assessment briefly below and in more detail in the Large Appliances
Risk Assessment Report in the Large Appliances Docket (Docket ID No.
EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0670).
a. Inhalation Risk Assessment Results
    Table 2 of this preamble provides a summary of the results of the
inhalation risk assessment for the source category. As discussed in
section III.C.2 of this preamble, we set MACT-allowable HAP emission
levels at large appliance coating facilities equal to 1.2 times actual
emissions. For more detail about the MACT-allowable emission levels,
see Appendix 1 to the Large Appliances Risk Assessment Report in the
Large Appliances Docket.

                                                 Table 2--Surface Coating of Large Appliances Source Category Inhalation Risk Assessment Results
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   Maximum individual     Estimated population      Estimated annual         Maximum chronic          Maximum screening acute noncancer HQ \2\
                                                    cancer risk (in 1     at increased risk of      cancer incidence       noncancer TOSHI \1\  ---------------------------------------------------
                                                        million)          cancer [gteqt] 1-in-1     (cases per year)    ------------------------
                                                ------------------------         million        ------------------------
                Risk assessment                                         ------------------------                          Based on    Based on                                            Based
                                                  Based on    Based on    Based on    Based on    Based on    Based on     actual     allowable         Based on actual emissions        allowable
                                                   actual     allowable    actual     allowable    actual     allowable   emissions   emissions                                          emissions
                                                  emissions   emissions   emissions   emissions   emissions   emissions
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----------
Source Category................................         0.9           1           0          50      0.0001      0.0002        0.07        0.08  HQREL = 2
Whole Facility.................................           6  ..........         600  ..........      0.0002  ..........         0.2  ..........  ......................................
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The target organ specific hazard index (TOSHI) is the sum of the chronic noncancer hazard quotients for substances that affect the same target organ or organ system.
\2\ The maximum estimated acute exposure concentration was divided by available short-term threshold values to develop HQ values.

    The results of the inhalation risk modeling using actual emissions
data, as shown in Table 2 of this preamble, indicate that the maximum
individual cancer risk based on actual emissions (lifetime) could be up
to 0.9-in-1 million, the maximum chronic noncancer TOSHI value based on
actual emissions could be up to 0.07, and the maximum screening acute
noncancer HQ value (off-facility site) could be up to 2. The total
estimated annual cancer incidence (national) from these facilities
based on actual emission levels is 0.0001 excess cancer cases per year,
or one case in every 10,000 years.
b. Acute Risk Results
    Table 2 of this preamble shows the acute risk results for the
Surface Coating of Large Appliances source category. The screening
analysis for acute impacts was based on an industry specific multiplier
of 1.2, to estimate the peak emission rates from the average rates. For
more detailed acute risk results,

refer to the Large Appliances Risk Assessment Report in the Large
Appliances Docket.
c. Multipathway Risk Screening Results
    There are no PB-HAP emitted by facilities in the Surface Coating of
Large Appliances source category. Therefore, we do not expect any human
health multipathway risks as a result of emissions from this source
category.
d. Environmental Risk Screening Results
    The emissions data for the Surface Coating of Large Appliances
source category indicate that two environmental HAP are emitted by
sources within this source category: HCl and HF. Therefore, we
conducted a screening-level evaluation of the potential adverse
environmental risks associated with emissions of HCl and HF for the
Surface Coating of Large Appliances source category. For both HCl and
HF, each individual concentration (i.e., each off-site data point in
the modeling domain) was below the ecological benchmarks for all
facilities. Therefore, we do not expect an adverse environmental effect
as a result of HAP emissions from this source category.
e. Facility-Wide Risk Results
    One facility has a facility-wide cancer MIR greater than or equal
to 1-in-1 million. The maximum facility-wide cancer MIR is 6-in-1
million, driven by chromium (VI) compounds from a cleaning/pretreatment
operation. The total estimated cancer incidence from the whole facility
is 0.0002 excess cancer cases per year, or one excess case in every
5,000 years. Approximately 600 people were estimated to have cancer
risks above 1-in-1 million from exposure to HAP emitted from both MACT
and non-MACT sources of the ten facilities in this source category. The
maximum facility-wide TOSHI for the source category is estimated to be
0.2, driven by emissions of methylene diphenyl diisocyanate from foam
produced as part of plastic products manufacturing.
f. What demographic groups might benefit from this regulation?
    To examine the potential for any environmental justice issues that
might be associated with the source category, we performed a
demographic analysis, which is an assessment of risks to individual
demographic groups of the populations living within 5 km and within 50
km of the facilities. In the analysis, we evaluated the distribution of
HAP-related cancer and noncancer risks from the Surface Coating of
Large Appliances source category across different demographic groups
within the populations living near facilities.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ Demographic groups included in the analysis are: White,
African American, Native American, other races and multiracial,
Hispanic or Latino, children 17 years of age and under, adults 18 to
64 years of age, adults 65 years of age and over, adults without a
high school diploma, people living below the poverty level, people
living above the poverty level, and linguistically isolated people.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Results of the demographic analysis indicate that, for two of the
11 demographic groups, ``African American'' and ``Below the Poverty
Level,'' the percentage of the population living within 5 km of
facilities in the source category is greater than the corresponding
national percentage for the same demographic groups. When examining the
risk levels of those exposed to emissions from large appliance coating
facilities, we find that no one is exposed to a cancer risk at or above
1-in-1 million or to a chronic noncancer hazard index greater than one
based on actual emissions from the source category.
    The methodology and the results of the demographic analysis are
presented in a technical report titled Risk and Technology Review--
Analysis of Demographic Factors for Populations Living Near Surface
Coating of Large Appliances Source Category Operations, September 2017
(hereafter referred to as the Large Appliances Demographic Analysis
Report) in the Large Appliances Docket.
2. What are our proposed decisions regarding risk acceptability, ample
margin of safety, and adverse environmental effects?
a. Risk Acceptability
    As noted in section III.A of this preamble, we weigh all health
risk factors in our risk acceptability determination, including the
cancer MIR, the number of persons in various cancer and noncancer risk
ranges, cancer incidence, the maximum noncancer TOSHI, the maximum
acute noncancer HQ, the extent of noncancer risks, the distribution of
cancer and noncancer risks in the exposed population, and risk
estimation uncertainties (54 FR 38044, September 14, 1989).
    For the Surface Coating of Large Appliances source category, the
risk analysis indicates that the cancer risks to the individual most
exposed could be up to 0.9-in-1 million due to actual emissions and up
to 1-in-1 million based on allowable emissions. These risks are
considerably less than 100-in-1 million, which is the presumptive upper
limit of acceptable risk. The risk analysis also shows very low cancer
incidence (0.0001 cases per year for actual emissions and 0.0002 cases
per year for allowable emissions), and we did not identify potential
for adverse chronic noncancer health effects. The acute noncancer risks
based on actual emissions are low at an HQ of 2 for glycol ethers at
one facility. Therefore, we find there is little potential concern of
acute noncancer health impacts from actual emissions. In addition, the
risk assessment indicates no significant potential for multipathway
health effects.
    Considering all of the health risk information and factors
discussed above, including the uncertainties discussed in section
III.C.7 of this preamble, we propose to find that the risks from the
Surface Coating of Large Appliances source category are acceptable.
b. Ample Margin of Safety Analysis
    Although we are proposing that the risks from the Surface Coating
of Large Appliances source category are acceptable, risk estimates for
approximately 50 individuals in the exposed population are above 1-in-1
million at the allowable emissions level. Consequently, we further
considered whether the MACT standards for the Surface Coating of Large
Appliances source category provide an ample margin of safety to protect
public health. In this ample margin of safety analysis, we investigated
available emissions control options that might reduce the risk from the
source category. We considered this information along with all of the
health risks and other health information considered in our
determination of risk acceptability.
    As described in section III.B of this preamble, our technology
review focused on identifying developments in practices, processes, and
control technologies for the Surface Coating of Large Appliances source
category, and the EPA reviewed various information sources regarding
emission sources that are currently regulated by the Surface Coating of
Large Appliances NESHAP.
    The only development identified in the technology review is the use
of high-efficiency spray equipment. We estimated no costs or emissions
reductions that would be achieved by switching to high efficiency
application methods for this source category because we expect that
large appliance surface coating facilities are already using high
efficiency coating application methods due to state VOC rules and the
economic incentives of using more efficient application methods.
Because quantifiable

reductions in risk are unlikely, we are proposing that the current
standards provide an ample margin of safety. As discussed below,
however, we are proposing to require this technology under the
technology review. We request comment on this proposed requirement and
whether any facilities in this source category do not currently use
high efficiency coating application methods.
c. Environmental Effects
    The emissions data for the Surface Coating of Large Appliances
source category indicate that two environmental HAP are emitted by
sources within this source category: HCl and HF. The screening-level
evaluation of the potential for adverse environmental risks associated
with emissions of HCl and HF from the Surface Coating of Large
Appliances source category indicated that each individual concentration
(i.e., each off-site data point in the modeling domain) was below the
ecological benchmarks for all facilities. In addition, we are unaware
of any adverse environmental effects caused by HAP emitted by this
source category. Therefore, we do not expect there to be an adverse
environmental effect as a result of HAP emissions from this source
category and we are proposing that it is not necessary to set a more
stringent standard to prevent, taking into consideration costs, energy,
safety, and other relevant factors, an adverse environmental effect.
3. What are the results and proposed decisions based on our technology
review?
    Our technology review focused on identifying developments in
practices, processes, and control technologies for the Surface Coating
of Large Appliances source category, and the EPA reviewed various
information sources regarding emission sources that are currently
regulated by the Surface Coating of Large Appliances NESHAP. These
emission sources include coating mixing; coating application; coating
curing; conveying coatings, thinners and cleaning materials; and waste
storage and handling. Based on our review, we identified, as outlined
below, one development in technology, the application of high-
efficiency spray equipment, for the Surface Coating of Large Appliances
source category. A brief summary of the EPA's findings in conducting
the technology review of large appliance surface coating operations
follows. For a detailed discussion of the EPA's findings, refer to the
Large Appliances Technology Review Memorandum in the Large Appliances
Docket.
    The technology basis for the original MACT standards for existing
and new or reconstructed sources under the Surface Coating of Large
Appliance NESHAP was the use of lower-HAP coatings, thinners, and
cleaning materials. Add-on capture and control systems for organic HAP
were rarely used by the industry at that time (65 FR 81142, December
22, 2000). During development of that rulemaking, we identified and
considered three alternatives more stringent than the MACT floor level
of control for organic HAP: (1) Conversion to powder coatings; (2)
conversion to liquid coatings that have a very low, or no, organic HAP
content; and (3) use of add-on capture systems and control devices
(i.e., an emission capture system such as a spray booth) used in
conjunction with thermal recuperative oxidizers, regenerative thermal
oxidizers (RTO), catalytic oxidizers, or activated carbon adsorbers).
However, we did not adopt any of these alternatives because they were
not applicable beyond a small subset of facilities or would not be
cost-effective for the incremental emission reductions achieved beyond
the MACT floor level of control (65 FR 81143).
    Using the EPA's NEI and the ECHO databases, we identified ten large
appliance surface coating facilities that are currently subject to the
Surface Coating of Large Appliances NESHAP. We reviewed their state
operating permits to determine whether any are using add-on control
technologies to comply with the NESHAP. Two of the ten facilities have
add-on controls, but the permits indicate that nine of the ten
facilities are using the compliant materials option or the emission
rate without add-on controls option to demonstrate compliance with the
NESHAP. One facility with an add-on control is using the add-on control
to comply with only a VOC emission limitation but not to comply with
the NESHAP. The second facility with add-on controls does not have add-
on controls on all coating operations, but a 2017 inspection report
indicates that the facility is using the emission rate with add-on
controls compliance option. This one facility differs from the others
complying with subpart NNNN in that it is a contract coating operation
that performs surface coating on parts of large appliances, but also
performs surface coating on parts for a variety of industries. All of
the other facilities are large appliance manufacturers. Therefore, the
result from this one facility is not applicable to other facilities
dedicated to manufacturing just large appliances. Our search of the
RBLC database did not identify any additional large appliance
manufacturers using an add-on control device or subject to an emission
limit more stringent than in subpart NNNN.
    The use of a RTO and permanent total enclosure (PTE) was considered
during development of the Large Appliances NESHAP as a control
technology capable of achieving an efficiency of 95 percent, but was
rejected as not cost effective for the incremental emission reductions
that would be achieved relative to the MACT floor level of control. We
found no information that any improvements in PTE and add-on control
technology have occurred that would affect the cost-effectiveness of a
PTE and add-on control or result in additional emission reductions.
Therefore, EPA finds there have not been improvements in the RTO/PTE
since we promulgated the NESHAP to support requiring this technology
for the large appliance source category as part of the technology
review.
    We have not identified any process change or pollution prevention
alternative that could be broadly applied to the large appliance
coating industry. We reviewed the ACA Industry Market Analysis for
recent trends in coating technology in the large appliance industry.
The ACA Industry Market Analysis reports that the large appliance
manufacturing industry has largely shifted from liquid coatings to
powder coatings and pre-coated metal coil substrate. Specifically, the
ACA Industry Market Analysis states that the volume of liquid finishes
used in appliance finishes decreased by 67 percent between 2007 and
2014 as a result of the shift to powder coatings and pre-coated metal
prepared by coil coating facilities. However, a substantial fraction of
the coatings used (23 percent of coatings applied by large appliance
coating facilities) are still liquid coatings, and the EPA is currently
unable to determine whether all surface coating operations can be
shifted to powder coatings or pre-coated metal coil substrate. The
shift to the use of more powder coatings on specific parts has occurred
as an expected industry response to comply with the original Surface
Coating of Large Appliances NESHAP, but the shift was not category-
wide, nor was it appropriate for all parts or segments of the industry.
Since it is not a technology that can be adopted more broadly, we are
not proposing to require use of powder coatings under the technology
review. One area of development identified in the ACA Industry Market
Analysis is the use of low-energy curing powders, such as

ultraviolet (UV)-cured powders, that can be used on plastic substrates.
UV-cured powders are powder coatings that use ultraviolet light as the
radiant energy source to initiate a photochemical reaction to generate
a crosslinked network of polymer on the substrate surface. However, we
were unable to find any information from our review of permits that UV-
cured powder coating has been applied at large appliance surface
coating facilities. For these reasons, EPA finds that there have not
been developments in powder coatings and/or pre-coated metal coil
substrates since we promulgated the NESHAP to support requiring this
technology for all the sources in the large appliance source category
as part of the technology review.
    The technology review conducted for the Wood Furniture
Manufacturing Operations NESHAP (40 CFR part 63, subpart JJ) identified
air-assisted airless spraying, a more efficient coating application
technology, as a development in process equipment, and adopted
regulations preventing the use of conventional air-atomized coating
spray guns. Several other surface coating NESHAP specify that high
efficiency spray guns must be used for spray applied coatings (i.e., 40
CFR part 63, subparts GG and JJ) or the compliance demonstration takes
into account the transfer efficiency of the spray equipment, and the
standards are based on high-efficiency spray application (e.g., 40 CFR
part 63, subpart IIII). Using high-efficiency spray equipment reduces
the amount of coating applied compared to conventional spray equipment
and, therefore, reduces emissions.
    The Surface Coating of Large Appliances NESHAP does not contain any
standards specifying the type of spray equipment that must be used when
coatings are spray-applied. However, many facilities complying with the
Surface Coating of Large Appliances NESHAP also are required by state
VOC regulations in Indiana, Ohio, and Wisconsin to use high-efficiency
spray guns for coatings that are spray applied. We expect that large
appliance surface coating facilities in other states are also using
high-efficiency application equipment for spray applied coatings as a
cost saving measure to reduce coating and spray booth filter
consumption and to reduce the amount of solid waste generated in the
form of used spray booth filters. Although we expect that the high-
efficiency application equipment would provide cost savings from an
engineering perspective, we are uncertain of other factors that
facilities may need to consider if choosing to switch to high-
efficiency application equipment. Due to the competitive marketplace
and the number of units going through these surface coating facilities,
there may be facility specific operational, coating adherence, coating
drying time, material compatibility, or other reasons that a facility
may not have chosen to switch to high-efficiency spray equipment. We
request comment on these and other aspects of facility decision making,
as the agency has limited information on the market penetration of this
technology and these other factors.
    Based on these findings, we are proposing to revise the Surface
Coating of Large Appliances NESHAP for coating application operations
pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6) to require that, for each coating
operation for which coatings are spray applied, high efficiency spray
equipment must be used if the source is not using the emission rate
with add-on control compliance option. Specifically, all spray-applied
coating operations, where the source is not using the emission rate
with add-on control compliance option, must be demonstrated to achieve
transfer efficiency equivalent to or better than 65 percent. There are
four types of high efficiency spray equipment technologies that have
been applied in these applications that could achieve the transfer
efficiency equivalent to or better than 65 percent including high
volume, low pressure (HVLP) spray equipment, electrostatic application,
airless spray equipment, and air assisted airless spray equipment.
Alternative spray equipment technologies may also be used with
documentation demonstrating at least 65 percent transfer efficiency.
Spray application equipment sources not using the emission rate with
add-on control compliance option, and/or using alternative spray
application equipment technologies other than the four listed, must
follow procedures in the California South Coast Air Quality Management
District's, ``Spray Equipment Transfer Efficiency Test Procedure for
Equipment User, May 24, 1989'' to demonstrate that their spray
application equipment is capable of achieving transfer efficiency
equivalent to, or better than, 65 percent. Equivalency documentation
may be certified by manufacturers of the spray equipment, on behalf of
spray-applied coating operations sources, by following the
aforementioned procedure in conjunction with California South Coast Air
Quality Management District's ``Guidelines for Demonstrating
Equivalency with District Approved Transfer Efficient Spray Guns,
September 26, 2002.'' When using these equivalency procedures and/or
guidelines, facilities would not be required to submit an application
with the test plan or protocol to the Administrator, conduct the test
in the presence of an Administrator's representative, or submit test
results to the Administrator for review or approval. Instead, they
would be required to maintain records demonstrating the transfer
efficiency achieved, including a description of the procedures and/or
guidelines used. We are proposing that all spray equipment used for
spray-applied coating operations would be required to be operated
according to company procedures, local specified operating procedures,
or the manufacturer's specifications, whichever is determined to meet
the 65 percent transfer efficiency. Further, we are proposing related
definitions for ``airless and air-assisted airless spray,''
``electrostatic application,'' ``high-volume, low-pressure (HVLP) spray
equipment,'' ``spray-applied coating operations,'' ``and transfer
efficiency.''
    Considering just the incremental cost of the high efficiency spray
equipment and savings due to using less material consumption, we expect
that all facilities have already switched to high efficiency
application methods. However, if a large appliance surface coating
facility not using the emission rate with add-on control compliance
option replaced their existing coating spray guns with a high-
efficiency spray gun required by this proposed rule, such as an air-
assisted airless spray gun, an estimated cost to do so would be
approximately $700 per device, based on vendor information. See the
memorandum titled Impacts of Prohibiting the Use of Conventional Spray
Guns in the Wood Manufacturing Operations Source Category (Docket ID
Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0786 EPA). Any potential costs would be offset
by savings in the cost of coatings, filters, and solid waste disposal
fees for handling the liners used to capture coating overspray. EPA
requests comment on this cost estimation, and whether other costs are
associated with switching to high-efficiency spray equipment that the
agency should consider in this technology review, such as operational
efficiency changes, ancillary equipment changes, repair and maintenance
costs, employee training or other factors
    We have not estimated the emissions reductions achieved by
switching to high efficiency application methods for this source
category because we expect

that all large appliance surface coating facilities are using high
efficiency coating application methods. However, if any facilities
switch to high efficiency application equipment, there would likely be
emission reductions. As an example, using the Wood Furniture
Manufacturing Operations cost methodology, if a facility switched from
conventional spray guns with 45 percent transfer efficiency to air-
assisted airless spray guns with 65 percent transfer efficiency, to get
one unit of solids on the part, an air-assisted airless spray gun needs
1.54 gallons of coating, compared to 2.22 gallons for a conventional
spray gun. This increase transfer efficiency represents a 31 percent
decrease in coating consumption, leading to a corresponding decrease in
organic HAP emissions from coating application. For more information on
the Wood Furniture Manufacturing Operations cost methodology, including
the cost of spray gun equipment and calculation of potential HAP
emission reductions, see the memorandum titled Impacts of Prohibiting
the Use of Conventional Spray Guns in the Wood Manufacturing Operations
Source Category (EPA Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0786 EPA). We
request comment on whether facilities in the Large Appliances source
category are not using high efficiency spray equipment and why it is
not being used. Refer to section IV.A.5 of this preamble for a
discussion of the compliance schedule for using high efficiency spray
equipment
    Finally, we identified no developments in work practices or
procedures for the Surface Coating of Large Appliances source category,
including work practices and procedures that are currently prescribed
in the NESHAP. The current Surface Coating of Large Appliances NESHAP
standards require that, if a facility uses add-on controls to comply
with the emission limitations, the facility must develop and implement
a work practice plan to minimize organic HAP emissions from the
storage, mixing, and conveying of coatings, thinners, and cleaning
materials used in, and waste materials generated by, all coating
operations for which emission limits are established. The current work
practice requirements address the potential emission sources that are
normally located outside of the emission sources that are routed to the
control device, and no new measures have been identified to further
reduce the emissions from these sources. For further discussion of the
technology review results, refer to the Large Appliances Technology
Review Memorandum in the Large Appliances Docket.
    In section III.B. above, we describe our typical approach for
conducting technology reviews and the types of information we gather
and evaluate as part of these reviews. In addition, we solicit comment
on the relationship between the CAA section 112(d)(6) technology review
and the CAA section 112(f) risk review. As we described in the preamble
of the Coke Ovens RTR Final rule published on April 15, 2005 (70 FR
20009), we believe that the results of a CAA section 112(f) risk
determination for a CAA section 112(d) standard should be key factors
in any subsequent CAA section 112(d)(6) determination for that
standard. In the Coke Ovens RTR final rule, the agency described
potential scenarios where it may not be necessary to revise the
standards based on developments in technologies, practices or processes
if the remaining risks associated with air emissions from a source
category have already been reduced to a level where we have determined
further reductions under CAA section 112(f) are not necessary. Under
one scenario, if the ample margin of safety analysis for the CAA
section 112(f) determination was not based on the availability or cost
of particular control technologies, then advances in air pollution
control technology would not necessarily be a cause to revise the MACT
standard pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6), because the CAA section
112(f) standard (or a CAA section 112(d) standard evaluated pursuant to
CAA section 112(f)) would continue to assure an adequate level of
safety. Under another scenario, if the ample margin of safety analysis
for a CAA section 112(f) standard (or a CAA section 112(d) standard
evaluated pursuant to CAA section 112(f)) shows that lifetime excess
cancer risks to the individual most exposed to emissions from a source
in the category is less than 1-in-1 million, and the remaining risk
associated with threshold pollutants falls below a similar threshold of
safety, then no further revision under CAA section 112(d)(6) would be
necessary, because an ample margin of safety has already been assured.
    We solicit comment on whether revisions to the NESHAP are
``necessary'', as that term is used in CAA section 112(d)(6), in
situations where EPA has determined that CAA section 112(d) standards
evaluated pursuant to CAA section 112(f) provide an ample margin of
safety to protect public health and prevent an adverse environmental
effect. In other words, we solicit comment on our conclusion that, if
remaining risks associated with air emissions from a source category
have already been reduced to levels where we have determined under CAA
section 112(f) that further reductions are not necessary, then it is
not ``necessary'' to revise the standards based on developments in
technologies, practices or processes under CAA section 112(d)(6). See
CAA s. 112(d)(6) (``The Administrator shall review, and revise as
necessary . . .''). We also solicit comment on whether further
revisions under CAA section 112(d)(6) would be necessary if the CAA
section 112(f) ample margin of safety analysis shows lifetime excess
cancer risks to the individual most exposed to emissions from a source
in the category is less than 1-in-1 million or if other, either higher
or lower, cancer risk levels would be appropriate to consider if they
assured an ample margin of safety.
    Though we believe the results of the ample margin of safety
analysis may eliminate the need to revise the emissions standards as
based on developments in technologies practices and processes, we
conducted a technology review to determine if any developments to
further reduce HAP emissions have occurred, and to consider whether the
current standards should be revised to reflect any such developments.
We believe that the use of high-efficiency spray equipment in the
Surface Coating of Large Appliances source category is cost effective,
presents minimal or no additional burden and achieves reductions in
actual or potential HAP emissions. Therefore, based on our technology
review, we are proposing to require the use of high-efficiency spray
application equipment for the Surface Coating of Large Appliances
source category. Note that the discussion directly above also applies
to the Printing, Coating, and Dyeing of Fabrics and Other Textiles and
Surface Coating of Metal Furniture source categories.
4. What other actions are we proposing?
    In the Surface Coating of Large Appliances source category, we are
proposing to require electronic submittal of notifications, semi-annual
reports and compliance reports (which include performance test
reports). In addition, we are proposing revisions to the startup,
shutdown, and malfunction (SSM) provisions of the MACT rule in order to
ensure that they are consistent with the Court decision in Sierra Club
v. EPA, 551 F. 3d 1019 (D.C. Cir. 2008), which vacated two provisions
that exempted source owners and operators

from the requirement to comply with otherwise applicable CAA section
112(d) emission standards during periods of SSM. We also propose other
changes, including addition of EPA Method 18, updating references to
equivalent test methods, making technical and editorial revisions, and
incorporation by reference (IBR) of alternative test methods. Our
analyses and proposed changes related to these issues are discussed in
the sections below.
    Though we are not proposing to change reporting frequency currently
in the rule, we are requesting comment on changing the reporting
frequency for all reports to EPA from semi-annual to annual due to the
potential redundancy of these reporting requirements. We recognize that
Title V permits have a statutory requirement for semi-annual reports,
which are generally reported to state regulatory agencies. However, we
are not certain that changing the report frequency for just the reports
submitted to EPA in this NESHAP will result in a reporting and
recordkeeping burden reduction. We request comment and supporting
information on the burden impact of changing the reporting requirement
to annual for the reporting to EPA.
a. Electronic Reporting Requirements
    The EPA proposes to require owners and operators of Surface Coating
of Large Appliances facilities to submit electronic copies of initial
notifications required in 40 CFR 63.9(b), notifications of compliance
status required in 40 CFR 63.9(h), performance test reports, and
semiannual reports through the EPA's Central Data Exchange (CDX), using
the Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface (CEDRI).\22\ For
further information regarding the electronic data submission process,
please refer to the memorandum titled Electronic Reporting for Surface
Coating of Large Appliances, Subpart NNNN, May 2018, in the Large
Appliances Docket. Note that the rule proposes to require that
performance test results collected using test methods that are not
supported by the ERT as listed on the EPA's ERT website at the time of
the test be submitted in portable document format (PDF) using the
attachment module of the ERT.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ https://www.epa.gov/electronic-reporting-air-emissions/compliance-and-emissions-data-reporting-interface-cedri.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA proposes that electronic submittal of notifications and
reports (initial notifications required in 40 CFR 63.9(b),
notifications of compliance status required in 40 CFR 63.9(h), and
semiannual reports) be required using electronic reporting forms that
the EPA will make available in CEDRI. No specific form is proposed at
this time for the initial notifications required in 40 CFR 63.9(b) and
notifications of compliance status required in 40 CFR 63.9(h). Until
the EPA has completed electronic forms for these notifications, the
notifications will be required to be submitted via CEDRI in PDF. For
semiannual reports, the EPA proposes that owners or operators use the
appropriate spreadsheet template in CEDRI for 40 CFR part 63, subpart
NNNN, or an alternate electronic file format consistent with the form's
extensible markup language schema. For further information regarding
the electronic data submission process, please refer to the spreadsheet
attached to the memorandum titled Electronic Reporting Template for
Surface Coating of Large Appliances, Subpart NNNN Semiannual Reports,
May 2018, in the Large Appliances Docket. We specifically request
comment on the format and usability of the template (e.g., filling out
and uploading a provided spreadsheet versus entering the required
information into an on-line fillable CEDRI web form), as well as the
content, layout, and overall design of the template. Prior to
availability of the final semiannual compliance report template in
CEDRI, owners or operators of affected sources will be required to
submit semiannual compliance reports as otherwise required by the
Administrator. After development of the final template, sources will be
notified about its availability via the CEDRI website and the
Clearinghouse for Inventories and Emissions Factors (CHIEF)
Listserv.\23\ We plan to finalize a required reporting format with the
final rule. The owner or operator would begin submitting reports
electronically with the next report that is due, once the electronic
template has been available for at least one year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    As noted above, we propose that 40 CFR part 63, subpart NNNN,
performance test reports be submitted through the EPA's Electronic
Reporting Tool (ERT). The proposal to submit performance test data
electronically to the EPA applies only if the EPA has developed an
electronic reporting form for the test method as listed on the EPA's
ERT website (https://www3.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ert/ert_info.pdf) and the
agency has obtained an approved OMB control number consistent with the
requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act. Note that all but one of
the EPA test methods (optional EPA Method 18) listed under the
emissions destruction or removal efficiency section of 40 CFR part 63,
subpart NNNN, are currently supported by the ERT. As mentioned above,
the rule proposes that should an owner or operator choose to use Method
18, then its results would be submitted in PDF using the attachment
module of the ERT.
    We propose to provide owners or operators of facilities with the
ability to seek extensions for submitting electronic reports for
circumstances beyond the control of the facility, i.e., for a possible
outage in the CDX or CEDRI or for a force majeure event in the time
just prior to a report's due date.
    In 40 CFR 63.4121(d), we propose to address the situation where an
extension may be warranted due to outages of the EPA's CDX or CEDRI
that may prevent access to the system and submittal of the required
reports. If either the CDX or CEDRI is unavailable at any time
beginning five business days prior to the date that the submission is
due, and the unavailability prevents the submission of a report by the
required date, we propose to enable the owner or operator of a facility
to assert a claim of EPA system outage. We consider five business days
prior to the reporting deadline to be an appropriate timeframe because
if the system is down and returns to service prior to this time,
facilities will still have 1 week prior to the reporting deadline to
complete reporting once the system is back online. However, if the CDX
or CEDRI is down during the week a report is due, we realize that this
could greatly impact the ability to submit a required report on time.
We will notify owners or operators of facilities about known outages as
far in advance as possible by notification using the CHIEF Listserv,
posting on the CEDRI website, and posting on the CDX website so that
owners or operators can plan accordingly and still meet the reporting
deadlines. However, if a planned or unplanned outage of the EPA's CDX
or CEDRI occurs and an owner or operator of a facility believes that
the outage will affect or it has affected compliance with an electronic
reporting requirement, the proposed rule provides a process to assert
such a claim.
    Also in 40 CFR 63.4121(e), we propose to address the situation
where an extension may be warranted due to a force majeure event, which
is defined as an event that will be or has been caused by circumstances
beyond the control of the affected facility, its contractors, or any
entity controlled by the affected facility that prevents

compliance with the requirement to submit a report electronically as
required by this rule. Examples of such events are acts of nature, acts
of war or terrorism, equipment failures, or safety hazards that are
beyond the control of the facility. If such an event occurs, or is
still occurring, or if there are still lingering effects of the event
in the five business days prior to a submission deadline, the proposed
rule provides a process to assert a claim of force majeure.
    While we propose these potential extensions to protect facilities
from noncompliance with reporting requirements in cases when a facility
cannot successfully submit a report by the reporting deadline for
reasons outside of its control as described above, we do not propose an
extension for other circumstances. Facility owners or operators should
register for CEDRI far in advance of the initial compliance date to
ensure that they can complete the identity proofing process prior to
the initial compliance date. Additionally, we recommend developing
reports early in case any questions arise during the reporting process.
    As discussed in the Electronic Reporting for Surface Coating of
Large Appliances Subpart NNNN memorandum, electronic submittal of the
reports addressed in this proposed rulemaking will increase the
usefulness of those reports, and in keeping with current trends in data
availability, will further assist in the protection of public health
and the environment and will ultimately result in less burden on
regulated facilities. Electronic submittal will also improve compliance
by facilitating the ability of regulated facilities to demonstrate
compliance and the ability of air agencies and the EPA to assess and
determine compliance. Moreover, electronic reporting is consistent with
EPA's plan \24\ to implement Executive Order 13563 and agency-wide
policy to implement the White House's Digital Government Strategy \25\
by specifying that new regulations will require reports to be
electronic to the maximum extent possible. In addition to supporting
regulation development, control strategy development, and other air
pollution control activities, we believe that having an electronic
database populated with performance test data will save industry, air
agencies, and the EPA significant time, money, and effort while
improving the quality of emission inventories and air quality
regulations and enhancing the public's access to this important
information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ Improving Our Regulations: Final Plan for Periodic
Retrospective Reviews of Existing Regulations, August 2011.
Available at https://www.regulations.gov, Document ID No. EPA-HQ-OA-
2011-0156-0154.
    \25\ Digital Government: Building a 21st Century Platform to
Better Serve the American People, May 2012. Available at https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/egov/digital-government/digitalgovernment-strategy/pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction Requirements
1. Proposed Elimination of the SSM Exemption
    In its 2008 decision in Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F.3d 1019 (D.C.
Cir. 2008), the United States Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia Circuit vacated portions of two provisions in the EPA's CAA
section 112 regulations governing the emissions of HAP during periods
of SSM. Specifically, the Court vacated the SSM exemption contained in
40 CFR 63.6(f)(1) and 40 CFR 63.6(h)(1), holding that under section
302(k) of the CAA, emissions standards or limitations must be
continuous in nature and that the SSM exemption violates the CAA's
requirement that some CAA section 112 standards apply continuously.
    We are proposing the elimination of the SSM exemption in this rule.
Consistent with Sierra Club v. EPA, we are proposing standards in this
rule that apply at all times. We are also proposing several revisions
to Table 2 to subpart NNNN of part 63 (Applicability of General
Provisions to Subpart NNNN, hereafter referred to as the ``General
Provisions table to subpart NNNN''), as explained in more detail below
in section IV.A.4.b.2 of this preamble. For example, we are proposing
to eliminate the incorporation of the General Provisions' requirement
that the source develop an SSM plan. We are also proposing to delete 40
CFR 63.4163(h), which specifies that deviations during SSM periods are
not violations. Further, we are proposing to eliminate and revise
certain recordkeeping and reporting requirements related to the SSM
exemption as further described below. The EPA has attempted to ensure
that the provisions we are proposing to eliminate are inappropriate,
unnecessary, or redundant in the absence of the SSM exemption. We are
seeking comment on the specific proposed deletions and revisions and
also whether additional provisions should be revised to achieve the
stated goal.
    In proposing these rule amendments, the EPA has taken into account
startup and shutdown periods and, for the reasons explained below, has
not proposed alternate standards for those periods. Startups and
shutdowns are part of normal operations for the Surface Coating of
Large Appliances source category. As currently specified in 40 CFR
63.4092(b), any coating operation(s) for which you use the emission
rate with add-on controls option must meet operating limits ``at all
times,'' except for solvent recovery systems for which you conduct
liquid-liquid material balances according to 40 CFR 63.4161(h). Also,
as currently specified in 40 CFR 63.4100(a)(2), any coating
operation(s) for which you use the emission rate with add-on controls
option must be in compliance ``at all times'' with the emission limit
in 40 CFR 63.4090 and work practice standards in 40 CFR 63.4093. This
means that during startup and shutdown periods, in order for a facility
using add-on controls to meet the emission and operating standards, the
control device for a coating operation needs to be turned on and
operating at specified levels before the facility begins coating
operations, and the control equipment needs to continue to be operated
until after the facility ceases coating operations. In some cases, the
facility needs to run thermal oxidizers on supplemental fuel before
there are enough VOC for the combustion to be (nearly) self-sustaining.
The proposed language in 40 CFR 63.4100 requires that the owner or
operator operate and maintain the coating operation, including
pollution control equipment, at all times to minimize emissions. See
section IV.A.4.b.2 of this preamble for further discussion of this
proposed revision.
    Periods of startup, normal operations, and shutdown are all
predictable and routine aspects of a source's operations. Malfunctions,
in contrast, are neither predictable nor routine. Instead they are, by
definition sudden, infrequent and not reasonably preventable failures
of emissions control, process or monitoring equipment. (40 CFR 63.2)
(Definition of malfunction). The EPA interprets CAA section 112 as not
requiring emissions that occur during periods of malfunction to be
factored into development of CAA section 112 standards and this reading
has been upheld as reasonable by the Court in U.S. Sugar Corp. v. EPA,
830 F.3d 579, 606-610 (2016). Under CAA section 112, emissions
standards for new sources must be no less stringent than the level
``achieved'' by the best controlled similar source and for existing
sources generally must be no less stringent than the average emission
limitation ``achieved'' by the best performing 12 percent of sources in
the category. There is nothing in CAA

section 112 that directs the Agency to consider malfunctions in
determining the level ``achieved'' by the best performing sources when
setting emission standards. As the Court has recognized, the phrase
``average emissions limitation achieved by the best performing 12
percent of'' sources ``says nothing about how the performance of the
best units is to be calculated.'' Nat'l Ass'n of Clean Water Agencies
v. EPA, 734 F.3d 1115, 1141 (D.C. Cir. 2013). While the EPA accounts
for variability in setting emissions standards, nothing in CAA section
112 requires the Agency to consider malfunctions as part of that
analysis. The EPA is not required to treat a malfunction in the same
manner as the type of variation in performance that occurs during
routine operations of a source. A malfunction is a failure of the
source to perform in a ``normal or usual manner'' and no statutory
language compels the EPA to consider such events in setting CAA section
112 standards.
    As the Court recognized in U.S. Sugar Corp, accounting for
malfunctions in setting standards would be difficult, if not
impossible, given the myriad different types of malfunctions that can
occur across all sources in the category and given the difficulties
associated with predicting or accounting for the frequency, degree, and
duration of various malfunctions that might occur. Id. at 608 (``the
EPA would have to conceive of a standard that could apply equally to
the wide range of possible boiler malfunctions, ranging from an
explosion to minor mechanical defects. Any possible standard is likely
to be hopelessly generic to govern such a wide array of
circumstances.'') As such, the performance of units that are
malfunctioning is not ``reasonably'' foreseeable. See, e.g., Sierra
Club v. EPA, 167 F.3d 658, 662 (D.C. Cir. 1999) (``The EPA typically
has wide latitude in determining the extent of data-gathering necessary
to solve a problem. We generally defer to an agency's decision to
proceed on the basis of imperfect scientific information, rather than
to 'invest the resources to conduct the perfect study.''') See also,
Weyerhaeuser v. Costle, 590 F.2d 1011, 1058 (D.C. Cir. 1978) (``In the
nature of things, no general limit, individual permit, or even any
upset provision can anticipate all upset situations. After a certain
point, the transgression of regulatory limits caused by `uncontrollable
acts of third parties,' such as strikes, sabotage, operator
intoxication or insanity, and a variety of other eventualities, must be
a matter for the administrative exercise of case-by-case enforcement
discretion, not for specification in advance by regulation.'') In
addition, emissions during a malfunction event can be significantly
higher than emissions at any other time of source operation. For
example, if an air pollution control device with 99-percent removal
goes off-line as a result of a malfunction (as might happen if, for
example, the bags in a baghouse catch fire) and the emission unit is a
steady state type unit that would take days to shut down, the source
would go from 99-percent control to zero control until the control
device was repaired. The source's emissions during the malfunction
would be 100 times higher than during normal operations. As such, the
emissions over a 4-day malfunction period would exceed the annual
emissions of the source during normal operations. As this example
illustrates, accounting for malfunctions could lead to standards that
are not reflective of (and significantly less stringent than) levels
that are achieved by a well-performing non-malfunctioning source. It is
reasonable to interpret CAA section 112 to avoid such a result. The
EPA's approach to malfunctions is consistent with CAA section 112 and
is a reasonable interpretation of the statute.
    Although no statutory language compels the EPA to set standards for
malfunctions, the EPA has the discretion to do so where feasible. For
example, in the Petroleum Refinery Sector Risk and Technology Review,
the EPA established a work practice standard for unique types of
malfunctions that result in releases from pressure relief devices or
emergency flaring events because we had information to determine that
such work practices reflected the level of control that applies to the
best performing sources (80 FR 75178, 75211-14, December 1, 2015). The
EPA will consider whether circumstances warrant setting standards for a
particular type of malfunction and, if so, whether the EPA has
sufficient information to identify the relevant best performing sources
and establish a standard for such malfunctions. We also encourage
commenters to provide any such information.
    It is unlikely that a malfunction in the application of large
appliance surface coatings would result in a violation of the
standards. A malfunction would not lead to an increase in the HAP
content of the coatings or the amount of HAP emitted from those
coatings; therefore, it is unlikely that malfunctions at facilities
using the compliant material or emission rate without control option
would result in a violation in any case where compliant materials are
used. Finally, compliance with the large appliance surface coating
emission limits is based on a monthly compliance period, so any
malfunction that causes a short-term increase in emissions may not
cause a violation of the standard. Similarly, for facilities in the
surface coating of metal furniture source category using the emission
rate with add-on control compliance option or percent reduction
compliance option, the short-term malfunction of an emission capture
system or control device is also unlikely to lead to a violation if the
owner or operator operates and maintains the affected source in a
manner consistent with safety and good air pollution control practices
for minimizing emissions during that malfunction. Because compliance is
based on a monthly or a rolling 12-month compliance period, a short-
term malfunction is likely to represent only a small percent of the
total operating time of the affected source. A single malfunction is
also not likely to affect all of the emission units and control devices
within the affected source. Therefore, a malfunction is not likely to
result in a violation of the standards, and we have no information to
suggest that it is feasible or necessary to establish any type of
standard for malfunctions associated with the Surface Coating of Large
Appliances or the Surface Coating of Metal Furniture source categories.
    We are requesting comment on the need to establish a standard
during periods of malfunction for the Fabric and Other Textiles source
category in this action, and we are seeking the specific information
described in section IV.B.4 of this preamble to support such a
standard. We believe a work practice standard would be appropriate for
a malfunction at facilities in this category. We are requesting comment
on two alternatives in this preamble. The work practice standard, if
included in the final rule, would include the following, or similar,
requirements.
    In the first alternative if a malfunction of a control device or a
capture system that is used to meet the emission limits of this rule
occurs, the facility may elect to continue operation without the
control device for the period of the malfunction so long as it
continues to meet the emission limits for the current compliance
period. Each workstation would discontinue its application of coating
materials onto the web, and complete drying of any coating materials
already applied onto the web as of the start of the malfunction.
Draining coating materials from the

line's applicators, or from piping, pans, or related equipment that
deliver coating materials to the applicator, is not required.
Deviations of a monitored parameter of a control device or enclosure
are not malfunctions for purposes of this requirement.
    A second alternative would require that repairs be immediately
initiated and completed as expeditiously as possible, but the line
would not have to cease operation. We note that this source category
compliance is based on a 12-month rolling average. Therefore, operating
a period of time without a control device would not necessarily result
in an exceedance of the emissions limit. However, the facility would
not be allowed to continue to operate the coating line once it becomes
apparent they will be unable to complete repairs before the 12-month
rolling average compliance limit will be exceeded. We request comment
on both of these approaches for the Fabrics and Other Textiles source
category.
    In the unlikely event that a source fails to comply with the
applicable CAA section 112(d) standards as a result of a malfunction
event, the EPA will determine an appropriate response based on, among
other things, the good faith efforts of the source to minimize
emissions during malfunction periods, including preventative and
corrective actions, as well as root cause analyses to ascertain and
rectify excess emissions. The EPA will also consider whether the
source's failure to comply with the CAA section 112(d) standard was, in
fact, sudden, infrequent, not reasonably preventable and was not
instead caused in part by poor maintenance or careless operation. 40
CFR 63.2 (definition of malfunction).
    If the EPA determines in a particular case that an enforcement
action against a source for violation of an emission standard is
warranted, the source can raise any and all defenses in that
enforcement action and the federal district court will determine what,
if any, relief is appropriate. The same is true for citizen enforcement
actions. Similarly, the presiding officer in an administrative
proceeding can consider any defense raised and determine whether
administrative penalties are appropriate.
    In summary, the EPA interpretation of the CAA and, in particular,
CAA section 112 is reasonable and encourages practices that will avoid
malfunctions. Administrative and judicial procedures for addressing
exceedances of the standards fully recognize that violations may occur
despite good faith efforts to comply and can accommodate those
situations. U.S. Sugar Corp. v. EPA, 830 F.3d 579, 606-610 (2016).
2. Proposed Revisions to the General Provisions Applicability Table
 a. 40 CFR 63.4100(b) General Duty
    We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table to subpart
NNNN (table 2) entry for 40 CFR 63.6(e)(1)(i) by changing the ``yes''
in column 3 to a ``no.'' Section 63.6(e)(1)(i) describes the general
duty to minimize emissions. Some of the language in that section is no
longer necessary or appropriate in light of the elimination of the SSM
exemption. We are proposing instead to add general duty regulatory text
at 40 CFR 63.4100(b) that reflects the general duty to minimize
emissions while eliminating the reference to periods covered by an SSM
exemption. The current language in 40 CFR 63.6(e)(1)(i) characterizes
what the general duty entails during periods of SSM. With the
elimination of the SSM exemption, there is no need to differentiate
between normal operations, startup and shutdown, and malfunction events
in describing the general duty. Therefore, the language the EPA is
proposing for 40 CFR 63.4100(b) does not include that language from 40
CFR 63.6(e)(1).
    We are also proposing to revise the General Provisions table to
subpart NNNN (table 2) entry for 40 CFR 63.6(e)(1)(ii) by changing the
``yes'' in column 3 to a ``no.'' Section 63.6(e)(1)(ii) imposes
requirements that are not necessary with the elimination of the SSM
exemption or are redundant with the general duty requirement being
added at 40 CFR 63.4100(b).
 b. SSM Plan
    We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table to subpart
NNNN (table 2) entry for 40 CFR 63.6(e)(3) by changing the ``yes'' in
column 3 to a ``no.'' Generally, these paragraphs require development
of an SSM plan and specify SSM recordkeeping and reporting requirements
related to the SSM plan. We are also proposing to remove from 40 CFR
part 63, subpart NNNN, the current provisions requiring the SSM plan,
including 40 CFR 63.4100(d) and 63.4110(b)(9)(v). As noted, the EPA is
proposing to remove the SSM exemptions. Therefore, affected units will
be subject to an emission standard during such events. The
applicability of a standard during such events will ensure that sources
have ample incentive to plan for and achieve compliance, and, thus, the
SSM plan requirements are no longer necessary.
 c. Compliance With Standards
    We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table to subpart
NNNN (table 2) entry for 40 CFR 63.6(f)(1) by changing the ``yes'' in
column 3 to a ``no.'' The current language of 40 CFR 63.6(f)(1) exempts
sources from non-opacity standards during periods of SSM. As discussed
above, the Court in Sierra Club vacated the exemptions contained in
this provision and held that the CAA requires that some CAA section 112
standards apply continuously. Consistent with Sierra Club, the EPA is
proposing to revise standards in this rule to apply at all times.
    We are also proposing to remove rule text in 40 CFR 63.4161(g)
clarifying that, in calculating emissions to demonstrate compliance,
deviation periods must include deviations during an SSM period. Since
the EPA is removing the SSM exemption, this clarifying text is no
longer needed.
 d. 40 CFR 63.4164 Performance Testing
    We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table to subpart
NNNN (table 2) entry for 40 CFR 63.7(e)(1) by changing the ``yes'' in
column 3 to a ``no.'' Section 63.7(e)(1) describes performance testing
requirements. The EPA is instead proposing to add a performance testing
requirement at 40 CFR 63.4164. The performance testing requirements we
are proposing to add differ from the General Provisions performance
testing provisions in several respects. The regulatory text does not
include the language in 40 CFR 63.7(e)(1) that restated the SSM
exemption and language that precluded startup and shutdown periods from
being considered ``representative'' for purposes of performance
testing. The proposed performance testing provisions will also not
allow performance testing during startup or shutdown. As in 40 CFR
63.7(e)(1), performance tests conducted under this subpart should not
be conducted during malfunctions because conditions during malfunctions
are often not representative of normal operating conditions. Section
63.7(e) requires that the owner or operator maintain records of the
process information necessary to document operating conditions during
the test and include in such records an explanation to support that
such conditions represent normal operation. The EPA is proposing to add
language clarifying that the owner or operator must make such records
available to the Administrator upon request.

 e. Monitoring
    We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table to subpart
NNNN (table 2) entry for 40 CFR 63.8(c)(1)(i) and (iii) by changing the
``yes'' in column 3 to a ``no.'' The 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 the General
Provisions table to subpart NNNN (table 2) entry for 40 CFR
63.8(c)(1)(ii) by changing the ``yes'' in column 3 to a ``no.'' We have
determined that 40 CFR 63.8(c)(1)(ii) is redundant to the current
monitoring requirement in 40 CFR 63.4168(a)(4) (i.e., ``have available
necessary parts for routine repairs of the monitoring equipment,''
except 40 CFR 63.8(c)(1)(ii) specifies ``have readily available.'' We
are proposing to revise 40 CFR 63.4168(a)(4) to specify ``readily
available.''
 f. 40 CFR 63.4130 Recordkeeping
    We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table to subpart
NNNN (table 2) entry for 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(i) by changing the ``yes''
in column 3 to a ``no.'' Section 63.10(b)(2)(i) describes the
recordkeeping requirements during startup and shutdown. These recording
provisions are no longer necessary because the EPA is proposing that
recordkeeping and reporting applicable to normal operations will apply
to startup and shutdown. In the absence of special provisions
applicable to startup and shutdown, such as a startup and shutdown
plan, there is no reason to retain additional recordkeeping for startup
and shutdown periods.
    We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table to subpart
NNNN (table 2) entry for 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(ii) by changing the ``yes''
in column 3 to a ``no.'' Section 63.10(b)(2)(ii) describes the
recordkeeping requirements during a malfunction, requiring a record of
``the occurrence and duration of each malfunction.'' A similar record
is already required in 40 CFR 63.4130(j), which requires a record of
``the date, time, and duration of each deviation,'' which the EPA is
retaining. The regulatory text in 40 CFR 63.4130(j) differs from the
General Provisions in that the General Provisions requires the creation
and retention of a record of the occurrence and duration of each
malfunction of process, air pollution control, and monitoring
equipment; whereas 40 CFR 63.4130(j) applies to any failure to meet an
applicable standard and is requiring that the source record the date,
time, and duration of the failure rather than the ``occurrence.'' For
this reason, the EPA is proposing to add to 40 CFR 63.4130(j) a
requirement that sources also keep records that include a list of the
affected source or equipment and actions taken to minimize emissions,
an estimate of the quantity of each regulated pollutant emitted over
the emission limit for which the source failed to meet the standard,
and a description of the method used to estimate the emissions.
Examples of such methods would include product-loss calculations, mass
balance calculations, measurements when available, or engineering
judgment based on known process parameters (e.g., coating HAP content
and application rates and control device efficiencies). The EPA is
proposing to require that sources keep records of this information to
ensure that there is adequate information to allow the EPA to determine
the severity of any failure to meet a standard, and to provide data
that may document how the source met the general duty to minimize
emissions when the source has failed to meet an applicable standard.
    We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table to subpart
NNNN (table 2) entry for 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(iv) by changing the ``yes''
in column 3 to a ``no.'' When applicable, the provision requires
sources to record actions taken during SSM events when actions were
inconsistent with their SSM plan. The requirement is no longer
appropriate because SSM plans will no longer be required. The
requirement previously applicable under 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(iv)(B) to
record actions to minimize emissions and record corrective actions is
now applicable by reference to 40 CFR 63.4130(j)(4).
    We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table to subpart
NNNN (table 2) entry for 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(v) by changing the ``yes''
in column 3 to a ``no.'' When applicable, the provision requires
sources to record actions taken during SSM events to show that actions
taken were consistent with their SSM plan. The requirement is no longer
appropriate because SSM plans will no longer be required.
    We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table to subpart
NNNN (table 2) entry for 40 CFR 63.10(c)(15) by changing the ``yes'' in
column 3 to a ``no.'' The EPA is proposing that 40 CFR 63.10(c)(15) no
longer applies. When applicable, the provision allows an owner or
operator to use the affected source's SSM plan or records kept to
satisfy the recordkeeping requirements of the SSM plan, specified in 40
CFR 63.6(e), to also satisfy the requirements of 40 CFR 63.10(c)(10)
through (12). The EPA is proposing to eliminate this requirement
because SSM plans would no longer be required, and, therefore, 40 CFR
63.10(c)(15) no longer serves any useful purpose for affected units.
    We are proposing to remove the requirement in 40 CFR 63.4130(k)(1)
that deviation records specify whether deviations from a standard
occurred during a period of SSM. This revision is being proposed due to
the proposed removal of the SSM exemption and because, as discussed
above in this section, we are proposing that deviation records must
specify the cause of each deviation, which could include a malfunction
period as a cause. We are also proposing to remove the requirement to
report the SSM records in 40 CFR 63.6(e)(3)(iii) through (v) by
deleting 40 CFR 63.4130(k)(2).
 g. 40 CFR 63.4120 Reporting
    We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table to subpart
NNNN (table 2) entry for 40 CFR 63.10(d)(5) by changing the ``yes'' in
column 3 to a ``no.'' Section 63.10(d)(5) describes the reporting
requirements for startups, shutdowns, and malfunctions. To replace the
General Provisions reporting requirement, the EPA is proposing to add
reporting requirements to 40 CFR 63.4120. The replacement language
differs from the General Provisions requirement in that it eliminates
periodic SSM reports as a stand-alone report. We are proposing language
that requires sources that fail to meet an applicable standard at any
time to report the information concerning such events in the semi-
annual compliance report already required under this rule. Subpart NNNN
currently requires reporting of the date, time period, and cause of
each deviation. We are clarifying in the rule that, if the cause of a
deviation from the standard is unknown, this should be specified in the
report. We are also proposing to change ``date and time period'' to
``date, time, and duration'' (see proposed revisions to 40 CFR
63.4120(d)(1), (g)(6), (g)(8), and (g)(13)) to use terminology
consistent with the recordkeeping section. Further, we are proposing
that the report must also contain the number of deviations from the
standard, and a list of the affected source or equipment. For deviation
reports addressing deviations from an applicable emission limit in 40
CFR

63.4090 or operating limit in Table 1 to subpart NNNN, we are proposing
that the report also include an estimate of the quantity of each
regulated pollutant emitted over any emission limit for which the
source failed to meet the standard, and a description of the method
used to estimate the emissions. For deviation reports addressing
deviations from work practice standards associated with the emission
rate with add-on controls option (40 CFR 63.4120(g)(13)), we are
retaining the current requirement (including reporting actions taken to
correct the deviation), except that we are revising the rule language
to reference the new general duty requirement in 40 CFR 63.4100(b), we
are clarifying that the description of the deviation must include a
list of the affected sources or equipment and the cause of the
deviation, we are clarifying that ``time period'' includes the ``time
and duration,'' and we are requiring that the report include the number
of deviations from the work practice standards in the reporting period.
Further, we are proposing to apply these same reporting requirements to
deviations from the proposed new equipment standards associated with
high efficiency spray equipment (see proposed revisions in 40 CFR
63.4120(d)(2)(vi), (e)(2), and (e)(2)(v).
    Regarding the proposed new requirement discussed above to estimate
the quantity of each regulated pollutant emitted over any emission
limit for which the source failed to meet the standard, and a
description of the method used to estimate the emissions, examples of
such methods would include product-loss calculations, mass balance
calculations, measurements when available, or engineering judgment
based on known process parameters (e.g., coating HAP content and
application rates and control device efficiencies). The EPA is
proposing this requirement to ensure that there is adequate information
to determine compliance, to allow the EPA to determine the severity of
the failure to meet an applicable standard, and to provide data that
may document how the source met the general duty to minimize emissions
during a failure to meet an applicable standard.
    We will no longer require owners or operators to determine whether
actions taken to correct a malfunction are consistent with an SSM plan,
because plans would no longer be required. The proposed amendments,
therefore, eliminate 40 CFR 63.4120(j) that requires reporting of
whether the source deviated from its SSM plan, including required
actions to communicate with the Administrator, and the cross reference
to 40 CFR 63.10(d)(5)(i) that contains the description of the
previously required SSM report format and submittal schedule from this
section. These specifications are no longer necessary because the
events will be reported in otherwise required reports with similar
format and submittal requirements.
    We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table to subpart
NNNN (table 2) entry for 40 CFR 63.10(d)(5)(ii) by changing the ``yes''
in column 3 to a ``no.'' Section 63.10(d)(5)(ii) describes an immediate
report for startups, shutdown, and malfunctions when a source failed to
meet an applicable standard, but did not follow the SSM plan. We will
no longer require owners and operators to report when actions taken
during a startup, shutdown, or malfunction were not consistent with an
SSM plan, because plans would no longer be required.
    We are proposing to remove the requirements in 40 CFR 63.4120(g)(8)
that deviation reports must specify whether deviation from an operating
limit occurred during a period of SSM. We are also proposing to remove
the requirements in 40 CFR 63.4120(g)(10) to break down the total
duration of deviations into the startup and shutdown categories. As
discussed above in this section, we are proposing to require reporting
of the cause of each deviation. Further, the startup and shutdown
categories no longer apply because these periods are proposed to be
considered normal operation, as discussed in section IV.A.4.b.1 of this
preamble.
c. Technical Amendments to the Surface Coating of Large Appliances
NESHAP
    We propose to amend 40 CFR 63.4166(b) to add the option of
conducting EPA Method 18 of appendix A to 40 CFR part 60, ``Measurement
of Gaseous Organic Compound Emissions by Gas Chromatography,'' to
measure and then subtract methane emissions from measured total gaseous
organic mass emissions as carbon. Facilities using the emission rate
with add-on control compliance option can use either EPA Method 25 or
Method 25A to measure control device destruction efficiency. Unlike EPA
Method 25, Method 25A does not exclude methane from the measurement of
organic emissions. Because many exhaust streams from coating operations
may contain methane from natural gas combustion, we are proposing to
allow facilities the option to measure this methane using Method 18 and
to subtract this methane from the emissions as part of their compliance
calculations. We also propose to revise the format of references to
test methods in 40 CFR part 60. The current reference in 40 CFR
63.4166(a) and (b) to Methods 1, 1A, 2, 2A, 2C, 2D, 2F, 2G, 3, 3A, 3B,
4, 25, and 25A specify that each method is in ``appendix A'' of part
60. Appendix A of part 60 has been divided into appendices A-1 through
A-8. We propose to revise each reference to appendix A to indicate
which of the eight sections of appendix A applies to the method.
    EPA is proposing to amend 40 CFR 63.4141(a)(1)(i) and (4) to remove
reference to paragraph (d)(4) of OSHA's Hazard Communication standard,
which dealt with OSHA-defined carcinogens. EPA is proposing to replace
that reference with its own list of hazardous air pollutants that must
be regarded as potentially carcinogenic based on EPA guidelines.
Although paragraph (d)(4) of OSHA's standard was deleted when the
Agency adopted the Globally Harmonized System of Hazard Communication
in 2012, it was replaced by section A.6.4.2 of mandatory Appendix A of
that standard, which reads as follows:
    ``Where OSHA has included cancer as a health hazard to be
considered by classifiers for a chemical covered by 29 CFR part 1910,
subpart Z, Toxic and Hazardous Substances, chemical manufacturers,
importers, and employers shall classify the chemical as a carcinogen.''
Thus, where OSHA has regulated workplace exposure to a chemical based,
at least in part, on carcinogenic risk, OSHA requires the chemical to
be classified as a carcinogen. OSHA suggests that EPA should refer to
section A.6.4.2 of Appendix A of 29 CFR 1910.1200 in its discussion of
section 63.4141 and consider chemicals that meet this requirement be
considered ``OSHA-defined carcinogens.''
    We are proposing to replace these references to carcinogens in 29
CFR 1910.1200(d)(4) with a list (in proposed new Table 5 to subpart
NNNN) of those organic HAP that must be included in calculating total
organic HAP content of a coating material if they are present at 0.1
percent or greater by mass.
    We propose to include organic HAP in proposed Table 5 to subpart
NNNN if they were categorized in the EPA's Prioritized Chronic Dose-
Response Values for Screening Risk Assessments (dated May 9, 2014) as a
``human carcinogen,'' ``probable human carcinogen,'' or ``possible
human carcinogen'' according to The Risk Assessment Guidelines of 1986
(EPA/

600/8-87/045, August 1987),\26\ or as ``carcinogenic to humans,''
``likely to be carcinogenic to humans,'' or with ``suggestive evidence
of carcinogenic potential'' according to the Guidelines for Carcinogen
Risk Assessment (EPA/630/P-03/001F, March 2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ See https://www.epa.gov/fera/dose-response-assessment-assessing-health-risks-associated-exposure-hazardous-air-pollutants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We propose to revise the monitoring provisions for thermal and
catalytic oxidizers to clarify that a thermocouple is part of the
temperature sensor referred to in 40 CFR 63.4168(c)(3) for purposes of
performing periodic calibration and verification checks.
    We propose to renumber 40 CFR 63.4130(k)(8) and (9) to be 40 CFR
63.4130(k)(7) and (8) because current paragraph 40 CFR 63.4130(k) is
missing a paragraph (k)(7). This revision will address any confusion
over this missing paragraph. We also propose to revise the rule
citation ``Sec.  63.4130(k)(9)'' in 40 CFR 63.4163(e) to be ``Sec.
63.4130(k)(8),'' consistent with the proposed renumbering of 40 CFR
63.4130(k)(9) to (k)(8).
    Current 40 CFR 63.4931(a) allows records, ``where appropriate,'' to
be maintained as ``electronic spreadsheets'' or a ``data base.'' We
propose to add clarification to this provision that the allowance to
retain electronic records applies to all records that were submitted as
reports electronically via the EPA's CEDRI. We also propose to add text
to the same provision clarifying that this ability to maintain
electronic copies does not affect the requirement for facilities to
make records, data, and reports available upon request to a delegated
air agency or the EPA as part of an on-site compliance evaluation.
    We propose to revise various erroneous rule citations. We propose
to revise one instance in 40 CFR 63.4160(a)(1) and three instances in
40 CFR 63.4160(b)(1) that an erroneous rule citation ``Sec.  63.4183''
is specified. Section 63.4183 does not exist in 40 CFR part 63, subpart
NNNN, and 40 CFR 63.4083 is the correct citation, providing the
compliance dates referred to in association with the erroneous rule
citation. We propose to change the erroneous citation to ``Sec.
63.4083.'' We propose to revise one instance in 40 CFR 63.4110(b)(10)
of an erroneous rule citation ``Sec.  63.4081(d).'' This rule citation
is specified in 40 CFR 63.4110(b)(10) as the source for the allowance
to comply with the requirements of another subpart in lieu of the
requirements of this subpart NNNN. The correct citation for this
allowance is 40 CFR 63.4081(e), and we propose to change the erroneous
citation to ``Sec.  63.4081(e).'' We propose to revise one instance in
40 CFR 63.4130(f) and one instance in 40 CFR 63.4130(g) of an erroneous
rule citation of ``Sec.  63.4141(a).'' This rule citation is specified
in each 40 CFR 63.4130(f) and (g) as the source for the allowance that
the volume solids determination is not required for coatings for which
the mass fraction of organic HAP of the coating equals zero. However,
it is the introductory paragraph to 40 CFR 63.4141, not 40 CFR
63.4141(a), that provides the allowance to not be required to determine
the volume solids for zero-HAP coatings. We propose to change the
erroneous citation to ``Sec.  63.4141.'' We propose to revise one
instance in 40 CFR 63.4168(c)(2) that an erroneous rule citation
``Sec.  63.6167(b)(1) and (2)'' is specified. Section 40 CFR
63.6167(b)(1) and (2) does not exist in 40 CFR part 63, subpart NNNN.
Section 40 CFR 63.4167(b)(1) and (2) is the correct citation,
describing how to establish operating limits for catalytic oxidizers as
referred to in association with the erroneous rule citation. We propose
to change the erroneous citation to ``Sec.  63.4167(b)(1) and (2).'' We
propose to revise two instances in Table 2 to Subpart NNNN of Part 63
of an erroneous rule citation ``Sec.  63.4120(b).'' This rule citation
is specified in the fourth column of the table entry for ``Sec.
63.10(d)(2),'' as the source for the requirements related to reporting
results of performance tests. Section 40 CFR 63.4120(b) does not
provide these types of requirements; however, 40 CFR 63.4120(h)
provides these requirements. The correct citation for this allowance is
40 CFR 63.4120(h), and we propose to change the erroneous citation to
``Sec.  63.4120(h).'' The rule citation ``Sec.  63.4120(b)'' is also
specified in the fourth column of the table entry for ``Sec.
63.10(e)(3),'' as the source for the contents of periodic compliance
reports. Section 40 CFR 63.4120(b) does not provide the contents of
periodic compliance reports; however, 40 CFR 63.4120(g) provides these
requirements. The correct citation for this allowance is 40 CFR
63.4120(g), and we propose to change the erroneous citation to ``Sec.
63.4120(g).'' Current 40 CFR 63.4152(c) requires inclusion in the
semiannual compliance report of a statement that the source was in
compliance with the emission limitations during the reporting period.
We propose to add clarification to this provision that the requirement
to submit this statement applies only if there were no deviations from
the emission limitations.
d. Requesting Comment on Ongoing Emissions Compliance Demonstrations
    As part of an ongoing effort to improve compliance with various
federal air emission regulations, the EPA reviewed the compliance
demonstration requirements in the Surface Coating of Large Appliance
NESHAP. Currently, if a source owner or operator chooses to comply with
the standards using add-on controls, the results of an initial
performance test are used to determine compliance; however, the rule
does not require on-going periodic performance testing for these
emission capture systems and add-on controls.
    As mentioned by the Institute of Clean Air Companies (ICAC) in
their comments on proposed revisions to the NESHAP General Provisions
(72 FR 69, January 3, 2007), ongoing maintenance and checks of control
devices are necessary in order to ensure emissions control technology
remains effective.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ 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 Large
Appliance Docket for this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Given these comments from ICAC, suppliers of air pollution control
and monitoring technology, on the need for vigilance in maintaining
equipment to stem degradation, the EPA is requesting comment on what
steps, in addition to one-time initial emissions and capture efficiency
testing, along with ongoing temperature measurement, might better
ensure ongoing compliance with the standards.
    The EPA specifically is requesting comment on whether performance
testing should be required anytime a source plans to undertake an
operational change that may adversely affect compliance with an
applicable standard, operating limit, or parametric monitoring value.
Any such requirement would include provisions to allow a source to make
the change, but limit the change to a specific time before a test is
required. We anticipate that a reasonable time limit under the new
operations change would be approximately 30 days to allow adequate time
for testing and developing a test report. The source would submit
temperature and flow rate data during the test to establish new
operating parameters. We specifically are requesting comment on this
potential provision, including the time a source would be allowed to
operate under the new parameters before they test, and what would
constitute an operational change requiring testing.

    This approach on which we are requesting comment could also allow
an exception from periodic testing for facilities using instruments to
continuously measure emissions. Such continuous emissions monitoring
systems (CEMS) would show actual emissions. Use of CEMS to demonstrate
compliance would obviate the need for periodic oxidizer testing.
Moreover, installation and operation of a CEMS with a timesharing
component, such that values from more than one oxidizer exhaust could
be tabulated in a recurring frequency, could prove less expensive
(estimated to have an annual cost below $15,000) than ongoing oxidizer
testing.
    The approach on which we are requesting comment would not require
periodic testing or CEMS monitoring of facilities using the compliant
materials option, or the emission-rate without add-on controls
compliance option because these two compliance options do not use any
add-on control efficiency measurements in the compliance calculations.
    The approach would require air emissions testing to measure organic
HAP destruction or removal efficiency at the inlet and outlet of the
add-on control device, or measurement of the control device outlet
concentration of organic HAP. Emissions would be measured as total
gaseous organic mass emissions as carbon using either Method 25 or 25A
of appendix A-7 to 40 CFR part 60, which are the methods currently
required for the initial compliance demonstration.
    We estimate that the cost to perform a control device emissions
destruction or removal efficiency test using EPA Method 25 or 25A would
be approximately $19,000 per control device. The cost estimate is
included in the memorandum titled Costs/Impacts of the 40 CFR part 63
Subparts NNNN, OOOO and RRRR Monitoring Review Revisions, in the Large
Appliances Docket.
5. What compliance dates are we proposing?
    The EPA is proposing that affected sources that commenced
construction or reconstruction on or before September 12, 2018 must
comply with all of the amendments, with the exception of the proposed
electronic format for submitting notifications and semiannual
compliance reports, no later than 181 days after the effective date of
the final rule. Affected sources that commence construction or
reconstruction after September 12, 2018 must comply with all
requirements of the subpart, including the amendments being proposed,
with the exception of the proposed electronic format for submitting
notifications and semiannual compliance reports, no later than the
effective date of the final rule or upon startup, whichever is later.
All affected facilities would have to continue to meet the current
requirements of 40 CFR part 63, subpart NNNN until the applicable
compliance date of the amended rule. The final action is not expected
to be a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2), so the effective
date of the final rule will be the promulgation date as specified in
CAA section 112(d)(10).
    For existing sources, we are proposing two changes that would
impact ongoing compliance requirements for 40 CFR part 63, subpart
NNNN. As discussed elsewhere in this preamble, we are proposing to add
a requirement that notifications, performance test results, and
semiannual compliance reports be submitted electronically using the new
template. We are also proposing to change the requirements for SSM by
removing the exemption from the requirements to meet the standard
during SSM periods and by removing the requirement to develop and
implement an SSM plan. Our experience with similar industries that are
required to convert reporting mechanisms to install necessary hardware
and software, become familiar with the process of submitting
performance test results electronically through the EPA's CEDRI, test
these new electronic submission capabilities, and reliably employ
electronic reporting shows that a time period of a minimum of 90 days,
and, more typically, 180 days is generally necessary to successfully
accomplish these revisions. Our experience with similar industries
further shows that this sort of regulated facility generally requires a
time period of 180 days to read and understand the amended rule
requirements; to evaluate their operations to ensure that they can meet
the standards during periods of startup and shutdown as defined in the
rule and make any necessary adjustments; and to update their operation,
maintenance, and monitoring plan to reflect the revised requirements.
The EPA recognizes the confusion that multiple different compliance
dates for individual requirements would create and the additional
burden such an assortment of dates would impose. From our assessment of
the timeframe needed for compliance with the entirety of the revised
requirements, the EPA considers a period of 180 days to be the most
expeditious compliance period practicable and, thus, is proposing that
existing affected sources and new affected sources that commenced
construction or reconstruction on or before September 12, 2018 be in
compliance with all of this regulation's revised requirements, except
for the requirement to use high efficiency spray equipment discussed
below, within 181 days of the regulation's effective date.
    Under CAA section 112(d), we are proposing compliance dates for the
proposed requirement to use high efficiency spray equipment if the
source is not using the emission rate with add-on control compliance
option. For existing affected sources under this proposed action, we
propose to provide sources three years after the effective date of the
final rule to comply with the proposed requirement to use high
efficiency spray equipment. We are proposing a 3-year compliance date
for facilities that have not switched to high efficiency spray
equipment because facilities that are not yet using high efficiency
spray equipment have multiple alternative equipment types to consider
under this proposed rule. The 3-year compliance period will provide all
facilities sufficient time to source and purchase the specific type of
spray application equipment compatible with their operations.
Furthermore, the compliance period provides time for sources to verify
that the spray equipment they choose meets the transfer efficiency
requirements in this proposed rule. In addition, because a spray gun's
useful lifespan is approximately two years, the proposed three-year
compliance period will provide enough time for facilities to source and
purchase replacement guns on their current equipment purchase cycle,
develop any necessary operational procedures, and perform training.
Finally, the 3-year compliance period will ensure that a facility is
not required to replace a spray gun before it has time to identify and
source new guns and develop bid specification and operation procedures.
For new affected sources under this proposed action, the proposed
compliance date is the effective date of the final rule or upon
startup, whichever is later.
    We solicit comment on these proposed compliance periods, and we
specifically request submission of information from sources in this
source category regarding specific actions that would need to be
undertaken to comply with the proposed amended requirements and the
time needed to make the adjustments for compliance with any of the
revised requirements. We note that information provided may result in
changes to the proposed compliance dates.

B. What are the analytical results and proposed decisions for the
Printing, Coating, and Dyeing of Fabrics and Other Textiles source
category?

1. What are the results of the risk assessment and analyses?
    As described above in section III of this preamble, for the
Printing, Coating, and Dyeing of Fabrics and Other Textiles source
category, we conducted a risk assessment for all HAP emitted. We
present results of the risk assessment briefly below and in more detail
in the Fabrics and Other Textiles Risk Assessment Report in the Fabrics
and Other Textiles Docket (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0668).
a. Inhalation Risk Assessment Results
    Table 3 below provides a summary of the results of the inhalation
risk assessment for the source category. As discussed in section
III.C.2 of this preamble, we determined that MACT-allowable HAP
emission levels at fabrics and other textiles printing, coating, and
dyeing facilities are equal to 1.1 times the actual emissions. For more
detail about the MACT-allowable emission levels, see Appendix 1 to the
Fabrics and Other Textiles Risk Assessment Report in the Fabrics and
Other Textiles Docket.

                 Table 3--Printing, Coating, and Dyeing of Fabrics and Other Textiles Source Category Inhalation Risk Assessment Results
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                   Maximum individual     Estimated population      Estimated annual         Maximum chronic     Maximum screening acute
                                    cancer risk (in 1     at increased risk of      cancer incidence        noncancer TOSHI 1         noncancer HQ 2
                                        million)             cancer >=1-in-1        (cases per year)    ------------------------------------------------
                                ------------------------         million        ------------------------
        Risk assessment                                 ------------------------                          Based on    Based on
                                  Based on    Based on    Based on    Based on    Based on    Based on     actual     allowable      Based on actual
                                   actual     allowable    actual     allowable    actual     allowable   emissions   emissions         emissions
                                  emissions   emissions   emissions   emissions   emissions   emissions
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source Category................           9          10       8,500      10,000       0.002       0.002         0.3         0.3  HQREL = 0.6
Whole Facility.................           9  ..........      12,200  ..........       0.003  ..........         0.3  ..........  .......................
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 3 above, indicate that the maximum individual
cancer risk based on actual emissions (lifetime) could be up to 9-in-1
million, the maximum chronic noncancer TOSHI value based on actual
emissions could be up to 0.3, and the maximum screening acute noncancer
HQ value (off-facility site) could be up to 0.6. The total estimated
annual cancer incidence (national) from these facilities based on
actual emission levels is 0.002 excess cancer cases per year, or one
case in every 500 years.
b. Acute Risk Results
    Table 3 also shows the acute risk results for the Printing,
Coating, and Dyeing of Fabrics and Other Textiles source category. The
screening analysis for acute impacts was based on an industry-specific
multiplier of 1.4, to estimate the peak emission rates from the average
emission rates. For more detailed acute risk results refer to the
Fabrics and Other Textiles Risk Assessment Report in the Fabrics and
Other Textiles Docket.
c. Multipathway Risk Screening Results
    We did not identify any PB-HAP emitted by facilities in this source
category. Therefore, we do not expect any human health multipathway
risks as a result of emissions from this source category.
d. Environmental Risk Screening Results
    The emissions data for the Printing, Coating, and Dyeing of Fabrics
and Other Textiles source category indicate that no environmental HAP
are emitted by sources within this source category. Therefore, we did
not conduct a screening-level evaluation of the potential adverse
environmental risks associated with emissions for the Printing,
Coating, and Dyeing of Fabrics and Other Textiles source category. We
do not expect an adverse environmental effect as a result of HAP
emissions from this source category.
e. Facility-Wide Risk Results
    The results of our facility-wide assessment indicate that 12
facilities have a facility-wide cancer MIR greater than or equal to 1-
in-1 million. The maximum facility-wide cancer MIR is 9-in-1 million,
driven by ethylene oxide from fabric finishing. The total estimated
cancer incidence from the whole facility assessment is 0.003 excess
cancer cases per year, or one excess case in every 330 years.
Approximately 12,200 people were estimated to have cancer risks above
1-in-1 million from exposure to HAP emitted from both MACT and non-MACT
sources collocated at the 43 facilities in this source category. The
maximum facility-wide TOSHI for the source category is estimated to be
0.3, driven by emissions of trichloroethylene from adhesive
application.
f. What demographic groups might benefit from this regulation?
    To examine the potential for any environmental justice issues that
might be associated with the source category, we performed a
demographic analysis, which is an assessment of risks to individual
demographic groups of the populations living within 5 km and within 50
km of the facilities. In the analysis, we evaluated the distribution of
HAP-related cancer and noncancer risks from the Printing, Coating, and
Dyeing of Fabrics and Other Textiles source category across different
demographic groups within the populations living near facilities.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ Demographic groups included in the analysis are: White,
African American, Native American, other races and multiracial,
Hispanic or Latino, children 17 years of age and under, adults 18 to
64 years of age, adults 65 years of age and over, adults without a
high school diploma, people living below the poverty level, people
living above the poverty level, and linguistically isolated people.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The results of the demographic analysis are summarized in Table 4
of this preamble. These results, for various demographic groups, are
based on the estimated risks from actual emissions levels for the
population living within 50 km of the facilities.

 Table 4--Printing, Coating, and Dyeing of Fabrics and Other Textiles Source Category Demographic Risk Analysis
                                                     Results
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 Population with cancer  Population with chronic
                                                                risk at or above 1-in-1    noncancer HI above 1
                                                                     million due to          due to printing,
                                              Nationwide         printing, coating, and   coating, and dyeing of
                                                                 dyeing of fabrics and      fabrics and other
                                                                     other textiles              textiles
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Population.....................              317,746,049                    8,500                        0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          White and Minority by Percent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
White................................                       62                       54                        0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minority.............................                       38                       46                        0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Minority Detail by Percent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
African American.....................                       12                       39                        0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Native American......................                      0.8                     0.02                        0
Hispanic or Latino...................                       18                        5                        0
Other and Multiracial................                        7                        2                        0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                Income by Percent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Below the Poverty Level..............                       14                       26                        0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Above the Poverty Level..............                       86                       74                        0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              Education by Percent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Over 25 Without High a School Diploma                       14                       21                        0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Over 25 With a High School Diploma...                       86                       79                        0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The results of the Printing, Coating, and Dyeing of Fabrics and
Other Textiles source category demographic analysis indicate that
emissions from the source category expose approximately 8,500 people to
a cancer risk at or above 1-in-1 million and no one to a chronic
noncancer hazard index greater than 1. The percentages of the at-risk
population in the following specific demographic groups are higher than
their respective nationwide percentages: ``African American,'' ``Over
25 Without a HS Diploma,'' and ``Below the Poverty Level.''
    The methodology and the results of the demographic analysis are
presented in a technical report, Risk and Technology Review--Analysis
of Demographic Factors for Populations Living Near Printing, Coating,
and Dyeing of Fabrics and Other Textiles Source Category Operations,
September 2017 (hereafter referred to as the Fabrics and Other Textiles
Demographic Analysis Report), available in the Fabrics and Other
Textiles Docket.
2. What are our proposed decisions regarding risk acceptability, ample
margin of safety, and adverse environmental effects?
a. Risk Acceptability
    As noted in section III.A of this preamble, we weigh all health
risk factors in our risk acceptability determination, including the
cancer MIR, the number of persons in various cancer and noncancer risk
ranges, cancer incidence, the maximum noncancer TOSHI, the maximum
acute noncancer HQ, the extent of noncancer risks, the distribution of
cancer and noncancer risks in the exposed population, and risk
estimation uncertainties (54 FR 38044, September 14, 1989).
    For the Printing, Coating, and Dyeing of Fabrics and Other Textiles
source category, the risk analysis indicates that the cancer risks to
the individual most exposed could be up to 9-in-1 million due to actual
emissions and up to 10-in-1 million based on allowable emissions. These
risks are considerably less than 100-in-1 million, which is the
presumptive upper limit of acceptable risk. The risk analysis also
shows very low cancer incidence (0.002 cases per year for actual
emissions and allowable emissions), and we did not identify potential
for adverse chronic noncancer health effects. The acute noncancer risks
based on actual emissions is below an HQ of one for all facilities
(maximum of 0.6 for formaldehyde). Therefore, we find there is little
potential concern of acute noncancer health impacts from actual
emissions. In addition, the risk assessment indicates no significant
potential for multipathway health effects.
    Considering all of the health risk information and factors
discussed above, including the uncertainties discussed in section
III.C.7 of this preamble, we propose that the risks from the Printing,
Coating, and Dyeing of Fabrics and Other Textiles source category are
acceptable.
b. Ample Margin of Safety Analysis
    Although we are proposing that the risks from the Printing,
Coating, and Dyeing of Fabrics and Other Textiles source category are
acceptable, risk estimates for approximately 8,500 individuals in the
exposed population are above 1-in-1 million at the actual emissions
level and 10,000 individuals in the exposed population are above 1-in-1
million at the allowable emissions level. Consequently, we further
considered whether the MACT standards for the Printing, Coating, and

Dyeing of Fabrics and Other Textiles source category provide an ample
margin of safety to protect public health. In this ample margin of
safety analysis, we investigated available emissions control options
that might reduce the risk from the source category. We considered this
information along with all of the health risks and other health
information considered in our determination of risk acceptability.
    As described in section III.B of this preamble, our technology
review focused on identifying developments in practices, processes, and
control technologies for the Printing, Coating, and Dyeing of Fabrics
and Other Textiles source category, and we reviewed various information
sources regarding emission sources that are currently regulated by the
Printing, Coating, and Dyeing of Fabrics and Other Textiles NESHAP.
Based on our review, we did not identify any developments in add-on
control technologies, other equipment or work practices and procedures
since the promulgation of the Printing, Coating, and Dyeing of Fabrics
and Other Textiles NESHAP. We note, however, that the only facility
that reported ethylene oxide emissions no longer emits this HAP as a
result of a process change, as discussed below in the technology review
discussion. Therefore, we are proposing that additional emissions
controls for this source category are not necessary to provide an ample
margin of safety.
c. Environmental Effects
    The emissions data for the Printing, Coating, and Dyeing of Fabrics
and Other Textiles source category indicate that no environmental HAP
are emitted by sources within this source category and we are unaware
of any adverse environmental effects caused by HAP emitted from this
source category. Therefore, we do not expect there to be an adverse
environmental effect as a result of HAP emissions from this source
category and we are proposing that it is not necessary to set a more
stringent standard to prevent, taking into consideration costs, energy,
safety, and other relevant factors, an adverse environmental effect.
3. What are the results and proposed decisions based on our technology
review?
    As described in section III.B of this preamble, our technology
review focused on identifying developments in practices, processes, and
control technologies for the Printing, Coating, and Dyeing of Fabrics
and Other Textiles source category, and the EPA reviewed various
information sources regarding emission sources that are currently
regulated by Fabrics and Other Textiles NESHAP. These emission sources
include coating and printing, dyeing and finishing, and slashing of
fabrics and other textiles. Based on our review, we identified one
potential development in technology, a process change that eliminated
the use of ethylene oxide at one facility. During a recent site visit
to the facility, we learned that the ethylene oxide emissions were, in
fact, overstated by the facility. The facility confirmed that it no
longer uses the ethylene oxide-containing material due to cost. We note
that this was the only facility that reported ethylene oxide emissions,
and we conclude that ethylene oxide-containing materials are no longer
used in the industry, based on our information. We did not identify any
other developments in add-on control technologies, other equipment, or
work practices and procedures since the promulgation of the Printing,
Coating, and Dyeing of Fabrics and Other Textiles NESHAP. A brief
summary of the EPA's findings in conducting the technology review of
fabric printing, coating, and dyeing operations follows. For a detailed
discussion of the EPA's findings, refer to the Fabrics and Other
Textiles Technology Review Memorandum in the Fabrics and Other Textiles
Docket.
    The technology basis for coating and printing subcategory
operations under the original MACT standards in the Printing, Coating,
and Dyeing of Fabrics and Other Textiles NESHAP was emission capture
and add-on control with an overall control efficiency of 97 percent for
existing sources and 98 percent for new or reconstructed sources.
During development of that rulemaking, we evaluated the use of
alternative coatings (i.e., waterborne, ultraviolet-curable, electron-
beam (EB)-curable, and thermal (a.k.a., hot-melt)) and more stringent
standards than the MACT floor level of control for organic HAP. EB-
curable coatings are coatings that use an electron beam as the radiant
energy source to initiate a photochemical reaction to generate a
crosslinked network of polymer on the substrate surface. However, we
did not adopt any of these alternatives because they were not
universally applicable and could not achieve the needed characteristics
for numerous types of products (67 FR 46028, July 11, 2002).
    The technology basis for dyeing and finishing subcategory
operations at existing sources and new or reconstructed sources under
the original MACT standards in the Printing, Coating, and Dyeing of
Fabrics and Other Textiles NESHAP was the use of low-HAP materials
(i.e., the purchased materials used in the dyes and finishes applied at
a facility). During development of that rulemaking, we found that add-
on capture and control systems for organic HAP were not used at that
time by the industry for dyeing and finishing operations, and no
beyond-the-floor technology was identified (67 FR 46028, July 11,
2002).
    The technology basis for the slashing subcategory operations at
existing sources and new or reconstructed sources under original MACT
standards in the Printing, Coating, and Dyeing of Fabrics and Other
Textiles NESHAP was the use of zero organic HAP materials. For these
materials, each organic HAP that is not an OSHA-defined carcinogen that
is measured to be present at less than one percent by weight is counted
as zero. We found that no add-on emission capture and control systems
for organic HAP were used by the industry. During development of that
rulemaking, we identified no beyond-the-floor technology that could
achieve a lower organic HAP content in materials ``as purchased'' than
zero percent HAP (67 FR 46028, July 11, 2002).
    Using the RBLC database, we identified seven entries for facilities
currently subject to the Printing, Coating, and Dyeing of Fabrics and
Other Textiles NESHAP. We reviewed the state operating permits for the
seven facilities to determine if any are using technologies that exceed
MACT. Six of the seven permits included VOC emission limitations issued
prior to promulgation of the Printing, Coating, and Dyeing of Fabrics
and Other Textiles NESHAP. All seven facilities entered in the RBLC
database indicated they were meeting their VOC limits using solvent
substitution, solvent reformulation, low VOC adhesives, or condensation
controls. However, the VOC limits for four facilities were either
annual, monthly, or daily VOC emission limits. The remaining limits for
three facilities were VOC limits that were at least several times
higher than the HAP content limits in 40 CFR part 63, subpart OOOO for
the same subcategories. Because none of these limitations were more
stringent than the HAP content limits, none of these limitations
represented a development in practices, processes, and control
technologies for this source category.
    Using the EPA's NEI and the ECHO databases, we identified 43
facilities (including the seven facilities mentioned above) that are
currently subject to the Printing, Coating, and

Dyeing of Fabrics and Other Textiles NESHAP. We reviewed their state
operating permits to determine the subcategory operations being
performed and the type of control used for those subcategories to
comply with the NESHAP. Our review of the state operating permits found
that the facilities using PTEs and add-on controls (e.g., carbon
adsorbers and thermal or catalytic oxidizers) were using them only on
fabric coating lines. We did not find any facilities in the printing,
dyeing and finishing, or slashing subcategories using add-on controls
for any of the other subcategories. The use of add-on controls is found
for the same subcategories for which they were found at the time of
MACT development. That is, facilities in the coating and printing
subcategory are using add-on controls and facilities in the dyeing and
finishing subcategory are using low-HAP coatings and are not using add-
on controls. (We found very few facilities that were performing both
coating and printing and no facilities performing just printing; most
facilities subject to 40 CFR part 63, subpart OOOO were performing
coating, but not printing.)
    For the dyeing and finishing, and slashing subcategories, no
facilities are using add-on controls to comply. The technology basis
for these subcategories was the use of low-HAP (dyeing and finishing)
and non-HAP materials (slashing). We have not identified any other
process change or pollution prevention alternatives that could be
applied to these two subcategories that would further reduce the
emissions from these two subcategories.
    Finally, we identified no developments in work practices or
procedures for the Printing, Coating, and Dyeing of Fabrics and Other
Textiles source category. However, we note that the one facility that
previously reported ethylene oxide has eliminated its use through a
process change, and we solicit comment on whether the agency should ban
the use of ethylene oxide in this source category under the technology
review. The current Printing, Coating, and Dyeing of Fabrics and Other
Textiles NESHAP requires affected sources using add-on controls as a
compliance strategy to develop and implement a work practice plan to
minimize organic HAP emissions from the storage, mixing, and conveying
of coatings, thinners, and cleaning materials used in, and waste
materials generated by, all coating operations for which emission
limits are established. The current work practice requirements address
all of the potential emission sources that are normally located outside
of the PTE that is routed to the control device, and no new measures
have been identified to further reduce the emissions from these
sources.
    Based on a finding of no new developments in practices, processes,
and control technologies in the technology review for printing,
coating, and dyeing operations, we are not proposing to revise the
Printing, Coating, and Dyeing of Fabrics and Other Textiles NESHAP
emission limit requirements pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6). For
further discussion of the technology review results, refer to the
Fabrics and Other Textiles Technology Review Memorandum in the Fabrics
and Other Textiles Docket.
4. What other actions are we proposing?
    In the Printing, Coating, and Dyeing of Fabrics and Other Textiles
source category, we are proposing to require electronic submittal of
notifications, semiannual reports, and compliance reports (which
include performance test reports). In addition, we are proposing
revisions to the SSM provisions of the MACT rule in order to ensure
that they are consistent with the Court decision in Sierra Club v. EPA,
551 F. 3d 1019 (D.C. Cir. 2008), which vacated two provisions that
exempted sources from the requirement to comply with otherwise
applicable CAA section 112(d) emission standards during periods of SSM.
We also are proposing the addition of EPA Method 18, IBR of an
alternative test method, and various technical and editorial changes.
Our analyses and proposed changes related to these issues are discussed
in the sections below.
    Though we are not proposing to change reporting frequency currently
in the rule, we are requesting comment on changing the reporting
frequency for all reports to EPA from semi-annual to annual due to the
potential redundancy of these reporting requirements. We recognize that
Title V permits have a statutory requirement for semi-annual reports,
which are generally reported to state regulatory agencies. However, we
are not certain that changing the report frequency for just the reports
submitted to EPA in this NESHAP will result in a reporting and
recordkeeping burden reduction. We request comment and supporting
information on the burden impact of changing the reporting requirement
to annual for the reporting to EPA.
a. Electronic Reporting Requirements
    The EPA is proposing that owners and operators of facilities
subject to the Printing, Coating, and Dyeing of Fabrics and Other
Textiles NESHAP submit electronic copies of initial notifications
required in 40 CFR 63.9(b), notifications of compliance status required
in 40 CFR 63.9(h), performance test reports, and semiannual reports
through the EPA's CDX, using the CEDRI. A description of the EPA's CDX
and the EPA's proposed rationale and details on the addition of these
electronic reporting requirements for the Printing, Coating, and Dyeing
of Fabrics and Other Textiles source category is the same as for the
Surface Coating of Large Appliances source category as discussed in
section IV.A.4.a of this preamble. For further information regarding
the electronic data submission process, please refer to the memorandum
titled Electronic Reporting for Printing, Coating, and Dyeing of
Fabrics and Other Textiles, Subpart OOOO, May 2018, in the Fabrics and
Other Textiles Docket. No specific form is proposed at this time for
the initial notifications required in 40 CFR 63.9(b) and notifications
of compliance status required in 40 CFR 63.9(h). Until the EPA has
completed electronic forms for these notifications, the notifications
will be required to be submitted via CEDRI in PDF. After development of
the final forms, we will notify sources about their availability via
the CEDRI website and the Clearinghouse for Inventories and Emissions
Factors (CHIEF) Listserv. For semiannual reports, the EPA proposes that
owners or operators use the appropriate spreadsheet template in CEDRI
for 40 CFR part 63, subpart OOOO, or an alternate electronic file
format consistent with the form's extensible markup language schema.
For further information regarding the electronic data submission
process, please refer to the spreadsheet template attached to the
memorandum titled Electronic Reporting Template for Printing, Coating,
and Dyeing of Fabrics and Other Textiles, Subpart OOOO Semiannual
Reports, May 2018, in the Fabrics and Other Textiles Docket. We
specifically request comment on the format and usability of the
template (e.g., filling and uploading a provided spreadsheet versus
entering the required information into a fillable CEDRI web form), as
well as the content, layout, and overall design of the template. Prior
to availability of the final semiannual compliance report template in
CEDRI, owners or operators of affected sources will be required to
submit semiannual compliance reports as otherwise required by the
Administrator. After development of the final template, we will notify
sources about its availability via the CEDRI website and the CHIEF

Listserv.\29\ We plan to finalize a required reporting format with the
final rule. The owner or operator would begin submitting reports
electronically with the next report that is due, once the electronic
template has been available for at least one year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    Regarding submittal of performance test reports via EPA's ERT, as
discussed in section IV.A.4.a of this preamble for the Surface Coating
of Large Appliances NESHAP, the proposal to submit performance test
data electronically to the EPA applies only if the EPA has developed an
electronic reporting form for the test method as listed on the EPA's
ERT website. For the Printing, Coating, and Dyeing of Fabrics and Other
Textiles NESHAP, most of the EPA test methods (including EPA Methods 25
and 25A) listed under 40 CFR part 63, subpart OOOO, are currently
supported by the ERT. As discussed in section IV.A.4.a of this
preamble, we are proposing that performance test results collected
using test methods that are not supported by the ERT as listed on the
EPA's ERT website at the time of the test be submitted in PDF using the
attachment module of the ERT.
    Also, as discussed in section IV.A.4.a of this preamble for the
Surface Coating of Large Appliances NESHAP, we are proposing to provide
facilities with the ability to seek extensions for submitting
electronic reports for circumstances beyond the control of the
facility. In proposed 40 CFR 63.4311(f), we address the situation for
facilities subject to the Printing, Coating, and Dyeing of Fabrics and
Other Textiles NESHAP where an extension may be warranted due to
outages of the EPA's CDX or CEDRI, which may prevent access to the
system and submittal of the required reports. In proposed 40 CFR
63.4311(g), we address the situation for facilities subject to the