 40 CFR 63.8 and the
POWC NESHAP. Specifically, the commenters noted that the proposed
amendments require ``validation'' whereas 40 CFR 63.8 requires
``calibration.'' The EPA proposed to remove the term ``calibration''
from the POWC NESHAP because temperature sensors such as thermocouples
do not typically have calibration procedures. To fix this
inconsistency, the EPA is finalizing changes to Table 2 for the 40 CFR
63.8(c)(3) entry to direct affected sources to 40 CFR
63.3350(e)(10)(iv) for temperature sensor validation procedures in lieu
of calibration requirements. Additionally, the EPA is finalizing
changes to Table 2 for the 40 CFR 63.8(d)(1)-(2) entry to direct
affected sources to 40 CFR 63.3350(e)(5) for continuous parameter
monitoring system (CPMS) quality control procedures and to the 40 CFR
63.8(d)(3) entry to state that it does not apply, because 40 CFR
63.3350(e)(5) specifies the program of corrective action. Commenters
also questioned whether Table 2 requires a notification of performance
evaluation for temperature sensors under 40 CFR 63.8(e)(2). The EPA is
also finalizing changes to Table 2 to clarify notifications are not
required for temperature sensor validations.
    Commenters provided background information on thermocouple accuracy
and calibrations and requested that the EPA adopt mechanical
validations as an option to verify temperature sensor operation. These
mechanical validations include visually inspecting the head and wiring
of the device and monitoring the function/non-function of the device.
Commenters explained that this type of validation is appropriate
because thermocouples typically fail instead of drifting and becoming
less accurate. In response to this comment, the EPA added mechanical
validations as an option for verifying temperature sensor operation in
the final rule.
    Similarly, commenters requested that the requirement in 40 CFR
63.3350(e)(10)(vi) for quarterly inspection of all components for
integrity and all electrical connections for continuity, oxidization,
and galvanic corrosion be removed. Commenters noted that this
requirement is redundant because electronic monitoring systems are
designed to alert facility personnel if a signal from the temperature
sensor is interrupted. The commenters suggested that the EPA simplify
the requirement to include only a quarterly inspection of thermocouple
components for proper connection and integrity and clarify that any
such inspection only applies to the temperature sensor and not the
entire oxidation system. The EPA did not intend to create redundant
burden with the proposed requirements. The Agency agrees with the
commenter and is requiring in the final rule a quarterly inspection of
the thermocouple components or to continuously operate an electronic
monitoring system designed to notify personnel if the temperature
sensor signal is interrupted at 40 CFR 63.3350(e)(10)(vi).
    Commenters supported the proposed options for testing the accuracy
of temperature sensors and requested clarification on whether the use
of dual-sensor thermocouples or the use of multiple sensors in the
oxidizer combustion chamber would meet the proposed requirements. The
Agency has added a new subsection to clarify that these options would
meet the finalized requirements. Additionally, the EPA reviewed the
proposed temperature sensor validation regulatory text and determined
that, as proposed, it was vague and sometimes inconsistent. For
example, the proposed amendments said to validate the temperature
sensor quarterly by following the applicable procedures in the
manufacturer's owner's manual. The EPA received additional information
and found that owner's manuals specified annual inspection procedures.
Also as proposed, facilities would need to quarterly validate by
permanently installing a redundant temperature sensor, which was vague
and confusing to affected sources. The EPA has amended 40 CFR
63.3350(e)(10)(iv) to clarify each option for verifying that a
temperature sensor is operating properly and how frequently to perform
the verification. The EPA is finalizing the following verification
options:
     Semiannually compare the temperature sensor to a NIST
traceable temperature measurement device;
     annually validate the temperature sensor by following
applicable mechanical and electrical validation procedures in the
manufacturer's owner's manual;
     annually request the temperature sensor manufacturer to
certify or re-certify electromotive force;

     annually replace the temperature sensor with a new
certified temperature sensor;
     permanently install a redundant temperature sensor as
close as practicable to the process temperature sensor; or
     permanently install a temperature sensor with dual sensors
to account for the possibility of failure.
    One commenter requested that the required accuracy of 2.5 percent
at 40 CFR part 63.3350(e)(10)(iv)(A) apply equally at 40 CFR part
63.3350(e)(10)(iv)(E) instead of 25 degrees Fahrenheit. The commenter
was not aware of any reason to specify different levels of accuracy
between the proposed validation methods. With this final action, the
EPA has changed the 25 degrees Fahrenheit requirement in 40 CFR
63.3350(e)(10)(iv)(E) to be 2.5 percent to be consistent with the
requirements of 40 CFR 63.3350(e)(10)(iv)(A).
    Commenters also requested that the requirement to calibrate the
chart recorder or data logger in section 40 CFR 63.3350(e)(10)(i) be
removed because it is not feasible to calibrate either device, and most
facilities now use an electronic signal to record temperature data for
compliance purposes, not a chart recorder. The EPA agrees and has
removed this statement from the regulatory text.
    For detailed comment summaries regarding the temperature sensor
validation requirements and corresponding responses, see the memorandum
in the docket, National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants: Paper and Other Web Coating (40 CFR part 63, subpart JJJJ)
Residual Risk and Technology Review, Final Amendments--Response to
Public Comments on September 19, 2019 Proposal.
4. What is the rationale for our final approach and final decisions for
the temperature senor calibration requirement?
    The EPA proposed modifications to 40 CFR 63.3350(e) to allow
multiple alternative approaches to temperature sensor calibration to
address concerns raised by affected facilities prior to proposal. After
reviewing the public comments received, the Agency is clarifying the
requirements in this final rulemaking, as discussed above. These
amendments ensure that the temperature sensors are operating properly
to demonstrate continuous compliance with the emission standards.

H. Operating Parameter Clarification

1. What did we propose?
    The EPA proposed to clarify language in 40 CFR 63.3370 which
previously implied all deviations in operating parameters result in
non-compliance with the standard. Specifically, the EPA proposed at 40
CFR 63.3370(k)(5) to clarify that each 3-hour average operating
parameter that is outside of the operating limit range established
during a performance test should be assumed to have zero control and
all HAP must be assumed to be emitted for that period in the monthly
compliance calculation.
2. What changed since proposal?
    The EPA is finalizing the clarification that a deviation from a 3-
hour average operating parameter is not a deviation of the standard,
unless the emission limitations for the month in which the deviation
occurred are exceeded. Based on public comment, the EPA has also added
the option in 40 CFR 63.3370(k)(5) for a facility to develop a control
destruction efficiency curve for use in determining compliance instead
of assuming zero control for all deviations. The EPA has also added
minor clarifications as discussed below.
3. What are the key comments and what are our responses?
    Commenters supported the EPA's proposed clarification that
deviations in operating parameters are not automatically indicative of
non-compliance with the POWC standard. Commenters also stated that a
deviation from a 3-hour operating limit does not indicate non-
compliance because the standard is based on a monthly average. The EPA
agrees that the intent of the clarification was for operating
parameters of add-on control devices only, as the requirement was
placed in 40 CFR 63.3370(k)(5) which only applies to add-on control
devices and not coating lines using compliant coatings.
    Several commenters disagreed with the EPA's proposal that each 3-
hour average operating parameter that is outside of the operating limit
range established during a performance test should be assumed to have
``zero control.'' Commenters asserted that there was no scientific
basis for this assumption and indicated that if a performance test
performed well above the minimum required destruction efficiency,
dropping below the established temperature may have no effect on the
destruction efficiency. Commenters recommended that the EPA allow
facilities to develop a control curve based on test data or engineering
data that documents the level of control achieved at temperatures lower
than the performance test established temperature. The EPA has
considered the commenters' suggestion and have added the option to
develop a control curve for add-on control devices at 40 CFR
63.3360(e)(4). Facilities must work with their permitting authority to
develop the control curve.
    For detailed comment summaries regarding the operating parameter
clarification and responses, see the memorandum in the docket, National
Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Paper and Other Web
Coating (40 CFR part 63, subpart JJJJ) Residual Risk and Technology
Review, Final Amendments--Response to Public Comments on September 19,
2019 Proposal.
4. What is the rationale for our final approach and final decisions for
the operating parameter clarification?
    Operating parameters were established in the original POWC NESHAP
to aid in determining compliance, but operating parameters were not
intended to constitute a violation of the emission standard. For
example, one 3-hour average regenerative thermal oxidizer firebox
temperature below the setpoint established during the stack test would
not necessarily indicate a violation of the POWC emission standard for
the month, but it is a deviation of the operating parameter limit. The
EPA is finalizing, as proposed, language to clarify this distinction
with minor changes based on public comment.

I. IBR Under 1 CFR Part 51 for the POWC NESHAP

1. What did we propose?
    In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA proposed to
incorporate by reference the following voluntary consensus standards
(VCS) into 40 CFR 63.14:
     ASTM D2369-10 (Reapproved 2015)\e\, Standard Test Method
for Volatile Content of Coatings, IBR approved for 40 CFR 63.3360(c).
     ASTM D2697-03 (Reapproved 2014), Standard Test Method for
Volume Nonvolatile Matter in Clear or Pigmented Coatings, IBR approved
for 40 CFR 63.3360(c).
     ASTM 3960-98, Standard Practice for Determining Volatile
Organic Compound (VOC) Content of Paints and Related Coatings, IBR
approved for 40 CFR 63.3360(d).
     ASTM D6093-97, (Reapproved 2016), Standard Test Method for
Percent

Volume Nonvolatile Matter in Clear or Pigmented Coatings Using a Helium
Gas Pycnometer, IBR approved for 40 CFR 63.3360(c).
     ASTM D2111-10 (Reapproved 2015), Standard Test Methods for
Specific Gravity of Halogenated Organic Solvents and Their Admixtures,
IBR approved for 40 CFR 63.3360(c).
     ASTM D1963-85 (Reapproved 1996), Standard Test Method for
Specific Gravity of Drying Oils, Varnishes, Resins, and Related
Materials at 25/25[deg]C (Withdrawn 2004), IBR approved for 40 CFR
63.3360(c).
2. What changed since proposal?
    No changes to the proposed IBR were made since publication of the
proposal (84 FR 49405, September 19, 2019).
3. What are the key comments and what are our responses?
    No comments were received on the proposed IBR of the standards into
40 CFR 63.14.
4. What is the rationale for our final approach and final decisions for
the IBR under 1 CFR part 51?
    In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is
finalizing, as proposed, the IBR of the documents listed in section
IV.I.1 of this preamble.

J. Technical and Editorial Changes

1. Removal of OSHA-Defined Carcinogens Reference
a. What did we propose?
    The EPA proposed to amend sections 40 CFR 63.3360(c)(1)(i) and (3),
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. The Agency proposed to
remove this reference because 29 CFR 1910.1200(d)(4) has been amended
and no longer readily defines which compounds are carcinogens. The EPA
proposed to replace the references to OSHA-defined carcinogens and 29
CFR 1910.1200(d)(4) with a list (in proposed new Table 3 to Subpart
JJJJ of Part 63--List of Hazardous Air Pollutants That Must Be Counted
Relative to Determining Coating HAP Content if Present at 0.1 Percent
or More By Mass) 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.
b. What changed since proposal?
    The EPA has changed the approach for the removal of the reference
to 29 CFR 1910.1200(d)(4) based on public comment. The EPA is not
finalizing the proposed Table 3 to 40 CFR part 63, subpart JJJJ, and is
finalizing a reference to appendix A to 29 CFR 1910.1200 where 29 CFR
1910.1200(d)(4) was previously referenced.
c. What are the key comments and what are our responses?
    Multiple commenters asked that the EPA delete the proposed Table 3
to 40 CFR part 63, subpart JJJJ, and modify the proposed methodology
for determining the HAP content of coatings. Commenters pointed out
that 29 CFR 1910.1200(d)(4) was not a list, but a list of references
for manufacturers and importers to use to classify chemicals.
Commenters asked that the POWC NESHAP reference the current OSHA Safety
Data Sheets (SDS) rule (29 CFR 1910.1200) instead of adding a static
list in the form of the proposed Table 3 to 40 CFR part 63, subpart
JJJJ. The EPA agrees the commenters' suggestion is a more-streamlined
solution for updating the OSHA reference and is not finalizing the
table in the final rule and has added the reference to appendix A to 29
CFR 1910.1200.
    For detailed comment summaries regarding the OSHA-defined
carcinogens reference and the corresponding responses, see the
memorandum in the docket, National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants: Paper and Other Web Coating (40 CFR Part 63, Subpart JJJJ)
Residual Risk and Technology Review, Final Amendments--Response to
Public Comments on September 19, 2019 Proposal.
d. What is the rationale for our final approach?
    The EPA has reviewed the comments received regarding the removal of
the OSHA-defined carcinogens language and agrees that appendix A to 29
CFR 1910.1200 is an appropriate replacement for the outdated 29 CFR
1910.1200(d)(4) reference. Given that the OSHA language that the POWC
proposal sought to replace is in appendix A, for the final POWC
amendment the EPA is finalizing the regulatory text at 40 CFR
63.3360(c)(1)(i) to be as follows:
    (i) Include each organic HAP determined to be present at greater
than or equal to 0.1 mass percent for Occupational Safety and Health
Administration (OSHA)-defined carcinogens as specified in section A.6.4
of appendix A to 29 CFR 1910.1200 and greater than or equal to 1.0 mass
percent for other organic HAP compounds.
2. Clarification of Compliance Demonstration Options
a. What did we propose?
    The EPA proposed an introductory paragraph and a new subsection to
clarify the compliance demonstration requirements in 40 CFR 63.3370. As
originally promulgated, it was not clear that compliance can be
demonstrated based on individual web coating lines, groups of web
coating lines, or all of the web coating lines located at an affected
facility. An introductory paragraph to 40 CFR 63.3370 was proposed to
clarify the intent that compliance can be demonstrated across the web
coating lines in a facility by grouping them or treating them
individually or a combination of both. Additionally, a new subsection
40 CFR 63.3370(r) was proposed to clarify that compliance with the
subpart can be demonstrated using a mass-balance approach. While the
compliance calculations included in 40 CFR 63.3370(b)-(p) are thorough,
there are instances where variables in the equations are not needed,
resulting in confusion by the regulated facilities and the regulating
agencies as to what is required to demonstrate compliance. The mass-
balance approach proposed in 40 CFR 63.3370(r) clarifies the original
intent of the rule.
b. What changed since proposal?
    The EPA received comments suggesting minor edits to the proposed
language regarding the mass-balance compliance demonstration approach
and has incorporated these edits, as appropriate, as discussed below.
No changes were made to the introductory paragraph to 40 CFR 63.3370
and the EPA is finalizing this section, as proposed, in this action.
c. What are the key comments and what are our responses?
    Commenters expressed support for the proposed clarification that
compliance can be demonstrated across multiple lines. Commenters also
felt that this clarification reduces the potential for inconsistent
regulatory interpretations by sources and permitting agencies and makes
the POWC NESHAP consistent with other coating rules. The EPA
acknowledges the commenters' support and is finalizing the
clarification, as proposed.

    Commenters noted that the EPA incorrectly stated procedures for
demonstrating compliance by mass-balance at 40 CFR 63.3370(r)(1)--the
mass of HAP emitted during the month should be divided by the mass
applied according to any of the procedures listed in 40 CFR
63.3320(b)(1)-(3). Commenters also suggested additional regulatory text
revisions to be consistent with proposed edits to other sections. The
EPA has reviewed these comments and agrees with the commenters
suggested edits to correct the mass-balance calculation and has done so
in this rulemaking.
    For detailed comment summaries regarding the clarification of the
compliance demonstration options and the corresponding responses, see
the memorandum in the docket, National Emission Standards for Hazardous
Air Pollutants: Paper and Other Web Coating (40 CFR Part 63, Subpart
JJJJ) Residual Risk and Technology Review, Final Amendments--Response
to Public Comments on September 19, 2019 Proposal.
d. What is the rationale for our final approach?
    The EPA proposed, and is finalizing, amendments to the regulatory
text to clarify that compliance can be demonstrated based on individual
web coating lines, groups of web coating lines, or all of the web
coating lines located at an affected facility. The EPA is finalizing
corrections to the mass balance calculation. Additionally, the EPA
proposed, and is finalizing, a new subsection in 40 CFR 63.3370(r) to
clarify the intent of the rule as a mass-balance approach of
demonstrating compliance. The clarification to the compliance
demonstration options were made to help reduce confusion among
regulated entities and regulating authorities.
3. Clarification of Coating Materials Definition
a. What did we propose?
    The EPA proposed to revise the coating material definition in 40
CFR 63.3310 to clarify that coating materials are liquid or semi-liquid
materials. Additionally, the EPA proposed to revise the web coating
line definition to clarify that coating materials are liquid or semi-
liquid.
b. What changed since proposal?
    The EPA has clarified in the definition of coating materials to
include hot melt adhesives and other hot melt materials.
c. What are the key comments and what are our responses?
    Commenters supported the EPA's proposed clarifications to the
definition of coating materials and further suggested that the EPA
revise the definition to ensure that it is not incorrectly interpreted
to exclude hot melt adhesives or coatings. The EPA agrees with the
commenters and hot melt materials are included in the revised
regulatory text in 40 CFR 63.3310 to reflect this.
    For detailed comment summaries regarding the coating materials
definition and the corresponding responses, see the memorandum in the
docket, National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Paper
and Other Web Coating (40 CFR Part 63, Subpart JJJJ) Residual Risk and
Technology Review, Final Amendments--Response to Public Comments on
September 19, 2019 Proposal.
d. What is the rationale for our final approach?
    The EPA is finalizing, as proposed, revisions to the coating
material definition in 40 CFR 63.3310 to clarify that coating materials
are liquid or semi-liquid materials and revisions to the web coating
line definition to clarify that coating materials are liquid or semi-
liquid. The EPA is also finalizing the clarification that hot melt
materials are included in the definition and that vapor deposition and
dry abrasive materials deposited onto a coated surface area are
excluded from the definition. These revisions will improve regulatory
clarity by confirming that the weight of solid materials should not be
accounted for in the compliance demonstration calculations, and that
vapor-deposition coating is not covered by this subpart.
4. Addition of Web Coating Line Usage Threshold
a. What did we propose?
    The EPA proposed to add a usage threshold to 40 CFR 63.3300(h),
similar to that in 40 CFR part 63, subpart OOOO, that requires a web
coating line that coats both paper and another substrate, such as
fabric, to comply with the subpart that corresponds to the predominate
activity conducted. The EPA proposed to define predominant activity to
be 90 percent of the mass of substrate coated during the compliance
period. For example, a web coating line that coats 90 percent or more
of a paper substrate, and 10 percent or less of a fabric substrate,
would be subject to this subpart and not 40 CFR part 63, subpart OOOO.
b. What changed since proposal?
    Since proposal, the EPA has clarified that the predominant activity
should be determined on a calendar year basis.
c. What are the key comments and what are our responses?
    Commenters supported usage thresholds for converting lines that
coat both paper and another substrate. Commenters noted that the usage
of the term ``affected source'' in the proposal appears to be
inconsistent with the example because the POWC NESHAP is the collection
of all web coating lines. Additionally, commenters thought the term
compliance period could be interpreted to require a facility performing
different types of coating to determine which NESHAP applies on a
monthly basis. Commenters requested that the EPA clarify these issues.
The EPA agrees with the commenters and have edited the regulatory text
to clarify that predominant activity must be determined on a calendar
year basis.
    For detailed comment summaries regarding the web coating line
threshold and the corresponding responses, see the memorandum in the
docket, National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Paper
and Other Web Coating (40 CFR Part 63, Subpart JJJJ) Residual Risk and
Technology Review, Final Amendments--Response to Public Comments on
September 19, 2019 Proposal.
d. What is the rationale for our final approach?
    The EPA reviewed the public comments and added clarifying language
to the proposed usage threshold. This language was added to promote
regulatory certainty and reduce burden from sources that could be
subject to multiple NESHAP.
5. Addition of Printing Activity Exemption
a. What did we propose?
    The EPA proposed to add a printing activity exemption to 40 CFR
63.3300(i) which allows for modified web coating lines already subject
to this subpart to continue to demonstrate compliance with this
subpart, in lieu of demonstrating compliance with 40 CFR part 63,
subpart KK (Printing and Publishing NESHAP).
b. What changed since proposal?
    The EPA has clarified the language in the printing activity
exemption to allow for existing and modified lines to be

subject to the POWC NESHAP in lieu of 40 CFR part 63, subpart KK.
c. What are the key comments and what are our responses?
    Multiple commenters supported the EPA's proposed printing activity
exemption to allow for modified POWC lines already subject to the POWC
NESHAP to continue to demonstrate compliance with 40 CFR part 63,
subpart JJJJ in lieu of demonstrating compliance with 40 CFR part 63,
subpart KK. Commenters suggested that this exemption also apply to
existing sources as well as modified sources (e.g., for POWC web
coating lines that already have a product and packaging rotogravure
print station and/or a wide-web flexographic print station). The
commenter noted that, as written, if during a single month the line
exceeds 5 percent of the total mass of materials applied at the print
station, the line applicability would permanently change to the
Printing and Publishing NESHAP. The EPA agrees with the commenters and
has clarified the regulatory text in this action, as appropriate.
    For detailed comment summaries regarding the printing activity
exemption and the corresponding responses, see the memorandum in the
docket, National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Paper
and Other Web Coating (40 CFR Part 63, Subpart JJJJ) Residual Risk and
Technology Review, Final Amendments--Response to Public Comments on
September 19, 2019 Proposal.
d. What is the rationale for our final approach?
    In this rulemaking, the EPA is finalizing a printing activity
exemption to 40 CFR 63.3300(i) which allows for modified and existing
web coating lines already subject to this subpart to continue to
demonstrate compliance with this subpart, in lieu of demonstrating
compliance with 40 CFR part 63, subpart KK (i.e., the Printing and
Publishing NESHAP). This exemption will reduce regulatory burden
without resulting in increased emissions.
6. Clarification of Testing Requirements
a. What did we propose?
    The EPA proposed to remove the ``by compound'' statement in 40 CFR
63.3320(b)(4) to clarify that the standard is 20 parts per million by
volume (ppmv) for the total of organic HAP emitted, not 20 ppmv for
each individual HAP emitted. This is consistent with the test methods
used in this subpart, which test for total HAP concentration.
b. What changed since proposal?
    The EPA is finalizing the removal of ``by compound'' in 40 CFR
63.3220(b)(4) to clarify that the 20 ppmv standard applies to the total
of organic HAP emitted, not to each individual HAP. As part of our
review, the EPA found four additional instances of ``by compound'' in
40 CFR 63.3370(a)(5), (f), (f)(3), and (f)(3)(iii) that also needed to
be removed.
c. What are the key comments and what are our responses?
    Commenters supported the EPA's proposal to remove ``by compound''
in 40 CFR 63.3220(b)(4) to clarify that the 20 ppmv standard applies to
the total of organic HAP emitted, not to each individual HAP.
d. What is the rationale for our final approach?
    The removal of ``by compound'' makes the POWC NESHAP consistent
with the test methods referenced in the subpart, as they test for total
HAP concentration, not individual HAP compounds.
7. Applicability to Sources Using Only Non-HAP Coatings
a. What did we propose?
    The EPA requested comment on changing the applicability of the POWC
NESHAP to exclude sources that only use non-HAP coatings but are
located at a major source to reduce regulatory burden. As identified
during the development of the risk modeling input file and discussed in
section III.C of the preamble to the proposed rule (84 FR 49406,
September 19, 2019), some facilities that utilize only non-HAP coatings
are subject to the POWC NESHAP because they perform web coating
operations and are a major source because of non-POWC source category
emissions. For example, a non-HAP coating line used to produce paper
towel cores may be located at an integrated pulp and paper facility
that is a major source because of emissions from the pulping
operations. This facility would be required to comply with the
requirements of 40 CFR part 63, subpart JJJJ, even though the coatings
used contain no HAP, and, therefore, no HAP are emitted from the web
coating lines.
b. What changed since proposal?
    The EPA received supportive comments regarding the change of
applicability to sources using only non-HAP coatings. The Agency has
reviewed the public comments and, instead of changing the applicability
of the subpart, is finalizing an exemption for reporting requirements
for these sources.
c. What are the key comments and what are our responses?
    Commenters supported the EPA's proposal to reduce regulatory burden
by excluding sources that are located at a major source of HAP but do
not use coatings that contain HAP for the POWC emission sources.
Commenters stated that the change will reduce regulatory burden without
increasing emissions and could incentivize sources to convert to non-
HAP coatings to avoid applicability of the POWC NESHAP, resulting in
emissions reductions. Commenters further suggested that the exclusion
is a logical step under the EPA's efforts to reduce regulatory burden
and is similar in key aspects to the rulemaking to rescind the EPA's
``once in, always in'' policy. Commenters suggested that the EPA
clarify that all of the subject coating lines at the facility must use
non-HAP coatings to qualify for the exclusion. The EPA has reviewed
these comments and has added regulatory text exempting sources that
only use non-HAP coatings on all of the subject web coating lines at
the facility from on-going compliance reporting requirements.
    For detailed comment summaries regarding applicability to sources
only using non-HAP coatings and the corresponding responses, see the
memorandum in the docket, National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants: Paper and Other Web Coating (40 CFR Part 63, Subpart JJJJ)
Residual Risk and Technology Review, Final Amendments--Response to
Public Comments on September 19, 2019 Proposal.
d. What is the rationale for our final approach?
    The EPA requested comment on changing the applicability of sources
using only non-HAP coatings and received comments supporting the
change. The EPA is finalizing an exemption to on-going reporting
requirements for these sources as it will reduce regulatory burden
without increasing emissions.
8. Oxidizer Temperature Monitoring
a. What did we propose?
    The EPA proposed to add language to recognize that thermal
oxidizers can demonstrate compliance with the standard as long as the
3-hour average firebox temperature does not drop lower

than 50 degrees Fahrenheit below the average combustion temperature
established during the performance test to promote consistency between
the Pressure Sensitive Tape and Label Surface Coating Operations NSPS
(40 CFR part 60, subpart RR) and the POWC NESHAP, as well as to account
for temperature swings due to startup and/or shutdown of web coating
lines.
b. What changed since proposal?
    The EPA has made minor clarifications to the regulatory text to
promote consistency throughout the subpart and has added similar
language for catalytic oxidizers.
c. What are the key comments and what are our responses?
    Commenters were supportive of the EPA's proposed language for
thermal oxidizers and requested that it be included for catalytic
oxidizers as well. Additionally, commenters noted that the Pressure
Sensitive Tape and Label Surface Coating Operations NSPS allows for
setting the minimum temperature drop across the catalyst bed at 80
percent of the average temperature difference during the most recent
performance test and requested that this language be added to promote
consistency between the two rules. The Agency has reviewed the
commenters suggestions and agree that it is appropriate to add the
temperature language for catalytic oxidizers. To ensure complete
combustion, the EPA also added a requirement that the catalyst's
minimum temperature must always be 50 degrees Fahrenheit above the
catalyst's ignition temperature.
    Commenters also suggested edits to promote consistency throughout
the subpart as it relates to the temperature language. The EPA has
reviewed these suggestions and made edits to the regulatory text in
this action, as appropriate.
    For detailed comment summaries regarding the oxidizer temperature
monitoring requirements and the corresponding responses, see the
memorandum in the docket, National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants: Paper and Other Web Coating (40 CFR Part 63, Subpart JJJJ)
Residual Risk and Technology Review, Final Amendments--Response to
Public Comments on September 19, 2019 Proposal.
d. What is the rationale for our final approach?
    The EPA proposed to add language to recognize that thermal
oxidizers can demonstrate compliance with the standard as long as the
3-hour average firebox temperature does not drop lower than 50 degrees
Fahrenheit below the average combustion temperature established during
the performance test to promote consistency between the Pressure
Sensitive Tape and Label Surface Coating Operations NSPS and the POWC
NESHAP, as well as to account for temperature swings due to startup
and/or shutdown of web coating lines. After reviewing the public
comments, the EPA has added the same requirements to catalytic
oxidizers. In addition, the EPA has added language similar to that in
the Pressure Sensitive Tape and Label Surface Coating Operations NSPS
to allow for setting the minimum temperature drop across the catalyst
bed at 80 percent of the average temperature difference during the most
recent performance test. To ensure complete combustion, the EPA also
added a requirement that the catalyst's minimum temperature must always
be 50 degrees Fahrenheit above the catalyst's ignition temperature.
9. Compliance Report Content
a. What did we propose?
    The EPA proposed new reporting requirements at 40 CFR 63.3400(c)(2)
that would require facilities to record data for failures to meet an
applicable standard, estimate the quantity of each regulated pollutant
over any emission limit and a description of the method used, and
document any actions taken to minimize emissions.
b. What changed since proposal?
    The EPA has revised the compliance report content requirements in
40 CFR 63.3400(c)(2) to clarify what should be reported.
c. What are the key comments and what are our responses?
    Commenters noted that the new reporting requirements should be
eliminated because they go beyond the General Provisions at 40 CFR
63.10 and, because compliance is determined monthly, short deviations
are not likely to cause excess emissions. Commenters further noted that
the proposed additions are not relevant to a rule where compliance is
not demonstrated on a short-term basis. The EPA has reviewed the
commenters concerns and agree that the language is not appropriate for
40 CFR part 63, subpart JJJJ. The EPA has revised the requirements in
40 CFR 63.3400(c)(2) to clarify what is required to be reported and has
also revised the requirements in 40 CFR 63.3410(c) to clarify what
records should be maintained.
    Additionally, while the EPA was reviewing the report content
requirements, it became clear that the requirements were confusing as
to what should be reported for facilities using compliant coatings
versus facilities using add-on controls. The EPA has clarified that 40
CFR 63.3400(c)(2)(v) applies to facilities using only compliant
coatings (i.e., those that do not use a CMS). The EPA also clarified
that 40 CFR 63.3400(c)(2)(vi) applies to facilities that have add-on
control devices (i.e., those that use a CPMS or a continuous emission
monitoring system). These amendments should improve regulatory clarity.
    For detailed comment summaries regarding compliance report content
and the corresponding responses, see the memorandum in the docket,
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Paper and
Other Web Coating (40 CFR Part 63, Subpart JJJJ) Residual Risk and
Technology Review, Final Amendments--Response to Public Comments on
September 19, 2019 Proposal.
d. What is the rationale for our final approach?
    The EPA proposed new reporting requirements at 40 CFR 63.3400(c)(2)
that would require facilities to record data for failures to meet an
applicable standard, estimate the quantity of each regulated pollutant
over any emission limit and a description of the method used, and
document any actions taken to minimize emissions to be consistent with
recent RTR rulemakings. After reviewing the comments received during
the public comment period, as well as the regulatory language, it was
determined that these requirements were not appropriate for 40 CFR part
63, subpart JJJJ because compliance is demonstrated on a monthly basis
and therefore these requirements are not being finalized. In response
to comments, amendments were added to the compliance report contents
section to clarify what should be reported and by whom.
10. Other Amendments
    The following additional changes were proposed that address
technical and editorial corrections:
     Revised the references to the other NESHAP in 40 CFR
63.3300 to clarify the appropriate subparts;
     revised 40 CFR 3350(c) to clarify that bypass valves on
always-controlled work stations should be monitored;
     revised 40 CFR 63.3350(e)(4) to clarify 3-hour averages
should be block averages, consistent with the requirements in Table 1
to Subpart JJJJ of Part 63;

     revised the monitoring requirements section in 40 CFR
63.3360 to clarify what constitutes representative conditions;
     revised the recordkeeping requirements section in 40 CFR
63.3410 to include the requirement to show continuous compliance after
effective date of regulation;
     revised the terminology in the delegation of authority
section in 40 CFR 63.3420 to match the definitions in 40 CFR 63.90;
     revised the General Provisions applicability table (Table
2 to Subpart JJJJ of Part 63) to provide more detail and to make it
align with those sections of the General Provisions that have been
amended or reserved over time; and
     renumbered the equations throughout the subpart for
regulatory clarity.
    No comments were received on these other amendments and, therefore,
the EPA is finalizing them as proposed.

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

A. What are the affected facilities?

    The POWC source category includes any facility that is located at a
major source and is engaged in the coating of paper, plastic film,
metallic foil, and other web surfaces. All the coating lines at a
subject facility are defined as one affected source. Any new source
means any affected source for which construction or reconstruction was
commenced after the date the EPA first proposed regulations
establishing a NESHAP applicable to the source (i.e., for the POWC
source category, September 13, 2000). An existing source means any
source other than a new source. Generally, an additional line at an
existing facility is considered part of the existing affected source.
New affected sources are new lines installed at new facilities or at a
facility with no prior POWC operations.
    There are currently 168 facilities in the United States that are
subject to the POWC NESHAP. The EPA is aware of one new affected source
that is under construction that will be subject to the POWC NESHAP in
the future. The EPA is not aware of any other facilities that are under
construction or are planned to be constructed which would be considered
``new facilities'' under the POWC NESHAP.

B. What are the air quality impacts?

    At the current level of control, estimated emissions of total HAP
are approximately 3,870 tpy. Compared to pre-MACT levels, this
represents a significant reduction of HAP for the category. When the
POWC NESHAP was finalized in 2002, the EPA estimated the annual
baseline HAP emissions from the source category to be approximately
42,000 tpy (67 FR 72331, December 4, 2002).
    The amendments will require all 168 major sources with equipment
subject to the POWC NESHAP to operate without the SSM exemption.
Eliminating the SSM exemption will reduce emissions by requiring
facilities to meet the applicable standard during SSM periods; however,
the EPA is unable to quantify the specific emission reductions
associated with eliminating the exemption. The requirement for repeat
performance testing once every 5 years for thermal oxidizers and the
alternative of annual catalyst activity testing for catalytic oxidizers
will ensure that the control device is operating correctly and may
reduce emissions, but no method for accurately estimating such
emissions reduction is available.
    Indirect or secondary air emissions impacts are impacts that would
result from the increased electricity usage associated with the
operation of control devices (i.e., increased secondary emissions of
criteria pollutants from power plants). Energy impacts consist of the
electricity and steam needed to operate control devices and other
equipment that would be required under this final rule. The EPA expects
no secondary air emissions impacts or energy impacts from this
rulemaking.
    For further information, see the memorandum titled Revised Cost,
Environmental, and Energy Impacts of Regulatory Options for the Paper
and Other Web Coatings Risk and Technology Review, in the docket for
this action (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2018-0416).

C. What are the cost impacts?

    Startup and shutdown are considered normal operations for most
facilities subject to the POWC NESHAP. The EPA does not believe
removing the SSM exemption will result in additional incurred costs.
    As discussed in detail in the memorandum titled Revised Cost,
Environmental, and Energy Impacts of Regulatory Options for the Paper
and Other Web Coatings Risk and Technology Review, it is estimated that
65 oxidizers will have to perform repeat performance testing. Fifty
eight of these 65 are thermal oxidizers, and 3 are catalytic oxidizers.
For costing purposes, it was assumed that repeat emissions performance
testing will be performed every 5 years on the thermal oxidizers, and
annual catalyst activity testing will be conducted on the catalytic
oxidizers. The estimated cost for an inlet-outlet EPA Method 25A
performance test (with electronic reporting of results) is $28,000 per
test and the estimated cost for annual catalyst activity testing is
$1,000, for an estimated nationwide cost of $1,750,000 (2018$) every 5
years. The electronic reporting requirement is not expected to require
any additional labor hours to prepare, compared to the paper semi-
annual compliance reports that are already prepared. Therefore, the
costs associated with the electronic reporting requirement are zero.

D. What are the economic impacts?

    The economic impact analysis is designed to inform decision makers
about the potential economic consequences of a regulatory action. To
assess the potential impact, the largest cost expected to be
experienced in any one year is compared to the total sales for the
ultimate owner of the affected facilities to estimate the total burden
for each facility.
    For the final revisions to the POWC NESHAP, the 168 affected
facilities are owned by 91 different parent companies, and the total
costs associated with the final requirements range from less than
0.000001 to 3 percent of annual sales revenue per ultimate owner. These
costs are not expected to result in a significant market impact,
regardless of whether they are passed on to the purchaser or absorbed
by the firms.
    The EPA also prepared a small business screening assessment to
determine whether any of the identified affected entities are small
entities, as defined by the U.S. Small Business Administration. Twenty-
nine of the facilities potentially affected by the final revisions to
the POWC NESHAP are small entities. However, the costs associated with
the final requirements for the affected small entities range from
0.0003 to 3 percent of annual sales revenues per ultimate owner; there
is one facility with costs of 1.4 percent and one facility with costs
of 3 percent of annual sales revenues per ultimate owner. Therefore,
there are no significant economic impacts on a substantial number of
small entities from these final amendments.

E. What are the benefits?

    Because these final amendments are not considered economically
significant, as defined by Executive Order 12866, and because we did
not estimate emission reductions associated with the

final revisions, the EPA did not estimate any benefits from reducing
emissions.

F. What analysis of environmental justice did we conduct?

    Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994) establishes
federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision
directs federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and
permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission
by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high
and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs,
policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income
populations in the United States.
    To examine the potential for any environmental justice issues that
might be associated with the source category, the EPA performed a
demographic analysis, which is an assessment of risk to individual
demographic groups of the populations living within 5 kilometers (km)
and within 50 km of the facilities. In the analysis, the EPA evaluated
the distribution of HAP-related cancer and noncancer risk from the POWC
source category across different social, demographic, and economic
groups within the populations living near facilities identified as
having the highest risks.\6\ 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 Paper and Other Web Coating Facilities, available in the
docket for this action (Docket ID Item No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2018-0416-0088).
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 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 2 times the poverty level, and linguistically isolated
people.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The results of the POWC source category demographic analysis
indicate that emissions from the source category expose approximately
4,300 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. The specific
demographic results indicate that the percentage of the population
potentially impacted by emissions is greater than its corresponding
national percentage for the white population (86 percent for the source
category compared to 62 percent nationwide) and for the below-poverty-
level population (17 percent compared to 14 percent nationwide).
    The risks due to HAP emissions from this source category are low
for all populations. Furthermore, the EPA does not expect this final
rule to achieve significant reductions in HAP emissions. Therefore, the
EPA concludes that this final rule will not have disproportionately
high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority or
low-income populations because it does not affect the level of
protection provided to human health or the environment. However, this
final rule will provide additional benefits to these demographic groups
by improving the monitoring, compliance, and implementation of the
NESHAP.

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

    The EPA does not believe the environmental health or safety risks
addressed by this action present a disproportionate risk to children.
The results of the POWC source category demographic analysis indicate
that emissions from the source category expose approximately 4,300
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. The distribution
of the population with risks above 1-in-1 million is 20 percent for
ages 0 to 17, 62 percent for ages 18 to 64, and 17 percent for ages 65
and up. Children ages 0 to 17 constitute 23 percent of the population
nationwide. Therefore, the analysis shows that actual emissions from 40
CFR part 63, subpart JJJJ facilities have a slightly smaller impact on
children ages 0 to 17. This action's health and risk assessments are
contained in sections III and IV of the preamble to the proposed rule
and further documented in the risk report titled Residual Risk
Assessment for the Paper and Other Web Source Category in Support of
the 2020 Risk and Technology Review Final Rule, which can be found in
the docket for this action (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2018-0416).

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Additional information about these statutes and Executive Orders
can be found at https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/laws-and-executive-orders.

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

    This action is not a significant regulatory action and was,