EPA concluded that without information on the benefits that would be
achieved by further reducing emissions beyond the floor, the additional
emissions reductions did not warrant the cost of add-on controls.\33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ 67 FR 52792-52793, August 13, 2002.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A search of the RBLC database for the MMPP surface coating category
provided 42 entries representing 23 facilities with permit dates of
2000 or later. Entries in the RBLC documented facilities subject to VOC
content and HAP content limits. Emission control strategies identified
in the RBLC included using electrodeposition coatings, using high
efficiency and robotic spray guns, and using add-on controls, including
catalytic oxidizers, RTOs, and adsorbers. The RBLC review did not
identify any facilities subject to HAP limits more stringent than those
in 40 CFR part 63, subpart MMMM.
    We reviewed other surface coating NESHAP promulgated subsequent to
the MMPP NESHAP to determine whether any requirements exceed the MMPP
MACT level of control or include technologies that were not considered
during the development of the original MMPP NESHAP. These NESHAP
include Paint Stripping and Miscellaneous Surface Coating Operations at
Area Sources (40 CFR part 63, subpart HHHHHH), and Nine Metal
Fabrication and Finishing Area Source Categories (40 CFR part 63,
subpart XXXXXX). We also reviewed the results of the technology reviews
for other surface coating NESHAP promulgated after the MMPP NESHAP.
These technology reviews include the NESHAP for Printing and Publishing
(40 CFR part 63, subpart KK), Shipbuilding and Ship Repair (40 CFR part
63, subpart II), Wood Furniture Manufacturing (40 CFR part 63, subpart
JJ), and Aerospace Manufacturing and Rework Facilities (40 CFR part 63,
subpart GG). The review of these more recently promulgated NESHAP and
the technology reviews of other NESHAP did not identify any control
technologies that were not already considered during the development of
40 CFR part 63, subpart MMMM, with the exception of some applications
of add-on controls, which are discussed in more detail below in this
section.
    Using the EPA's NEI and the ECHO databases, we identified 368 major
source facilities that are currently subject to the MMPP NESHAP. The
EPA also collected operating permits for over 100 of these facilities.
Based on these permits, we identified a number of facilities that were
in the rubber-to-metal coating and high-performance coating
subcategories that were using add-on controls to reduce air emissions.
We identified six facilities in the high-performance coating
subcategory and four of these facilities use a thermal oxidizer to
reduce emissions. We identified 15 facilities in the rubber to metal
coating subcategory and nine of these use a thermal oxidizer to reduce
emissions. Based on these findings, we identified the use of a thermal
oxidizer as a potential development for these two subcategories because
the MACT emission limits were based on only the HAP content of the
coatings and not on the use of an add-on control, such as a thermal
oxidizer.
    We further evaluated the add-on controls as a technology
development by collecting semi-annual compliance reports or inspection
reports for all six facilities in the high-performance subcategory and
the 15 facilities in the rubber to metal coating subcategory to confirm
that the facilities were subject to these subcategory emission limits
and to determine the actual emission rate these facilities were
achieving. For several facilities, we determined that the facilities
were using the add-on controls for complying with limits on VOC
emissions, but were not accounting for the add-on controls in
demonstrating compliance with the HAP limits in 40 CFR part 63, subpart
MMMM.
    The current existing source emission limit for the rubber-to-metal
subcategory is 37.7 lb HAP/gal solids, and the new source limit is 6.8
lb HAP/gal solids. The EPA evaluated the option of lowering the
existing source limit to an emission limit of 10 lb HAP/gal solids. We
chose this level because several smaller facilities could meet this
limit without having to install controls, based

on their semi-annual compliance reports.
    Eight of the 15 facilities in the rubber-to-metal subcategory have
emission rates below 10 lb HAP/gal solids through use of a thermal
oxidizer. One facility does not have a thermal oxidizer but can meet
the 10 lb HAP/gal solids limit through the emissions averaging between
the general use and rubber-to-metal subcategories allowed in 40 CFR
63.3890(c)(2) of the current NESHAP. Four rubber-to-metal facilities do
not have a thermal oxidizer but their current emission rate is less
than 10 lb/gal solids.
    For the remaining two facilities, installing thermal oxidizers, if
alternative low-HAP coatings or other compliance options are not
available, would require a total capital investment of $2 million
(combined) for the two facilities, and total annual costs of $410,000
(combined). Estimated emission reductions from the two facilities would
be 43 tpy of HAP, and the estimated cost effectiveness would be $9,500
per ton of HAP reduced. The estimated emission reductions are based on
the reported HAP emissions for these two facilities in the NEI and
their semi-annual compliance reports and assumes a 95-percent emission
reduction from thermal oxidation. These costs and emission reductions
for the rubber-to-metal subcategory are documented in detail in the
Miscellaneous Metal Parts and Products Technology Review Memo, in the
MMPP Docket.
    The current existing and new source emission limits for the high-
performance subcategory are both 27.5 lb HAP/gal solids. The EPA
evaluated the option of lowering both the existing and new source
limits to the general use subcategory existing source limit of 2.6 lb
HAP/gal solids. Five of the six facilities in the high-performance
subcategory could comply with the general use subcategory limit of 2.6
lb HAP/gal solids for their high-performance coatings operations.
    One facility in the high-performance coating subcategory may need
to install a thermal oxidizer if alternative low-HAP coatings or other
compliance options are not available. The cost of installing a thermal
oxidizer at this one facility would require a total capital investment
of $2.3 million, and total annual costs of $620,000. The estimated
emission reduction this one facility would be 53 tpy of HAP, and the
estimated cost effectiveness would be $11,700 per ton of HAP reduced.
The estimated emission reduction is based on the reported HAP emissions
for this facility's semi-annual compliance report and assumes a 95-
percent emission reduction from thermal oxidation. These costs and
emission reductions for the high performance subcategory are documented
in detail in the Miscellaneous Metal Parts and Products Technology
Review Memo, in the MMPP Docket.
    However, the EPA has determined that the added costs and cost
effectiveness for these two coating subcategories ($9,500 per ton of
HAP reduced for the rubber-to-metal coating subcategory and $11,700 per
ton for the high-performance subcategory) are not justified. Therefore,
we are proposing no revisions to the MMPP NESHAP pursuant to CAA
section 112(d)(6). For further discussion of the technology review
results, refer to the Miscellaneous Metal Parts and Products Technology
Review Memo, in the MMPP Docket.
4. What other actions are we proposing for the Surface Coating of MMPP
source category?
    We are proposing to require electronic submittal of notifications
(initial and compliance status), semiannual reports, and performance
test reports for MMPP surface coating facilities. In addition, we are
proposing revisions to the SSM provisions of the MACT rule in order to
ensure that they are consistent with the Court decision in Sierra Club
v. EPA, 551 F. 3d 1019 (D.C. Cir. 2008), which vacated two provisions
that exempted sources from the requirement to comply with otherwise
applicable CAA section 112(d) emission standards during periods of SSM.
We are proposing to require periodic emissions testing of add-on
control devices. We also are proposing to add optional EPA Method 18,
to IBR an alternative test method, and to make various technical and
editorial changes. Our analyses and proposed changes related to these
issues are discussed in the sections below.
a. Electronic Reporting Requirements
    The EPA is proposing that owners and operators of MMPP surface
coating facilities submit electronic copies of initial notifications
required in 40 CFR 63.9(b) and 63.3910(b), notifications of compliance
status required in 40 CFR 63.9(h) and 63.3910(c), performance test
reports required in 40 CFR 63.3920(b), and semiannual reports required
in 40 CFR 63.3920(a) through the EPA's CDX, using the CEDRI. A
description of the EPA's CDX and the EPA's proposed rationale and
details on the addition of these electronic reporting requirements for
the MMPP source category is the same as for the ALDT source category,
as discussed in section IV.A.4.a of this preamble. No specific form is
proposed at this time for the initial notifications required in 40 CFR
63.9(b) and notification of compliance status in 40 CFR 63.9(h). Until
the EPA has completed electronic forms for these notifications, the
notifications will be required to be submitted via CEDRI in PDF. After
development of the final forms, we will notify sources about their
availability via the CEDRI website and the CHIEF Listserv. For
semiannual reports required in 40 CFR 63.3920(a), the proposed rule
requires that owners or operators use the appropriate spreadsheet
template to submit information to CEDRI. A draft version of the
proposed template for this report is included in the docket for this
rulemaking.\34\ The EPA specifically requests comment on the content,
layout, and overall design of the template.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ See Electronic Reporting Template for Surface Coating of
Miscellaneous Metal Parts and Products Subpart MMMM Semiannual
Reports, in docket ID NO. EPA-HQ-OAR-0312.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regarding submittal of performance test reports via the EPA's ERT,
as discussed in section IV.A.4.a of this preamble for the ALDT NESHAP,
the proposal to submit performance test data electronically to the EPA
applies only if the EPA has developed an electronic reporting form for
the test method as listed on the EPA's ERT website. For the MMPP
NESHAP, all of the EPA test methods listed under 40 CFR part 63,
subpart MMMM, are currently supported by the ERT, except for EPA Method
18 (an optional test method proposed in this action), which appears in
the proposed text for 40 CFR 63.3966. As mentioned above in section
IV.A.4.a of this preamble, the rule proposes that should an owner or
operator choose to use EPA Method 18, then its results would be
submitted in PDF using the attachment module of the ERT.
    Also, as discussed in section IV.A.4.a of this preamble for the
ALDT NESHAP, we are proposing to provide facilities with the ability to
seek extensions for submitting electronic reports for circumstances
beyond the control of the facility. In proposed 40 CFR 63.3920(g), we
address the situation for facilities subject to the MMPP NESHAP where
an extension may be warranted due to outages of the EPA's CDX or CEDRI,
which may prevent access to the system and submittal of the required
reports. In proposed 40 CFR 63.3920(h), we address the situation for
facilities subject to the MMPP NESHAP where an extension may be
warranted due to a force majeure event, which is defined as an event
that will be or has been caused

by circumstances beyond the control of the affected facility, its
contractors, or any entity controlled by the affected facility that
prevents compliance with the requirement to submit a report
electronically as required by this rule. Examples of such events are
acts of nature, acts of war or terrorism, or equipment failure or
safety hazards beyond the control of the facility.
    The electronic submittal of the reports addressed in this proposed
rulemaking 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. Electronic reporting
also eliminates paper-based, manual processes, thereby saving time and
resources, simplifying data entry, eliminating redundancies, minimizing
data reporting errors, and providing data quickly and accurately to the
affected facilities, air agencies, the EPA, and the public. Moreover,
electronic reporting is consistent with the EPA's plan to implement
Executive Order 13563 and is in keeping with the EPA's Agency-wide
policy developed in response to the White House's Digital Government
Strategy. For more information on the benefits of electronic reporting,
see the memorandum titled Electronic Reporting Requirements for New
Source Performance Standards (NSPS) and National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) Rules, available in Docket ID No.
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0312.
b. SSM Requirements
(1.) Proposed Elimination of the SSM Exemption
    The EPA is proposing to eliminate the SSM exemption in the MMPP
NESHAP. The EPA's proposed rationale for the elimination of the SSM
exemption for the MMPP source category is the same as for the ALDT
source category, which is discussed in section IV.A.4.b.1 of this
preamble. We are also proposing several revisions to Table 2 to Subpart
MMMM of 40 CFR part 63 (Applicability of General Provisions to Subpart
MMMM of Part 63, hereafter referred to as the ``General Provisions
table to subpart MMMM'') as is explained in more detail below in
section IV.B.4.b.2 of this preamble. For example, we are proposing to
eliminate the incorporation of the General Provisions' requirement that
the source develop an SSM plan. We are also proposing to eliminate and
revise certain recordkeeping and reporting requirements related to the
SSM exemption as further described below. The EPA has attempted to
ensure that the provisions we are proposing to eliminate are
inappropriate, unnecessary, or redundant in the absence of the SSM
exemption. We are specifically seeking comment on the specific proposed
deletions and revisions and also whether additional provisions should
be revised to achieve the stated goal.
    In proposing these rule amendments, the EPA has taken into account
startup and shutdown periods and, for the same reasons explained in
section IV.A.4.b.1 of this preamble for the ALDT source category, has
not proposed alternate standards for those periods in the MMPP NESHAP.
Startups and shutdowns are part of normal operations for the MMPP
source category. As currently specified in 40 CFR 63.3892(b), any
coating operation(s) for which you use the emission rate with add-on
controls option must meet the applicable operating limits in Table 1 to
40 CFR part 63, subpart MMMM ``at all times,'' except for solvent
recovery systems for which you conduct liquid-liquid material balances
according to 40 CFR 63.3961(j). (Solvent recovery systems for which you
conduct a liquid-liquid material balance require a monthly calculation
of the solvent recovery device's collection and recovery efficiency for
volatile organic matter.)
    Also, as currently specified in 40 CFR 63.3900(a)(2), any coating
operation(s) for which you use the emission rate with add-on controls
option must be in compliance ``at all times'' with the applicable
emission limit in 40 CFR 63.3890. During startup and shutdown periods,
in order for a facility (using add-on controls to meet the standards)
to meet the emission and operating standards, the control device for a
coating operation needs to be turned on and operating at specified
levels before the facility begins coating operations, and the control
equipment needs to continue to be operated until after the facility
ceases coating operations. In some cases, the facility needs to run
thermal oxidizers on supplemental fuel before VOC levels are sufficient
for the combustion to be (nearly) self-sustaining. Note that we are
also proposing new related language in 40 CFR 63.3900(b) to require
that the owner or operator operate and maintain the coating operation,
including pollution control equipment, at all times to minimize
emissions. See section IV.A.4.b.2 of this preamble for further
discussion of this proposed revision.
    Although no statutory language compels the EPA to set standards for
malfunctions, the EPA has the discretion to do so where feasible, as
discussed previously in section IV.A.4.b.1 of this preamble for the
ALDT source category.
    It is unlikely that a malfunction would result in a violation of
the standards during MMPP surface coatings operations for facilities
using the compliant material option or the emission rate without add-on
controls option. Facilities using these options have demonstrated that
the organic HAP contents of the coating materials do not exceed the
emission limits in 40 CFR 63.3890(a) or (b), either on a coating-by-
coating basis or by using averaging among coatings.
    A malfunction event is more likely for MMPP coating facilities that
use the emission rate with add-on controls option. For this option,
facilities must demonstrate that the average emission rate does not
exceed the emission limits in 40 CFR 63.3890(a) or (b), and the
facility is complying with the control device operating limits listed
in Table 1 to 40 CFR part 63, subpart MMMM of the MMPP NESHAP. The
operating limits are specific to the type of control device and
established by the facility during its initial performance test.
    In the unlikely event that a source fails to comply with the
applicable CAA section 112(d) standards as a result of a malfunction
event, the EPA would determine an appropriate response based on, among
other things, the good faith efforts of the source to minimize
emissions during malfunction periods, including preventative and
corrective actions, as well as root cause analyses to ascertain and
rectify excess emissions. Refer to section IV.A.4.b.1 of this preamble
for further discussion of the EPA's actions in response to a source
failing to comply with the applicable CAA section 112(d) standards as a
result of a malfunction event for the ALDT source category, which
applies to this source category.
(2.) Proposed Revisions to the General Provisions Applicability Table
    40 CFR 63.3900(b) General duty. We are proposing to revise the
General Provisions table to subpart MMMM (Table 2) entry for 40 CFR
63.6(e)(1)(i) by changing the ``yes'' in column 3 to a ``no.'' Section
63.6(e)(1)(i) describes the general duty to minimize emissions. Some of
the language in that section is

no longer necessary or appropriate in light of the elimination of the
SSM exemption. We are proposing instead to add general duty regulatory
text at 40 CFR 63.3900(b) that reflects the general duty to minimize
emissions while eliminating the reference to periods covered by an SSM
exemption. The current language in 40 CFR 63.6(e)(1)(i) characterizes
what the general duty entails during periods of SSM. With the
elimination of the SSM exemption, there is no need to differentiate
between normal operations, startup and shutdown, and malfunction events
in describing the general duty. Therefore, the language the EPA is
proposing for 40 CFR 63.3900(b) does not include that language from 40
CFR 63.6(e)(1).
    We are also proposing to revise the General Provisions table to
subpart MMMM (Table 2) entry for 40 CFR 63.6(e)(1)(ii) by changing the
``yes'' in column 3 to a ``no.'' Section 63.6(e)(1)(ii) imposes
requirements that are not necessary with the elimination of the SSM
exemption or are redundant with the general duty requirement being
added at 40 CFR 63.3900(b).
    SSM plan. We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table
to subpart MMMM (Table 2) entry for 40 CFR 63.6(e)(3) by changing the
``yes'' in column 3 to a ``no.'' Generally, these paragraphs require
development of an SSM plan and specify SSM recordkeeping and reporting
requirements related to the SSM plan. We are also proposing to remove
from 40 CFR part 63, subpart SSSS, the current provisions requiring the
SSM plan in 40 CFR 63.5180(f) and requiring reporting related to the
SSM plan in 40 CFR 63.5180(f)(1). As noted, the EPA is proposing to
remove the SSM exemptions. Therefore, affected units will be subject to
an emission standard during such events. The applicability of a
standard during such events will ensure that sources have ample
incentive to plan for and achieve compliance, and, thus, the SSM plan
requirements are no longer necessary.
    Compliance with standards. We are proposing to revise the General
Provisions table to subpart MMMM (Table 2) entry for 40 CFR 63.6(f)(1)
by changing the ``yes'' in column 3 to a ``no.'' The current language
of 40 CFR 63.6(f)(1) exempts sources from non-opacity standards during
periods of SSM. As discussed above, the Court in Sierra Club vacated
the exemptions contained in this provision and held that the CAA
requires that some CAA section 112 standards apply continuously.
Consistent with Sierra Club, the EPA is proposing to revise standards
in this rule to apply at all times.
    40 CFR 63.3964 Performance testing. We are proposing to revise the
General Provisions table to subpart MMMM (Table 2) entry for 40 CFR
63.7(e)(1) by changing the ``yes'' in column 3 to a ``no.'' Section
63.7(e)(1) describes performance testing requirements. The EPA is
instead proposing to add a performance testing requirement at 40 CFR
63.3964(a)(1). The performance testing requirements we are proposing to
add differ from the General Provisions performance testing provisions
in several respects. The regulatory text does not include the language
in 40 CFR 63.7(e)(1) that restated the SSM exemption and language that
precluded startup and shutdown periods from being considered
``representative'' for purposes of performance testing. Also, the
proposed performance testing provisions will not allow performance
testing during startup or shutdown. As in 40 CFR 63.7(e)(1),
performance tests conducted under this subpart should not be conducted
during malfunctions because conditions during malfunctions are often
not representative of normal operating conditions. Section 63.7(e)
requires that the owner or operator maintain records of the process
information necessary to document operating conditions during the test
and include in such records an explanation to support that such
conditions represent normal operation. The EPA is proposing to add
language to 40 CFR 63.3964(a)(1) clarifying that the owner or operator
must make such records available to the Administrator upon request.
    Monitoring. We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table
to subpart MMMM (Table 2) entry for 40 CFR 63.8(c)(1) by changing the
``yes'' in column 3 to a ``no.'' The cross-references to the general
duty and SSM plan requirements in those subparagraphs are not necessary
in light of other requirements of 40 CFR 63.8 that require good air
pollution control practices (40 CFR 63.8(c)(1)) and that set out the
requirements of a quality control program for monitoring equipment (40
CFR 63.8(d)). Further, we are proposing to revise 40 CFR 63.3968(a) to
add a requirement to maintain the monitoring equipment at all times in
accordance with 40 CFR 63.3900(b) and keep the necessary parts readily
available for routine repairs of the monitoring equipment, consistent
with the requirements in 40 CFR 63.8(c)(1)(ii). The reference to 40 CFR
63.8(c)(1)(ii) is no longer needed since it is redundant to the
requirement in 40 CFR 63.3968(a).
    We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table to subpart
MMMM (Table 2) entry for 40 CFR 63.8(c)(6) by changing the ``yes'' in
column 3 to a ``no.'' The reference to 40 CFR 63.8(c)(6) is no longer
needed since it is redundant to the requirement in 40 CFR 63.5170 that
specifies the requirements for monitoring systems for capture systems
and add-on control devices at sources using these to comply.
    We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table to subpart
MMMM (Table 2) entry for 40 CFR 63.8(c)(8) by changing the ``yes'' in
column 3 to a ``no.'' The reference to 40 CFR 63.8(c)(8) is no longer
needed since it is redundant to the requirements in 40 CFR 63.3920(a)
that requires reporting of CPMS out-of-control periods.
    We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table to subpart
MMMM (Table 2) entry for 40 CFR 63.8(d)-(e) by changing the ``yes'' in
column 3 to a ``no.'' The requirements for quality control program and
performance evaluation of CMS are not required under 40 CFR part 63,
subpart MMMM.
    We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table to subpart
MMMM (Table 2) entry for 40 CFR 63.8(g) by changing the ``yes'' in
column 3 to a ``no.'' The reference to 40 CFR 63.8(g) is no longer
needed since it is redundant to the requirement in 40 CFR 63.3967 and
63.3968 that specify monitoring data reduction.
    40 CFR 63.5190 Recordkeeping. We are proposing to revise the
General Provisions table to subpart MMMM (Table 2) entry for 40 CFR
63.10(b)(2)(i) by changing the ``yes'' in column 3 to a ``no.'' Section
63.10(b)(2)(i) describes the recordkeeping requirements during startup
and shutdown. These recording provisions are no longer necessary
because the EPA is proposing that recordkeeping and reporting
applicable to normal operations will apply to startup and shutdown. In
the absence of special provisions applicable to startup and shutdown,
such as a startup and shutdown plan, there is no reason to retain
additional recordkeeping for startup and shutdown periods.
    We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table to subpart
MMMM (Table 2) entry for 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(ii) by changing the ``yes''
in column 3 to a ``no.'' Section 63.10(b)(2)(ii) describes the
recordkeeping requirements during a malfunction, requiring a record of
``the occurrence and duration of each malfunction.'' A similar record
is already required in 40 CFR 63.3930(j), which requires a record of
``the date,

time, and duration of each deviation,'' which the EPA is retaining. The
regulatory text in 40 CFR 63.3930(j) differs from the General
Provisions in that the General Provisions requires the creation and
retention of a record of the occurrence and duration of each
malfunction of process, air pollution control, and monitoring
equipment; whereas 40 CFR 63.3930(j) applies to any failure to meet an
applicable standard and is requiring that the source record the date,
time, and duration of the failure rather than the ``occurrence.'' The
EPA is also proposing to add to 40 CFR 63.3930(j) a requirement that
sources also keep records that include a list of the affected source or
equipment and actions taken to minimize emissions, an estimate of the
quantity of each regulated pollutant emitted over the emission limit
for which the source failed to meet the standard, and a description of
the method used to estimate the emissions. Examples of such methods
would include product-loss calculations, mass balance calculations,
measurements when available, or engineering judgment based on known
process parameters (e.g., coating HAP content and application rates and
control device efficiencies). The EPA proposes to require that sources
keep records of this information to ensure that there is adequate
information to allow the EPA to determine the severity of any failure
to meet a standard, and to provide data that may document how the
source met the general duty to minimize emissions when the source has
failed to meet an applicable standard.
    We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table to subpart
MMMM (Table 2) entry for 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(iv) by changing the ``yes''
in column 3 to a ``no.'' When applicable, the provision requires
sources to record actions taken during SSM events when actions were
inconsistent with their SSM plan. The requirement is no longer
appropriate because SSM plans will no longer be required. The
requirement previously applicable under 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(iv)(B) to
record actions to minimize emissions and record corrective actions is
now applicable by reference to 40 CFR 63.3930(j)(4).
    We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table to subpart
MMMM (Table 2) entry for 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(v) by changing the ``yes''
in column 3 to a ``no.'' When applicable, the provision requires
sources to record actions taken during SSM events to show that actions
taken were consistent with their SSM plan. The requirement is no longer
appropriate because SSM plans will no longer be required.
    We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table to subpart
MMMM (Table 2) entry for 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(x)-(xiii) by changing the
``yes'' in column 3 to a ``no.'' When applicable, the provision
requires sources to record actions taken during SSM events to show that
actions taken were consistent with their SSM plan. The requirement is
no longer appropriate because SSM plans will no longer be required.
    40 CFR 63.3920 Reporting. We are proposing to revise the General
Provisions table to subpart MMMM (Table 2) entry for 40 CFR 63.10(d)(5)
by changing the ``yes'' in column 3 to a ``no.'' Section 63.10(d)(5)
describes the reporting requirements for startups, shutdowns, and
malfunctions. To replace the General Provisions reporting requirement,
the EPA is proposing to add reporting requirements to 40 CFR
63.3920(a). The replacement language differs from the General
Provisions requirement in that it eliminates periodic SSM reports as a
stand-alone report. We are proposing language that requires sources
that fail to meet an applicable standard at any time to report the
information concerning such events in the semi-annual compliance report
already required under this rule. Subpart MMMM of 40 CFR part 63
currently requires reporting of the date, time period, and cause of
each deviation. We are clarifying in the rule that, if the cause of a
deviation from a standard is unknown, this should be specified in the
report. We are also proposing to change ``date and time period'' or
``date and time'' to ``date, time, and duration'' (see proposed
revisions to 40 CFR 63.3920(a)(7)). Further, we are proposing that the
report must also contain the number of deviations from the standard and
a list of the affected sources or equipment. For deviation reports
addressing deviations from an applicable emission limit in 40 CFR
63.3890 or operating limit in Table 1 to 40 CFR part 63, subpart MMMM,
we are proposing that the report also include an estimate of the
quantity of each regulated pollutant emitted over any emission limit
for which the source failed to meet the standard, and a description of
the method used to estimate the emissions.
(3.) Other SSM Changes
    Regarding the proposed new requirement discussed above to estimate
the quantity of each regulated pollutant emitted over any emission
limit for which the source failed to meet the standard, and a
description of the method used to estimate the emissions, examples of
such methods would include product-loss calculations, mass balance
calculations, measurements when available, or engineering judgment
based on known process parameters (e.g., coating HAP content and
application rates and control device efficiencies). The EPA is
proposing this requirement to ensure that there is adequate information
to determine compliance, to allow the EPA to determine the severity of
the failure to meet an applicable standard, and to provide data that
may document how the source met the general duty to minimize emissions
during a failure to meet an applicable standard.
    We will no longer require owners or operators to determine whether
actions taken to correct a malfunction are consistent with an SSM plan,
because plans would no longer be required. The proposed amendments,
therefore, eliminate 40 CFR 63.3920(c) that requires reporting of
whether the source deviated from its SSM plan, including required
actions to communicate with the Administrator, and the cross-reference
to 40 CFR 63.10(d)(5) that contains the description of the previously
required SSM report format and submittal schedule from this section.
These specifications are no longer necessary because the events will be
reported in otherwise required reports with similar format and
submittal requirements.
    We are proposing to remove the requirements in 40 CFR 63.3920(a)(7)
that deviation reports must specify whether a deviation from an
operating limit occurred during a period of SSM. We are also proposing
to remove the requirements in 40 CFR 63. 3920(a)(7) to break down the
total duration of deviations into the startup and shutdown categories.
As discussed above in this section, we are proposing to require
reporting of the cause of each deviation. Further, the startup and
shutdown categories no longer apply because these periods are proposed
to be considered normal operation, as discussed in section IV.A.4.b.1
of this preamble for the ALDT source category, which also applies to
this source category.
c. Technical Amendments to the MMPP NESHAP
    We propose to amend 40 CFR 63.3966(b) to add the option of
conducting EPA Method 18 of appendix A to 40 CFR part 60, ``Measurement
of Gaseous Organic Compound Emissions by Gas Chromatography,'' to
measure and then subtract methane emissions from measured total gaseous
organic mass emissions as carbon. Facilities using the emission rate
with add-on

control compliance option can use either EPA Method 25 or EPA Method
25A to measure control device destruction efficiency. Unlike EPA Method
25, Method 25A does not exclude methane from the measurement of organic
emissions. Because exhaust streams from coating operations may contain
methane from natural gas combustion, we are proposing to allow
facilities the option to measure methane using EPA Method 18 and to
subtract the methane from the emissions as part of their compliance
calculations. We also propose to revise the format of references to
test methods in 40 CFR part 60. The current references in 40 CFR
63.5160(d)(1) to EPA Methods 1, 1A, 2, 2A, 2C, 2D, 2F, 2G, 3, 3A, 3B,
4, 25, and 25A specify that each method is in ``appendix A'' of 40 CFR
part 60. Appendix A of 40 CFR part 60 has been divided into appendices
A-1 through A-8. We propose to revise each reference to appendix A to
indicate which of the eight sections of appendix A applies to the
method.
    We propose to amend 40 CFR 63.3941(a)(1)(i) and (a)(4), which
describe how to demonstrate compliance with the emission limitations
using the compliant material option, and the definition of ``non-HAP
coating'' in 40 CFR 63.3981 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
0.1percent or greater by mass. We propose to remove this reference
because 29 CFR 1910.1200(d)(4) has been amended and no longer readily
defines which compounds are carcinogens. We propose to replace these
references to OSHA-defined carcinogens at 29 CFR 1910.1200(d)(4) with a
list (in proposed new Table 5 to 40 CFR part 63, subpart MMMM) of those
organic HAP that must be included in calculating total organic HAP
content of a coating material if they are present at 0.1-percent or
greater by mass.
    We propose to include organic HAP in proposed Table 5 to 40 CFR
part 63, subpart MMMM if they were categorized in the EPA's Prioritized
Chronic Dose-Response Values for Screening Risk Assessments (dated May
9, 2014), as a ``human carcinogen,'' ``probable human carcinogen,'' or
``possible human carcinogen'' according to The Risk Assessment
Guidelines of 1986 (EPA/600/8-87/045, August 1987),\35\ or as
``carcinogenic to humans,'' ``likely to be carcinogenic to humans,'' or
with ``suggestive evidence of carcinogenic potential'' according to the
Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment (EPA/630/P-03/001F, March
2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ See https://www.epa.gov/fera/dose-response-assessment-assessing-health-risks-associated-exposure-hazardous-air-pollutants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Current 40 CFR 63.3931 specifies how records must be maintained. We
propose to add clarification to this provision at 40 CFR 63.3931(a)
that specifies the allowance to retain electronic records applies to
all records that were submitted as reports electronically via the EPA's
CEDRI. We also propose to add text to the same provision clarifying
that this ability to maintain electronic copies does not affect the
requirement for facilities to make records, data, and reports available
upon request to a delegated air agency or the EPA as part of an on-site
compliance evaluation.
d. Ongoing Emissions Compliance Demonstrations
    As part of an ongoing effort to improve compliance with various
federal air emission regulations, the EPA reviewed the compliance
demonstration requirements in the MMPP NESHAP. Currently, if a source
owner or operator chooses to comply with the standards using add-on
controls, the results of an initial performance test are used to
determine compliance; however, the rule does not require on-going
periodic performance testing for these emission capture systems and
add-on controls. In this action, we are proposing to require periodic
testing of add-on control devices, in addition to the one-time initial
emissions and capture efficiency testing, and ongoing temperature
measurement, to ensure ongoing compliance with the standards.
    As described more fully in section IV.A.4.d of this preamble for
the ALDT source category, the EPA documented potential operational
problems associated with control devices in several publications; \36\
the ICAC, in their comments on a separate rulemaking on the proposed
revisions related to the NESHAP General Provisions (72 FR 69, January
3, 2007), commented that ongoing maintenance and checks of control
devices are necessary in order to ensure emissions control technology,
including both thermal and catalytic oxidizers, remains effective; \37\
and state websites list CAA enforcement information that further
corroborates the potential problems identified by the EPA and ICAC
comments and conclusions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ See Control Techniques for Volatile Organic Compound
Emissions from Stationary Sources, EPA/453/R-92-018, December 1992,
Control Technologies for Emissions from Stationary Sources, EPA/625/
6-91/014, June 1991, and Survey of Control for Low Concentration
Organic Vapor Gas Streams, EPA-456/R-95-003, May 1995. These
documents can be found in the ALDT, MMPP, and PPP Dockets for this
action.
    \37\ See Docket Item No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2004-0094-0173, available at
https://www.regulations.gov/. A copy of the ICAC's comments on the
proposed revisions to the General Provisions is also included in the
ALDT, MMPP, and PPP Dockets for this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Given the need for vigilance in maintaining equipment to stem
degradation, the EPA is proposing to require periodic testing of add-on
control devices, in addition to the one-time initial emissions and
capture efficiency testing and ongoing temperature measurement, to
ensure ongoing compliance with the MMPP NESHAP.
    In this action, the EPA is proposing to require periodic
performance testing of add-on control devices on a regular frequency
(e.g., every 5 years) to ensure the equipment continues to operate
properly for facilities using the emission rate with add-on controls
compliance option. We note that the majority of state operating permits
for existing MMPP surface coating sources already require such testing
every 5 years synchronized with 40 CFR part 70 air operating permit
renewals. This proposed periodic testing requirement includes an
exception to the general requirement for periodic testing for
facilities using the catalytic oxidizer control option at 40 CFR
63.3967(b) and following the catalyst maintenance procedures in 40 CFR
63.3967(b)(4). This exception is due to the catalyst maintenance
procedures that already require annual testing of the catalyst and
other maintenance procedures that provide ongoing demonstrations that
the control system is operating properly and may, thus, be considered
comparable to conducting a performance test.
    The proposed periodic performance testing requirement allows an
exception from periodic testing for facilities using instruments to
continuously measure emissions. Such CEMS would show actual emissions.
The use of CEMS to demonstrate compliance would obviate the need for
periodic oxidizer testing. Moreover, installation and operation of a
CEMS with a timesharing component, such that values from more than one
oxidizer exhaust could be tabulated in a recurring frequency, could
prove less expensive (estimated to have an annual cost below $15,000)
than ongoing oxidizer testing.

    This proposed requirement would not require periodic testing or
CEMS monitoring of facilities using the ``as purchased'' or ``as
applied'' compliant coatings options because these compliance options
do not use any add-on controls or control efficiency measurements in
the compliance calculations.
    The proposed periodic performance testing requirement would require
that facilities complying with the standards using emission capture
systems and add-on controls and which are not already on a 5-year
testing schedule to conduct the first of the periodic performance tests
within 3 years of the effective date of the revised standards.
Afterward, they would conduct the periodic testing before they renew
their operating permits, but no longer than 5 years following the
previous performance test. Additionally, facilities that have already
tested as a condition of their permit within the last 2 years before
the effective date would be permitted to maintain their current 5-year
schedule and not be required to move up the date of the next test to
the 3-year date specified above. This proposed requirement would
require periodic air emissions testing to measure organic HAP
destruction or removal efficiency at the inlet and outlet of the add-on
control device, or measurement of the control device outlet
concentration of organic HAP. The emissions would be measured as total
gaseous organic mass emissions as carbon using either EPA Method 25 or
25A of appendix A-7 to 40 CFR part 60, which are the methods currently
required for the initial compliance demonstration.
    We estimate that the cost to perform a control device emissions
destruction or removal efficiency test using EPA Method 25 or 25A would
be approximately $19,000 per control device. The cost estimate is
included in the memorandum titled Draft Costs/Impacts of the 40 CFR
part 63 Subparts IIII, MMMM, and PPPP Monitoring Review Revisions, in
the MMPP Docket. We have reviewed the operating permits for facilities
subject to the several other surface coating NESHAP, and we found that
affected sources currently using emission capture systems and add-on
controls are often, but not always, required to conduct periodic
control device performance tests as a condition of their 40 CFR part 70
operating permits. We estimate that seven MMPP surface coating
facilities currently are not required to conduct periodic testing of
their control devices as a condition of their permit renewal. Periodic
performance tests ensure that all control systems used to comply with
the NESHAP would be properly maintained over time, thereby reducing the
potential for acute emissions episodes and non-compliance.
    We are requesting comment on adding periodic testing of add-on
control devices to the MMPP NESHAP and on the suggested 5-year schedule
for the periodic testing.
e. IBR of Alternative Test Methods Under 1 CFR Part 51
    The EPA is proposing new and updated test methods for the MMPP
NESHAP that include IBR. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5,
the EPA is proposing to add the following optional EPA methods and
incorporate by reference the VCS described in the amendments to 40 CFR
63.14:
     EPA Method 18 of appendix A to 40 CFR part 60, Measurement
of Gaseous Organic Compound Emissions by Gas Chromatography, proposed
to be IBR approved for 40 CFR 63.3966(b)(4);
     ASTM Method D1475-13, Standard Test Method for Density of
Liquid Coatings, Inks, and Related Products, proposed to be IBR
approved for 40 CFR 63.3941(b)(4), 63.3941(c), and 63.3951(c);
     ASTM Method D2111-10 (2015), Standard Test Methods for
Specific Gravity of Halogenated Organic Solvents and Their Admixtures,
proposed to be IBR approved for 40 CFR 63.3951(c);
     ASTM Method D2369-10 (2015), Test Method for Volatile
Content of Coatings, proposed to be IBR approved for 40 CFR
63.3961(j)(3);
     ASTM Method D2697-03 (2014), Standard Test Method for
Volume Nonvolatile Matter in Clear or Pigmented Coatings, proposed to
be IBR approved for 40 CFR 63.3941(b)(1);
     ASTM Method D5965-02 (2013), Standard Test Methods for
Specific Gravity of Coating Powders, proposed to be IBR approved for 40
CFR 3951(c); and
     ASTM Method D6093-97 (2016), Standard Test Method for
Percent Volume Nonvolatile Matter in Clear or Pigmented Coatings Using
Helium Gas Pycnometer, proposed to be IBR approved for 40 CFR
63.3941(b)(1).
    Older versions of ASTM methods D1475, D2697, D5965, and D6093 were
incorporated by reference when the MMPP NESHAP was originally
promulgated (69 FR 130, January 2, 2004). We are proposing to replace
the older versions of these methods with updated versions, which
requires IBR revisions. The updated version of the method replaces the
older version in the same paragraph of the rule text. We are also
proposing the addition of EPA Method 18 and incorporating by reference
ASTM methods D2111 and D2369 to the MMPP NESHAP for the first time in
this rulemaking. Refer to section VIII.J of this preamble for further
discussion of these VCS.
5. What compliance dates are we proposing?
    The EPA is proposing that affected sources must comply with all of
the amendments, with the exception of the proposed electronic format
for submitting semiannual compliance reports, no later than 181 days
after the effective date of the final rule. All affected facilities
would have to continue to meet the current requirements of 40 CFR part
63, subpart MMMM until the applicable compliance date of the amended
rule. The final action is not expected to be a ``major rule'' as
defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2), so the effective date of the final rule
will be the promulgation date as specified in CAA section 112(d)(10).
    For existing sources, we are proposing two changes that would
impact ongoing compliance requirements for 40 CFR part 63, subpart
MMMM. As discussed elsewhere in this preamble, we are proposing to add
a requirement that notifications, performance test results, and
semiannual compliance reports be submitted electronically. We are
proposing that the semiannual compliance report be submitted
electronically using a new template, which is available for review and
comment as part of this action. We are also proposing to change the
requirements for SSM by removing the exemption from the requirements to
meet the standard during SSM periods and by removing the requirement to
develop and implement an SSM plan. Our experience with similar
industries that are required to convert reporting mechanisms to install
necessary hardware and software, become familiar with the process of
submitting performance test results electronically through the EPA's
CEDRI, test these new electronic submission capabilities, and reliably
employ electronic reporting shows that a time period of a minimum of 90
days, and, more typically, 180 days is generally necessary to
successfully accomplish these revisions. Our experience with similar
industries further shows that this sort of regulated facility generally
requires a time period of 180 days to read and understand the amended
rule requirements; to evaluate their operations to ensure that they can
meet the standards during periods of startup and shutdown as defined in
the rule and make any necessary

adjustments; and to update their operation, maintenance, and monitoring
plan to reflect the revised requirements. The EPA recognizes the
confusion that multiple different compliance dates for individual
requirements would create and the additional burden such an assortment
of dates would impose. From our assessment of the time frame needed for
compliance with the entirety of the revised requirements, the EPA
considers a period of 180 days to be the most expeditious compliance
period practicable and, thus, is proposing that existing affected
sources be in compliance with all of this regulation's revised
requirements within 181 days of the regulation's effective date.
    We solicit comment on these proposed compliance periods, and we
specifically request submission of information from sources in this
source category regarding specific actions that would need to be
undertaken to comply with the proposed amended requirements and the
time needed to make the adjustments for compliance with any of the
revised requirements. We note that information provided may result in
changes to the proposed compliance dates.
C. What are the analytical results and proposed decisions for the
surface coating of plastic parts and products source category?
1. What are the results of the risk assessment and analyses?
    As described above in section III of this preamble, for the PPP
source category, we conducted a risk assessment for all HAP emitted. We
present results of the risk assessment briefly below and in more detail
in the Surface Coating of Plastic Parts and Products Risk Assessment
Report, in the PPP Docket (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0313).
a. Chronic Inhalation Risk Assessment Results
    Table 6 of this preamble provides a summary of the results of the
inhalation risk assessment for the source category.

                        Table 6--Surface Coating of Plastic Parts and Products Source Category Inhalation Risk Assessment Results
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    Maximum individual     Estimated population      Estimated annual         Maximum chronic        Maximum screening
                                     cancer risk (in 1     at increased risk of      cancer incidence      noncancer  TOSHI \1\   acute noncancer HQ \2\
                                         million)             cancer >=1-in-1        (cases per year)    -----------------------------------------------
                                 ------------------------         million        ------------------------
         Risk assessment                                 ------------------------                          Based on    Based on
                                   Based on    Based on    Based on    Based on    Based on    Based on     actual     allowable      Based on actual
                                    actual     allowable    actual     allowable    actual     allowable   emissions   emissions         emissions
                                   emissions   emissions   emissions   emissions   emissions   emissions
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source Category.................          10          10         600         700       0.001       0.001           1           1  HQREL = 4.
Whole Facility..................          70  ..........      29,000  ..........       0.006  ..........           1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The TOSHI is the sum of the chronic noncancer HQ for substances that affect the same target organ or organ system.
\2\ The maximum estimated acute exposure concentration was divided by available short-term threshold values to develop HQ values.

    The results of the inhalation risk modeling using actual emissions
data, as shown in Table 6 of this preamble, indicate that the maximum
individual cancer risk based on actual emissions (lifetime) could be up
to 10-in-1 million (driven by ethyl benzene, naphthalene, and
formaldehyde from coating operations), the maximum chronic noncancer
TOSHI value based on actual emissions could be up to 1 (driven by
hexamethylene-1,6-diisocyanate from coating operations), and the
maximum screening acute noncancer HQ value (off-facility site) could be
up to 4 (driven by glycol ethers). The total estimated annual cancer
incidence (national) from these facilities based on actual emission
levels is 0.001 excess cancer cases per year or 1 case in every 1,000
years.
b. Screening Level Acute Risk Assessment Results
    Table 6 of this preamble also shows the acute risk results for the
PPP source category. The screening analysis for acute impacts was based
on an industry-specific multiplier of 1.2, to estimate the peak
emission rates from the average emission rates. For more detailed acute
risk results refer to the Surface Coating of Plastic Parts and Products
Risk Assessment Report, in the PPP Docket.
c. Multipathway Risk Screening Results
    There are no PB-HAP emitted by facilities in the PPP source
category. Therefore, we do not expect any human health multipathway
risks as a result of emissions from this source category.
d. Environmental Risk Screening Results
    The emissions data for the PPP source category indicate that no
environmental HAP are emitted by sources within this source category.
Therefore, we do not expect an adverse environmental effect as a result
of HAP emissions from this source category.
e. Facility-Wide Risk Results
    Twenty-two facilities have a facility-wide cancer MIR greater than
or equal to 1-in-1 million. The maximum facility-wide cancer MIR is 70-
in-1 million, driven by nickel and formaldehyde from a co-located
boiler. The total estimated cancer incidence from the whole facility is
0.006 excess cancer cases per year, or one excess case in every 200
years. Approximately 29,000 people were estimated to have cancer risks
above 1-in-1 million from exposure to HAP emitted from both MACT and
non-MACT sources of the 125 facilities in this source category. The
maximum facility-wide TOSHI for the source category is estimated to be
1, driven by emissions of nickel and formaldehyde from a co-located
boiler.
f. What demographic groups might benefit from this regulation?
    To examine the potential for any environmental justice issues that
might be associated with the source category, we performed a
demographic analysis, which is an assessment of risks to individual
demographic groups of the populations living within 5 km and within 50
km of the facilities. In the analysis, we evaluated the distribution of
HAP-related cancer and noncancer risks from the PPP source category
across different demographic groups within the populations living near
facilities.\38\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ Demographic groups included in the analysis are: White,
African American, Native American, other races and multiracial,
Hispanic or Latino, children 17 years of age and under, adults 18 to
64 years of age, adults 65 years of age and over, adults without a
high school diploma, people living below the poverty level, people
living above the poverty level, and linguistically isolated people.

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

    The results of the demographic analysis are summarized in Table 7
of this preamble. These results, for various demographic groups, are
based on the estimated risks from actual emissions levels for the
population living within 50 km of the facilities.

    Table 7--Surface Coating of Plastic Parts and Products Source Category Demographic Risk Analysis Results
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                          Population with
                                                                         cancer risk at or     Population with
                                                                            above 1-in-1      chronic noncancer
                                                          Nationwide       million due to     HI above 1 due to
                                                                         surface coating of   surface coating of
                                                                         plastic parts and    plastic parts and
                                                                              products             products
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Population......................................     317,746,049                  500                    0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          White and Minority by Percent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
White.................................................              62                   92                    0
Minority..............................................              38                    8                    0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Minority Detail by Percent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
African American......................................              12                    4                    0
Native American.......................................             0.8                  0.1                    0
Hispanic or Latino....................................              18                    3                    0
Other and Multiracial.................................               7                    1                    0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                Income by Percent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Below the Poverty Level...............................              14                   19                    0
Above the Poverty Level...............................              86                   81                    0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              Education by Percent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Over 25 Without High a School Diploma.................              14                   14                    0
Over 25 With a High School Diploma....................              86                   86                    0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       Linguistically Isolated by Percent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Linguistically Isolated...............................               6                    0                    0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The results of the PPP source category demographic analysis
indicate that emissions from the source category expose approximately
500 people to a cancer risk at or above 1-in-1 million and no one is
exposed to a chronic noncancer HI greater than 1. The percentages of
the at-risk population in the following specific demographic groups are
higher than their respective nationwide percentages: ``White,'' and
``Below the Poverty Level.''
    The methodology and the results of the demographic analysis are
presented in a technical report, Risk and Technology Review--Analysis
of Demographic Factors for Populations Living Near Surface Coating of
Plastic Parts and Products Source Category Operations, April 2019
(hereafter referred to as the Plastic Parts and Products Demographic
Analysis Report), available in the PPP Docket.
2. What are our proposed decisions regarding risk acceptability, ample
margin of safety, and adverse environmental effects?
a. Risk Acceptability
    As noted in section III.A of this preamble, we weigh all health
risk factors in our risk acceptability determination, including the
cancer MIR, the number of persons in various cancer and noncancer risk
ranges, cancer incidence, the maximum noncancer TOSHI, the maximum
acute noncancer HQ, the extent of noncancer risks, the distribution of
cancer and noncancer risks in the exposed population, and risk
estimation uncertainties (54 FR 38044, September 14, 1989).
    For the PPP source category, the risk analysis indicates that the
cancer risks to the individual most exposed could be up to 10-in-1
million due to actual emissions and allowable emissions. These risks
are considerably less than 100-in-1 million, which is the presumptive
upper limit of acceptable risk. The risk analysis also shows very low
cancer incidence (0.001 cases per year for actual and allowable
emissions), and we did not identify any potential for adverse chronic
noncancer health effects.
    The acute screening analysis results in a maximum acute noncancer
HQ of 4 at one facility based on use of the acute REL for ethylene
glycol monomethyl ether as a surrogate for unspeciated glycol ethers.
Since there is not a specified acute dose-response value for
unspeciated glycol ethers, we applied the most protective dose-response
value from the other glycol ether compounds, the acute REL for ethylene
glycol monomethyl ether, to estimate risk. Given that ethylene glycol
monomethyl ether is more toxic than other glycol ethers, the use of
this surrogate is a health-protective choice in the EPA's risk
assessment.
    For acute screening analyses, to better characterize the potential
health risks associated with estimated worst-case acute exposures to
HAP, we examine a wider range of available acute health metrics than we
do for our chronic risk assessments. This is in

acknowledgement that there are generally more data gaps and
uncertainties in acute reference values than there are in chronic
reference values. By definition, the acute REL represents a health-
protective level of exposure, with effects not anticipated below those
levels, even for repeated exposures; however, the level of exposure
that would cause health effects is not specifically known. As the
exposure concentration increases above the acute REL, the potential for
effects increases. Therefore, when an REL is exceeded and an AEGL-1 or
ERPG-1 level is available (i.e., levels at which mild, reversible
effects are anticipated in the general population for a single
exposure), we typically use them as an additional comparative measure,
as they provide an upper bound for exposure levels above which exposed
individuals could experience effects. However, for glycol ethers, there
are no AEGL or ERPG values.
    Additional uncertainties in the acute exposure assessment that the
EPA conducts as part of the risk review under section 112 of the CAA
include several factors. The accuracy of an acute inhalation exposure
assessment depends on the simultaneous occurrence of independent
factors that may vary greatly, such as hourly emission rates,
meteorology, and the presence of a person. In the acute screening
assessment that we conduct under the RTR program, we include the
conservative (health-protective) assumptions that peak emissions from
each emission point in the source category and reasonable worst-case
air dispersion conditions (i.e., 99th percentile) co-occur. We then
include the additional assumption that a person is located at this
point at the same time. Together, these assumptions represent a
reasonable exposure. In most cases, it is unlikely that a person would
be located at the point of maximum exposure during the time when peak
emissions and reasonable worst-case air dispersion conditions occur
simultaneously. Thus, as discussed in the document titled Residual Risk
Assessment for the Surface Coating of Plastic Parts and Products Source
Category in Support of the Risk and Technology Review 2019 Proposed
Rule, in the PPP docket for this action, by assuming the co-occurrence
of independent factors for the acute screening assessment, the results
are intentionally biased high and are, thus, health-protective. We
conclude that adverse effects from acute exposure to emissions of
glycol ethers from this source category are not anticipated.
    Considering all of the health risk information and factors
discussed above, including the uncertainties discussed in section
III.C.7 of this preamble, we propose that the risks from the PPP source
category are acceptable.
b. Ample Margin of Safety Analysis
    Although we are proposing that the risks from the PPP source
category are acceptable, risk estimates for approximately 500
individuals in the exposed population are above 1-in-1 million at the
actual emissions level and 700 individuals in the exposed population
are above 1-in-1 million at the allowable emissions level.
Consequently, we further considered whether the MACT standards for the
PPP source category provide an ample margin of safety to protect public
health. In this ample margin of safety analysis, we investigated
available emissions control options that might reduce the risk from the
source category. We considered this information along with all of the
health risks and other health information considered in our
determination of risk acceptability.
    As described in section III.B of this preamble, our technology
review focused on identifying developments in practices, processes, and
control technologies for the PPP source category, and we reviewed
various information sources regarding emission sources that are
currently regulated by the PPP NESHAP. Based on our review, we did not
identify any cost-effective measures to further reduce HAP. Therefore,
considering all of the available health information along with the
absence of additional measures for reducing HAP, we are proposing that
additional emissions controls for this source category are not
necessary and that the current standards provide an ample margin of
safety.
c. Environmental Effects
    The emissions data for the PPP source category indicate that no
environmental HAP are emitted by sources within this source category.
In addition, we are unaware of any adverse environmental effects caused
by HAP emitted by this source category. Therefore, we do not expect
there to be an adverse environmental effect as a result of HAP
emissions from this source category and we are proposing that it is not
necessary to set a more stringent standard to prevent, taking into
consideration costs, energy, safety, and other relevant factors, an
adverse environmental effect.
3. What are the results and proposed decisions based on our technology
review?
    As described in section III.B of this preamble, our technology
review focused on identifying developments in practices, processes, and
control technologies for the PPP source category. The EPA reviewed
various information sources regarding emission sources that are
currently regulated by the PPP NESHAP to support the technology review.
The information sources included the following: the RBLC; publicly
available state air permit databases; regulatory actions, including
technology reviews promulgated for other surface coating NESHAP
subsequent to the PPP NESHAP; state regulations; facility operating
permits; site visits; and industry information.
    Based on our review, we did not identify any add-on control
technologies, process equipment, work practices, or procedures that had
not been previously considered during development of the PPP NESHAP,
and we did not identify any new or improved add-on control technologies
that would result in additional emission reductions. A brief summary of
the EPA's findings in conducting the technology review of plastic part
surface coating operations follows. For a detailed discussion of the
EPA's findings, refer to the Plastic Parts and Products Technology
Review Memo, in the PPP Docket.
    During the development of the 2004 PPP NESHAP, numerical emission
limits were determined for new and existing major sources within four
coating subcategories for a total of eight HAP emissions limits. The
emission limits were based on industry survey responses and the
industry's use of low- or no-HAP coatings and thinners and add-on
capture and control technologies.
    Using the EPA's NEI and the ECHO databases, we identified 125 major
source facilities that are currently subject to the PPP NESHAP. A
search of the RBLC database for improvements in plastic parts and
product coating technologies provided 20 facilities with permit dates
of 2000 or later. The results of the RBLC search included facilities
subject to VOC and HAP content limits, and using high volume/low
pressure spray guns, robotic electrostatic application, thermal
oxidizers, catalytic oxidizers, and adsorbers. All of these control
technologies were in use by the plastic parts and product coating
industry during development of the PPP NESHAP and were already
considered in the development of the PPP NESHAP.

Therefore, we concluded that the results of the RBLC search are
consistent with current PPP NESHAP requirements and did not identify
any improvements in add-on control technology or processes and work
practices that are not already reflected in the rule.
    We also collected permit information from about 45 major source
surface coating facilities subject to the PPP NESHAP. (Many of these
facilities were also subject to 40 CFR part 63, subparts IIII or MMMM.)
The review of these permits did not identify a facility subject to HAP
limits more stringent than those in the PPP NESHAP and did not identify
any control technologies or work practices that were not already
considered in the development of the NESHAP.
    We reviewed other surface coating NESHAP promulgated subsequent to
the PPP NESHAP to determine whether any requirements exceed the PPP
MACT level of control or include technologies that were not considered
during the development of the original PPP NESHAP. These NESHAP include
Paint Stripping and Miscellaneous Surface Coating Operations at Area
Sources (40 CFR part 63, subpart HHHHHH), and Nine Metal Fabrication
and Finishing Area Source Categories (40 CFR part 63, subpart XXXXXX).
We also reviewed the results of the technology reviews for other
surface coating NESHAP promulgated after the PPP NESHAP. These
technology reviews include the NESHAP for Printing and Publishing (40
CFR part 63, subpart KK), Shipbuilding and Ship Repair (40 CFR part 63,
subpart II), Wood Furniture Manufacturing (40 CFR part 63, subpart JJ),
and Aerospace Manufacturing and Rework Facilities (40 CFR part 63,
subpart GG). The review of these more recently promulgated NESHAP and
the technology reviews of other NESHAP did not identify any control
technologies that were not already considered during the development of
the 2004 PPP NESHAP.
    The developments considered in these other technology reviews
included the use of emission capture systems and thermal oxidizers to
reduce emissions. Because the PPP NESHAP already includes a compliance
option involving the use of a PTE and an add-on control device, and
because these measures were considered in the development of the PPP
NESHAP, we concluded that these measures do not represent a development
in control technology under CAA section 112(d)(6). We also identified
and considered alternatives to conventional solvent borne coatings
during MACT development (e.g., waterborne coatings, low-HAP/high-solids
coatings, low energy radiation cured coating) and the presence of
facilities using these coatings is reflected in the current MACT
standards. We found no other improvements in add-on control technology
or other equipment during review of the RBLC, the state operating
permits, and subsequent NESHAP that were not already identified and
considered during development of the PPP NESHAP.
    Finally, we identified no developments in work practices or
procedures for the PPP source category that were not previously
identified and considered during MACT development.
    Based on these findings, we conclude that there have not been any
developments in add-on control technology or other equipment not
identified and considered during MACT development, nor any improvements
in add-on controls, nor any significant changes in the cost (including
cost effectiveness) of the add-on controls. Therefore, we are proposing
no revisions to the PPP NESHAP pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6). For
further discussion of the technology review results, refer to the
Plastic Parts and Products Technology Review Memo, in the PPP Docket.
4. What other actions are we proposing for the surface coating of
plastic parts and products source category?
    We are proposing to require electronic submittal of notifications
(initial and compliance status), semiannual reports, and performance
test reports for PPP surface coating facilities. In addition, we are
proposing revisions to the SSM provisions of the MACT rule in order to
ensure that they are consistent with the Court decision in Sierra Club
v. EPA, 551 F. 3d 1019 (D.C. Cir. 2008), which vacated two provisions
that exempted sources from the requirement to comply with otherwise
applicable CAA section 112(d) emission standards during periods of SSM.
We are proposing to require periodic emissions testing of add-on
control devices. We also are proposing to add optional EPA Method 18,
to IBR an alternative test method, and to make various technical and
editorial changes. Our analyses and proposed changes related to these
issues are discussed in the sections below.
a. Electronic Reporting Requirements
    The EPA is proposing that owners and operators of PPP surface
coating facilities submit electronic copies of initial notifications
required in 40 CFR 63.9(b) and 63.4510(b), notifications of compliance
status required in 40 CFR 63.9(h) and 63.4510(c), performance test
reports required in 40 CFR 63.4520(b), and semiannual reports required
in 40 CFR 63.4520(a) through the EPA's CDX, using the CEDRI. A
description of the EPA's CDX and the EPA's proposed rationale and
details on the addition of these electronic reporting requirements for
the PPP source category is the same as for the ALDT source category, as
discussed in section IV.A.4.a of this preamble. No specific form is
proposed at this time for the initial notifications required in 40 CFR
63.9(b) and notifications of compliance status in 40 CFR 63.9(h). Until
the EPA has completed electronic forms for these notifications, the
notifications will be required to be submitted via CEDRI in PDF. After
development of the final forms, we will notify sources about their
availability via the CEDRI website and the CHIEF Listserv. For
semiannual reports required in 40 CFR 63.4520(a), the proposed rule
requires that owners or operators use the appropriate spreadsheet
template to submit information to CEDRI. A draft version of the
proposed template for this report is included in the docket for this
rulemaking.\39\ The EPA specifically requests comment on the content,
layout, and overall design of the template.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ See Electronic Reporting Template for Surface Coating of
Plastic Parts and Products Subpart PPPP Semiannual Reports, in
Docket ID NO. EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0313.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regarding submittal of performance test reports via the EPA's ERT,
as discussed in section IV.A.4.a of this preamble for the ALDT NESHAP,
the proposal to submit performance test data electronically to the EPA
applies only if the EPA has developed an electronic reporting form for
the test method as listed on the EPA's ERT website. For the PPP NESHAP,
all of the EPA test methods listed under 40 CFR part 63, subpart PPPP,
are currently supported by the ERT, except for EPA Method 18 (an
optional test method proposed in this action), which appears in the
proposed text for 40 CFR 63.4566. As mentioned above in section
IV.A.4.a of this preamble, the rule proposes that should an owner or
operator choose to use EPA Method 18, then its results would be
submitted in PDF using the attachment module of the ERT.
    Also, as discussed in section IV.A.4.a of this preamble for the
ALDT NESHAP, we are proposing to provide facilities with the ability to
seek extensions for submitting electronic reports for circumstances
beyond the control of the facility. In proposed 40 CFR 63.4520(g), we
address the situation for facilities subject to the PPP NESHAP where an

extension may be warranted due to outages of the EPA's CDX or CEDRI,
which may prevent access to the system and submittal of the required
reports. In proposed 40 CFR 63.4520(h), we address the situation for
facilities subject to the PPP NESHAP where an extension may be
warranted due to a force majeure event, which is defined as an event
that will be or has been caused by circumstances beyond the control of
the affected facility, its contractors, or any entity controlled by the
affected facility that prevents compliance with the requirement to
submit a report electronically as required by this rule. Examples of
such events are acts of nature, acts of war and terrorism, or equipment
failure or safety hazards beyond the control of the facility.
    The electronic submittal of the reports addressed in this proposed
rulemaking 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. Electronic reporting
also eliminates paper-based, manual processes, thereby saving time and
resources, simplifying data entry, eliminating redundancies, minimizing
data reporting errors, and providing data quickly and accurately to the
affected facilities, air agencies, the EPA, and the public. Moreover,
electronic reporting is consistent with the EPA's plan to implement
Executive Order 13563 and is in keeping with the EPA's Agency-wide
policy developed in response to the White House's Digital Government
Strategy. For more information on the benefits of electronic reporting,
see the memorandum titled Electronic Reporting Requirements for New
Source Performance Standards (NSPS) and National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) Rules, available in Docket ID No.
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0313.
b. SSM Requirements
(1.) Proposed Elimination of the SSM Exemption
    The EPA is proposing to eliminate the SSM exemption in the PPP
NESHAP. The EPA's proposed rationale for the elimination of the SSM
exemption for the PPP source category is the same as for the ALDT
source category, which is discussed in section IV.A.4.b.1 of this
preamble. We are also proposing several revisions to Table 2 to subpart
PPPP of 40 CFR part 63 (Applicability of General Provisions to Subpart
PPPP of Part 63, hereafter referred to as the ``General Provisions
table to subpart PPPP'') as is explained in more detail below in
section IV.C.4.b.2 of this preamble. For example, we are proposing to
eliminate the incorporation of the General Provisions' requirement that
the source develop an SSM plan. Further, we are proposing to eliminate
and revise certain recordkeeping and reporting requirements related to
the SSM exemption as further described below. The EPA has attempted to
ensure that the provisions we are proposing to eliminate are
inappropriate, unnecessary, or redundant in the absence of the SSM
exemption. We are specifically seeking comment on the specific proposed
deletions and revisions and also whether additional provisions should
be revised to achieve the stated goal.
    In proposing these rule amendments, the EPA has taken into account
startup and shutdown periods and, for the same reasons explained in
section IV.A.4.b.1 of this preamble for the ALDT source category, has
not proposed alternate standards for those periods in the PPP NESHAP.
Startups and shutdowns are part of normal operations for the PPP source
category. As currently specified in 40 CFR 63.4500(a), any coating
operation(s) for which you use the emission rate with add-on controls
option must meet the applicable operating limits in Table 1 to 40 CFR
part 63, subpart PPPP ``at all times,'' except for solvent recovery
systems for which you conduct liquid-liquid material balances according
to 40 CFR 63.4561(j). (Solvent recovery systems for which you conduct a
liquid-liquid material balance require a monthly calculation of the
solvent recovery device's collection and recovery efficiency for
volatile organic matter.)
    Also, as currently specified in 40 CFR 63.4500(a)(2), any coating
operation(s) for which you use the emission rate with add-on controls
option must be in compliance ``at all times'' with the applicable
emission limit in 40 CFR 63.4490. During startup and shutdown periods,
in order for a facility (using add-on controls to meet the standards)
to meet the emission and operating standards, the control device for a
coating operation needs to be turned on and operating at specified
levels before the facility begins coating operations, and the control
equipment needs to continue to be operated until after the facility
ceases coating operations. In some cases, the facility needs to run
thermal oxidizers on supplemental fuel before VOC levels are sufficient
for the combustion to be (nearly) self-sustaining. Note that we are
also proposing new related language in 40 CFR 63.4500(b) to require
that the owner or operator operate and maintain the coating operation,
including pollution control equipment, at all times to minimize
emissions. See section IV.A.4.b.2 of this preamble for further
discussion of this proposed revision.
    Although no statutory language compels the EPA to set standards for
malfunctions, the EPA has the discretion to do so where feasible, as
discussed previously in section IV.A.4.b.1 of this preamble for the
ALDT source category.
    It is unlikely that a malfunction would result in a violation of
the standards during PPP surface coatings operations for facilities
using the compliant material option or the emission rate without add-on
controls option. Facilities using these options have demonstrated that
the organic HAP contents of the coating materials do not exceed the
emission limits in 40 CFR 63.4490(a) or (b), either on a coating-by-
coating basis or by using averaging among coatings.
    A malfunction event is more likely for PPP coating facilities that
use the emission rate with add-on controls option. For this option,
facilities must demonstrate that the average emission rate does not
exceed the emission limits in 40 CFR 63.4490(a) or (b), and the
facility is complying with the control device operating limits listed
in Table 1 to 40 CFR part 63, subpart PPPP of the PPP NESHAP. The
operating limits are specific to the type of control device and
established by the facility during its initial performance test.
    In the unlikely event that a source fails to comply with the
applicable CAA section 112(d) standards as a result of a malfunction
event, the EPA would determine an appropriate response based on, among
other things, the good faith efforts of the source to minimize
emissions during malfunction periods, including preventative and
corrective actions, as well as root cause analyses to ascertain and
rectify excess emissions. Refer to section IV.A.4.b.1 of this preamble
for further discussion of the EPA's actions in response to a source
failing to comply with the applicable CAA section 112(d) standards as a
result of a malfunction event for the ALDT source category, which
applies to this source category.

(2.) Proposed Revisions to the General Provisions Applicability Table
    40 CFR 63.4500(b) General duty. We are proposing to revise the
General Provisions table to subpart PPPP (Table 2) entry for 40 CFR
63.6(e)(1)(i) by changing the ``yes'' in column 3 to a ``no.'' Section
63.6(e)(1)(i) describes the general duty to minimize emissions. Some of
the language in that section is no longer necessary or appropriate in
light of the elimination of the SSM exemption. We are proposing instead
to add general duty regulatory text at 40 CFR 63.4500(b) that reflects
the general duty to minimize emissions while eliminating the reference
to periods covered by an SSM exemption. The current language in 40 CFR
63.6(e)(1)(i) characterizes what the general duty entails during
periods of SSM. With the elimination of the SSM exemption, there is no
need to differentiate between normal operations, startup and shutdown,
and malfunction events in describing the general duty. Therefore, the
language the EPA is proposing for 40 CFR 63.4500(b) does not include
that language from 40 CFR 63.6(e)(1).
    We are also proposing to revise the General Provisions table to
subpart PPPP (Table 2) entry for 40 CFR 63.6(e)(1)(ii) by changing the
``yes'' in column 3 to a ``no.'' Section 63.6(e)(1)(ii) imposes
requirements that are not necessary with the elimination of the SSM
exemption or are redundant with the general duty requirement being
added at 40 CFR 63.4500(b).
    SSM plan. We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table
to subpart PPPP (Table 2) entry for 40 CFR 63.6(e)(3) by changing the
``yes'' in column 3 to a ``no.'' Generally, these paragraphs require
development of an SSM plan and specify SSM recordkeeping and reporting
requirements related to the SSM plan. We are also proposing to remove
from 40 CFR part 63, subpart PPPP, the current provisions requiring the
SSM plan in 40 CFR 63.4500(c) and requiring reporting related to the
SSM plan in 40 CFR 63.4520(c). As noted, the EPA is proposing to remove
the SSM exemptions. Therefore, affected units will be subject to an
emission standard during such events. The applicability of a standard
during such events will ensure that sources have ample incentive to
plan for and achieve compliance, and, thus, the SSM plan requirements
are no longer necessary.
    Compliance with standards. We are proposing to revise the General
Provisions table to subpart PPPP (Table 2) entry for 40 CFR 63.6(f)(1)
by changing the ``yes'' in column 3 to a ``no.'' The current language
of 40 CFR 63.6(f)(1) exempts sources from non-opacity standards during
periods of SSM. As discussed above, the Court in Sierra Club vacated
the exemptions contained in this provision and held that the CAA
requires that some CAA section 112 standards apply continuously.
Consistent with Sierra Club, the EPA is proposing to revise standards
in this rule to apply at all times.
    40 CFR 63.4564 Performance testing. We are proposing to revise the
General Provisions table to subpart PPPP (Table 2) entry for 40 CFR
63.7(e)(1) by changing the ``yes'' in column 3 to a ``no.'' Section
63.7(e)(1) describes performance testing requirements. The EPA is
instead proposing to add a performance testing requirement at 40 CFR
63.4564(a)(1). The performance testing requirements we are proposing to
add differ from the General Provisions performance testing provisions
in several respects. The regulatory text does not include the language
in 40 CFR 63.7(e)(1) that restated the SSM exemption and language that
precluded startup and shutdown periods from being considered
``representative'' for purposes of performance testing. Also, the
proposed performance testing provisions will not allow performance
testing during startup or shutdown. As in 40 CFR 63.7(e)(1),
performance tests conducted under this subpart should not be conducted
during malfunctions because conditions during malfunctions are often
not representative of normal operating conditions. Section 63.7(e)
requires that the owner or operator maintain records of the process
information necessary to document operating conditions during the test
and include in such records an explanation to support that such
conditions represent normal operation. The EPA is proposing to add
language clarifying that the owner or operator must make such records
available to the Administrator upon request.
    Monitoring. We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table
to subpart PPPP (Table 2) entry for 40 CFR 63.8(a)(4) by changing the
``yes'' in column 3 to a ``no.'' Section 63.8(a)(4) describes
additional monitoring requirements for control devices. Subpart PPPP of
40 CFR part 63 does not have monitoring requirements for flares.
    We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table to subpart
PPPP (Table 2) entry for 40 CFR 63.8(c)(1) by changing the ``yes'' in
column 3 to a ``no.'' The cross-references to the general duty and SSM
plan requirements in those subparagraphs are not necessary in light of
other requirements of 40 CFR 63.8 that require good air pollution
control practices (40 CFR 63.8(c)(1)) and that set out the requirements
of a quality control program for monitoring equipment (40 CFR 63.8(d)).
Further, we are proposing to revise 40 CFR 63.4568(a) to add a
requirement to maintain the monitoring equipment at all times in
accordance with 40 CFR 63.4500(b) and keep the necessary parts readily
available for routine repairs of the monitoring equipment, consistent
with the requirements in 40 CFR 63.8(c)(1)(ii). The reference to 40 CFR
63.8(c)(1)(ii) is no longer needed since it is redundant to the
requirement in 40 CFR 63.4568(a).
    40 CFR 63.4530 Recordkeeping. We are proposing to revise the
General Provisions table to subpart PPPP (Table 2) entry for 40 CFR
63.10(b)(2)(i) by changing the ``yes'' in column 3 to a ``no.'' Section
63.10(b)(2)(i) describes the recordkeeping requirements during startup
and shutdown. These recording provisions are no longer necessary
because the EPA is proposing that recordkeeping and reporting
applicable to normal operations will apply to startup and shutdown. In
the absence of special provisions applicable to startup and shutdown,
such as a startup and shutdown plan, there is no reason to retain
additional recordkeeping for startup and shutdown periods.
    We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table to subpart
PPPP (Table 2) entry for 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(ii) by changing the ``yes''
in column 3 to a ``no.'' Section 63.10(b)(2)(ii) describes the
recordkeeping requirements during a malfunction, requiring a record of
``the occurrence and duration of each malfunction.'' A similar record
is already required in 40 CFR 63.4530(h), which requires a record of
``the date, time, and duration of each deviation,'' which the EPA is
retaining. The regulatory text in 40 CFR 63.4530(h) differs from the
General Provisions in that the General Provisions requires the creation
and retention of a record of the occurrence and duration of each
malfunction of process, air pollution control, and monitoring
equipment; whereas 40 CFR 63.4530(h) applies to any failure to meet an
applicable standard and is requiring that the source record the date,
time, and duration of the failure rather than the ``occurrence.'' The
EPA is also proposing to add to 40 CFR 63.4530(h) a requirement that
sources also keep records that include a list of the affected source or
equipment and actions taken to minimize emissions, an estimate of the
quantity of

each regulated pollutant emitted over the emission limit for which the
source failed to meet the standard, and a description of the method
used to estimate the emissions. Examples of such methods would include
product-loss calculations, mass balance calculations, measurements when
available, or engineering judgment based on known process parameters
(e.g., coating HAP content and application rates and control device
efficiencies). The EPA proposes to require that sources keep records of
this information to ensure that there is adequate information to allow
the EPA to determine the severity of any failure to meet a standard,
and to provide data that may document how the source met the general
duty to minimize emissions when the source has failed to meet an
applicable standard.
    We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table to subpart
PPPP (Table 2) entry for 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(iv) by changing the ``yes''
in column 3 to a ``no.'' When applicable, the provision requires
sources to record actions taken during SSM events when actions were
inconsistent with their SSM plan. The requirement is no longer
appropriate because SSM plans will no longer be required. The
requirement previously applicable under 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(iv)(B) to
record actions to minimize emissions and record corrective actions is
now applicable by reference to 40 CFR 63.4530(h)(4).
    We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table to subpart
PPPP (Table 2) entry for 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(v) by changing the ``yes''
in column 3 to a ``no.'' When applicable, the provision requires
sources to record actions taken during SSM events to show that actions
taken were consistent with their SSM plan. The requirement is no longer
appropriate because SSM plans will no longer be required.
    We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table to subpart
PPPP (Table 2) entry for 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(x)-(xiii) by changing the
``yes'' in column 3 to a ``no.'' When applicable, the provision
requires sources to record actions taken during SSM events to show that
actions taken were consistent with their SSM plan. The requirement is
no longer appropriate because SSM plans will no longer be required.
    40 CFR 63.4520 Reporting. We are proposing to revise the General
Provisions table to subpart PPPP (Table 2) entry for 40 CFR 63.10(d)(5)
by changing the ``yes'' in column 3 to a ``no.'' Section 63.10(d)(5)
describes the reporting requirements for startups, shutdowns, and
malfunctions. To replace the General Provisions reporting requirement,
the EPA is proposing to add reporting requirements to 40 CFR
63.4520(a)(7). The replacement language differs from the General
Provisions requirement in that it eliminates periodic SSM reports as a
stand-alone report. We are proposing language that requires sources
that fail to meet an applicable standard at any time to report the
information concerning such events in the semi-annual compliance report
already required under this rule. Subpart PPPP of 40 CFR part 63
currently requires reporting of the date, time period, and cause of
each deviation. We are clarifying in the rule that, if the cause of a
deviation from a standard is unknown, this should be specified in the
report. We are also proposing to change ``date and time period'' or
``date and time'' to ``date, time, and duration'' (see proposed
revisions to 40 CFR 63.4520(a)(7)(vi), 63.4520(a)(7)(viii), and
63.4520(a)(7)(xiii)). Further, we are proposing that the report must
also contain the number of deviations from the standard and a list of
the affected sources or equipment. For deviation reports addressing
deviations from an applicable emission limit in 40 CFR 63.4490 or
operating limit in Table 1 to 40 CFR part 63, subpart PPPP, we are
proposing that the report also include an estimate of the quantity of
each regulated pollutant emitted over any emission limit for which the
source failed to meet the standard, and a description of the method
used to estimate the emissions.
    Regarding the proposed new requirement discussed above to estimate
the quantity of each regulated pollutant emitted over any emission
limit for which the source failed to meet the standard, and a
description of the method used to estimate the emissions, examples of
such methods would include product-loss calculations, mass balance
calculations, measurements when available, or engineering judgment
based on known process parameters (e.g., coating HAP content and
application rates and control device efficiencies). The EPA is
proposing this requirement to ensure that there is adequate information
to determine compliance, to allow the EPA to determine the severity of
the failure to meet an applicable standard, and to provide data that
may document how the source met the general duty to minimize emissions
during a failure to meet an applicable standard.
    We will no longer require owners or operators to determine whether
actions taken to correct a malfunction are consistent with an SSM plan,
because plans would no longer be required. The proposed amendments,
therefore, eliminate 40 CFR 63.4520(c) that requires reporting of
whether the source deviated from its SSM plan, including required
actions to communicate with the Administrator, and the cross-reference
to 40 CFR 63.10(d)(5) that contains the description of the previously
required SSM report format and submittal schedule from this section.
These specifications are no longer necessary because the events will be
reported in otherwise required reports with similar format and
submittal requirements.
    We are proposing to remove the requirements in 40 CFR
63.4520(a)(7)(viii) that deviation reports must specify whether a
deviation from an operating limit occurred during a period of SSM. We
are also proposing to remove the requirements in 40 CFR
63.4520(a)(7)(viii) to break down the total duration of deviations into
the startup and shutdown categories. As discussed above in this
section, we are proposing to require reporting of the cause of each
deviation. Further, the startup and shutdown categories no longer apply
because these periods are proposed to be considered normal operation,
as discussed in section IV.A.4.b.1 of this preamble for the ALDT source
category, which also applies to this source category.
c. Technical Amendments to the Plastic Parts and Products NESHAP
    We propose to amend 40 CFR 63.4566(b)(4) to add the option of
conducting EPA Method 18 of appendix A to 40 CFR part 60, ``Measurement
of Gaseous Organic Compound Emissions by Gas Chromatography,'' to
measure and then subtract methane emissions from measured total gaseous
organic mass emissions as carbon. Facilities using the emission rate
with add-on control compliance option can use either EPA Method 25 or
EPA Method 25A to measure control device destruction efficiency. Unlike
EPA Method 25, EPA Method 25A does not exclude methane from the
measurement of organic emissions. Because exhaust streams from coating
operations may contain methane from natural gas combustion, we are
proposing to allow facilities the option to measure methane using EPA
Method 18 and to subtract the methane from the emissions as part of
their compliance calculations. We also propose to revise the format of
references to test methods in 40 CFR part 60. The current references in
40 CFR 63.4566(a) to EPA Methods 1, 1A, 2, 2A, 2C, 2D, 2F, 2G, 3, 3A,
3B, 4, 25, and 25A specify that each method is in

``appendix A'' of 40 CFR part 60. Appendix A of 40 CFR part 60 has been
divided into appendices A-1 through A-8. We propose to revise each
reference to appendix A to indicate which of the eight sections of
appendix A applies to the method.
    We propose to amend 40 CFR 63.4541(a)(1)(i) and 63.4541(a)(4),
which describe how to demonstrate compliance with the emission
limitations using the compliant material option, and the definition of
``non-HAP coating'' in 40 CFR 63.4581, to remove references to OSHA-
defined carcinogens as specified in 29 CFR 1910.1200(d)(4). The
reference to OSHA-defined carcinogens as specified in 29 CFR
1910.1200(d)(4) is intended to specify which compounds must be included
in calculating total organic HAP content of a coating material if they
are present at 0.1 percent or greater by mass. We propose to remove
this reference because 29 CFR 1910.1200(d)(4) has been amended and no
longer readily defines which compounds are carcinogens. We propose to
replace these references to OSHA-defined carcinogens at 29 CFR
1910.1200(d)(4) with a list (in proposed new Table 5 to 40 CFR part 63,
subpart PPPP) of those organic HAP that must be included in calculating
total organic HAP content of a coating material if they are present at
0.1-percent or greater by mass.
    We propose to include organic HAP in proposed Table 5 to 40 CFR
part 63, subpart PPPP if they were categorized in the EPA's Prioritized
Chronic Dose-Response Values for Screening Risk Assessments (dated May
9, 2014), as a ``human carcinogen,'' ``probable human carcinogen,'' or
``possible human carcinogen'' according to The Risk Assessment
Guidelines of 1986 (EPA/600/8-87/045, August 1987),\40\ or as
``carcinogenic to humans,'' ``likely to be carcinogenic to humans,'' or
with ``suggestive evidence of carcinogenic potential'' according to the
Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment (EPA/630/P-03/001F, March
2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \40\ See https://www.epa.gov/fera/dose-response-assessment-assessing-health-risks-associated-exposure-hazardous-air-pollutants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Current 40 CFR 63.4530 specifies records that must be maintained.
We propose to add clarification to this provision at 40 CFR 63.4530(a)
that specifies the allowance to retain electronic records applies to
all records that were submitted as reports electronically via the EPA's
CEDRI. We also propose to add text to the same provision clarifying
that this ability to maintain electronic copies does not affect the
requirement for facilities to make records, data, and reports available
upon request to a delegated air agency or the EPA as part of an on-site
compliance evaluation.
    We propose to clarify and harmonize the general requirement in 40
CFR 63.4500(b) with the reporting requirement in 40 CFR 63.4520(a)(5),
63.4520(a)(6), and 63.4520(a)(7), and the recordkeeping requirement in
40 CFR 63.4530(h)(4).
d. Ongoing Emissions Compliance Demonstrations
    As part of an ongoing effort to improve compliance with various
federal air emission regulations, the EPA reviewed the compliance
demonstration requirements in the PPP NESHAP. Currently, if a source
owner or operator chooses to comply with the standards using add-on
controls, the results of an initial performance test are used to
determine compliance; however, the rule does not require on-going
periodic performance testing for these emission capture systems and
add-on controls. In this action, we are proposing to require periodic
testing of add-on control devices, in addition to the one-time initial
emissions and capture efficiency testing, and ongoing temperature
measurement, to ensure ongoing compliance with the standards.
    As described more fully in section IV.A.4.d of this preamble for
the ALDT source category, the EPA documented potential operational
problems associated with control devices in several publications; \41\
the ICAC, in their comments on a separate rulemaking on the proposed
revisions related to the NESHAP General Provisions (72 FR 69, January
3, 2007), commented that ongoing maintenance and checks of control
devices are necessary in order to ensure emissions control technology,
including both thermal and catalytic oxidizers, remains effective; \42\
and state websites list CAA enforcement information that further
corroborates the potential problems identified by the EPA and ICAC
comments and conclusions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \41\ See Control Techniques for Volatile Organic Compound
Emissions from Stationary Sources, EPA/453/R-92-018, December 1992,
Control Technologies for Emissions from Stationary Sources, EPA/625/
6-91/014, June 1991, and Survey of Control for Low Concentration
Organic Vapor Gas Streams, EPA-456/R-95-003, May 1995. These
documents can be found in the Automobiles and Light-Duty Trucks,
Miscellaneous Metal Parts, and Plastic Parts and Products Dockets
for this action.
    \42\ See Docket Item No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2004-0094-0173, available at
www.regulations.gov. A copy of the ICAC's comments on the proposed
revisions to the General Provisions is also included in the
Automobiles and Light-Duty Trucks, Miscellaneous Metal Parts, and
Plastic Parts and Products Dockets for this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Given the need for vigilance in maintaining equipment to stem
degradation, the EPA is proposing to require periodic testing of add-on
control devices, in addition to the one-time initial emissions and
capture efficiency testing and ongoing temperature measurement, to
ensure ongoing compliance with the PPP NESHAP.
    In this action, the EPA is requiring periodic performance testing
of add-on control devices on a regular frequency (e.g., every 5 years)
to ensure the equipment continues to operate properly for facilities
using the emission rate with add-on controls compliance option. We note
that about half of the state operating permits for existing plastic
parts coating sources already require such testing every 5 years
synchronized with 40 CFR part 70 air operating permit renewals. This
proposed periodic testing requirement includes an exception to the
general requirement for periodic testing for facilities using the
catalytic oxidizer control option at 40 CFR 63.4567(b) and following
the catalyst maintenance procedures in 40 CFR 63.4567(b)(4). This
exception is due to the catalyst maintenance procedures that already
require annual testing of the catalyst and other maintenance procedures
that provide ongoing demonstrations that the control system is
operating properly and may, thus, be considered comparable to
conducting a performance test.
    The proposed periodic performance testing requirement allows an
exception from periodic testing for facilities using instruments to
continuously measure emissions. Such CEMS would show actual emissions.
The use of CEMS to demonstrate compliance would obviate the need for
periodic oxidizer testing. Moreover, installation and operation of a
CEMS with a timesharing component, such that values from more than one
oxidizer exhaust could be tabulated in a recurring frequency, could
prove less expensive (estimated to have an annual cost below $15,000)
than ongoing oxidizer testing.
    This proposed requirement would not require periodic testing or
CEMS monitoring of facilities using the compliant material or the
emission rate without add-on controls options because these compliance
options do not use any add-on controls or control efficiency
measurements in the compliance calculations.
    The proposed periodic performance testing requirement would require
that facilities complying with the standards using emission capture
systems and

add-on controls and which are not already on a 5-year testing schedule
to conduct the first of the periodic performance tests within 3 years
of the effective date of the revised standards. Afterward, they would
conduct the periodic testing before they renew their operating permits,
but no longer than 5 years following the previous performance test.
Additionally, facilities that have already tested as a condition of
their permit within the last 2 years before the effective date would be
permitted to maintain their current 5-year schedule and not be required
to move up the date of the next test to the 3-year date specified
above. This proposed requirement would require periodic air emissions
testing to measure organic HAP destruction or removal efficiency at the
inlet and outlet of the add-on control device. The emissions would be
measured as total gaseous organic mass emissions as carbon using either
EPA Method 25 or 25A of appendix A-7 to 40 CFR part 60, which are the
methods currently required for the initial compliance demonstration.
    We estimate that the cost to perform a control device emissions
destruction or removal efficiency test using EPA Method 25 or 25A would
be approximately $19,000 per control device. The cost estimate is
included in the memorandum titled Draft Costs/Impacts of the 40 CFR
part 63 Subparts IIII, MMMM and PPPP Monitoring Review Revisions, in
the ALDT, MMPP, and PPP Dockets. We have reviewed the operating permits
for facilities subject to the several other surface coating NESHAP, and
we found that affected sources currently using emission capture systems
and add-on controls are often, but not always, required to conduct
periodic control device performance tests as a condition of their 40
CFR part 70 operating permits. We estimate that three PPP surface
coating facilities currently are not required to conduct periodic
testing of their control devices as a condition of their permit
renewal. Periodic performance tests ensure that all control systems
used to comply with the NESHAP would be properly maintained over time,
thereby reducing the potential for acute emissions episodes and non-
compliance.
    We are requesting comment on adding periodic testing of add-on
control devices to the PPP NESHAP and on the suggested 5-year schedule
for the periodic testing.
e. IBR of Alternative Test Methods Under 1 CFR Part 51
    The EPA is proposing new and updated test methods for the PPP
NESHAP that include IBR. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5,
the EPA is proposing to add the following optional EPA method and
incorporate by reference the VCS described in the amendments to 40 CFR
63.14:
     EPA Method 18 of appendix A to 40 CFR part 60, Measurement
of Gaseous Organic Compound Emissions by Gas Chromatography, proposed
for 40 CFR 63.4566(b)(4);
     ASTM Method D1475-13, Standard Test Method for Density of
Liquid Coatings, Inks, and Related Products, proposed to be IBR
approved for 40 CFR 63.4551(c);
     ASTM Method D2111-10 (2015), Standard Test Methods for
Specific Gravity of Halogenated Organic Solvents and Their Admixtures,
proposed to be IBR approved for 40 CFR 63.4551(c); and
     ASTM Method D2369-10 (2015), Test Method for Volatile
Content of Coatings, proposed to be IBR approved for 40 CFR
63.4541(a)(2) and 634561(j)(3).
    An older version of ASTM Method D1475 was incorporated by reference
when the PPP NESHAP was originally promulgated (69 FR 20968, April 19,
2004). We are proposing to replace the older version of this method
with an updated version, which requires IBR revisions. The updated
version of the method replaces the older version in the same paragraph
of the rule text. We are also proposing the addition of EPA Method 18
and incorporating by reference ASTM Methods D2111 and D2369 to the PPP
NESHAP for the first time in this rulemaking. Refer to section VIII.J
of this preamble for further discussion of these VCS.
5. What compliance dates are we proposing?
    The EPA is proposing that affected sources must comply with all of
the amendments, with the exception of the proposed electronic format
for submitting semiannual compliance reports, no later than 181 days
after the effective date of the final rule. All affected facilities
would have to continue to meet the current requirements of 40 CFR part
63, subpart PPPP until the applicable compliance date of the amended
rule. The final action is not expected to be a ``major rule'' as
defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2), so the effective date of the final rule
will be the promulgation date as specified in CAA section 112(d)(10).
    For existing sources, we are proposing two changes that would
impact ongoing compliance requirements for 40 CFR part 63, subpart
PPPP. As discussed elsewhere in this preamble, we are proposing to add
a requirement that notifications, performance test results, and
semiannual compliance reports be submitted electronically. We are
proposing that the semiannual compliance report be submitted
electronically using a new template, which is available for review and
comment as part of this action. We are also proposing to change the
requirements for SSM by removing the exemption from the requirements to
meet the standard during SSM periods and by removing the requirement to
develop and implement an SSM plan. Our experience with similar
industries that are required to convert reporting mechanisms to install
necessary hardware and software, become familiar with the process of
submitting performance test results electronically through the EPA's
CEDRI, test these new electronic submission capabilities, and reliably
employ electronic reporting shows that a time period of a minimum of 90
days, and, more typically, 180 days is generally necessary to
successfully accomplish these revisions. Our experience with similar
industries further shows that this sort of regulated facility generally
requires a time period of 180 days to read and understand the amended
rule requirements; to evaluate their operations to ensure that they can
meet the standards during periods of startup and shutdown as defined in
the rule and make any necessary adjustments; and to update their
operation, maintenance, and monitoring plan to reflect the revised
requirements. The EPA recognizes the confusion that multiple different
compliance dates for individual requirements would create and the
additional burden such an assortment of dates would impose. From our
assessment of the time frame needed for compliance with the entirety of
the revised requirements, the EPA considers a period of 180 days to be
the most expeditious compliance period practicable and, thus, is
proposing that existing affected sources be in compliance with all of
this regulation's revised requirements within 181 days of the
regulation's effective date.
    We solicit comment on these proposed compliance periods, and we
specifically request submission of information from sources in this
source category regarding specific actions that would need to be
undertaken to comply with the proposed amended requirements and the
time needed to

make the adjustments for compliance with any of the revised
requirements. We note that information provided may result in changes
to the proposed compliance dates.

D. Proposed Corrections to Earlier Subparts

    We are proposing the following corrections to three subparts that
were amended in a final rule notice published in the Federal Register
on March 15, 2019 (84 FR 9590). The proposed corrections are to the
NESHAP for Surface Coating of Large Appliances (40 CFR part 63, subpart
NNNN); the NESHAP for Printing, Coating, and Dyeing of Fabrics and
Other Textiles (40 CFR part 63, subpart OOOO); and the NESHAP for
Surface Coating of Metal Furniture (40 CFR part 63, subpart RRRR). Note
that these proposed corrections are not published in the amendatory
rule text in the Federal Register (see 84 FR 9590) and are discussed
below.
    We are proposing to correct 40 CFR 63.4168 of subpart NNNN. The
original instructions to 40 CFR 63.4168 in the final rule were,
``Section 63.4168 is amended by revising paragraphs (a)(4) and (5) and
(c)(2) and (3) to read as follows . . .'' (84 FR 9618). The
instructions should have said, ``Section 63.4168 is amended by revising
paragraphs (a)(4) and (5) and (c)(2) and the introductory text of
(c)(3) to read as follows . . .'' As a result, the subparagraphs 40 CFR
63.4168(c)(3)(i) through (iii), which were not intended to be affected
by this action, were deleted in the CFR. We are proposing to insert
these paragraphs back into the CFR. Please submit any comments on this
proposed correction to the docket for the Surface Coating of Large
Appliances (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0670).
    We are proposing to correct 40 CFR 63.4371 of subpart OOOO. The
instructions in the final rule were to revise the definition of
``Deviation,'' but the amendatory text contained revised definitions of
``Deviation'' and ``No organic HAP.'' The current definition of ``No
organic HAP'' in the CFR contains a reference that is no longer
accurate. The instruction to revise the definition of ``No organic
HAP'' was inadvertently deleted; and, the new definition was not
inserted. We are proposing to insert this new definition as indicated
in the amendatory language in the final rule (84 FR 9631, March 15,
2019). Please submit any comments on this proposed correction to the
docket for the Printing, Coating, and Dyeing of Fabrics and Other
Textiles (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0668).
    We are proposing to correct 40 CFR 63.4965 of subpart RRRR. The
original instructions to 40 CFR 63.4965 in the final rule were,
``Section 63.4965 is amended by revising paragraphs (a)(1) through (4)
and paragraph (b) to read as follows . . .'' (84 FR 9641). The
instructions should have said, ``Section 63.4965 is amended by revising
paragraphs (a)(1) through (4) and the introductory text of paragraph
(b) to read as follows . . .'' As a result, the subparagraphs 40 CFR
63.4965(b)(1) through (3), which were not intended to be affected by
this action, were deleted in the CFR. We are proposing to insert these
paragraphs back into the CFR. Please submit any comments on this
proposed correction to the docket for the Surface Coating of Metal
Furniture (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0669).

V. Summary of Cost, Environmental, and Economic Impacts

A. What are the affected sources?

    Currently, we estimate 43 major source facilities are subject to
the ALDT NESHAP and operating in the United States. The affected source
under the NESHAP is the collection of all coating operations; all
storage containers and mixing vessels in which coatings, thinners, and
cleaning materials are stored or mixed; all manual and automated
equipment and containers used for conveying coatings, thinners, and
cleaning materials; and all storage containers and all manual and
automated equipment and containers used for conveying waste materials
generated by a coating operation. A coating operation is defined as the
equipment used to apply coating to a substrate (coating application)
and to dry or cure the coating after application. A single coating
operation always includes at least the point at which a coating is
applied and all subsequent points in the affected source where organic
HAP emissions from that coating occur. There may be multiple coating
operations in an affected source. Coating application with hand-held
nonrefillable aerosol containers, touchup bottles, touchup markers,
marking pens, or pinstriping equipment is not a coating operation for
the purposes of this subpart. The application of temporary materials
such as protective oils and ``travel waxes'' that are designed to be
removed from the vehicle before it is delivered to a retail purchaser
is not a coating operation for the purposes of 40 CFR part 63, subpart
IIII.
    Currently, we estimate 368 major source facilities are subject to
the MMPP NESHAP and operating in the United States. The affected source
under the NESHAP is the collection of all coating operations; all
storage containers and mixing vessels in which coatings, thinners, and
cleaning materials are stored or mixed; all manual and automated
equipment and containers used for conveying coatings, thinners, and
cleaning materials; and all storage containers and all manual and
automated equipment and containers used for conveying waste materials
generated by a coating operation. A coating operation is defined as the
equipment used to apply cleaning materials to a substrate to prepare it
for coating application (surface preparation) or to remove dried
coating; to apply coating to a substrate (coating application) and to
dry or cure the coating after application; or to clean coating
operation equipment (equipment cleaning). A single coating operation
may include any combination of these types of equipment, but always
includes at least the point at which a given quantity of coating or
cleaning material is applied to a given part and all subsequent points
in the affected source where organic HAP are emitted from the specific
quantity of coating or cleaning material on the specific part. There
may be multiple coating operations in an affected source. Coating
application with handheld, non-refillable aerosol containers, touch-up
markers, or marking pens is not a coating operation for the purposes of
40 CFR part 63, subpart MMMM.
    Currently, we estimate 125 major source facilities are subject to
the PPP NESHAP and operating in the United States. The affected source
under the NESHAP is the collection of coating operations; all storage
containers and mixing vessels in which coatings, thinners, and cleaning
materials are stored or mixed; all manual and automated equipment and
containers used for conveying coatings, thinners, and cleaning
materials; and all storage containers and all manual and automated
equipment and containers used for conveying waste materials generated
by a coating operation. A coating operation is defined as the equipment
used to apply cleaning materials to a substrate to prepare it for
coating application (surface preparation) or to remove dried coating;
to apply coating to a substrate (coating application) and to dry or
cure the coating after application; or to clean coating operation
equipment (equipment cleaning). A single coating operation may include
any combination of these types of equipment, but always

includes at least the point at which a given quantity of coating or
cleaning material is applied to a given part and all subsequent points
in the affected source where organic HAP are emitted from the specific
quantity of coating or cleaning material on the specific part. There
may be multiple coating operations in an affected source. Coating
application with handheld, non-refillable aerosol containers, touch-up
markers, or marking pens is not a coating operation for the purposes of
40 CFR part 63, subpart PPPP.

B. What are the air quality impacts?

    At the current level of control, estimated emissions of volatile
organic HAP from the 43 facilities in the ALDT source category are
approximately 1,700 tpy. Current estimated emissions of volatile
organic HAP from the 368 facilities in the MMPP source category are
approximately 2,700 tpy. Current estimated emissions of volatile
organic HAP from the 125 facilities in the PPP source category are
approximately 760 tpy.
    The proposed amendments require that all major sources in the ALDT,
MMPP, and PPP source categories comply with the relevant emission
standards at all times, including periods of SSM. We were unable to
quantify the emissions that occur during periods of SSM or the specific
emissions reductions that would occur as a result of this action.
However, eliminating the SSM exemption has the potential to reduce
emissions by requiring facilities to meet the applicable standard
during SSM periods.
    Indirect or secondary air emissions impacts are impacts that would
result from the increased electricity usage associated with the
operation of control devices (e.g., increased secondary emissions of
criteria pollutants from power plants). Energy impacts consist of the
electricity and steam needed to operate control devices and other
equipment. The proposed amendments would have no effect on the energy
needs of the affected facilities in any of the three source categories
and would, therefore, have no indirect or secondary air emissions
impacts.

C. What are the cost impacts?

    We estimate that each facility in these three source categories
will experience costs as a result of these proposed amendments that are
estimated as part of the reporting and recordkeeping costs. Each
facility will experience costs to read and understand the rule
amendments. Costs associated with elimination of the SSM exemption were
estimated as part of the reporting and recordkeeping costs and include
time for re-evaluating previously developed SSM record systems. Costs
associated with the requirement to electronically submit notifications
and semi-annual compliance reports using CEDRI were estimated as part
of the reporting and recordkeeping costs and include time for becoming