[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 37 (Tuesday, February 25, 2020)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 10828-10871]
[FR Doc No: 2020-00303]

Vol. 85

Tuesday,

No. 37

February 25, 2020

Part II

Environmental Protection Agency

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

40 CFR Part 63

National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Surface
Coating of Metal Cans and Surface Coating of Metal Coil Residual Risk
and Technology Reviews; Final Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 85 , No. 37 / Tuesday, February 25, 2020 /
Rules and Regulations

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 63

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0684, EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0685; FRL-10003-81-OAR]
RIN 2060-AT51

National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Surface
Coating of Metal Cans and Surface Coating of Metal Coil Residual Risk
and Technology Reviews

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking final
action on the residual risk and technology reviews (RTRs) conducted for
the Surface Coating of Metal Cans and Surface Coating of Metal Coil
source categories regulated under national emission standards for
hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP). The EPA is also taking final action
on amendments for the two source categories to address emissions during
periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction (SSM); electronic
reporting of performance test results and compliance reports; the
addition of EPA Method 18 and updates to several measurement methods;
and the addition of requirements for periodic performance testing.
Additionally, several miscellaneous technical amendments are being made
to improve the clarity of the rule requirements. We are making no
revisions to the numerical emission limits for the two source
categories based on the residual risk and technology reviews.

DATES: This final rule is effective on February 25, 2020. The
incorporation by reference (IBR) of certain publications listed in the
rule is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of February
25, 2020.

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established dockets for this action under Docket
ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0684 for 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR)
part 63, subpart KKKK, Surface Coating of Metal Cans, and Docket ID No.
EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0685 for 40 CFR part 63, subpart SSSS, Surface Coating
of Metal Coil. All documents in the docket are listed on the https://www.regulations.gov/ website. Although listed, some information is not
publicly available, e.g., confidential business information (CBI) or
other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain
other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the
internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form.
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically
through https://www.regulations.gov/, or in hard copy at the EPA Docket
Center, WJC West Building, Room Number 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW,
Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room hours of operation are 8:30
a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Eastern Standard Time (EST), Monday through Friday.
The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and
the telephone number for the EPA Docket Center is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For questions about this final action,
contact Ms. Paula Hirtz, Minerals and Manufacturing Group, Sector
Policies and Programs Division (D243-04), Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research
Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
fax number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; and email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For
specific information regarding the risk modeling methodology, contact
Mr. Chris Sarsony, Health and Environmental Impacts Division (C539-02),
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711;
telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; and email
address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For information about the applicability
of these NESHAP to a particular entity, contact Mr. John Cox, Office of
Enforcement and Compliance Assurance, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, WJC South Building (Mail Code 2227A), 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue
NW, Washington, DC 20460; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; and email
address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Preamble acronyms and abbreviations. We use multiple acronyms and
terms in this preamble. While this list may not be exhaustive, to ease
the reading of this preamble and for reference purposes, the EPA
defines the following terms and acronyms here:

ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials
BPA bisphenol A
BPA-NI not intentionally containing BPA
CAA Clean Air Act
CBI Confidential Business Information
CDX Central Data Exchange
CEDRI Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface
CEMS continuous emissions monitoring systems
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
DGME diethylene glycol monobutyl ether
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
ERT Electronic Reporting Tool
HAP hazardous air pollutant(s)
HCl hydrochloric acid
HF hydrogen fluoride
HI hazard index
HQ hazard quotient
HQREL hazard quotient recommended exposure limit
IBR incorporation by reference
ICR Information Collection Request
kg kilogram
km kilometer
MACT maximum achievable control technology
MIR maximum individual risk
NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards
NAICS North American Industry Classification System
NESHAP national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants
NSPS new source performance standard
NSR New Source Review
NTTAA National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
OAQPS Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
OMB Office of Management and Budget
OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration
PB-HAP hazardous air pollutants known to be persistent and bio-
accumulative in the environment
PDF portable document format
PRA Paperwork Reduction Act
PTE permanent total enclosure
REL reference exposure level
RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act
RTR residual risk and technology review
SSM startup, shutdown, and malfunction
TOSHI target organ-specific hazard index
tpy tons per year
[mu]g/m3 micrograms per cubic meter
UMRA Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
VCS voluntary consensus standards

    Background information. On June 4, 2019, the EPA proposed revisions
to the Surface Coating of Metal Cans NESHAP and the Surface Coating of
Metal Coil NESHAP based on our RTRs. In this action, we are finalizing
decisions and revisions to the rules. In this preamble, we summarize
some of the more significant comments we timely received regarding the
proposed rule and provide our responses. A summary of all the public
comments on the proposed rules and the EPA's responses to those
comments is available in the ``Summary of Public Comments and Responses
for the Risk and Technology Reviews for the Surface Coating of Metal
Cans and the Surface Coating of Metal Coil NESHAP,'' in Docket ID Nos.
EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0684 and EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0685. A ``track changes''
version of the regulatory language that incorporates the changes in
this action is available in the docket for each rule.
    Organization of this document. The information in this preamble is
organized as follows:

I. General Information
    A. Does this action apply to me?
    B. Where can I get a copy of this document and other related
information?
    C. Judicial Review and Administrative Reconsideration
II. Background
    A. What is the statutory authority for this action?
    B. What are the source categories and how does the NESHAP
regulate HAP emissions from the source categories?
    C. What changes did we propose for the source categories in our
June 4, 2019, RTR proposal?
III. What is included in these final rules?
    A. What are the final rule amendments based on the risk reviews
for the Surface Coating of Metal Cans and Surface Coating of Metal
Coil source categories?
    B. What are the final rule amendments based on the technology
reviews for the Surface Coating of Metal Cans and Surface Coating of
Metal Coil source categories?
    C. What are the final rule amendments addressing emissions
during periods of SSM?
    D. What other changes have been made to the NESHAP?
    E. What are the effective and compliance dates of the revisions
to the standards?
    F. What are the requirements for submission of performance test
data to the EPA?
IV. What is the rationale for our final decisions and amendments for
the Surface Coating of Metal Cans and Surface Coating of Metal Coil
source categories?
    A. Residual Risk Reviews
    B. Technology Reviews
    C. Electronic Reporting Provisions
    D. SSM Provisions
    E. Ongoing Compliance Demonstrations
V. Summary of Cost, Environmental, and Economic Impacts and
Additional Analyses Conducted
    A. What are the affected sources?
    B. What are the air quality impacts?
    C. What are the cost impacts?
    D. What are the economic impacts?
    E. What are the benefits?
    F. What analysis of environmental justice did we conduct?
    G. What analysis of children's environmental health did we
conduct?
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
    A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and
Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
    B. Executive Order 13771: Reducing Regulations and Controlling
Regulatory Costs
    C. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
    D. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
    E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
    F. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
    G. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With
Indian Tribal Governments
    H. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
    I. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
    J. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) and
1 CFR Part 51
    K. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations
    L. Congressional Review Act (CRA)

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

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

 Table 1--NESHAP and Industrial Source Categories Affected by This Final
                                 Action
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    NAICS \1\
      NESHAP source category           code      Regulated entities \2\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Surface Coating of Metal Cans.....     332431  Two-piece Beverage Can
                                                Facilities, Three-piece
                                                Food Can Facilities, Two-
                                                piece Draw and Iron
                                                Facilities, One-piece
                                                Aerosol Can Facilities.
                                       332115
                                       332116
                                       332812
                                       332999
                                       332431  Can Assembly Facilities.
                                       332812  End Manufacturing
                                                Facilities.
Surface Coating of Metal Coil.....     325992  Photographic Film, Paper,
                                                Plate, and Chemical
                                                Manufacturing.
                                       326199  All Other Plastics
                                                Product Manufacturing.
                                       331110  Iron and Steel Mills and
                                                Ferroalloy
                                                Manufacturing.
                                       331221  Rolled Steel Shape
                                                Manufacturing.
                                       331315  Aluminum Sheet, Plate,
                                                and Foil Manufacturing.
                                       331318  Other Aluminum Rolling,
                                                Drawing, and Extruding.
                                       331420  Copper Rolling, Drawing,
                                                Extruding, and Alloying.
                                       332311  Prefabricated Metal
                                                Building and Component
                                                Manufacturing.
                                       332312  Fabricated Structural
                                                Metal Manufacturing.
                                       332322  Sheet Metal Work
                                                Manufacturing.
                                          \3\  Metal Coating, Engraving
                                       332812   (except Jewelry and
                                                Silverware), and Allied
                                                Services to
                                                Manufacturers.
                                       332999  All Other Miscellaneous
                                                Fabricated Metal Product
                                                Manufacturing.
                                       333249  Other Industrial
                                                Machinery Manufacturing.
                                       337920  Blind and Shade
                                                Manufacturing.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ North American Industry Classification System.
\2\ Regulated entities are major source facilities that apply surface
  coatings to these parts or products.
\3\ The majority of coil coating facilities are included in NAICS Code
  332812.

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

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

    In addition to being available in the dockets, an electronic copy
of this final action will also be available on the internet. Following
signature by the EPA Administrator, the EPA will post

copies of this final action at: https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/surface-coating-metal-cans-national-emission-standards-hazardous and https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/surface-coating-metal-coil-national-emission-standards-hazardous.
Following publication in the Federal Register, the EPA will post the
Federal Register version and key technical documents at these same
websites.
    Additional information is available on the RTR website at https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/risk-and-technology-review-national-emissions-standards-hazardous. This information
includes an overview of the RTR program, links to project websites for
the RTR source categories, and detailed emissions data and other data
we used as inputs to the risk assessments.

C. Judicial Review and Administrative Reconsideration

    Under Clean Air Act (CAA) section 307(b)(1), judicial review of
this final action is available only by filing a petition for review in
the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
(the Court) by April 27, 2020. Under CAA section 307(b)(2), the
requirements established by these final rules may not be challenged
separately in any civil or criminal proceedings brought by the EPA to
enforce the requirements.
    Section 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA further provides that only an
objection to a rule or procedure which was raised with reasonable
specificity during the period for public comment (including any public
hearing) may be raised during judicial review. This section also
provides a mechanism for the EPA to reconsider the rule if the person
raising an objection can demonstrate to the Administrator that it was
impracticable to raise such objection within the period for public
comment or if the grounds for such objection arose after the period for
public comment (but within the time specified for judicial review) and
if such objection is of central relevance to the outcome of the rule.
Any person seeking to make such a demonstration should submit a
Petition for Reconsideration to the Office of the Administrator, U.S.
EPA, Room 3000, WJC South Building, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW,
Washington, DC 20460, with a copy to both the person(s) listed in the
preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section, and the Associate
General Counsel for the Air and Radiation Law Office, Office of General
Counsel (Mail Code 2344A), U.S. EPA, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW,
Washington, DC 20460.

II. Background

A. What is the statutory authority for this action?

    Section 112 of the CAA establishes a two-stage regulatory process
to address emissions of hazardous air pollutants (HAP) from stationary
sources. In the first stage, we must identify categories of sources
emitting one or more of the HAP listed in CAA section 112(b) and then
promulgate technology-based NESHAP for those sources. ``Major sources''
are those that emit, or have the potential to emit, any single HAP at a
rate of 10 tons per year (tpy) or more, or 25 tpy or more of any
combination of HAP. For major sources, these standards are commonly
referred to as maximum achievable control technology (MACT) standards
and must reflect the maximum degree of emission reductions of HAP
achievable (after considering cost, energy requirements, and non-air
quality health and environmental impacts). In developing MACT
standards, CAA section 112(d)(2) directs the EPA to consider the
application of measures, processes, methods, systems, or techniques,
including, but not limited to, those that reduce the volume of or
eliminate HAP emissions through process changes, substitution of
materials, or other modifications; enclose systems or processes to
eliminate emissions; collect, capture, or treat HAP when released from
a process, stack, storage, or fugitive emissions point; are design,
equipment, work practice, or operational standards; or any combination
of the above.
    For these MACT standards, the statute specifies certain minimum
stringency requirements, which are referred to as MACT floor
requirements, and which may not be based on cost considerations. See
CAA section 112(d)(3). For new sources, the MACT floor cannot be less
stringent than the emission control achieved in practice by the best-
controlled similar source. The MACT floor for existing sources can be
less stringent than floors for new sources, but they cannot be less
stringent than the average emission limitation achieved by the best-
performing 12 percent of existing sources in the category or
subcategory (or the best-performing five sources for categories or
subcategories with fewer than 30 sources). In developing MACT
standards, we must also consider control options that are more
stringent than the floor under CAA section 112(d)(2). We may establish
standards more stringent than the floor, based on the consideration of
the cost of achieving the emissions reductions, any non-air quality
health and environmental impacts, and energy requirements.
    In the second stage of the regulatory process, the CAA requires the
EPA to undertake two different analyses, which we refer to as the
technology review and the residual risk review. Under the technology
review, we must review the technology-based standards and revise them
``as necessary (taking into account developments in practices,
processes, and control technologies)'' no less frequently than every 8
years, pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6). Under the residual risk
review, we must evaluate the risk to public health remaining after
application of the technology-based standards and revise the standards,
if necessary, to provide an ample margin of safety to protect public
health or to prevent, taking into consideration costs, energy, safety,
and other relevant factors, an adverse environmental effect. The
residual risk review is required within 8 years after promulgation of
the technology-based standards, pursuant to CAA section 112(f). In
conducting the residual risk review, if the EPA determines that the
current standards provide an ample margin of safety to protect public
health, it is not necessary to revise the MACT standards pursuant to
CAA section 112(f).\1\ For more information on the statutory authority
for this rule, see the proposal preamble (84 FR 25908, June 4, 2019)
and the memorandum, CAA Section 112 Risk and Technology Reviews:
Statutory Authority and Methodology, December 14, 2017, in the Surface
Coating of Metal Cans Docket and the Surface Coating of Metal Coil
Docket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

1. What is the Surface Coating of Metal Cans source category and how
does the current NESHAP regulate its HAP emissions?
    The EPA promulgated the Surface Coating of Metal Cans NESHAP on
November 13, 2003 (68 FR 64432). The standards are codified at 40 CFR
part 63, subpart KKKK. The Surface Coating of Metal Cans industry
consists of facilities that are engaged in the surface coating of metal
cans and ends (including decorative tins) and metal crowns and

closures. The source category covered by this MACT standard currently
includes five facilities.
    The Surface Coating of Metal Cans NESHAP (40 CFR 63.3561) defines a
``metal can'' as ``a single-walled container manufactured from metal
substrate equal to or thinner than 0.3785 millimeter (mm) (0.0149
inch)'' and includes coating operations for four subcategories: (1)
One- and two- piece draw and iron can body coating; (2) sheetcoating;
(3) three-piece can body assembly coating; and (4) end coating. The
Surface Coating of Metal Cans NESHAP also defines a ``coating'' as ``a
material that is applied to a substrate for decorative, protective, or
functional purposes. Such materials include, but are not limited to,
paints, sealants, caulks, inks, adhesives, and maskants.'' This source
category is further described in the June 4, 2019, RTR proposal. See 84
FR 25908.
    The primary HAP emitted from this source category are organic HAP
and include glycol ethers, formaldehyde, xylenes, toluene, methyl
isobutyl ketone, 2-(hexyloxy) ethanol, ethyl benzene, and methanol.
These HAP account for 99 percent of the HAP emissions from the source
category. The HAP emissions from the Surface Coating of Metal Cans
source category are emitted from the coating materials which include
the coatings, thinners, and cleaning materials used in the coating
operations. The coating operations include: The equipment used to apply
the coatings; the equipment to dry or cure the coatings after
application; all storage containers and mixing vessels; all manual and
automated equipment and containers used to convey the coating
materials; and all storage containers and manual and automated
equipment used for conveying waste materials generated by the coating
operations. The coating application lines and the drying and curing
ovens are the largest sources of HAP emissions. The coating application
lines apply an exterior base coat to two- and three-piece cans using a
lithographic/printing (i.e., roll) application process. The inside,
side seam, and repair coatings are spray applied using airless spray
equipment and are a minor portion of the can coating operations. As
indicated by the name, repair spray coatings are used to cover breaks
in the coating that are caused during the formation of the score in
easy-open ends or to provide, after the manufacturing process, an
additional protective layer for corrosion resistance.
    The Surface Coating of Metal Cans NESHAP specifies numerical
emission limits for existing sources and for new or reconstructed
sources for organic HAP emissions from four subcategories of can
coating operations. Within the four subcategories are several different
types of coatings with separate emission limits. The specific organic
HAP emission limits are provided in Tables 1 and 2 of 40 CRF part 63,
subpart KKKK.
    The Surface Coating of Metal Cans NESHAP provides that emission
limits can be achieved using several different options, including a
compliant material option, an emission rate without add-on controls
option (averaging option), an emission rate with add-on controls
option, or a control efficiency/outlet concentration option. For any
coating operation(s) on which the facility uses the compliant material
option or the emission rate without add-on controls option, the
facility is not required to meet any work practice standards.
    If the facility uses the emission rate with add-on controls option,
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, the coating operation(s) using that option. The
plan must specify practices and procedures to ensure that a set of
minimum work practices specified in the NESHAP are implemented. The
facility must also comply with site-specific operating limits for the
emission capture and control system.
2. What is the Surface Coating of Metal Coil source category and how
does the current NESHAP regulate its HAP emissions?
    The EPA promulgated the Surface Coating of Metal Coil source
category NESHAP on June 10, 2002 (67 FR 39794). The standards are
codified at 40 CFR part 63, subpart SSSS. The Surface Coating of Metal
Coil industry consists of facilities that operate a metal coil coating
line. The source category covered by this MACT standard currently
includes 48 facilities.
    The Surface Coating of Metal Coil NESHAP (40 CFR 63.5110) defines a
``coil coating line'' as ``a process and the collection of equipment
used to apply an organic coating to the surface of metal coil.'' A coil
coating line includes a web unwind or feed section, a series of one or
more work stations, and any associated curing oven, wet section, and
quench station. A work station is ``a unit on a coil coating line where
the coating material is deposited onto the metal coil substrate'' or a
coating application station. This source category is further described
in the June 4, 2019, RTR proposal. See 84 FR 25909.
    The primary HAP emitted from metal coil coating operations are
organic HAP and include xylenes, glycol ethers, naphthalene,
isophorone, toluene, diethylene glycol monobutyl ether (DGME), and
ethyl benzene. The majority of organic HAP emissions are from the
coating application stations and the curing ovens.
    The Surface Coating of Metal Coil NESHAP specifies numerical
emission limits for organic HAP emissions from the coating application
stations and associated curing ovens. The Surface Coating of Metal Coil
NESHAP provides that emission limits can be achieved using several
different options: (1) Use only individually compliant coatings with an
organic HAP content that does not exceed 0.046 kilogram (kg)/liter of
solids applied, (2) use coatings with an average organic HAP content
that does not exceed 0.046 kg/liter of solids on a rolling 12-month
average, (3) use a capture system and add-on control device to either
reduce emissions by 98 percent or use a 100-percent efficient capture
system (permanent total enclosure (PTE)) and an oxidizer to reduce
organic HAP emissions to no more than 20 parts per million by volume as
carbon, or (4) use a combination of compliant coatings and control
devices to maintain an average equivalent emission rate of organic HAP
not exceeding 0.046 kg/liter of solids on a rolling 12-month average
basis. These compliance options apply to an individual coil coating
line, to multiple lines as a group, or to the entire affected source.

C. What changes did we propose for the source categories in our June 4,
2019, RTR proposal?

    On June 4, 2019, the EPA published proposed rule amendments in the
Federal Register for the Surface Coating of Metal Cans NESHAP, 40 CFR
part 63, subpart KKKK, and the Surface Coating of Metal Coil NESHAP, 40
CFR part 63, subpart SSSS, that took into consideration the RTR
analyses.
    For each source category, we proposed that the risks are
acceptable, and that additional emission controls for each source
category are not necessary to provide an ample margin of safety. For
the technology reviews, we did not identify any developments in
practices, processes, or control technologies, and, therefore, we did
not propose any changes to the standards under CAA section 112(d)(6).
    We also proposed the following amendments:

     For each source category, a requirement for electronic
submittal of notifications, semi-annual reports, and compliance reports
(which include performance test reports);
     for each source category, revisions to the SSM provisions
of each NESHAP in order to ensure that they are consistent with the
Court decision in Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F. 3d 1019 (D.C. Cir. 2008),
which vacated two provisions that exempted source owners and operators
from the requirement to comply with otherwise applicable CAA section
112(d) emission standards during periods of SSM;
     for the Surface Coating of Metal Coil NESHAP, adding the
option of conducting EPA Method 18 of appendix A to 40 CFR part 60,
``Measurement of Gaseous Organic Compound Emissions by Gas
Chromatography,'' to measure and then subtract methane emissions from
measured total gaseous organic mass emissions as carbon;
     for the Surface Coating of Metal Coil NESHAP, revising 40
CFR 63.5090 to clarify that the NESHAP does not apply to the
application of markings (including letters, numbers, or symbols) to
bare metal coils that are used for product identification or for
product inventory control;
     for each source category, removing references to paragraph
(d)(4) of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration's (OSHA's)
Hazard Communication standard (29 CFR 1910.1200), which dealt with
OSHA-defined carcinogens, and replacing that reference with a list of
HAP that must be regarded as potentially carcinogenic based on EPA
guidelines;
     for each source category, a requirement to conduct
performance testing and reestablish operating limits no less frequently
than every 5 years for sources that are using add-on controls to
demonstrate compliance; and
     for each source category, Incorporation by Reference (IBR)
of alternative test methods and references to updated alternative test
methods; and several minor editorial and technical changes in each
subpart.

III. What is included in these final rules?

    This action finalizes the EPA's determinations pursuant to the RTR
provisions of CAA section 112 for the Surface Coating of Metal Cans
source category and the Surface Coating of Metal Coil source category.
This action also finalizes other changes to the NESHAP for each source
category, including:
     A requirement for electronic submittal of notifications,
semi-annual reports, and compliance reports (which include performance
test reports);
     revisions to the SSM provisions;
     removing references to paragraph (d)(4) of OSHA's Hazard
Communication standard (29 CFR 1910.1200), which dealt with OSHA-
defined carcinogens, and replacing that reference with a list of HAP
that must be regarded as potentially carcinogenic based on EPA
guidelines;
     adding a requirement to conduct performance testing and
reestablish operating limits no less frequently than every 5 years for
sources that are using add-on controls to demonstrate compliance,
unless they are already required to perform comparable periodic testing
as a condition of renewing their title V operating permit;
     IBR of alternative test methods and references to updated
alternative test methods; and
     several minor editorial and technical changes.

This action also finalizes the proposed changes to the NESHAP for the
Surface Coating of Metal Coil source category by adding the option of
conducting EPA Method 18 of appendix A to 40 CFR part 60, ``Measurement
of Gaseous Organic Compound Emissions by Gas Chromatography,'' to
measure and then subtract methane emissions from measured total gaseous
organic mass emissions as carbon; and by revising 40 CFR 63.5090 to
clarify that the NESHAP does not apply to the application of markings
(including letters, numbers, or symbols) to bare metal coils that are
used for product identification or for product inventory control.

A. What are the final rule amendments based on the risk reviews for the
Surface Coating of Metal Cans and Surface Coating of Metal Coil source
categories?

    This section describes the final amendments to the Surface Coating
of Metal Cans NESHAP (subpart KKKK) and the Surface Coating of Metal
Coil NESHAP (subpart SSSS) being promulgated pursuant to CAA section
112(f). In this action, we are finalizing our proposed determinations
that risks from these two subparts are acceptable, and that the
standards provide an ample margin of safety to protect public health
and to prevent an adverse environmental effect. The EPA proposed no
changes to these two subparts based on the risk reviews conducted
pursuant to CAA section 112(f). The EPA received no new data or other
information during the public comment period that causes us to change
those proposed determinations. Therefore, we are not requiring
additional controls under CAA section 112(f)(2) for either of the two
subparts in this action.

B. What are the final rule amendments based on the technology reviews
for the Surface Coating of Metal Cans and the Surface Coating of Metal
Coil source categories?

    We determined that there are no developments in practices,
processes, and control technologies that warrant revisions to the MACT
standards for these source categories. Therefore, we are not finalizing
revisions to the MACT standards under CAA section 112(d)(6).

C. What are the final rule amendments addressing emissions during
periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction?

    We are finalizing the proposed amendments to the Surface Coating of
Metal Cans NESHAP and the Surface Coating of Metal Coil NESHAP to
eliminate the SSM exemption. Consistent with Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F.
3d 1019 (D.C. Cir. 2008), the EPA is establishing standards in these
rules that apply at all times. As detailed in section IV.C of the
proposal preamble (84 FR 25904, June 4, 2019), Table 5 to Subpart KKKK
of Part 63 and Table 2 to Subpart SSSS of Part 63 (General Provisions
applicability tables) are being revised to change several references
related to the provisions that apply during periods of SSM. We also
eliminated or revised certain recordkeeping and reporting requirements
related to the eliminated SSM exemption. The EPA also made other
harmonizing changes to remove or modify inappropriate, unnecessary, or
redundant language in the absence of the SSM exemption. We determined
that facilities in both of these source categories can meet the
applicable emission standards in the Surface Coating of Metal Cans
NESHAP and the Surface Coating of Metal Coil NESHAP at all times,
including periods of startup and shutdown. Therefore, the EPA
determined that no additional standards are needed to address emissions
during these periods. The legal rationale and explanation of the
changes for SSM periods are set forth in the proposed rule. See 84 FR
25925 through 25929 and 25936 through 25939.
    Further, the EPA is not finalizing standards for malfunctions. As
discussed in section IV.C of the June 4, 2019, proposal preamble, the
EPA interprets CAA section 112 as not requiring emissions that occur
during periods of malfunction to be factored into development of CAA
section 112 standards, although the EPA has the discretion to set
standards for malfunctions where feasible. For these

source categories, it is unlikely that a malfunction would result in a
violation of the standards, and no comments or information were
submitted that support a contrary conclusion. Refer to section IV.C of
the June 4, 2019 proposal preamble for further discussion of the EPA's
rationale for the decision not to set standards for malfunctions, as
well as a discussion of the actions a source could take in the unlikely
event that a source fails to comply with the applicable CAA section
112(d) standards as a result of a malfunction event, given that
administrative and judicial procedures for addressing exceedances of
the standards fully recognize that violations may occur despite good
faith efforts to comply and the EPA can consider all relevant
information when determining the appropriate response to those
situations.
    We are finalizing a revision to the performance testing
requirements at 40 CFR 63.4164 and 40 CFR 63.5160. The final
performance testing provisions prohibit performance testing during
startup, shutdown, or malfunction as these conditions are not
representative of steady state operating conditions. The final rules
also require that operators maintain records to document that operating
conditions during performance tests represent steady state conditions.

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

    For both the Surface Coating of Metal Cans NESHAP and the Surface
Coating of Metal Coil NESHAP, the EPA is finalizing, as proposed,
several other revisions that are described in the following paragraphs.
    To increase the ease and efficiency of data submittal and data
accessibility, we are finalizing a requirement that owners and
operators of facilities in the Surface Coating of Metal Cans and
Surface Coating of Metal Coil source categories submit electronic
copies of required performance test reports through the EPA's Central
Data Exchange (CDX) website using an electronic performance test report
tool called the Electronic Reporting Tool (ERT). We also are
finalizing, as proposed, provisions that allow facility operators the
ability to seek extensions for submitting electronic reports for
circumstances beyond the control of the facility, i.e., for a possible
outage in the CDX or Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface
(CEDRI) or for a force majeure event in the time just prior to a
report's due date, as well as the process to assert such a claim.
    For each subpart, we also are changing the format of references to
test methods in 40 CFR part 60, appendix A to indicate where, in the
eight sections of appendix A, each method is found.
    For each subpart, we are finalizing the proposal to re-designate
the list of applicable organic HAP that must be used when a facility
chooses to use the compliant material option (i.e., for calculating
total organic HAP content of a coating material present at 0.1 percent
or greater by mass). To specify the applicable HAP, we are changing the
rule to remove the reference to paragraph (d)(4) of OSHA's Hazard
Communication standard (29 CFR 1910.1200) and replace it with a new
table in each subpart (Table 8 in 40 CFR part 63, subpart KKKK and
Table 3 in 40 CFR part 63, subpart SSSS) that lists the applicable HAP.
The organic HAP in these new tables are those HAP that were categorized
in the EPA's ``Prioritized Chronic Dose-Response Values for Screening
Risk Assessments'' (dated May 9, 2014) as a ``human carcinogen,''
``probable human carcinogen,'' or ``possible human carcinogen''
according to The Risk Assessment Guidelines of 1986 (EPA/600/8-87/045,
August 1987) \2\ or as ``carcinogenic to humans,'' ``likely to be
carcinogenic to humans,'' or with ``suggestive evidence of carcinogenic
potential'' according to the Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment
(EPA/630/P-03/001F, March 2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    We are including in the final rule for each subpart a requirement
for facilities that use control devices to conduct control device
performance testing no less frequently than once every 5 years. For
facilities with title V permits that require comparable periodic
testing prior to permit renewal, no additional testing is required, and
we included provisions in the rule to allow sources to harmonize the
NESHAP testing schedule with a facility's current title V testing
schedule.
1. Technical Amendments to the Surface Coating of Metal Cans NESHAP
    In the final rule, we are amending 40 CFR 63.3481(c)(5), as
proposed, to revise the reference to ``future subpart MMMM'' of this
part by removing the word ``future'' because subpart MMMM was
promulgated in 2004.
    We are revising the monitoring provisions for thermal and catalytic
oxidizers, as proposed, to clarify that a thermocouple is part of the
temperature sensor referred to in 40 CFR 63.3547(c)(3) and 40 CFR
63.3557(c)(3) for purposes of performing periodic calibration and
verification checks.
    Currently, 40 CFR 63.3513(a) allows records, ``where appropriate,''
to be maintained as ``electronic spreadsheets'' or a ``database.'' As
proposed, we are adding a 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 are also
adding text to the same provision, as proposed, clarifying that this
ability to maintain electronic copies does not affect the requirement
for facilities to make records, data, and reports available upon
request to a delegated air agency or the EPA as part of an on-site
compliance evaluation.
    In the final rule, as proposed, we are adding and updating test
methods that are incorporated by reference. In accordance with
requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is incorporating by reference the
following voluntary consensus standards (VCS) described in the
amendments to 40 CFR 63.14:
     ASTM D1475-13, Standard Test Method for Density of Liquid
Coatings, Inks, and Related Products, proposed to be IBR approved for
40 CFR 63.3521(c) and 63.3531(c);
     ASTM D2111-10 (2015), Standard Test Methods for Specific
Gravity and Density of Halogenated Organic Solvents and Their
Admixtures, proposed to be IBR approved for 40 CFR 63.3521(c) and
63.3531(c);
     ASTM D2369-10 (2015), Test Method for Volatile Content of
Coatings, proposed to be IBR approved for 40 CFR 63.3521(a)(2) and
63.3541(i)(3);
     ASTM D2697-03 (2014), Standard Test Method for Volume
Nonvolatile Matter in Clear or Pigmented Coatings, proposed to be IBR
approved for 40 CFR 63.3521(b)(1); and
     ASTM D6093-97 (2016), Standard Test Method for Percent
Volume Nonvolatile Matter in Clear or Pigmented Coatings Using Helium
Gas Pycnometer, proposed to be IBR approved for 40 CFR 63.3521(b)(1).
2. Technical Amendments to the Surface Coating of Metal Coil NESHAP
    We are finalizing, as proposed, changes to 40 CFR 63.5090 to
clarify that 40 CFR part 63, subpart SSSS does not apply to the
application to bare metal coils of markings (including letters,
numbers, or symbols) that are used for product identification or for
product inventory control.
    We are finalizing amendments to 40 CFR 63.5160(d) in 40 CFR part
63, subpart SSSS, as proposed, 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, for those
facilities using the emission rate with add-on control compliance
option and EPA Method 25A to measure control device destruction
efficiency.
    Currently 40 CFR 63.5190 specifies records that must be maintained.
We are adding, as proposed, clarification to 40 CFR 63.5190(c) that
specifies the allowance to retain electronic records applies to all
records that were submitted as reports electronically via the EPA's
CEDRI. We are also adding text to the same provision clarifying that
this ability to maintain electronic copies does not affect the
requirement for facilities to make records, data, and reports available
upon request to a delegated air agency or the EPA as part of an on-site
compliance evaluation.
    We are clarifying and harmonizing, as proposed, the general duty
requirement in 40 CFR 63.5140(a) with the reporting requirements in 40
CFR 63.5180(g)(2)(v) and 40 CFR 63.5180(h)(4) and the recordkeeping
requirement in 40 CFR 63.5190(a)(5), by including new language in 40
CFR 63.5140(a) to read as, ``. . . you must be in compliance with the
applicable emission standards in Sec.  63.5120 and the operating limits
in Table 1 of this subpart at all times.''
    We are revising, as proposed, the text in the semi-annual reporting
provisions of 40 CFR 63.5180(g)(2)(v) to read, ``A statement that there
were no deviations from the applicable emission limit in Sec.  63.5120
or the applicable operating limit(s) established according to Sec.
63.5121 during the reporting period, and that no continuous emissions
monitoring systems (CEMS) were inoperative, inactive, malfunctioning,
out-of-control, repaired, or adjusted.'' Conforming changes are also
being made to the reporting requirement at 40 CFR 63.5180(h)(4) and the
recordkeeping requirement at 40 CFR 63.5190(a)(5).
    We are revising, as proposed, one instance in 40 CFR 63.5160(e) in
which an erroneous rule citation, ``Sec.  63.5170(h)(2) through (4),''
is made by correcting the citation to ``Sec.  63.5170(g)(2) through
(4).''
    We are amending, as proposed, 40 CFR 63.5130(a) to clarify that the
compliance date for existing affected sources is June 10, 2005.
    We are amending, as proposed, 40 CFR 63.5160(d)(3)(ii)(D) to
correct a typographical error in a reference to paragraphs
``(d)(3)(ii)(D)(1 (3).'' The correct reference is to paragraphs
(d)(3)(ii)(D)(1)-(3).
    We are amending, as proposed, 40 CFR 63.5170(c)(1) and (2) to
correct the cross references to 40 CFR 63.5120(a)(1) or (2). The
correct cross references are to 40 CFR 63.5120(a)(1) or (3).
    We are amending, as proposed, Equation 11 in 40 CFR 63.5170 so that
the value calculated by the equation is correctly identified as
``He'' instead of just ``e.''
    In the final rule, as proposed, we are adding and updating test
methods that are incorporated by reference. In accordance with
requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is incorporating by reference the
following methods and VCS described in the amendments to 40 CFR 63.14:
     ASTM D1475-13, Standard Test Method for Density of Liquid
Coatings, Inks, and Related Products, proposed to be IBR approved for
40 CFR 63.5160(c);
     ASTM D2111-10 (2015), Standard Test Methods for Specific
Gravity and Density of Halogenated Organic Solvents and Their
Admixtures, proposed to be IBR approved for 40 CFR 63.5160(c);
     ASTM D2369-10 (2015), Test Method for Volatile Content of
Coatings, proposed to be IBR approved for 40 CFR 63.5160(b)(2);
     ASTM D2697-03 (2014), Standard Test Method for Volume
Nonvolatile Matter in Clear or Pigmented Coatings, proposed to be IBR
approved for 40 CFR 63.5160(c); and
     ASTM D6093-97 (2016), Standard Test Method for Percent
Volume Nonvolatile Matter in Clear or Pigmented Coatings Using Helium
Gas Pycnometer, proposed to be IBR approved for 40 CFR 63.5160(c).

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

    The revisions to the MACT standards being promulgated in this
action are effective on February 25, 2020.
    The compliance date for existing affected sources in both the
Surface Coating of Metal Cans and Surface Coating of Metal Coil source
categories is August 24, 2020, with the exception of the electronic
format for submitting semiannual compliance reports. New sources must
comply with all of the standards immediately upon the effective date of
the standard, February 25, 2020, or upon startup, whichever is later,
with the exception of the electronic format for submitting semiannual
compliance reports. For the electronic format for submitting semiannual
compliance reports, both existing and new affected sources will have 1
year after the electronic reporting templates are available on CEDRI,
or 1 year after February 25, 2020, whichever is later. The EPA selected
these compliance dates based on experience with similar industries and
the EPA's detailed justification for the selected compliance dates is
included in the preamble to the proposed rule (84 FR 25931 and 25942).

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

    As proposed, the EPA is taking a step to increase the ease and
efficiency of data submittal and data accessibility. Specifically, the
EPA is finalizing the requirement for owners and operators of
facilities in the Surface Coating of Metal Cans and Surface Coating of
Metal Coil source categories to submit electronic copies of certain
required performance test reports.
    Data will be collected by direct computer-to-computer electronic
transfer using EPA-provided software. This EPA-provided software is an
electronic performance test report tool called the ERT. The ERT will
generate an electronic report package which will be submitted to CEDRI
and then archived to the EPA's CDX. A description of the ERT and
instructions for using ERT can be found at https://www3.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ert/index.html. The CEDRI interface can be accessed through the
CDX website (https://cdx.epa.gov/).
    The requirement to submit performance test data electronically to
the EPA does not create any additional performance testing requirements
and will apply only to those performance tests conducted using test
methods that are supported by the ERT. A listing of the pollutants and
test methods supported by the ERT is available at the ERT website.
Through this approach, industry will save time in the performance test
submittal process. Additionally, this rulemaking will benefit industry
by reducing recordkeeping costs, as the performance test reports that
are submitted to the EPA using CEDRI are no longer required to be kept
in hard copy.
    State, local, and tribal agencies may benefit from a more
streamlined and accurate review of performance test data that will
become available to the public through WebFIRE. Having such data
publicly available enhances transparency and accountability. For a more
thorough discussion of electronic reporting of performance tests using
direct computer-to-computer electronic transfer and using EPA-provided
software, see the discussion in the

preamble of the proposed rules (84 FR 25904, June 24, 2019) and the
memorandum, Electronic Reporting Requirements for New Source
Performance Standards (NSPS) and National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) Rules, August 8, 2018, in the Surface
Coating of Metal Cans and Surface Coating of Metal Coil Dockets.
    In summary, in addition to supporting regulation development,
control strategy development, and other air pollution control
activities, having an electronic database populated with performance
test data will save industry, state/local/tribal agencies, and the EPA
significant time, money, and effort while improving the quality of
emission inventories and air quality regulations.

IV. What is the rationale for our final decisions and amendments for
the Surface Coating of Metal Cans and Surface Coating of Metal Coil
source categories?

    For each issue, this section provides a description of what we
proposed and what we are finalizing for the issue, the EPA's rationale
for the final decisions and amendments, and a summary of key comments
and responses. For all comments not discussed in this preamble, comment
summaries and the EPA's responses can be found in the comment summary
and response document available in the Surface Coating of Metal Cans
and Surface Coating of Metal Coil Dockets.

A. Residual Risk Reviews

    1. What did we propose pursuant to CAA section 112(f)?
a. Surface Coating of Metal Cans (40 CFR Part 63, subpart KKKK) Source
Category
    Pursuant to CAA section 112(f), the EPA conducted a residual risk
review and presented the results of this review, along with our
proposed decisions regarding risk acceptability and ample margin of
safety, in sections IV.A.2.a and b of the proposed rule preamble (84 FR
25904, June 24, 2019). The results of this review are presented briefly
below in Table 2 of this preamble. Additional detail is provided in the
residual risk technical support document titled, Residual Risk
Assessment for the Surface Coating of Metal Cans Source Category in
Support of the 2019 Risk and Technology Review Proposed Rule, which is
available in the Surface Coating of Metal Cans Docket.

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

    The results of the proposal inhalation risk modeling using actual
emissions data, as shown in Table 2 of this preamble, indicate that the
maximum individual cancer risk based on actual emissions (lifetime) is
3-in-1 million (driven by formaldehyde), the maximum chronic noncancer
TOSHI value based on actual emissions is 0.02 (driven by formaldehyde),
and the maximum screening acute noncancer HQ value (off-facility site)
could be up to 0.4 (driven by formaldehyde). At proposal, the total
annual cancer incidence (national) from these facilities based on
actual emission levels was estimated to be 0.0009 excess cancer cases
per year, or one case in every 1,100 years.
    The results of the proposal inhalation risk modeling using
allowable emissions data, as shown in Table 2 of this preamble,
indicate that the maximum individual cancer risk based on allowable
emissions (lifetime) is 3-in-1 million (driven by formaldehyde), and
the maximum chronic noncancer TOSHI value based on allowable emissions
is 0.02 (driven by formaldehyde). At proposal, the total annual cancer
incidence (national) from these facilities based on allowable emissions
was estimated to be 0.001 excess cancer cases per year, or one case in
every 1,000 years.
    The maximum individual cancer risk (lifetime) for the whole
facility was determined to be 8-in-1 million at proposal, driven by
formaldehyde from miscellaneous industrial processes (other/not
classified) and acetaldehyde from beer production (brew kettle). At
proposal, the total estimated cancer incidence from the whole facility
was determined to be 0.002 excess cancer cases per year, or one excess
case in every 500 years. Approximately 1,500 people were estimated to
have cancer risks above 1-in-1 million from exposure to HAP emitted
from both MACT and non-MACT sources at three of the five facilities in
this source category. The maximum facility-wide TOSHI for the source
category was estimated to be 0.2, mainly driven by emissions of
acetaldehyde from beer production (brew kettle) and formaldehyde from
miscellaneous industrial processes (other/not classified).
    There are no persistent and bioaccumulative HAP (PB HAP) emitted by
facilities in this source category; therefore, we did not estimate any
human health multi-pathway risks from this source category. Two
environmental HAP are emitted by sources within this source category:
Hydrochloric acid (HCl) and hydrogen fluoride (HF). Therefore, at
proposal, we conducted a screening-level evaluation of the potential
adverse environmental risks associated with emissions of HCl and HF.
Based on this evaluation, we proposed that we do not expect an adverse
environmental effect as a result of HAP emissions from this source
category.
    We weighed all health risk factors, including those shown in Table
2 of this preamble, in our risk acceptability determination and
proposed that the residual risks from the Surface Coating of Metal Cans
source category are acceptable (section IV.A.2.a of proposal preamble,
84 FR 25922, June 4, 2019).
    We then considered whether 40 CFR part 63, subpart KKKK provides an
ample margin of safety to protect public health and prevents, taking
into consideration costs, energy, safety, and other relevant factors,
an adverse

environmental effect. In considering whether the standards should be
tightened to provide an ample margin of safety to protect public
health, we considered the same risk factors that we considered for our
acceptability determination and also considered the costs,
technological feasibility, and other relevant factors related to
emissions control options that might further reduce risk associated
with emissions from the source category. Related to risk, the baseline
risks were low, and regardless of the availability of further control
options, little risk reduction could be realized. As discussed further
in section IV.B of this preamble, the only development identified in
the technology review was the ongoing development and the potential
future conversion from conventional interior can coatings that contain
bisphenol A (BPA) to interior coatings that do not intentionally
contain BPA (BPA-NI). Since BPA and BPA-NI are not HAP, this change
would have no effect on the HAP emissions. There were no other
technological developments identified that affect HAP emissions for the
Surface Coating of Metal Cans source category. Therefore, given the low
baseline risks and lack of options for further risk reductions, we
proposed that additional emission controls for this source category are
not necessary to provide an ample margin of safety (section IV.A.2.b of
proposal preamble, 84 FR 25922, June 4, 2019).
b. Surface Coating of Metal Coil (40 CFR Part 63, Subpart KKKK) Source
Category
    Pursuant to CAA section 112(f), the EPA conducted a residual risk
review and presented the results of this review, along with our
proposed decisions regarding risk acceptability and ample margin of
safety, in sections IV.B.2.a and b of the proposed rule preamble (84 FR
25904, June 24, 2019). The results of this review are presented briefly
below in Table 3 of this preamble. Additional detail is provided in the
residual risk technical support document titled, Residual Risk
Assessment for the Surface Coating of Metal Coil Source Category in
Support of the 2019 Risk and Technology Review Proposed Rule, which is
available in the Surface Coating of Metal Coil Docket.

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

    The results of the proposal inhalation risk modeling using actual
emissions data, as shown in Table 3 of this preamble, indicate that the
maximum individual cancer risk based on actual emissions (lifetime) is
10-in-1 million (driven by naphthalene from solvent storage), the
maximum chronic noncancer TOSHI value based on actual emissions is 0.1
(driven by glycol ethers from prime and finish coating application),
and the maximum screening acute noncancer HQ value (off-facility site)
could be up to 3 (driven by DGME). At proposal, the total annual cancer
incidence (national) from these facilities based on actual emission
levels was estimated to be 0.005 excess cancer cases per year, or one
case in every 200 years.
    The results of the proposal inhalation risk modeling using
allowable emissions data, as shown in Table 3 of this preamble,
indicate that the maximum individual cancer risk based on allowable
emissions (lifetime) is 10-in-1 million (driven by naphthalene from
solvent storage), and the maximum chronic noncancer TOSHI value based
on allowable emissions is 0.1 (driven by glycol ethers from prime and
finish coating application). At proposal, the total annual cancer
incidence (national) from these facilities based on allowable emissions
was estimated to be 0.006 excess cancer cases per year, or one case in
every 167 years.
    The maximum individual cancer risk (lifetime) for the whole
facility was determined to be 40-in-1 million at proposal, driven by
naphthalene from equipment cleanup of metal coil coating processes. At
proposal, the total estimated cancer incidence from the whole facility
was determined to be 0.03 excess cancer cases per year, or one excess
case in every 30 years. Approximately 270,000 people were estimated to
have cancer risks above 1-in-1 million from exposure to HAP emitted
from both MACT and non-MACT sources of the 48 facilities in this source
category. The maximum facility-wide TOSHI for the source category was
estimated to be 5, driven by emissions of chlorine from a secondary
aluminum fluxing process.
    One PB HAP is emitted by facilities in the source category: lead.
In evaluating the potential for multipathway effects from emissions of
lead, the modeled maximum annual lead concentration of 0.0004
micrograms per cubic meter ([micro]g/m\3\) was compared to the National
Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for lead of 0.15 microgram per
cubic meter ([micro]g/m\3\). Results of this analysis confirmed that
the NAAQS for lead would not be exceeded by any facility. Based on this
evaluation, we proposed that there is no significant potential for
human health multi-pathway risks as a result of HAP emissions from this
source category. Two environmental HAP are emitted by sources within
this source category: HF and lead. Therefore, at proposal we conducted
a screening-level evaluation of the potential adverse environmental
risks associated with emissions of HF and lead. Based on this
evaluation, we proposed that we do not expect an adverse environmental
effect as a result of HAP emissions from this source category.
    We weighed all health risk factors, including those shown in Table
3 of this preamble, in our risk acceptability determination and
proposed that the residual risks from the Surface Coating of Metal Coil
source category are acceptable (section IV.B.2.a of proposal preamble,
84 FR 25933 June 4, 2019).
    We then considered whether 40 CFR part 63, subpart SSSS provides an
ample margin of safety to protect public

health and prevents, taking into consideration costs, energy, safety,
and other relevant factors, an adverse environmental effect. In
considering whether the standards should be tightened to provide an
ample margin of safety to protect public health, we considered the same
risk factors that we considered for our acceptability determination and
also considered the costs, technological feasibility, and other
relevant factors related to emissions control options that might
further reduce risk associated with emissions from the source category.
As discussed further in section IV.B of this preamble, based on our
technology review, we did not identify any developments in practices,
processes, or control technologies, and, therefore, we did not propose
any changes to the standards under CAA section 112(d)(6).
    Due to the low baseline risks for the Surface Coating of Metal Coil
source category and lack of options for further risk reductions, we
proposed that additional emission controls for this source category are
not necessary to provide an ample margin of safety (section IV.B.2.b of
proposal preamble, 84 FR 25934, June 4, 2019).
2. How did the risk reviews change?
    We have not changed any aspect of the risk assessment for either of
these two source categories as a result of public comments received on
the June 2019 proposal.
3. What key comments did we receive on the risk reviews, and what are
our responses?
    We received comments in support of and against the proposed
residual risk reviews and our determinations that no revisions were
warranted under CAA section 112(f)(2) for either source category.
Generally, the comments that were not supportive of our determinations
based on the risk reviews suggested changes to the underlying risk
assessment methodology. For example, one commenter stated that the EPA
should lower the acceptability benchmark so that risks below 100-in-1
million are deemed unacceptable, include emissions outside of the
source categories in question in the risk assessment, and assume that
pollutants with noncancer health risks have no safe level of exposure.
After review of all the comments received, we determined that no
changes to our Science Advisory Board-approved residual risk review
process were necessary. The comments and our specific responses can be
found in the document, Summary of Public Comments and Responses for the
Risk and Technology Reviews for Surface Coating of Metal Cans and
Surface Coating of Metal Coil, available in the dockets for these
actions (Docket ID Nos. EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0684 and EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0685).
4. What is the rationale for our final approach and final decisions for
the risk reviews?
    As noted in our proposal, the EPA sets standards under CAA section
112(f)(2) using ``a two-step standard-setting approach, with an
analytical first step to determine an `acceptable risk' that considers
all health information, including risk estimation uncertainty, and
includes a presumptive limit on the maximum individual risk (MIR) of
``approximately 1-in-10 thousand'' (see 54 FR 38045, September 14,
1989). We weigh all health risk factors in our risk acceptability
determination, including the cancer MIR, cancer incidence, the maximum
chronic noncancer TOSHI, the maximum acute noncancer HQ, the extent of
noncancer risks, the distribution of cancer and noncancer risks in the
exposed population, and the risk estimation uncertainties.
    Since proposal, neither the risk assessment nor our determinations
regarding risk acceptability, ample margin of safety, or adverse
environmental effects have changed. For the reasons explained in the
proposed rule, we determined that the risks from the Surface Coating of
Metal Cans and the Surface Coating of Metal Coil source categories are
acceptable, and that the current standards provide an ample margin of
safety to protect public health and prevent an adverse environmental
effect. Therefore, we are not revising either subpart to require
additional controls pursuant to CAA section 112(f)(2) based on the
residual risk review, and we are readopting the existing standards
under CAA section 112(f)(2).

B. Technology Reviews

1. What did we propose pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6)?
    Based on our review, we did not identify any developments in
practices, processes, or control technologies for the Surface Coating
of Metal Cans source category, and, therefore, we did not propose any
changes to the standards under CAA section 112(d)(6). A brief summary
of the EPA's findings in conducting the technology review of metal can
coating operations was included in the preamble to the proposed rule
(84 FR 25922, June 4, 2019), and a detailed discussion of the EPA's
technology review and findings was included in the memorandum,
Technology Review for Surface Coating Operations in the Metal Can
Category, April 24, 2019, in the Surface Coating of Metal Cans Docket.
    Based on our review, we did not identify any developments in
practices, processes, or control technologies for the Surface Coating
of Metal Coil source category, and, therefore, we did not propose any
changes to the standards under CAA section 112(d)(6). A brief summary
of the EPA's findings in conducting the technology review of coil
coating operations was included in the preamble to the proposed rule
(84 FR 25934, June 4, 2019), and a detailed discussion of the EPA's
technology review and findings was included in the memorandum,
Technology Review for Surface Coating Operations in the Metal Coil
Category, September 2017, in the Surface Coating of Metal Coil Docket.
2. How did the technology reviews change?
    We are making no changes to the conclusions of the technology
reviews and are finalizing the results of the technology reviews for
the Surface Coating of Metal Cans and Surface Coating of Metal Coil
source categories as proposed.
3. What key comments did we receive on the technology reviews, and what
are our responses?
    We received two general comments supporting the results of our
technology reviews for metal cans and metal coil surface coating and
one comment objecting to our conclusions that there have been no
technology developments in these two source categories.
    Comment: One commenter alleged that the EPA has not met the legal
obligation under CAA section 112(d)(6) to review and revise emission
standards ``as necessary'' to account for ``developments in practices,
processes, and control technologies.'' The commenter objected that the
EPA proposed no revisions to the emission limits and claimed the EPA
provided no legally valid or rational explanation for its determination
of a lack of ``developments'' for these two source categories. The
commenter pointed out that the EPA identified several HAP control
advancements, including alternative coatings, developments for similar
source categories, and work practices and housekeeping measures for
metal coil facilities, which would reduce emissions and are in use at a
number of facilities, yet failed to determine that it was ``necessary''
to revise the standard. In addition, the

commenter alleged that the EPA technology review analysis did not
consider some relevant sources to determine ``developments.'' As
examples, the commenter stated that the EPA did not analyze any control
methods or requirements from other national or state or local
jurisdictions that might have proven more effective; did not appear to
analyze the different methods or brands of emission controls
implemented to see which was most effective, efficient, or reliable;
and did not examine facility procedures or best practices, including
records of malfunctions, to identify best practices to mitigate
malfunctions.
    Response: We disagree with the commenter that the EPA has failed to
meet the CAA's legal obligation to complete the technology reviews for
the Surface Coating of Metal Cans and Surface Coating of Metal Coil
source categories. The EPA concluded there were no HAP control
advancements for these source categories as a result of the technology
reviews. The technology reviews included review of coatings currently
used by these source categories and any advancements in the coatings;
review of HAP control requirements in NESHAP for similar coating source
categories and application of those HAP controls to the Surface Coating
of Metal Cans and Surface Coating of Metal Coil source categories;
state and local HAP control requirements in facility title V operating
permits and application of those HAP controls to the Surface Coating of
Metal Cans and Surface Coating of Metal Coil source categories; and
work practices and housekeeping measures currently used by these source
categories and any advances that were applicable to these source
categories.
    As stated in the proposal preamble (84 FR 25935) for the Surface
Coating of Metal Coil source category, alternatives to solvent borne
coatings have been in use by the coil coating industry since
development of the 2002 Surface Coating of Metal Coil NESHAP but are
not considered to be suitable for all end-product applications. The
2002 proposed NESHAP provided an alternative facility HAP emission
limit of 0.24 pounds of HAP per gallon of solids applied which was
established to provide a compliance option for facilities that chose to
limit their coating line HAP emissions either through a combination of
low-HAP coatings and add-on controls or through the use of waterborne,
high solids, or other pollution prevention coatings. The EPA found no
developments in alternative coating technologies during the technology
review that would result in achievable emission rates that are
substantially lower than those reflected in the current emission
limits.
    The commenter also asserted that the EPA did not consider
developments in control methods for similar source categories and did
not analyze the regulations set by state or local jurisdictions that
might have proven more effective than the NESHAP requirements. We
disagree with the commenter and refer the commenter to the technology
review memorandums titled Technology Review for Surface Coating
Operations in the Metal Can Category and Technology Review for Surface
Coating Operations in the Metal Coil Category which summarizes the
EPA's review of the title V operating permits for the five metal can
facilities and for 39 metal coil facilities that are major sources and
subject to these NESHAP. The title V operating permits incorporate all
relevant local, state, or Regional emission limitations, as well as
federal limitations. In no case did the EPA find a facility subject to
a HAP limit more stringent than the limits in the current NESHAP or a
facility using a control technology that was not considered during
development of the NESHAP and reflected in the current standards. The
results of the technology reviews were documented in these memorandums
in the respective docket for each proposed rule.
    The technology basis for MACT for metal coil coating operations in
the 2002 Surface Coating of Metal Coil NESHAP was emission capture and
add on control with an overall control efficiency of 98 percent for new
or reconstructed sources and existing sources. This overall control
efficiency represents the use of PTE to achieve 100-percent capture of
application station HAP emissions and a thermal oxidizer to achieve a
destruction efficiency of 98 percent. No technology was identified
during the technology review that could achieve a better overall
control efficiency than the use of a PTE to capture HAP emissions from
the coating application station and a thermal oxidizer to destroy HAP
emissions from the coating application and the curing oven.
    It would not be feasible, nor is it required under CAA section
112(d)(6), for the EPA to evaluate HAP control advancement by examining
different brands of emission controls to see which was most effective,
efficient, or reliable, as suggested by the commenter. Similarly, it
would not be feasible to examine facility procedures or best practices,
nor review records of malfunctions to identify best practices to
mitigate malfunctions. That information is not currently available to
the EPA. If the information was available, it would be difficult, if
not impossible, to correlate that information with emissions
performance and develop practical regulatory requirements. Instead, the
current emission limits are based on actual performance of existing
sources in the two categories determined to represent the MACT level of
control for new and existing sources. The performance data used to
develop the emission limits were collected during emission tests when
the control devices were performing properly and the emission sources
were at steady-state operating conditions. Data collected during
periods of startup, shutdown, or malfunction were not used to establish
the emission limits. After the initial compliance demonstration,
facilities using add-on controls must comply with operating limits to
ensure the add-on controls continue to be properly operated and
maintained to achieve the same level of performance as during the
performance test. Facilities experiencing deviations from the emission
limits or the operating limits must report these deviations to the EPA,
and the EPA will then determine on a case-by-case basis whether the
deviation constitutes a violation. Because of the diversity of factors
that could lead to a malfunction in these source categories, it would
not be practical for the EPA to prescribe specific actions that must be
taken to reduce the frequency of malfunctions or to minimize emissions
in the event of a malfunction.
    The commenter also asserted that the EPA identified work practices
and housekeeping measures for metal coil facilities, which would reduce
emissions and are in use at a number of facilities yet failed to
determine that it was ``necessary'' to revise the standard. The
commenter's assertion appears to be based on a statement in the
preamble to the proposal where we note that the facility survey
conducted as part of the development of the 2002 MACT standard for
Surface Coating of Metal Coil had revealed several types of work
practices and housekeeping measures in use at that time. (84 FR at
25935). We also noted in the preamble, however, that we had identified
no developments in work practices or procedures for the Surface Coating
of Metal Coil source category. As the commenter has provided no
additional information regarding possible developments and as the EPA
has no information about developments in such work practices and
housekeeping measures, we do not agree that it is necessary to revise
the

standard for this source category as a result of the technology review.
4. What is the rationale for our final approach for the technology
reviews?
    For the reasons explained in the preamble to the proposed rules (84
FR 25922 and 25934, June 4, 2019), and in the comment responses above
in section IV.B.3 of this preamble, we are making no changes and are
finalizing the results of the technology reviews as proposed.

C. Electronic Reporting Provisions

1. What did we propose?
    In the June 4, 2019, notice we proposed to require owners and
operators of surface coating of metal can and metal coil facilities to
submit electronic copies of notifications, reports, and performance
tests through the EPA's CDX, using the CEDRI. These include the initial
notifications required in 40 CFR 63.9(b) and 63.3510(b) for metal can
coating and 63.5180(b) for metal coil coating; notifications of
compliance status required in 40 CFR 63.9(h) and 63.3510(c) for metal
can coating and 63.5180(d) for metal coil coating; the performance test
reports required in 40 CFR 63.3511(b) for metal can coating and
63.5160(d) for metal coil coating; and the semiannual reports required
in 40 CFR 63.3511(a) for metal can coating and 63.5180(g) for metal
coil coating. A description of the electronic submission process is
provided in the memorandum, Electronic Reporting Requirements for New
Source Performance Standards (NSPS) and National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP), August 8, 2018, in the Surface
Coating of Metal Cans and Surface Coating of Metal Coil Dockets. The
proposed rule requirements would replace the current rule requirements
to submit the notifications and reports to the Administrator at the
appropriate address listed in 40 CFR 63.13. The proposed rule
requirement would not affect submittals required by state air agencies.
For metal can facilities, the proposed compliance schedule language in
40 CFR 63.3511(f) for submission of semiannual compliance reports would
have provided 181 days after the final rule is published to begin
electronic reporting or 1 year after the 40 CFR part 63, subpart KKKK
semiannual compliance report template is available in CEDRI, whichever
is later. For metal coil facilities, the proposed compliance schedule
language in 40 CFR 63.5181(c) for submission of semiannual compliance
reports would have provided 1 year after the final rule is published to
begin electronic reporting or 1 year after the 40 CFR part 63, subpart
SSSS semiannual compliance report template is available in CEDRI,
whichever is later.
2. What changed since proposal?
    For metal can facilities, the compliance schedule language in
proposed 40 CFR 63.3511(f) for submission of semiannual compliance
reports has been revised from the proposed 181 days, to either 1 year
after the final rule is published or 1 year after the 40 CFR part 63,
subpart KKKK, semiannual compliance report template is available in
CEDRI, whichever is later. No changes were made to the metal coil
compliance schedule.
3. What key comments did we receive and what are our responses?
    Comment: One commenter suggested that the EPA change the metal can
compliance schedule language in proposed 40 CFR 63.3511(f) for
submission of semiannual compliance reports to give facilities either
1year (instead of 181 days) after the final rule is published to begin
electronic reporting or 1 year after the 40 CFR part 63, subpart KKKK,
semiannual compliance report template is available in CEDRI, whichever
is later. The commenter recommended revising 40 CFR 63.3511(f) to say
that on and after the date 1 year (instead of 181 days) after the date
of publication of the final rule in the Federal Register, or once the
reporting template has been available on the CEDRI website for 1 year,
whichever date is later, the owner or operator is required to submit
the semiannual compliance report via the CEDRI. The commenter noted
that the proposed 181-day requirement for 40 CFR part 63, subpart KKKK,
is not consistent with the 1-year requirement the EPA is proposing for
40 CFR 63.5181(c) in 40 CFR part 63, subpart SSSS for the Surface
Coating of Metal Coil source category. The commenter also argued that 1
year would be justified because metal can coating facilities are not
currently using CEDRI and would need to learn how to access and use
CEDRI.
    Response: The EPA agrees that both rules should be consistent and
that the owners and operators should have 1 year after the date of
publication of the final rule or 1 year after the reporting template
has been on CEDRI, whichever is later, before they are required to
submit semiannual compliance reports via CEDRI. This will provide users
1 year to become familiar with the template and electronic reporting
system prior to being required to submit reports electronically. This
will provide adequate time for facilities to adjust to electronic
reporting, as well as assure that the forms will work properly, prior
to the date that owners and operators must start submitting these
reports electronically. The EPA encourages users to become familiar
with the system well in advance of being required to use it. For
previous rulemakings with reports required to be submitted
electronically via CEDRI, prior to a compliance reporting deadline, the
EPA has provided webinars to our various stakeholders on the access and
reporting of the given report in CEDRI. The EPA is planning to provide
this same service to the industry trade association and facilities
subject to the 40 CFR part 63, subparts KKKK and SSSS electronic
reporting requirements, if requested to do so. The EPA plans to publish
the final template on CEDRI about the same time the final rule is
signed and published. Although facilities will have up to 1 year after
the final template is on CEDRI to begin using the template and
submitting reports via CEDRI, facilities may begin submitting reports
via CEDRI as soon as the final template is available.
    Comment: One commenter stated they will need an interactive
discussion with the EPA (e.g., by conference call or webinar) to answer
questions about how to use CEDRI and about the draft electronic
reporting template before they can effectively comment on whether the
template is appropriate and workable for metal can surface coating
facilities subject to subpart 40 CFR part 63, KKKK. The commenter
further asked that the EPA not finalize the reporting template until
after the proposed rule is finalized.
    Response: The EPA agrees that interactive discussions via
conference calls or a webinar with the industry trade organization and
members would be appropriate to review the electronic reporting process
using CEDRI and to collaborate on improvements to the draft electronic
reporting template. The EPA has arranged interactive discussions with
both the metal can and metal coil industry trade organizations and
members in an attempt to finalize the electronic reporting templates
concurrent with the final rule promulgation. If that is the case
facilities will have 1 year after the final rule is published to submit
notifications and semiannual compliance reports using the electronic
reporting template in CEDRI. If the reporting templates are not
finalized concurrent with the final rule promulgation, the EPA will
continue to work with the industry trade organizations and members to
finalize the templates and will make the final templates available on
the CEDRI

website. Facilities would then be required to submit notifications and
semiannual compliance reports using the electronic reporting template
in CEDRI one year after the reporting template has been available on
the CEDRI website.
    4. What is the rationale for our final approach for the electronic
reporting provisions?
    For the reasons explained in the preamble to the proposed rules (84
FR 25922 and 25934, June 4, 2019), and in the comment responses above
in section IV.C.3 of this preamble, we are finalizing the electronic
reporting provisions for both 40 CFR parts 63, subparts KKKK and SSSS,
as proposed with the exception of the change in date by which
electronic reporting must commence for the Surface Coating of Metal
Cans source category (described in section IV.C.2 of this preamble).

D. SSM Provisions

1. What did we propose?
    In the June 4, 2019, action, we proposed amendments to the Surface
Coating of Metal Cans NESHAP and the Surface Coating of Metal Coil
NESHAP to remove and revise provisions related to SSM that are not
consistent with the requirement that the standards apply at all times.
More information concerning the elimination of SSM provisions is in the
preamble to the proposed rule (84 FR 25909, June 4, 2019).
2. What changed since proposal?
    We are finalizing the SSM provisions as proposed with no changes
(84 FR 25909, June 4, 2019).
3. What key comments did we receive and what are our responses?
    Comment: One commenter noted that new language has been proposed
for 40 CFR 63.5150(a) which states that on and after the compliance
date sources must also maintain the monitoring equipment at all times
in accordance with 40 CFR 63.5140(b) and keep the necessary parts
readily available for routine repairs of the monitoring equipment. The
commenter expressed concern that different inspectors could have
different interpretations of what parts would be ``necessary'' to be
kept readily available and what repairs would be ``routine.'' The
commenter recommended revising the proposed language for 40 CFR
63.5150(a) to omit ``and keep the necessary parts readily available for
routine repairs of the monitoring equipment.''
    The commenter argued that the compliance requirement language will
always be open to some degree of interpretation, but the suggested
change would minimize differences in how this new language is
interpreted and allow the individual facilities to manage and defend
their compliance practices required in this section as they see best.
    Response: The EPA disagrees with the commenter and is not accepting
this recommended change. The requirement is not new, it was simply
moved from the 40 CFR part 63 General Provisions to subparts KKKK and
SSSS. The language proposed for 40 CFR 63.5150(a) replaces language in
40 CFR 63.8(c)(1)(i) and (ii) that no longer applies. The EPA is
amending Table 5 to Subpart KKKK of Part 63 so that 40 CFR 63.8(c)(1)
no longer applies because 40 CFR 63.8(c)(1)(iii) requires, ``The owner
or operator of an affected source must develop a written startup,
shutdown, and malfunction plan for CMS as specified in Sec.
63.6(e)(3).'' Because 40 CFR 63.8(c)(1) no longer applies as part of
the amendments to remove the SSM exemptions, the provisions of 40 CFR
63.8(c)(1)(i) and (ii) are being added to each subpart. The EPA
disagrees that the proposed language would lead to differences in
interpretation and the commenter provided no evidence that the same
language led to compliance issues when it was located only in 40 CFR
63.8(c)(1)(ii).
4. What is the rationale for our final approach for the SSM provisions?
    For the reasons explained in the proposed rule and after evaluation
of the comments on the proposed amendments to the SSM provisions for
the Surface Coating of Metal Cans NESHAP and the Surface Coating of
Metal Coil NESHAP, we are finalizing the proposed revisions related to
SSM that are not consistent with the requirement that the standards
apply at all times. More information concerning the proposed amendments
to the SSM provisions is in the preamble to the proposed rule (84 FR
25909, June 4, 2019).

E. Ongoing Compliance Demonstrations

1. What did we propose?
    In the June 4, 2019, action we proposed to require owners and
operators of surface coating of metal can facilities and surface
coating of metal coil facilities to conduct periodic performance
testing of add-on control devices on a regular frequency of every 5
years to ensure the equipment continues to operate properly for
facilities using the emission rate with add-on controls compliance
option. This proposed periodic testing requirement included an
exception to the general requirement for periodic testing for
facilities using the catalytic oxidizer control options and following
catalyst maintenance procedures that are found in both 40 CFR part 63,
subparts KKKK and SSSS. These catalyst maintenance procedures include
annual testing of the catalyst and other maintenance procedures that
provide ongoing demonstrations that the control system is operating
properly and may, thus, be considered comparable to conducting a
performance test. The proposed periodic performance testing requirement
also allows an exception from periodic testing for facilities using
CEMS to show actual emissions. The use of CEMS to demonstrate
compliance would obviate the need for periodic testing.
    This proposed requirement did not require periodic testing or CEMS
monitoring of facilities using the compliant materials option or the
emission-rate without add-on controls compliance option because these
two compliance options do not use any add-on controls or control
efficiency measurements in the compliance calculations.
    The proposed periodic performance testing requirement requires
facilities complying with the standards using emission capture systems
and add-on controls and which are not already on a 5-year testing
schedule to conduct the first of the periodic performance tests within
3 years of the effective date of the revised standards. Afterward, they
would generally conduct periodic testing before they renew their title
V operating permits, but in no case more than 5 years following the
previous performance test. Additionally, facilities that have already
tested as a condition of their permit within the last 2 years before
the effective date would be permitted to maintain their current 5-year
schedule.
2. What changed since proposal?
    We have revised the proposed periodic testing language in 40 CFR
part 63, subparts KKKK and SSSS, since proposal to clarify that
facilities already conducting comparable periodic testing as a
requirement of renewing their title V operating permit under 40 CFR
part 70 or part 71 may continue with their current testing schedule. We
also reformatted the electronic reporting language in 40 CFR part 63,
subparts KKKK and SSSS, to provide clarification on the requirements
for asserting a claim of EPA system outage or force majeure for failure
to timely comply with the reporting requirements.

3. What key comments did we receive and what are our responses?
    Comment: One commenter recommended that language in the proposed
rule for 40 CFR part 63, subpart KKKK should be revised to more clearly
state that facilities are permitted to use the performance tests
conducted under their title V permits, as required by state and local
permitting authorities, to meet the proposed requirement for periodic
performance testing under 40 CFR part 63, subpart KKKK. The commenter
suggested that the EPA modify the proposed language for 40 CFR
63.3540(a)(1)(ii), 63.3540(b)(1)(ii), 63.3550(a)(1)(ii), and
63.3550(b)(1)(ii) and offered clarifying language to say that if a
source is not required to complete periodic performance tests as a
requirement of renewing its title V operating permit under 40 CFR part
70 or 40 CFR part 71, it must conduct the first periodic performance
test before the date 3 years after date of publication of the final
rule in the Federal Register, unless the source has already conducted a
performance test on or after the date 2 years before the date of
publication of the final rule in the Federal Register. The commenter
then suggested adding language to say that if a source is already
required to complete periodic performance tests as a requirement of
renewing its title V operating permit under 40 CFR part 70 or 40 CFR
part 71, it must conduct the periodic testing in accordance with the
terms and schedule required by its permit conditions.
    Response: The EPA agrees that the recommended changes would clarify
that facilities can continue to use tests conducted under title V to
meet the 40 CFR part 63, subpart KKKK requirement to conduct periodic
performance tests. The EPA is making the recommended changes to 40 CFR
63.3540(a)(1)(ii), 63.3540(b)(1)(ii), 63.3550(a)(1)(ii), and
63.3550(b)(1)(ii) and is making comparable changes to Table 1 To 40 CFR
63.5160--Required Performance Testing Summary, in 40 CFR part 63,
subpart SSSS.
4. What is the rationale for our final approach for the ongoing
compliance demonstrations?
    For the reasons explained in the preamble to the proposed rules (84
FR 25922 and 25934, June 4, 2019), and in the comment responses above
in section IV.C.3 of this preamble, we are finalizing the periodic
testing provisions for both 40 CFR part 63, subparts KKKK and SSSS, as
proposed with the exception of the rule clarification change described
for 40 CFR part 63, subparts KKKK and SSSS in section IV.D.2 of this
preamble.

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

A. What are the affected sources?

    Currently, five major sources subject to the Surface Coating of
Metal Cans NESHAP are operating in the United States. The affected
source under the NESHAP is the collection of all equipment used to
apply coating to a metal can or end (including decorative tins), or
metal crown or closure, and to dry or cure the coating after
application; all storage containers and mixing vessels in which
coatings, thinners, and cleaning materials are stored or mixed; all
manual and automated equipment and containers used for conveying
coatings, thinners, and cleaning materials; and all storage containers
and all manual and automated equipment and containers used for
conveying waste materials generated by the coating operations. A
coating operation always includes at least the point at which a coating
is applied and all subsequent points in the affected source where
organic HAP emissions from that coating occur. There may be multiple
coating operations in an affected source.
    Currently, 48 major sources subject to the Surface Coating of Metal
Coil NESHAP are operating in the United States. The affected source
under the NESHAP is the collection of all the coil coating lines at a
facility, including the equipment used to apply an organic coating to
the surface of metal coil. A coil coating line includes a web unwind or
feed section, a series of one or more work stations, and any associated
curing oven, wet section, and quench station. A coil coating line does
not include ancillary operations such as mixing/thinning, cleaning,
wastewater treatment, and storage of coating material. Metal coil is a
continuous metal strip that is at least 0.15 mm (0.006 inch) thick,
which is packaged in a roll or coil prior to coating. Material less
than 0.15 mm (0.006 inch) thick is considered metal foil, not metal
coil. The NESHAP applies to coating lines on which more than 15 percent
of the material coated, based on surface area, meets the definition of
metal coil. There may be multiple coating operations in an affected
source.

B. What are the air quality impacts?

    The EPA estimates the current emissions of volatile organic HAP
from the Surface Coating of Metal Cans source category are
approximately 77 tpy and the current emissions of volatile organic HAP
from the Surface Coating of Metal Coil source category are
approximately 291 tpy.
    The amendments require that all 53 major sources in the Surface
Coating of Metal Cans and Surface Coating of Metal Coil source
categories comply with the relevant emission standards at all times,
including periods of SSM. We were unable to quantify the emissions that
occur during periods of SSM or the specific emissions reductions that
will occur as a result of this action. However, eliminating the SSM
exemption has the potential to reduce emissions by requiring facilities
to meet the applicable standard during SSM periods.
    The amendments will have no effect on the energy needs of the
affected facilities in either of the two source categories and will,
therefore, have no adverse energy impacts or indirect or secondary air
emissions impacts. Energy impacts consist of the electricity and steam
needed to operate control devices and other equipment. Indirect or
secondary air emissions impacts are impacts that would result from the
increased energy usage associated with the operation of control devices
(e.g., increased secondary emissions of criteria pollutants from power
plants).

C. What are the cost impacts?

    We estimate that each facility in these two source categories will
experience increased costs as a result of these final amendments for
recordkeeping and reporting. Each facility will experience costs to
read and understand the rule amendments. Costs associated with
elimination of the SSM exemption were estimated as part of the
reporting and recordkeeping costs and include time for re-evaluating
and modifying, as necessary, previously developed SSM record systems.
Costs associated with the requirement to electronically submit
notifications and semi-annual compliance reports using CEDRI were
estimated as part of the reporting and recordkeeping costs and include
time for becoming familiar with CEDRI and the reporting template for
semi-annual compliance reports. The recordkeeping and reporting costs
are presented in section VI.C of this preamble.
    We are also finalizing a requirement for performance testing no
less frequently than every 5 years for sources in each source category
that use the add-on controls compliance options. We estimate that the
new periodic testing requirement will impose additional costs for 22
facilities across the two source categories. We estimate that one
facility using three add-on control devices subject to the Surface
Coating of

Metal Cans NESHAP will incur costs to conduct control device
performance testing because it is using the emission rate with add-on
controls compliance option and is not required by its title V operating
permit to conduct testing every 5 years. We estimate that 21 facilities
subject to the Surface Coating of Metal Coil NESHAP will incur costs to
conduct periodic testing because they are currently using the emission
rate with add-on controls compliance option and are not required by
their title V operating permits to conduct testing every 5 years. These
21 metal coil coating facilities have a total of 30 add-on control
devices. This total does not include facilities in the Surface Coating
of Metal Coil source category that have add-on controls and are
currently required to perform periodic performance testing as a
condition of their title V operating permit. The cost for a facility to
conduct a destruction or removal efficiency performance test using EPA
Method 25 or 25A is estimated to be about $19,000, with tests of
additional control devices at the same facility costing 25 percent less
due to reduced travel costs. The estimated total cost for the one metal
can surface coating facility to test three add-on control devices in a
single year would be $47,000. The estimated total cost for all 21 metal
coil facilities to test 30 add-on control devices in a single year,
plus two retests to account for 5 percent of control devices failing to
pass the first test, would be $560,000. The total annualized testing
cost is estimated to be approximately $11,000 per year for the Surface
Coating of Metal Cans source category, and $130,000 per year for the
Surface Coating of Metal Coil source category, including retests. In
addition to the testing costs, each facility performing a test will
have an estimated additional $5,500 in reporting costs in the year in
which the test occurs.
    As a result of changes to recordkeeping and reporting requirements,
a one-time review of the updated rule language, and the addition of the
periodic testing requirement for facilities using add-on controls, the
costs of the final amendments are estimated to be $21,800 for the
Surface Coating of Metal Cans source category and $271,000 for the
Surface Coating of Metal Coil source category averaged over the first 3
years after the amendments are finalized. For further information on
the estimated costs, see the cost tables in the memoranda titled
Estimated Costs/Impacts of the 40 CFR part 63 Subparts KKKK and SSSS
Monitoring Review Revisions, February 2019, and the Economic Impact and
Small Business Screening Assessments for Hazardous Air Pollutants for
Metal Cans Coating Plants (Subpart KKKK) and the Economic Impact and
Small Business Screening Assessments for Hazardous Air Pollutants for
Metal Coil Coating Plants (Subpart SSSS) in the Surface Coating of
Metal Cans and Surface Coating of Metal Coil Dockets.

D. What are the economic impacts?

    The economic impact analysis is designed to inform decision makers
about the potential economic consequences of a regulatory action. For
the final revisions, the EPA estimated the cost of becoming familiar
with the rule and re-evaluating and revising, as necessary, previously
developed SSM record systems and performing periodic emissions testing
at certain facilities with add-on controls that are not already
required to perform testing. To assess the maximum potential impact,
the largest cost expected to be experienced in any 1 year is compared
to the total sales for the ultimate owners of the affected facilities
to estimate the total burden for each ultimate owner.
    For the final revisions to the NESHAP for the Surface Coating of
Metal Cans, the annualized cost is estimated to be $11,000 for the five
affected entities. The five affected facilities are owned by three
different parent companies, and the total costs associated with the
final requirements range from 0.00002 to 0.77 percent of annual sales
revenue per ultimate owner. These costs are not expected to result in a
significant market impact, regardless of whether they are passed on to
the purchaser or absorbed by the firms.
    For the final revisions to the NESHAP for the Surface Coating of
Metal Coil, the annualized cost is estimated to be $130,000 for the 48
affected entities. The 48 affected facilities are owned by 25 different
parent companies, and the total costs associated with the proposed
requirements range from 0.00001 to 0.28 percent of annual sales revenue
per ultimate owner. These costs are not expected to result in a
significant market impact, regardless of whether they are passed on to
the purchaser or absorbed by the firms.
    The EPA also prepared a small business screening assessment to
determine whether any of the identified affected entities are small
entities, as defined by the U.S. Small Business Administration. One of
the facilities potentially affected by the final revisions to the
NESHAP for the Surface Coating of Metal Cans is a small entity. Ten of
the facilities potentially affected by the final revisions to the
NESHAP for the Surface Coating of Metal Coil are small entities.
However, the annualized costs associated with the final revisions for
the seven ultimate owners of these eleven affected small entities range
from 0.0029 to 0.77 percent of annual sales revenues per ultimate
owner. Therefore, there are no significant economic impacts on a
substantial number of small entities from these final amendments.
    More information and details of this analysis are provided in the
technical documents titled Economic Impact and Small Business Screening
Assessments for Proposed Amendments to the National Emission Standards
for Hazardous Air Pollutants for the Surface Coating of Metal Cans
(Subpart KKKK) and Economic Impact and Small Business Screening
Assessments for Proposed Amendments to the National Emission Standards
for Hazardous Air Pollutants for the Surface Coating of Metal Coil
(Subpart SSSS), available in the Surface Coating of Metal Cans and
Surface Coating of Metal Coil Dockets, respectively.

E. What are the benefits?

    As stated above in section V.B of this preamble, we were unable to
quantify the specific emissions reductions associated with eliminating
the SSM exemption or as a result of adding the requirement to conduct
periodic add-on control device performance tests, although these final
revisions have the potential to reduce emissions of volatile organic
HAP.
    Because these final amendments are not considered economically
significant, as defined by Executive Order 12866, and because we were
unable to quantify the specific emission reductions that will occur as
a result of this action, we did not monetize the benefits of reducing
these emissions. This does not mean that there are no benefits
associated with the potential reduction in volatile organic HAP from
this rule.

F. What analysis of environmental justice did we conduct?

    Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994) establishes
federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision
directs federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and
permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission
by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high
and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs,
policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income
populations in the United States.

    To examine the potential for any environmental justice issues that
might be associated with these source categories, we performed a
demographic analysis for each source category, which is an assessment
of risks to individual demographic groups of the populations living
within 5 kilometers (km) and within 50 km of the facilities. In these
analyses, we evaluated the distribution of HAP-related cancer and
noncancer risks from each source category across different demographic
groups within the populations living near facilities.
1. Surface Coating of Metal Cans
    The results of the demographic analysis for the Surface Coating of
Metal Cans source category are summarized in Table 4 of this preamble.
These results, for various demographic groups, are based on the
estimated risk from actual emissions levels for the population living
within 50 km of the facilities.
    The results of the Surface Coating of Metal Cans source category
demographic analysis indicate that emissions from the source category
expose approximately 700 people to a cancer risk at or above 1-in-1
million and no one to a chronic noncancer TOSHI greater than 1. The
percentages of the population exposed to emissions from the source
category in three demographic groups (White, Above Poverty Level, and
Over 25 with a High School Diploma) are greater than their respective
nationwide percentages. The methodology and the results of the
demographic analysis are presented in more detail in the technical
report titled Risk and Technology Review--Analysis of Demographic
Factors for Populations Living Near Surface Coating of Metal Cans
Source Category Operations, May 2018, in the Surface Coating of Metal
Cans Docket.

            Table 4--Surface Coating of Metal Cans Source Category Demographic Risk Analysis Results
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 Population with cancer  Population with chronic
                                                                risk at or above 1-in-1    noncancer HI above 1
                                                  Nationwide     million due to surface   due to surface coating
                                                                 coating of metal cans        of metal cans
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Population..............................     317,746,049                      700                        0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          White and Minority by Percent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
White.........................................              62                       92                        0
Minority......................................              38                        8                        0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                               Minority by Percent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
African American..............................              12                        0                        0
Native American...............................             0.8                        0                        0
Hispanic......................................              18                        4                        0
Other and Multiracial.........................               7                        4                        0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                Income by Percent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Below Poverty Level...........................              14                        4                        0
Above Poverty Level...........................              86                       96                        0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              Education by Percent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Over 25 and without High School Diploma.......              14                        4                        0
Over 25 and with a High School Diploma........              86                       96                        0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       Linguistically Isolated by Percent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Linguistically Isolated.......................               6                        0                        0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Surface Coating of Metal Coil
    The results of the demographic analysis for the Surface Coating of
Metal Coil source category are summarized in Table 5 of this preamble.
These results, for various demographic groups, are based on the
estimated risk from actual emissions levels for the population living
within 50 km of the facilities.
    The results of the Surface Coating of Metal Coil source category
demographic analysis indicate that emissions from the source category
expose approximately 19,000 people to a cancer risk at or above 1-in-1
million and no one is exposed to a chronic noncancer TOSHI greater than
1. The percentages of the population exposed to emissions from the
source category in three demographic groups (White, African American,
and Over 25 and with a High School Diploma) are greater than their
respective nationwide percentages.
    The methodology and the results of the demographic analysis are
presented in a technical report, Risk and Technology Review--Analysis
of Demographic Factors for Populations Living Near Surface Coating of
Metal Coil Source Category Operations, May 2017, available in the
Surface Coating of Metal Coil Docket.

            Table 5--Surface Coating of Metal Coil Source Category Demographic Risk Analysis Results
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 Population with cancer  Population with chronic
                                                                risk at or above 1-in-1    noncancer HI above 1
                                                  Nationwide     million due to surface   due to surface coating
                                                                 coating of metal coil        of metal coil
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Population..............................     317,746,049                   19,000                        0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          White and Minority by Percent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
White.........................................              62                       70                        0
Minority......................................              38                       30                        0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                               Minority by Percent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
African American..............................              12                       21                        0
Native American...............................             0.8                      0.1                        0
Hispanic......................................              18                        4                        0
Other and Multiracial.........................               7                        5                        0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                Income by Percent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Below Poverty Level...........................              14                       15                        0
Above Poverty Level...........................              86                       85                        0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              Education by Percent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Over 25 and without High School Diploma.......              14                       10                        0
Over 25 and with a High School Diploma........              86                       90                        0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       Linguistically Isolated by Percent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Linguistically Isolated.......................               6                        1                        0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is
not economically significant as defined in Executive Order 12866, and
because the EPA does not believe the environmental health or safety
risks addressed by this action present a disproportionate risk to
children. This action's health and risk assessments are summarized in
section IV.A of this preamble and are further documented in the
Residual Risk Assessment for the Surface Coating of Metal Cans Source
Category in Support of the 2019 Risk and Technology Review Proposed
Rule, and the Residual Risk Assessment for the Surface Coating of Metal
Coil Source Category in Support of the 2019 Risk and Technology Review
Proposed Rule, in the Surface Coating of Metal Cans and Surface Coating
of Metal Coil Dockets, respectively.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

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

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

    This action is not a significant regulatory action and was,
therefore, not submitted to Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for
review.

B. Executive Order 13771: Reducing Regulations and Controlling
Regulatory Costs

    This action is not an Executive Order 13771 regulatory action
because this action is not significant under Executive Order 12866.

C. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

    The information collection activities in this action have been
submitted for approval to OMB under the PRA, as discussed for each
source category covered by this action in sections VI.C.1 and 2.
1. Surface Coating of Metal Cans
    The Information Collection Request (ICR) document that the EPA
prepared for this source category has been assigned EPA ICR number
2079.08. You can find a copy of the ICR document in the Surface Coating
of Metal Cans Docket (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0684), and it is
briefly summarized here. The information collection requirements are
not enforced until OMB approves them.
    As part of the RTR for the Surface Coating of Metal Cans NESHAP,
the EPA is not revising the emission limit requirements. The EPA is
revising the SSM provisions of the rule and requiring the use of
electronic data reporting for future performance test data submittals,
notifications, and reports. This information is being collected to
assure compliance with 40 CFR part 63, subpart KKKK.
    Respondents/affected entities: Facilities performing surface
coating of metal cans.
    Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (40 CFR part 63,
subpart KKKK).
    Estimated number of respondents: In the 3 years after the
amendments are final, approximately five respondents per year will be
subject to the NESHAP and no additional respondents are expected to
become subject to the NESHAP during that period.
    Frequency of response: The total number of responses in year 1 is
15 and in year 3 is one. Year 2 would have no responses.
    Total estimated burden: The average annual information collection
burden to the five metal can facilities over the 3 years after the
amendments are finalized is estimated to be 54 hours (per year). The
average annual burden to the

Agency over the 3 years after the amendments are finalized is estimated
to be 23 hours (per year). Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).
    Total estimated cost: The average annual labor cost to the metal
can facilities is estimated to be $6,200 in the first 3 years after the
amendments are finalized. The average annual capital and operation and
maintenance (O&M) cost is estimated to be $15,600 over this period. The
average annual Agency cost over the first 3 years after the amendments
are finalized is estimated to be $1,090.
2. Surface Coating of Metal Coil
    The ICR document that the EPA prepared for this source category has
been assigned EPA ICR number 1957.10. You can find a copy of the ICR
document in the Surface Coating of Metal Coil Docket (Docket ID No.
EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0685), and it is briefly summarized here. The
information collection requirements are not enforced until OMB approves
them.
    As part of the RTR for the Surface Coating of Metal Coil NESHAP,