MACT standards applicable to these specific emission points, as well as
the current MACT standards applicable to this source category, provide
an ample margin of safety to protect public health.
    As directed by CAA section 112(f)(2), we conducted an analysis to
determine if the current emissions standards provide an ample margin of
safety to protect public health. Under the ample margin of safety
analysis, the EPA considers all health factors evaluated in the risk
assessment and evaluates the cost and feasibility of available control
technologies and other measures (including the controls, measures, and
costs reviewed under the technology review) that could be applied to
this source category to further reduce the risks (or potential risks)
due to emissions of HAP identified in our risk assessment. In this
analysis, we considered the results of the technology review, risk
assessment, and other aspects of our MACT rule review to determine
whether there are any cost-effective controls or other measures that
would reduce emissions further and are needed to provide an ample
margin of safety to protect public health.
    As discussed in section IV.C of this preamble and in the memorandum
titled Technology Review Analysis for the Paper and Other Web Coating
Source Category, in the docket for this rulemaking (Docket ID No. EPA-
HQ-OAR-2018-0416), we did not identify any development in practices,
processes, or control technologies that could be applied industry-wide
and would be expected to result in significant HAP emissions
reductions. Although some facilities are using coatings with HAP
formulations more stringent than MACT, we only have limited data and
the data do not indicate where/when such coatings are most applicable.
In addition, although some existing facilities using capture and
control are achieving greater than 95-percent control, the available
data are limited and do not clearly indicate that any one industry
sector can readily achieve such control levels. Some POWC facilities
use permanent total enclosures to capture emissions even though they
are not required to do so, but conversion of an application area with a
permanent total enclosure is site specific and would be prohibitively
complicated and expensive in most cases.
    Although some facilities are subject to permit conditions more
stringent than the MACT requirements, the applicability of these
coating reformulations and emission controls for the POWC industry as a
whole is expected to be limited, and the associated potential risk
reductions would be expected to be small because baseline risks are
low. Because no cost-effective controls, technologies, processes, or
work practices were identified that were widely applicable to the
industry that would significantly reduce HAP emissions and the
associated risk, and the risk assessment determined that the health
risks associated with HAP emissions remaining after implementation of
the POWC MACT were well below levels that we consider acceptable, we
are proposing that the current standards protect public health with an
ample margin of safety, and revision of the standards is not required.

3. Adverse Environmental Effect
    The emissions data for this source category indicate the presence
of several environmental HAP: Arsenic, cadmium compounds, mercury
compounds, POM, and lead. Based on the results of our environmental
risk screening assessment, we conclude that there is not an adverse
environmental effect as a result of HAP emissions from the POWC source
category. Thus, we are proposing that it is not necessary to set a more
stringent standard to prevent an adverse environmental effect. For more
details on the environmental risk screening assessment, see the
Residual Risk Assessment for the Paper and Other Web Coating Source
Category in Support of the 2019 Risk and Technology Review Proposed
Rule, which is available in the docket for this action (Docket ID No.
EPA-HQ-OAR-2018-0416).

C. What are the results and proposed decisions based on our technology
review?

    As described in section III.B of this preamble, our technology
review focused on identifying developments in practices, processes, and
control technologies for control of HAP emissions from POWC facilities.
In conducting the technology review, we reviewed information on
practices, processes, and control technologies that were not considered
during the development of the POWC NESHAP, as well as searched for
information on improvements in practices, processes, and control
technologies that have occurred since the development of the POWC
NESHAP. The review included a search of the RBLC database and reviews
of title V permits for POWC facilities, site visits to facilities with
POWC operations, and a review of relevant literature. We did not
identify any developments in practices, processes, or control
technologies that were widely applicable to the industry that would
significantly reduce HAP emissions, and, therefore, we are not
proposing any changes to the NESHAP based on our technology review. For
more details on the technology review, see the Technology Review
Analysis for the Paper and Other Web Coating Source Category
memorandum, in the docket for this rulemaking (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2018-0416).

D. What other actions are we proposing?

    In addition to the proposed actions described above as part of the
RTR, we are proposing certain revisions to the NESHAP. We are proposing
revisions to the SSM provisions of the MACT rule in order to ensure
that they are consistent with the Court decision in Sierra Club v. EPA,
551 F. 3d 1019 (D.C. Cir. 2008), which vacated two provisions that
exempted sources from the requirement to comply with otherwise
applicable CAA section 112(d) emission standards during periods of SSM.
We also are proposing various other changes, including a compliance
calculation to account for retained volatile organic content in the
coated web; periodic emissions testing requirements; electronic
submittal of initial notifications, notification of compliance status,
semiannual compliance reports, performance test reports, and
performance evaluation reports; temperature sensor calibration
requirements, incorporation by reference (IBR) of several test methods;
and various technical and editorial changes. Our analyses and proposed
changes related to these issues are discussed below.
1. SSM
    In its 2008 decision in Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F.3d 1019 (D.C.
Cir. 2008), the Court vacated portions of two provisions in the EPA's
CAA section 112 regulations governing the emissions of HAP during
periods of SSM. Specifically, the Court vacated the SSM exemption
contained in 40 CFR 63.6(f)(1) and 40 CFR 63.6(h)(1), holding that
under section 302(k) of the CAA, emissions standards or limitations
must be continuous in nature and that the SSM exemption violates the
CAA's requirement that some section 112 standards apply continuously.
    We are proposing the elimination of the SSM exemption in this rule,
which is established by cross-reference to the General Provisions
exemption in Table 2 (40 CFR 63.6(f)). Consistent with Sierra Club v.
EPA, we are proposing that the current standards in the NESHAP apply at
all times. We are also proposing several revisions to Table 2 (the
General Provisions Applicability Table) as is explained in more detail
below. For example, we are proposing to eliminate the incorporation of
the General Provisions' requirement that the source develop an SSM
plan. We also are proposing to eliminate and revise certain
recordkeeping and reporting requirements related to the SSM exemption
as further described below.
    The EPA has attempted to ensure that the provisions we are
proposing to eliminate are inappropriate, unnecessary, or redundant in
the absence of the SSM exemption. We are specifically seeking comment
on whether we have successfully done so.
    In proposing the standards in this rule, the EPA has taken into
account startup and shutdown periods and, for the reasons explained
below, has not proposed alternate emission standards for those periods.
    As discussed in the memorandum titled Startup, Shutdown, and
Malfunction Review of the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants for Paper and Other Web Coating, we collected data regarding
these periods to determine if separate standards for startup and
shutdown were needed. It was determined that startups and shutdowns
occur frequently at many of these facilities. It was also noted that 40
CFR part 60, subpart RR (Standards of Performance for Pressure
Sensitive Tape and Label Surface Coating Operations (Tape NSPS)), to
which many POWC facilities are also subject, states that startup and
shutdown are normal operations and emissions should be included when
determining compliance. Because these events are considered to be
normal operations, the EPA is not proposing alternative emission limits
for these periods. As part of the data collection, it was found that
thermal oxidizer temperature decreases were likely to happen during
emission unit startup for a short period of time. To account for these
swings and promote consistency between the POWC NESHAP and the Tape
NSPS, we are proposing to add language to recognize that sources can
demonstrate compliance with the standard as long as the 3-hour average
firebox temperature does not drop lower than 50-degree Fahrenheit
([deg]F) below the average combustion temperature established during
the performance test.
    Periods of startup, normal operations, and shutdown are all
predictable and routine aspects of a source's operations. Malfunctions,
in contrast, are neither predictable nor routine. Instead they are, by
definition, sudden, infrequent, and not reasonably preventable failures
of emissions control, process, or monitoring equipment. (40 CFR 63.2)
(definition of malfunction). The EPA interprets CAA section 112 as not
requiring emissions that occur during periods of malfunction to be
factored into development of CAA section 112 standards and this reading
has been upheld as reasonable by the Court in U.S. Sugar Corp. v. EPA,
830 F.3d 579, 606-610 (D.C. Cir. 2016). Under CAA section 112,
emissions standards for new sources must be no less stringent than the
level ``achieved'' by the best controlled similar source and for
existing sources generally must be no less stringent than the average
emission limitation ``achieved'' by the best

performing 12 percent of sources in the category. There is nothing in
CAA section 112 that directs the Agency to consider malfunctions in
determining the level ``achieved'' by the best performing sources when
setting emission standards. As the Court has recognized, the phrase
``average emissions limitation achieved by the best performing 12
percent of'' sources ``says nothing about how the performance of the
best units is to be calculated.'' Nat'l Ass'n of Clean Water Agencies
v. EPA, 734 F.3d 1115, 1141 (D.C. Cir. 2013). While the EPA accounts
for variability in setting emissions standards, nothing in CAA section
112 requires the Agency to consider malfunctions as part of that
analysis. The EPA is not required to treat a malfunction in the same
manner as the type of variation in performance that occurs during
routine operations of a source. A malfunction is a failure of the
source to perform in a ``normal or usual manner'' and no statutory
language compels the EPA to consider such events in setting CAA section
112 standards.
    As the Court recognized in U.S. Sugar Corp, accounting for
malfunctions in setting standards would be difficult, if not
impossible, given the myriad different types of malfunctions that can
occur across all sources in the category and given the difficulties
associated with predicting or accounting for the frequency, degree, and
duration of various malfunctions that might occur. Id. at 608 (``the
EPA would have to conceive of a standard that could apply equally to
the wide range of possible boiler malfunctions, ranging from an
explosion to minor mechanical defects. Any possible standard is likely
to be hopelessly generic to govern such a wide array of
circumstances.'') As such, the performance of units that are
malfunctioning is not ``reasonably'' foreseeable. See, e.g., Sierra
Club v. EPA, 167 F.3d 658, 662 (D.C. Cir. 1999) (``The EPA typically
has wide latitude in determining the extent of data-gathering necessary
to solve a problem. We generally defer to an agency's decision to
proceed on the basis of imperfect scientific information, rather than
to `invest the resources to conduct the perfect study.' ''). See also,
Weyerhaeuser v. Costle, 590 F.2d 1011, 1058 (D.C. Cir. 1978) (``In the
nature of things, no general limit, individual permit, or even any
upset provision can anticipate all upset situations. After a certain
point, the transgression of regulatory limits caused by `uncontrollable
acts of third parties,' such as strikes, sabotage, operator
intoxication or insanity, and a variety of other eventualities, must be
a matter for the administrative exercise of case-by-case enforcement
discretion, not for specification in advance by regulation.''). In
addition, emissions during a malfunction event can be significantly
higher than emissions at any other time of source operation. For
example, if an air pollution control device with 99-percent removal
goes off-line as a result of a malfunction (as might happen if, for
example, the bags in a baghouse catch fire) and the emission unit is a
steady state type unit that would take days to shut down, the source
could go from 99-percent control to zero control until the control
device was repaired. The source's emissions during the malfunction
could be 100 times higher than during normal operations. As such, the
emissions over a 4-day malfunction period would exceed the annual
emissions of the source during normal operations. As this example
illustrates, accounting for malfunctions could lead to standards that
are not reflective of (and significantly less stringent than) levels
that are achieved by a well-performing non-malfunctioning source. It is
reasonable to interpret CAA section 112 to avoid such a result. The
EPA's approach to malfunctions is consistent with CAA section 112 and
is a reasonable interpretation of the statute.
    Although no statutory language compels the EPA to set standards for
malfunctions, the EPA has the discretion to do so where feasible. For
example, in the Petroleum Refinery Sector RTR, the EPA established a
work practice standard for unique types of malfunction that result in
releases from pressure relief devices or emergency flaring events
because the EPA had information to determine that such work practices
reflected the level of control that applies to the best performers. 80
FR 75178, 75211-14 (December 1, 2015). The EPA will consider whether
circumstances warrant setting standards for a particular type of
malfunction and, if so, whether the EPA has sufficient information to
identify the relevant best performing sources and establish a standard
for such malfunctions. We also encourage commenters to provide any such
information.
    The EPA anticipates that it is unlikely that a malfunction of a
POWC emission unit would result in a violation of the standard. For
example, some facilities using thermal oxidizers as pollution control
equipment indicated during the EPA site visits that interlocks would
shut the process down if an oxidizer malfunction occurred, and
facilities may also have back-up oxidizers that could be used to treat
the emissions. The MACT standards are based on a monthly average for
each web coating line or grouping of lines, therefore, a malfunction on
a single piece of equipment for a short period of time is unlikely to
result in an exceedance of the standard.
    The American Coatings Association provided a letter to the EPA on
April 19, 2018, requesting that the EPA consider provisions covering
periods of malfunctions at the same time as we conduct the RTR, and
suggested two options. The first option would require a facility to
discontinue the coating operation during periods of malfunctions, but
the facility could continue the oven curing of any coating materials
already applied onto the web without the control device for the period
of the malfunction, so long as it continues to meet the emission limits
for the compliance period. The second option would require a facility
to initiate repairs immediately during the malfunction and complete
them as expeditiously as possible, without ceasing operations, until it
becomes apparent that the repairs will not be completed before
exceeding the emission limit. Neither of these alternatives would allow
the facility to exceed the emission limit.\23\ We are requesting
comment regarding the need to promulgate a special provision covering
periods of malfunctions of a control device or capture system that is
used to meet the emission limits for the POWC NESHAP. Specifically, we
are requesting comment on best practices and the best level of emission
control during malfunction events, and additionally, potential cost
savings associated with potential malfunction work practices.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ Letter to the U.S. EPA from David Darling, American
Coatings Association regarding Start-up, Shut-down and Malfunction;
American Coatings Association (ACA) Concerns, dated April 19, 2018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the unlikely event that a source owner or operator fails to
comply with the applicable CAA section 112(d) standards as a result of
a malfunction event, the EPA would determine an appropriate response
based on, among other things, the good faith efforts of the source to
minimize emissions during malfunction periods, including preventative
and corrective actions, as well as root cause analyses to ascertain and
rectify excess emissions. The EPA would also consider whether the
source owner or operator's failure to comply with the CAA section
112(d) standard was, in fact, sudden, infrequent, not reasonably
preventable, and was not instead caused, in part, by poor

maintenance or careless operation. 40 CFR 63.2 (definition of
malfunction).
    If the EPA determines in a particular case that an enforcement
action against a source owner or operator for violation of an emission
standard is warranted, the source owner or operator can raise any and
all defenses in that enforcement action and the federal district court
will determine what, if any, relief is appropriate. The same is true
for citizen enforcement actions. Similarly, the presiding officer in an
administrative proceeding can consider any defense raised and determine
whether administrative penalties are appropriate.
    In summary, the EPA interpretation of the CAA and, in particular,
section 112, is reasonable and encourages practices that will avoid
malfunctions. Administrative and judicial procedures for addressing
exceedances of the standards fully recognize that violations may occur
despite good faith efforts to comply and can accommodate those
situations. U.S. Sugar Corp. v. EPA, 830 F.3d 579, 606-610 (2016).
a. General Duty
    We are proposing to add an entry to the General Provisions table
(Table 2) for 40 CFR 63.6(e)(1)(i) and include a ``no'' in the
applicability column. Section 63.6(e)(1)(i) describes the general duty
to minimize emissions. Some of the language in that section is no
longer necessary or appropriate in light of the elimination of the SSM
exemption. We are proposing instead to add general duty regulatory text
at 40 CFR 63.3340(b) that reflects the general duty to minimize
emissions while eliminating the reference to periods covered by an SSM
exemption. The current language in 40 CFR 63.6(e)(1)(i) characterizes
what the general duty entails during periods of SSM. With the
elimination of the SSM exemption, there is no need to differentiate
between normal operations, startup and shutdown, and malfunction events
in describing the general duty. Therefore, the language the EPA is
proposing for 40 CFR 63.3340(b) does not include that language from 40
CFR 63.6(e)(1).
    We are also proposing to add an entry to the General Provisions
table (Table 2) for 40 CFR 63.6(e)(1)(ii) and include a ``no'' in the
applicability column. Section 63.6(e)(1)(ii) imposes requirements that
are not necessary with the elimination of the SSM exemption or are
redundant with the general duty requirement being added at 40 CFR
63.3340(b).
b. SSM Plan
    We are proposing to add an entry to the General Provisions table
(Table 2) for 40 CFR 63.6(e)(3) and include a ``no'' in the
applicability column. Generally, these paragraphs require development
of an SSM plan and specify SSM recordkeeping and reporting requirements
related to the SSM plan. As noted, the EPA is proposing to remove the
SSM exemptions. Therefore, affected units will be subject to an
emission standard during such events. The applicability of a standard
during such events will ensure that sources have ample incentive to
plan for and achieve compliance and, thus, the SSM plan requirements
are no longer necessary.
c. Compliance With Standards
    We are proposing to add an entry to the General Provisions table
(Table 2) for 40 CFR 63.6(f)(1) and include a ``no'' in the
applicability column. The current language of 40 CFR 63.6(f)(1) exempts
sources from non-opacity standards during periods of SSM. As discussed
above, the Court in Sierra Club vacated the exemptions contained in
this provision and held that the CAA requires that some section 112
standard apply continuously. Consistent with Sierra Club, the EPA is
proposing to revise standards in this rule to apply at all times.
d. Performance Testing
    We are proposing to add an entry to the General Provisions table
(Table 2) for 40 CFR 63.7(e)(1) and include a ``no'' in the
applicability column. Section 63.7(e)(1) describes performance testing
requirements. The EPA is instead proposing to add a performance testing
requirement at 40 CFR 63.3360(e)(2). The performance testing
requirements we are proposing to add differ from the General Provisions
performance testing provisions in several respects. The regulatory text
does not include the language in 40 CFR 63.7(e)(1) that restated the
SSM exemption and language that precluded startup and shutdown periods
from being considered ``representative'' for purposes of performance
testing. The proposed performance testing provisions do not allow
performance testing during startup or shutdown. As in 40 CFR
63.7(e)(1), performance tests conducted under this subpart should not
be conducted during malfunctions because conditions during malfunctions
are often not representative of normal operating conditions. The EPA is
proposing to add language that requires the owner or operator to record
the process information that is necessary to document operating
conditions during the test and include in such record an explanation to
support that such conditions represent normal operation. Section
63.7(e) requires that the owner or operator make available to the
Administrator such records ``as may be necessary to determine the
condition of the performance test'' available to the Administrator upon
request but does not specifically require the information to be
recorded. The regulatory text the EPA is proposing to add to this
provision builds on that requirement and makes explicit the requirement
to record the information.
e. Monitoring
    We are proposing to re-designate the entry to the General
Provisions table (Table 2) for 40 CFR 63.8(c)(1)-(3) to be 40 CFR
63.8(c)(2)-(3) and remove the text in the explanation column. We are
proposing to add an entry to the General Provisions table (Table 2) for
40 CFR 63.8(c)(1) and 63.8(c)(1)(i) and (iii), and include a ``no'' in
the applicability column. The cross-references to the general duty and
SSM plan requirements in those subparagraphs are not necessary in light
of other requirements of 40 CFR 63.8 that require good air pollution
control practices (40 CFR 63.8(c)(1)) and that set out the requirements
of a quality control program for monitoring equipment (40 CFR 63.8(d)).
We are also proposing to add an entry to the General Provisions table
(Table 2) for 40 CFR 63.8(c)(1)(ii) and include a ``yes'' in the
applicability column and to clarify in the explanation column that 40
CFR 63.8(c)(1)(ii) only applies if a capture and control system is in
use.
    We are proposing to add an entry to the General Provisions table
(Table 2) for 40 CFR 63.8(d)(3) and include a ``no'' in the
applicability column. The final sentence in 40 CFR 63.8(d)(3) refers to
the General Provisions' SSM plan requirement which is no longer
applicable. The EPA is proposing to add to the rule at 40 CFR
63.3350(e)(5) text that is identical to 40 CFR 63.8(d)(3) except that
the final sentence is replaced with the following sentence: ``The
program of corrective action should be included in the plan required
under Sec.  63.8(d)(2).''
f. Recordkeeping
    We are proposing to add an entry to the General Provisions table
(Table 2) for 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(i) and include a ``no'' in the
applicability column. Section 63.10(b)(2)(i) describes the
recordkeeping requirements during startup and shutdown. These recording
provisions are no longer necessary because the EPA is proposing that
recordkeeping and reporting applicable to normal operations will apply
to

startup and shutdown. In the absence of special provisions applicable
to startup and shutdown, such as a startup and shutdown plan, there is
no reason to retain additional recordkeeping for startup and shutdown
periods.
    We are proposing to add an entry to the General Provisions table
(Table 2) for 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(ii) and enter a ``no'' in the
applicability column. Section 63.10(b)(2)(ii) describes the
recordkeeping requirements during a malfunction. The EPA is proposing
to add such requirements to 40 CFR 63.3410(c)(2) and (3). The
regulatory text we are proposing to add differs from the General
Provisions it is replacing in that the General Provisions require the
creation and retention of a record of the occurrence and duration of
each malfunction of process, air pollution control, and monitoring
equipment. The EPA is proposing that this requirement apply to any
failure to meet an applicable standard and is requiring that the source
record the date, time, and duration of the failure rather than the
``occurrence.'' The EPA is also proposing to add to 40 CFR
63.3410(c)(2) and (3) a requirement that source owners or operators
keep records that include a list of the affected source or equipment
and actions taken to minimize emissions, an estimate of the quantity of
each regulated pollutant emitted over the standard for which the source
owner or operator failed to meet the standard, and a description of the
method used to determine the emissions. Examples of such methods would
include product-loss calculations, mass balance calculations,
measurements when available, or engineering judgment based on known
process parameters. The EPA is proposing to require that sources keep
records of this information to ensure that there is adequate
information to allow the EPA to determine the severity of any failure
to meet a standard, and to provide data that may document how the
source met the general duty to minimize emissions when the source has
failed to meet an applicable standard.
    We are proposing to add an entry to the General Provisions table
(Table 2) for 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(iv) and enter a ``no'' in the
applicability column. When applicable, the provision requires sources
to record actions taken during SSM events when actions were
inconsistent with their SSM plan. The requirement is no longer
appropriate because SSM plans will no longer be required. The
requirement previously applicable under 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(iv)(B) to
record actions to minimize emissions and record corrective actions is
now applicable by reference to 40 CFR 63.3340.
    We are proposing to add an entry to the General Provisions table
(Table 2) for 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(v) and enter a ``no'' in the
applicability column. When applicable, the provision requires sources
to record actions taken during SSM events to show that actions taken
were consistent with their SSM plan. The requirement is no longer
appropriate because SSM plans will no longer be required.
    We are proposing to add an entry to the General Provisions table
(Table 2) for 40 CFR 63.10(c)(15) and enter a ``no'' in the
applicability column. The EPA is proposing that 40 CFR 63.10(c)(15) no
longer applies. When applicable, the provision allows an owner or
operator to use the affected source's SSM plan or records kept to
satisfy the recordkeeping requirements of the SSM plan, specified in 40
CFR 63.6(e), to also satisfy the requirements of 40 CFR 63.10(c)(10)
through (12). The EPA is proposing to eliminate this requirement
because SSM plans would no longer be required, and, therefore, 40 CFR
63.10(c)(15) no longer serves any useful purpose for affected units.
g. Reporting
    We are proposing to add an entry to the General Provisions table
(Table 2) for 40 CFR 63.10(d)(5)(i) and enter a ``no'' in the
applicability column. Section 63.10(d)(5)(i) describes the reporting
requirements for startups, shutdowns, and malfunctions. To replace the
General Provisions reporting requirement, the EPA is proposing to add
reporting requirements to 40 CFR 63.3400. The replacement language
differs from the General Provisions requirement in that it eliminates
periodic SSM reports as a stand-alone report. We are proposing language
that requires sources that fail to meet an applicable standard at any
time to report the information concerning such events in the semiannual
compliance report already required under this rule. We are proposing
that the report must contain the number, date, time, duration, and the
cause of such events (including unknown cause, if applicable), a list
of the affected source or equipment, an estimate of the quantity of
each regulated pollutant emitted over any emission limit, and a
description of the method used to determine the emissions.
    Examples of such methods would include product-loss calculations,
mass balance calculations, measurements when available, or engineering
judgment based on known process parameters. The EPA is proposing this
requirement to ensure that there is adequate information to determine
compliance, to allow the EPA to determine the severity of the failure
to meet an applicable standard, and to provide data that may document
how the source owner or operator met the general duty to minimize
emissions during a failure to meet an applicable standard.
    We will no longer require owners or operators to determine whether
actions taken to correct a malfunction are consistent with an SSM plan,
because plans would no longer be required. The proposed amendments,
therefore, eliminate the cross-reference to 40 CFR 63.10(d)(5)(i) that
contains the description of the previously required SSM report format
and submittal schedule from this section. These specifications are no
longer necessary because the events will be reported in otherwise
required reports with similar format and submittal requirements.
    We are proposing to add an entry to the General Provisions table
(Table 2) for 40 CFR 63.10(d)(5)(ii) and enter a ``no'' in the
applicability column. Section 63.10(d)(5)(ii) describes an immediate
report for startups, shutdowns, and malfunctions when a source failed
to meet an applicable standard but did not follow the SSM plan. We will
no longer require owners and operators to report when actions taken
during a startup, shutdown, or malfunction were not consistent with an
SSM plan, because plans would no longer be required.
2. Method for Determining Volatile Matter Retained in the Coated Web
    The EPA finalized an alternative compliance option as part of the
Surface Coating of Wood Building Products RTR on March 4, 2019 (84 FR
7682), which would allow facilities to account for HAP retained in the
product as a result of utilizing reactive coatings. Discussions between
the EPA and industry trade associations elucidated the need for a
similar compliance alternative in the POWC NESHAP. Particularly, the
current NESHAP allows for the accounting of retained HAP in 40 CFR
63.3360(g), but the requirement to ``develop a testing protocol to
determine the mass of volatile matter retained . . . and submit this
protocol to the Administrator for approval'' was found to be vague and
unworkable. To provide clarity and reduce regulatory burden, the EPA is
proposing the utilization of an emission factor to account for volatile
organic matter retained in the coated web. As discussed below, we are
proposing to include new language in this

rulemaking to allow facilities to account for retained volatile
organics in their compliance demonstration calculations without
requiring the submittal of an alternative monitoring request to the EPA
under the provisions of 40 CFR 63.8(f). The proposed amendment adds
compliance flexibility and reduces regulatory burden but does not alter
the emission standard. This approach quantifies emissions in a way that
is representative of the actual emissions from the coating operations.
    We are proposing language in 40 CFR 63.3360(g) that allows a
facility to develop a site- and product-specific emission factor for
use to calculate the amount of volatile organics retained in its coated
web. This site- and product-specific emission factor is determined by
performing an EPA Method 25A test and calculating the ratio of the mass
of volatile organics emitted to the mass of volatile organics in the
coating materials evaluated over a three-run test average. This site-
and product-specific emission factor can be used for the production of
similar products to the product tested during the performance test. A
separate performance test must be performed for each different group of
products for which a source owner or operator intends to account for
the retained volatiles in the compliance demonstration calculations.
The site- and product-specific emission factor is then used in Equation
4 to determine the amount retained for each group of products. The
amount of volatile organics retained in the web can then be subtracted
from the emissions calculated in the appropriate equations in 40 CFR
63.3370.
    Facilities using the proposed equations in 40 CFR 63.3360(g) to
account for volatiles retained in the coated web would be required to
conduct an initial performance test to develop a site- and product-
specific emission factor to demonstrate compliance. It is not clear how
many POWC facilities may elect to use this approach and, therefore, be
required to perform this initial air emissions performance test;
therefore, we have not assessed a cost for this test. Additionally,
facilities choosing to use this approach will also have associated
recordkeeping and reporting requirements in 40 CFR 63.3410 and 40 CFR
63.3400, respectively. We have not assessed a cost for the additional
recordkeeping and reporting requirements because it is unclear how many
POWC facilities will elect to use this approach.
3. Periodic Emissions Testing
    As part of an ongoing effort to improve compliance with various
federal air emission regulations, the EPA reviewed the compliance
demonstration requirements in the POWC NESHAP. Currently, if a source
owner or operator chooses to comply with the standards using a non-
recovery add-on control device, such as a thermal oxidizer, the results
of an initial performance test are used to demonstrate compliance;
however, the current rule does not require periodic performance testing
for these emission capture systems and add-on controls. We are
proposing a periodic emissions testing provision for sources using non-
recovery add-on controls in 40 CFR 63.3360(a)(2), in addition to the
one-time initial emissions and capture efficiency testing and ongoing
parametric monitoring to ensure ongoing compliance with the standards.
    Although ongoing monitoring of operating parameters is required by
the POWC NESHAP, as the control device ages over time, the destruction
efficiency of the control device can be compromised due to various
factors. These factors are discussed in more detail in the memorandum
titled Periodic Testing of Control Devices Used to Comply with the
Paper and Other Web Coating NESHAP, in the docket for this rulemaking
(Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2018-0416). Based on the need for vigilance
in maintaining the control device equipment, we are proposing periodic
testing of non-recovery add-on control devices once every 5 years.
    Currently, there are an estimated 123 oxidizers at 81 facilities
that are used to demonstrate compliance with the POWC NESHAP.
Currently, 58 of those oxidizers are tested on at least a 5-year
frequency due to state requirements to check destruction efficiency and
re-establish operating parameters; therefore, 65 oxidizers are not
currently tested on a regular basis. The repeat performance testing
provision which the Agency is proposing would impact these 65 oxidizers
if the provisions were finalized, with an estimated cost of $28,000 for
each repeat performance test. The inclusion of a periodic repeat
testing requirement would help demonstrate that emissions control
equipment is continuing to operate as designed and that the facility
remains in compliance with the standard. We specifically request
comment on the proposed repeat testing requirements.
4. Electronic Reporting
    Through this proposal, the EPA is proposing that owners and
operators of POWC facilities submit electronic copies of required
performance test reports (40 CFR 63.3400(f)), performance evaluation
reports (40 CFR 63.3400(g)), initial notifications (40 CFR 63.3400(b)),
notification of compliance status (40 CFR 63.3400(e)), and semiannual
compliance reports (40 CFR 63.3400(c)) through the EPA's Central Data
Exchange (CDX) using the Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting
Interface (CEDRI). A description of the electronic data 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) Rules,
available in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2018-0416. This proposed rule
requirement would replace the current rule requirement to submit the
notifications and reports to the Administrator at the appropriate
address listed in 40 CFR 63.13. This proposed rule requirement does not
affect submittals required by state air agencies as required by 40 CFR
63.13.
    For the performance test reports required in 40 CFR 63.3400(f), the
proposed rule requires that performance test results collected using
test methods that are supported by the EPA's Electronic Reporting Tool
(ERT) as listed on the ERT website \24\ at the time of the test be
submitted in the format generated through the use of the ERT and that
other performance test results be submitted in portable document format
(PDF) using the attachment module of the ERT. Similarly, performance
evaluation results of continuous monitoring systems measuring relative
accuracy test audit pollutants that are supported by the ERT at the
time of the test must be submitted in the format generated through the
use of the ERT and other performance evaluation results be submitted in
PDF using the attachment module of the ERT.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ https://www.epa.gov/electronic-reporting-air-emissions/electronic-reporting-tool-ert.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For semiannual compliance reports required in 40 CFR 63.3400(c),
the proposed rule requires that owners and operators use the final
semiannual report template to submit information to CEDRI. The template
will reside in CEDRI and is to be used on and after 180 days past
finalization of this proposed action. A draft version of the proposed
template for these reports is included in the docket for this

rulemaking.\25\ The EPA specifically requests comment on the format and
usability of the template (e.g., filling out and uploading a provided
spreadsheet versus entering the required information into an on-line
fillable CEDRI web form), as well as the content, layout, and overall
design of the template. Prior to 180 days after the final semiannual
compliance report template has been made available in CEDRI, owners and
operators of affected sources will be required to submit semiannual
compliance reports as currently required by the rule. When the EPA
finalizes the semiannual compliance report template, POWC sources will
be notified about its availability via the CEDRI website. We plan to
finalize the required reporting format with the final rule. The owner
or operator would begin submitting reports electronically with the next
report that is due, once the electronic template has been available for
at least 180 days.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ See POWC_Electronic_Reporting_Template.xlsx, available at
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-2018-0416.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For electronic submittal of initial notifications required in 40
CFR 63.3400(b), no specific form is available at this time, therefore,
these notifications are required to be submitted in PDF using the
attachment module of the ERT. If electronic forms are developed for
these notifications, we will notify source owners and operators about
their availability via the CEDRI website. For electronic submittal of
notifications of compliance status reports required in 40 CFR
63.3400(e), the final semiannual report template discussed above, will
also contain the information required for the notification of
compliance status report. This will satisfy the requirement to provide
the notifications of compliance status information electronically,
eliminating the need to provide a separate notification of compliance
status report. As stated above, the final semiannual report template
will be available after finalizing this proposed action and source
owners or operators will be required to use the form after 180 days.
Prior to the availability of the final semiannual compliance report
template in CEDRI, owners and operators of affected sources will be
required to submit semiannual compliance reports as currently required
by the rule. As stated above, we will notify sources about the
availability of the final semiannual report template via the CEDRI
website.
    Additionally, the EPA has identified two broad circumstances in
which electronic reporting extensions may be provided. In both
circumstances, the decision to accept the claim of needing additional
time to report is within the discretion of the Administrator, and
reporting should occur as soon as possible. The EPA is providing these
potential extensions to protect owners and operators from noncompliance
in cases where they cannot successfully submit a report by the
reporting deadline for reasons outside of their control. The situation
where an extension may be warranted due to outages of the EPA's CDX or
CEDRI which precludes an owner or operator from accessing the system
and submitting required reports is addressed in 40 CFR 63.3400(i). The
situation where an extension may be warranted due to a force majeure
event, which is defined as an event that will be or has been caused by
circumstances beyond the control of the affected facility, its
contractors, or any entity controlled by the affected facility that
prevents an owner or operator from complying with the requirement to
submit a report electronically as required by this rule is addressed in
40 CFR 63.3400(j). Examples of such events are acts of nature, acts of
war or terrorism, or equipment failure or safety hazards beyond the
control of the facility.
    The electronic submittal of the reports addressed in this proposed
rulemaking will increase the usefulness of the data contained in those
reports, is in keeping with current trends in data availability and
transparency, will further assist in the protection of public health
and the environment, will improve compliance by facilitating the
ability of regulated facilities to demonstrate compliance with
requirements and by facilitating the ability of delegated state, local,
tribal, and territorial air agencies and the EPA to assess and
determine compliance, and will ultimately reduce burden on regulated
facilities, delegated air agencies, and the EPA. Electronic reporting
also eliminates paper-based, manual processes, thereby saving time and
resources, simplifying data entry, eliminating redundancies, minimizing
data reporting errors, and providing data quickly and accurately to the
affected facilities, air agencies, the EPA, and the public. Moreover,
electronic reporting is consistent with the EPA's plan \26\ to
implement Executive Order 13563 and is in keeping with the EPA's
Agency-wide policy \27\ developed in response to the White House's
Digital Government Strategy.\28\ For more information on the benefits
of electronic reporting, see the memorandum, Electronic Reporting
Requirements for New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) and National
Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) Rules,
available in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2018-0416.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ EPA's Final Plan for Periodic Retrospective Reviews, August
2011. Available at: https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=EPA-HQ-OA-2011-0156-0154.
    \27\ E-Reporting Policy Statement for EPA Regulations, September
2013. Available at: https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-03/documents/epa-ereporting-policy-statement-2013-09-30.pdf.
    \28\ Digital Government: Building a 21st Century Platform to
Better Serve the American People, May 2012. Available at: https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/omb/egov/digital-government/digital-government.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

5. Temperature Sensor Calibration
    Facilities with controlled sources subject to the POWC NESHAP that
use regenerative thermal or catalytic oxidizers to comply with the
standard are currently required to establish a minimum operating
temperature during performance testing and subsequently maintain a 3-
hour block average firebox temperature above the minimum temperature
established during the performance test to demonstrate ongoing
compliance. Temperature sensors are used to measure the temperature in
the firebox. At 40 CFR 63.3350(e)(9), the POWC NESHAP currently
requires conducting an electronic calibration of the temperature
monitoring device every 3 months or the temperature sensor must be
replaced. Facilities subject to the standard have explained to the EPA
that they are not aware of a temperature sensor manufacturer that
provides procedures or protocols for conducting electronic calibration
of temperature sensors. Facilities have reported that because they
cannot calibrate their temperature sensors, the alternative is to
replace them and so they have requested that an alternative approach to
the current requirement in 40 CFR 63.3350(e)(9) be considered.
    The EPA is proposing to modify 40 CFR 63.3350(e) to allow multiple
alternative approaches to temperature sensor calibration. The first
alternative would allow use of a National Institute of Standards and
Technology (NIST) traceable temperature measurement device or simulator
to confirm the accuracy of any temperature sensor placed into use for
at least one quarterly period, where the accuracy of the temperature
measurement must be within 2.5 percent of the temperature measured by
the NIST traceable device or 5 [deg]F, whichever is greater. The second
alternative would be to have the temperature sensor manufacturer
certify

the electrical properties of the temperature sensor. The third
alternative would codify the common practice of replacing temperature
sensors quarterly. The fourth alternative would be to permanently
install a redundant temperature sensor as close as practicable to the
process temperature sensor. The redundant sensors must read within 25
[deg]F of each other for thermal and catalytic oxidizers. The EPA plans
to maintain the option of allowing facilities to follow calibration
procedures developed by the temperature sensor manufacturer when
temperature sensor manufacturers develop calibration procedures for
their products.
6. Operating Parameter Clarification
    We are proposing to clarify language in 40 CFR 63.3370 which
currently implies deviations in operating parameters result in non-
compliance with the standard. Specifically, we are proposing a
clarification that each 3-hour average operating parameter that is
outside of the operating limit range established during a performance
test should be assumed to have zero control and all HAP must be assumed
to be emitted for that period in the monthly compliance calculation.
Operating parameters were established in the POWC NESHAP to aid in
determining a source's compliance, but they were not intended to
constitute a violation of the emission standard. For example, one 3-
hour average regenerative thermal oxidizer firebox temperature below
the setpoint established in during the stack test would not necessarily
indicate a violation of the emission standard for the month, but it is
a deviation of the operating parameter limits.
7. IBR Under 1 CFR Part 51
    The EPA is proposing regulatory text that includes IBR. In
accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is proposing to
incorporate by reference the following voluntary consensus standards
(VCS) into 40 CFR 63.14:
     ASTM D2369-10 (Reapproved 2015)\e\, Standard Test Method
for Volatile Content of Coatings, IBR approved for 40 CFR 63.3360(c).
     ASTM D2697-03 (Reapproved 2014), Standard Test Method for
Volume Nonvolatile Matter in Clear or Pigmented Coatings, IBR approved
for 40 CFR 63.3360(c).
     ASTM 3960-98, Standard Practice for Determining Volatile
Organic Compound (VOC) Content of Paints and Related Coatings, IBR
approved for 40 CFR 63.3360(d).
     ASTM D6093-97, (Reapproved 2016), Standard Test Method for
Percent Volume Nonvolatile Matter in Clear or Pigmented Coatings Using
a Helium Gas Pycnometer, IBR approved for 40 CFR 63.3360(c).
     ASTM D2111-10 (Reapproved 2015), Standard Test Methods for
Specific Gravity of Halogenated Organic Solvents and Their Admixtures,
IBR approved for 40 CFR 63.3360(c).
     ASTM D1963-85 (1996), Standard Test Method for Specific
Gravity of Drying Oils, Varnishes, Resins, and Related Materials at 25/
25[deg]C, IBR approved for 40 CFR 63.3360(c).
    While ANSI/ASME PTC 19.10-1981 was incorporated by reference when
40 CFR part 63, subpart JJJJ was originally promulgated (67 FR 72347,
December 4, 2002), the method has been updated, requiring a revision to
the regulatory text addressing its IBR. All of the other above-
referenced VCS, except for ASTM D2369-10 (Reapproved 2015)\e\ are being
incorporated by reference for 40 CFR part 63, subpart JJJJ for the
first time under this rulemaking.
8. Technical and Editorial Changes
a. Removal of Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA)-
Defined Carcinogens Reference
    We propose to amend 40 CFR 63.3360(c)(1)(i) and (3), which describe
how to demonstrate initial compliance with the emission limitations
using the compliant material option, to remove references to OSHA-
defined carcinogens as specified in 29 CFR 1910.1200(d)(4). The
reference to OSHA-defined carcinogens as specified in 29 CFR
1910.1200(d)(4) is intended to specify which compounds must be included
in calculating total organic HAP content of a coating material if they
are present at 0.1 percent or greater by mass. We are proposing to
remove this reference because 29 CFR 1910.1200(d)(4) has been amended
and no longer readily defines which compounds are carcinogens. We are
proposing to replace these references to OSHA-defined carcinogens and
29 CFR 1910.1200(d)(4) with a list (in proposed new Table 3 to 40 CFR
part 63, subpart JJJJ) of those organic HAP that must be included in
calculating total organic HAP content of a coating material if they are
present at 0.1 percent or greater by mass. We propose to include
organic HAP in proposed Table 3 to 40 CFR part 63, subpart JJJJ if they
were categorized in the EPA's Prioritized Chronic Dose-Response Values
for Screening Risk Assessments (dated May 9, 2014) as a ``human
carcinogen,'' ``probable human carcinogen,'' or ``possible human
carcinogen'' according to The Risk Assessment Guidelines of 1986 (EPA/
600/8-87/045, August 1987),\29\ 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ See https://www.epa.gov/fera/dose-response-assessment-assessing-health-risks-associated-exposure-hazardous-air-pollutants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. Clarification of Compliance Demonstration Options
    An introductory paragraph and a new subsection are proposed in this
action to clarify the compliance demonstration requirements in 40 CFR
63.3370. As promulgated, it is not clear that compliance can be
demonstrated based on individual web coating lines, groups of web
coating lines, or all of the web coating lines located at an affected
facility. An introductory paragraph to 40 CFR 63.3370 is proposed to
clarify the intent of how compliance can be demonstrated across the web
coating lines in a facility. Additionally, a new subsection 40 CFR
63.3370(r) is also being proposed to clarify that compliance with the
subpart is demonstrated using a mass-balance. While the compliance
calculations included in 40 CFR 63.3370(b)-(p) are thorough, there are
instances where variables in the equations are not needed, resulting in
confusion by the regulated facilities and the regulating agencies as to
what is required for compliance. The mass-balance summary approach
proposed in 40 CFR 63.3370(r) clarifies the intent of the rule.
c. Clarification of Coating Materials Definition
    The EPA is proposing to revise the coating material definition in
40 CFR 63.3310 to clarify that coating materials are liquid or semi-
liquid materials, consistent with 40 CFR part 63, subpart OOOO.
Additionally, we are proposing to revise the web coating line
definition to clarify that coating materials are liquid or semi-liquid.
These revisions will improve regulatory clarity by confirming that the
weight of solid materials should not be accounted for in the compliance
demonstration calculations, and that vapor-deposition coating is not
covered by this subpart.
d. Addition of Web Coating Line Usage Threshold
    The EPA is proposing to add a usage threshold to 40 CFR 63.3300(h),
consistent with 40 CFR part 63, subpart OOOO, that requires a web
coating line that coats both paper and another substrate, such as
fabric, to comply with

the subpart that corresponds to the predominate activity conducted. We
are proposing to define predominant activity to be 90 percent of the
mass of substrate coated during the compliance period. For example, a
web coating line that coats 90 percent or more of a paper substrate,
and 10 percent or less of a fabric substrate, would be subject to this
subpart and not 40 CFR part 63, subpart OOOO.
e. Addition of Printing Activity Exemption
    The EPA is proposing to add a printing activity exemption to 40 CFR
63.3300(i) which would allow for modified web coating lines already
subject to this subpart to continue to demonstrate compliance with this
subpart, in lieu of demonstrating compliance with 40 CFR part 63,
subpart KK. This proposed exemption will reduce regulatory burden
without resulting in increased emissions.
f. Clarification of Testing Requirements
    The EPA is proposing to remove the ``by compound'' statement in 40
CFR 63.3320(b)(4) to clarify that the standard is 20 ppmv for the total
of organic HAP emitted, not 20 ppmv for each individual HAP emitted.
This is consistent with the test methods used in this subpart, which
test for total HAP concentration.
g. Applicability to Sources Using Only Non-HAP Coatings
    As identified during the development of the risk modeling input
file and discussed in section III.C of this preamble, some facilities
that utilize only non-HAP coatings are subject to the POWC NESHAP
because they perform web coating operations and are a major source
because of non-POWC source category emissions. For example, a non-HAP
coating line used to produce paper towel cores may be located at a pulp
and paper facility that is a major source because of emissions from the
pulping operations. This facility would be required to comply with the
recordkeeping and reporting requirements of 40 CFR part 63, subpart
JJJJ, even though the coatings used contain no HAP, and, therefore, no
HAP were emitted from the web coating lines. The EPA is requesting
comment on changing the applicability of the subpart to exclude sources
that only use non-HAP coatings but are located at a major source from
the POWC NESHAP requirements to reduce regulatory burden.
h. Other
    The following are additional proposed changes that address
technical and editorial corrections:
     Revised the references to the other NESHAP in 40 CFR
63.3300 to clarify the appropriate subparts;
     Revised 40 CFR 63.3350(e)(4) to clarify 3-hour averages
should be block averages, consistent with the requirements in Table 1
to 40 CFR part 63, subpart JJJJ.
     Revised the monitoring requirements section in 40 CFR
63.3360 to clarify what constitutes representative conditions;
     Revised the recordkeeping requirements section in 40 CFR
63.3410 to include the requirement to show continuous compliance after
effective date of regulation;
     Revised the terminology in the delegation of authority
section in 40 CFR 63.3420 to match the definitions in 40 CFR 63.90;
     Revised the General Provisions applicability table (Table
2 to 40 CFR part 63, subpart JJJJ) to provide more detail and to make
it align with those sections of the General Provisions that have been
amended or reserved over time; and
     Renumbered the equations throughout the subpart for
regulatory clarity.
E. What compliance dates are we proposing?
    The EPA is proposing that existing affected sources must comply
with the amendments in this rulemaking no later than 180 days after the
effective date of the final rule. The EPA is also proposing that
affected source owners or operators that commence construction or
reconstruction after September 19, 2019 must comply with all
requirements of the subpart, including the amendments being proposed
except for the electronic reporting of semiannual reports, no later
than the effective date of the final rule or upon startup, whichever is
later. All affected existing facilities would have to continue to meet
the current requirements of 40 CFR part 63, subpart JJJJ until the
applicable compliance date of the amended rule. The final action is not
expected to be a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2), so the
effective date of the final rule will be the promulgation date as
specified in CAA section 112(d)(10).
    For existing sources, we are proposing two changes that would
impact ongoing compliance requirements for 40 CFR part 63, subpart
JJJJ. As discussed elsewhere in this preamble, we are proposing to add
a requirement that initial notifications, notifications of compliance
status reports, performance test results, performance evaluation
results, and semiannual reports be submitted electronically. We are
also proposing to change the requirements for SSM by removing the
exemption from the requirements to meet the standard during SSM
periods, and by removing the requirement to develop and implement an
SSM plan. Our experience with similar industries that are required to
convert reporting mechanisms, install necessary hardware, install
necessary software, become familiar with the process of submitting
performance test results electronically through the EPA's CEDRI, test
these new electronic submission capabilities, reliably employ
electronic reporting, and convert logistics of reporting processes to
different time-reporting parameters, shows that a time period of a
minimum of 90 days, and more typically, 180 days, is generally
necessary to successfully complete these changes. Our experience with
similar industries further shows that owners or operators of this sort
of regulated facility generally requires a time period of 180 days to
read and understand the amended rule requirements; evaluate their
operations to ensure that they can meet the standards during periods of
startup and shutdown as defined in the rule, and make any necessary
adjustments; adjust parameter monitoring and recording systems to
accommodate revisions; and update their operations to reflect the
revised requirements. The EPA recognizes the confusion that multiple
different compliance dates for individual requirements would create and
the additional burden such an assortment of dates would impose. From
our assessment of the time frame needed for compliance with the
entirety of the revised requirements, the EPA considers a period of 180
days to be the most expeditious compliance period practicable, and,
thus, is proposing that existing affected sources be in compliance with
all of this regulation's revised requirements within 180 days of the
regulation's effective date. We solicit comment on this proposed
compliance period, and we specifically request submission of
information from sources in this source category regarding specific
actions that would need to be undertaken to comply with the proposed
amended requirements and the time needed to make the adjustments for
compliance with any of the revised requirements. We note that
information provided may result in

changes to the proposed compliance date.

V. Summary of Cost, Environmental, and Economic Impacts

A. What are the affected sources?

    The POWC source category includes any facility that is located at a
major source and is engaged in the coating of paper, plastic film,
metallic foil, and other web surfaces. All the coating lines at a
subject facility are defined as one affected source. An existing source
means any affected source of which the construction or reconstruction
was commenced on or before September 13, 2000, and has not undergone
reconstruction. Generally, an additional line at an existing facility
is considered part of the existing affected source. New affected
sources are new lines installed at new facilities or at a facility with
no prior POWC operations.
    There are currently 168 facilities in the United States that are
subject to the POWC NESHAP. There is currently one known new affected
source that is under construction that will be subject to the POWC
NESHAP. No other facilities are under construction or are planned to be
constructed which would be considered ``new facilities'' under the POWC
NESHAP to the EPA's knowledge.

B. What are the air quality impacts?

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

C. What are the cost impacts?

    Startup and shutdown are considered normal operations for most
facilities subject to the POWC NESHAP. The EPA does not believe
removing the SSM exemption will result in additional incurred costs.
    As discussed in detail in the memorandum titled Cost,
Environmental, and Energy Impacts of Regulatory Options for the Paper
and Other Web Coatings Risk and Technology Review, it was estimated
that an additional 65 oxidizers will have to perform repeat performance
testing every 5 years. The estimated cost for an inlet-outlet EPA
Method 25A performance test (with electronic reporting of results) is
$28,000 per test, for an estimated nationwide cost of $1,820,000
(2018$) every 5 years. The proposed electronic reporting requirement is
not expected to require any additional labor hours to prepare, compared
to the paper semi-annual compliance reports that are already prepared.
Therefore, the costs associated with the electronic reporting
requirement are zero.

D. What are the economic impacts?

    The economic impact analysis is designed to inform decision makers
about the potential economic consequences of a regulatory action. To
assess the potential impact, the largest cost expected to be
experienced in any 1 year is compared to the total sales for the
ultimate owner of the affected facilities to estimate the total burden
for each facility.
    For the proposed revisions to the POWC NESHAP, the 168 affected
facilities are owned by 91 different parent companies, and the total
costs associated with the proposed requirements range from less than
0.000001 to 3 percent of annual sales revenue per ultimate owner. These
costs are not expected to result in a significant market impact,
regardless of whether they are passed on to the purchaser or absorbed
by the firms.
    The EPA also prepared a small business screening assessment to
determine whether any of the identified affected entities are small
entities, as defined by the U.S. Small Business Administration. Twenty-
nine of the facilities potentially affected by the proposed revisions
to the POWC NESHAP are small entities. However, the costs associated
with the proposed requirements for the affected small entities range
from 0.0003 to 3 percent of annual sales revenues per ultimate owner;
there is one facility with costs of 1.4 percent and one facility with
costs of 3 percent of annual sales revenues per ultimate owner.
Therefore, there are no significant economic impacts on a substantial
number of small entities from these proposed amendments.

E. What are the benefits?

    Because these proposed amendments are not considered economically
significant, as defined by Executive Order 12866, and because we did
not estimate emission reductions associated with the proposal, we did
not estimate any benefits from reducing emissions.

VI. Request for Comments

    We solicit comments on this proposed action. In addition to general
comments on this proposed action, we are also interested in additional
data that may improve the risk assessments and other analyses. We are
specifically interested in receiving any improvements to the data used
in the site-specific emissions profiles used for risk assessment
modeling. Such data should include supporting documentation in
sufficient detail to allow characterization of the quality and
representativeness of the data or information. Section VII of this
preamble provides more information on submitting data.

VII. Submitting Data Corrections

    The site-specific emissions profiles used in the source category
risk and demographic analyses and instructions are available for
download on the RTR website at https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/paper-and-other-web-coating-national-emission-standards-hazardous-0. The data files include detailed information for each HAP
emissions release point for the facilities in the source category.
    If you believe that the data are not representative or are
inaccurate, please identify the data in question, provide your reason
for concern, and provide any ``improved'' data that you have, if
available. When you submit data, we request that you provide
documentation

of the basis for the revised values to support your suggested changes.
To submit comments on the data downloaded from the RTR website,
complete the following steps:
    1. Within this downloaded file, enter suggested revisions to the
data fields appropriate for that information.
    2. Fill in the commenter information fields for each suggested
revision (i.e., commenter name, commenter organization, commenter email
address, commenter phone number, and revision comments).
    3. Gather documentation for any suggested emissions revisions
(e.g., performance test reports, material balance calculations).
    4. Send the entire downloaded file with suggested revisions in
Microsoft[supreg] Access format and all accompanying documentation to
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2018-0416 (through the method described in the
ADDRESSES section of this preamble).
    5. If you are providing comments on a single facility or multiple
facilities, you need only submit one file for all facilities. The file
should contain all suggested changes for all sources at that facility
(or facilities). We request that all data revision comments be
submitted in the form of updated Microsoft[supreg] Excel files that are
generated by the Microsoft[supreg] Access file. These files are
provided on the RTR website at https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/paper-and-other-web-coating-national-emission-standards-hazardous-0.

VIII. 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 OMB for review.

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

    This action is not expected to be 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 proposed rule have
been submitted for approval to OMB under the PRA. The Information
Collection Request (ICR) document that the EPA prepared has been
assigned EPA ICR number 1951.08, OMB Control No. 2060-0511. You can
find a copy of the ICR in the docket for this rule, and it is briefly
summarized here.
    The POWC NESHAP applies to existing facilities and new POWC
facilities. In general, all NESHAP standards require initial
notifications, notifications of compliance status, performance tests,
performance evaluation reports, and periodic reports by the owners/
operators of the affected facilities. They are also required to
maintain records of the occurrence and duration of any malfunction in
the operation of an affected facility, or any period during which the
monitoring system is inoperative. These notifications, reports, and
records are essential in determining compliance, and are required of
all affected facilities subject to NESHAP. This information is being
collected to assure compliance with 40 CFR part 63, subpart JJJJ.
    Respondents/affected entities: POWC facilities.
    Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (40 CFR part 63,
subpart JJJJ).
    Estimated number of respondents: 170.
    Frequency of response: Initially, occasionally, and semiannually.
    Total estimated burden: 17,600 hours (per year). Burden is defined
at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).
    Total estimated cost: $2,789,000 (per year), includes $789,000
annualized capital or operation and maintenance costs.
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for the
EPA's regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9.
    Submit your comments on the Agency's need for this information, the
accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods
for minimizing respondent burden to the EPA using the docket identified
at the beginning of this rule. You may also send your ICR-related
comments to OMB's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs via
email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Attention: Desk Officer for the
EPA. Since OMB is required to make a decision concerning the ICR
between 30 and 60 days after receipt, OMB must receive comments no
later than October 21, 2019. The EPA will respond to any ICR-related
comments in the final rule.

D. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

    I certify that this action will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. The
small entities subject to the requirements of this action and the
annualized costs associated with the proposed requirements in this
action for the affected small entities are described in section V.D.
above.

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

    This action does not contain any unfunded mandate of $100 million
or more as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not
significantly or uniquely affect small governments. The action imposes
no enforceable duty on any state, local, or tribal governments or the
private sector.

F. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have
substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between
the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

G. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments

    This action does not have tribal implications as specified in
Executive Order 13175. It will not have substantial direct effects on
tribal governments, on the relationship between the federal government
and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities
between the federal government and Indian tribes. No tribal governments
own facilities subject to the NESHAP. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does
not apply to this action.

H. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks

    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 contained in
sections III and IV of this preamble and further documented in the
following risk report, titled Residual Risk Assessment for the Paper
and Other Web Source Category in Support of the 2019 Risk and
Technology Review Proposed Rule, which can be found in the docket for

this action (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2018-0416).

I. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use

    This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211 because it is
not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

J. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) and 1 CFR
Part 51

    This action involves technical standards. The EPA proposes to use
ANSI/ASME PTC 19.10-1981 (2010), ``Flue and Exhaust Gas Analyses,'' for
its manual methods of measuring the oxygen or carbon dioxide content of
the exhaust gas. This standard is acceptable as an alternative to EPA
Method 3B and is available from the American Society of Mechanical
Engineers (ASME) at http://www.asme.org; by mail at Three Park Avenue,
New York, NY 10016-5990; or by telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>. While this
standard was incorporated by reference when 40 CFR part 63, subpart
JJJJ was originally promulgated (67 FR 72347), EPA is proposing to use
the updated version.
    The EPA also proposes to use the following six VCS as alternatives
to EPA Method 24 and is incorporating them by reference for the first
time in the proposed amendments:
     ASTM D2369-10 (Reapproved 2015)\e\, ``Standard Test Method
for Volatile Content of Coatings.'' This test method describes a
procedure used for the determination of the weight percent volatile
content of solvent-borne and waterborne coatings.
     ASTM D2697-03 (Reapproved 2014), ``Standard Test Method
for Volume Nonvolatile Matter in Clear or Pigmented Coatings.'' This
test method is applicable to the determination of the volume of
nonvolatile matter in coatings.
     ASTM D3960-98, ``Standard Practice for Determining
Volatile Organic Compound (VOC) Content of Paints and Related
Coatings.'' This test method is used for the measurement of the VOC
content of solventborne and waterborne paints and related coatings.
This method is an acceptable alternative to EPA Method 24 if the
regulation allows for the use of VOC content as a surrogate for HAP.
     ASTM D6093-97 (Reapproved 2016), ``Standard Test Method
for Percent Volume Nonvolatile Matter in Clear or Pigmented Coatings
Using a Helium Gas Pycnometer.'' This test method is used for the
determination of the percent volume nonvolatile matter in clear and
pigmented coatings.
     ASTM D2111-10 (Reapproved 2015), ``Standard Test Methods
for Specific Gravity of Halogenated Organic Solvents and Their
Admixtures.'' This test method is used for the determination of the
specific gravity of halogenated organic solvents and solvent
admixtures.
     ASTM D1963-85 (1996), ``Standard Test Method for Specific
Gravity of Drying Oils, Varnishes, Resins, and Related Materials at
25[deg]C.'' This test method is used for the determination of the
specific gravity of drying oils, varnishes, alkyd resins, fatty acids,
and related materials. This method is an acceptable alternative to EPA
Method 24 for density only and may not be valid for all coatings and is
valid at the designated temperature (25-degrees Celsius). This standard
was withdrawn in 2004 with no replacement; there is no later version.
    These standards are reasonably available from the American Society
for Testing and Materials (ASTM), 100 Barr Harbor Drive, Post Office
Box C700, West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959. See http://www.astm.org/.
    While the EPA has identified another 19 VCS as being potentially
applicable to this proposed rule, we have decided not to use these VCS
in this rulemaking. The use of these VCS would not be practical due to
lack of equivalency, documentation, validation date, and other
important technical and policy considerations. See the memorandum
titled Voluntary Consensus Standard Results for National Emission
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Paper and Other Web Coating, in
the docket for this proposed rule for the reasons for these
determinations (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2018-0416).
    Under 40 CFR 63.7(f) and 40 CFR 63.8(f) of subpart A of the General
Provisions, a source may apply to the EPA for permission to use
alternative test methods or alternative monitoring requirements in
place of any required testing methods, performance specifications, or
procedures in the final rule or any amendments.
    The EPA welcomes comments on this aspect of the proposed rulemaking
and, specifically, invites the public to identify potentially
applicable VCS and to explain why such standards should be used in this
regulation.

K. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations

    The EPA believes that this action does not have disproportionately
high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority
populations, low income populations, and/or indigenous peoples, as
specified in Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). The
documentation for this decision is contained in section IV.A.6 of this
preamble and the technical report, Risk and Technology Review--Analysis
of Demographic Factors for Populations Living Near Paper and Other Web
Coating Facilities, which is available in the docket for this action
(Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2018-0416).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Air pollution control, Hazardous substances, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.

    Dated: August 22, 2018.
Andrew R. Wheeler,
Administrator.
    For the reasons set out in the preamble, 40 CFR part 63 is proposed
to be amended as follows:

PART 63--NATIONAL EMISSION STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANTS
FOR SOURCE CATEGORIES

0
1. The authority citation for part 63 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

Subpart A--[Amended]

0
2. Section 63.14 is amended by:
0
a. in paragraph (e)(1), removing the phrase ``63.3360(e),'' without
replacement;
0
b. Adding paragraph (e)(2);
0
c. Redesignating paragraphs (h)(50) through (h)(111) as (h)(52) through
(h)(113);
0
d. Redesignating paragraphs (h)(19) through (h)(49) as (h)(20) through
(h)(50);
0
e. Adding new paragraph (h)(19) and (51); and
0
f. Revising newly redesignated paragraphs (h)(22), (27), (31), and
(81).
    The additions and revisions read as follows:

Sec.  63.14  Incorporations by reference.

* * * * *
    (e) * * *
    (2) ANSI/ASME PTC 19.10-1981 Part 10 (2010), Flue and Exhaust Gas
Analyses, IBR approved for Sec.  63.3360(e).
    (h) * * *
    (19) ASTM D1963-85 (1996), ``Standard Test Method for Specific
Gravity of Drying Oils, Varnishes,

Resins, and Related Materials at 25/25[deg]C,'' IBR approved for Sec.
63.3360(c).
* * * * *
    (22) ASTM D2111-10 (Reapproved 2015), Standard Test Methods for
Specific Gravity and Density of Halogenated Organic Solvents and Their
Admixtures, approved June 1, 2015, IBR approved for Sec. Sec.
63.3360(c), 63.4141(b) and (c) and 63.4741(a).
* * * * *
    (27) ASTM D2369-10 (Reapproved 2015)\e\, Standard Test Method for
Volatile Content of Coatings, approved June 1, 2015, IBR approved for
Sec. Sec.  63.3360(c), 63.4141(a) and (b), 63.4161(h), 63.4321(e),
63.4341(e), 63.4351(d), 63.4741(a), 63.4941(a) and (b), and 63.4961(j).
* * * * *
    (31) ASTM D2697-03 (Reapproved 2014), Standard Test Method for
Volume Nonvolatile Matter in Clear or Pigmented Coatings, approved July
1, 2014, IBR approved for Sec. Sec.  63.3360(c), 63.4141(b), 63.4741(a)
and (b), and 63.4941(b).
* * * * *
    (51) ASTM 3960-98, Standard Practice for Determining Volatile
Organic Compound (VOC) Content of Paints and Related Coatings, IBR
approved for Sec.  63.3360(c).
* * * * *
    (81) ASTM D6093-97 (Reapproved 2016), Standard Test Method for
Percent Volume Nonvolatile Matter in Clear or Pigmented Coatings Using
a Helium Gas Pycnometer, Approved December 1, 2016, IBR approved for
Sec. Sec.  63.3360(c), 63.4141(b), 63.4741(a) and (b), and 63.4941(b).
* * * * *

Subpart JJJJ--[Amended]

0
3. Section 63.3300 is amended by:
0
a. Revising the introductory text;
0
b. Revising paragraphs (a), (b), (d), (e) and (f); and
0
c. Adding paragraphs (h) and (i).
    The revisions and additions read as follows:

Sec.  63.3300   Which of my emission sources are affected by this
subpart?

    The affected source subject to this subpart is the collection of
all web coating lines at your facility. This includes web coating lines
engaged in the coating of metal webs that are used in flexible
packaging, and web coating lines engaged in the coating of fabric
substrates for use in pressure sensitive tape and abrasive materials.
Web coating lines specified in paragraphs (a) through (i) of this
section are not part of the affected source of this subpart.
    (a) Any web coating line that is stand-alone equipment under
subpart KK of this part (National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants (NESHAP) for the Printing and Publishing Industry) which the
owner or operator includes in the affected source under subpart KK of
this part.
    (b) Any web coating line that is a product and packaging
rotogravure or wide-web flexographic press under subpart KK of this
part (NESHAP for the Printing and Publishing Industry) which is
included in the affected source under subpart KK of this part.
* * * * *
    (d) Any web coating line subject to subpart EE of this part (NESHAP
for Magnetic Tape Manufacturing Operations).
    (e) Any web coating line subject to subpart SSSS of this part
(NESHAP for Surface Coating of Metal Coil).
    (f) Any web coating line subject to subpart OOOO of this part
(NESHAP for the Printing, Coating, and Dyeing of Fabrics and Other
Textiles). This includes any web coating line that coats both a paper
or other web substrate and a fabric or other textile substrate, except
for a fabric substrate used for pressure sensitive tape and abrasive
materials.
* * * * *
    (h) Any web coating line that coats both paper or a web, and
another substrate such as fabric, must comply with the subpart of this
part that applies to the predominant activity conducted on the affected
source. Predominant activity for this subpart is 90 percent of the mass
of substrate coated during the compliance period. For example, a web
coating line that coats 90 percent or more of a paper substrate, and 10
percent or less of a fabric or other textile substrate, would be
subject to this subpart and not 40 CFR 63, subpart OOOO.
    (i) Any web coating line subject to this part that is modified to
include printing activities, may continue to demonstrate compliance
with this part, in lieu of demonstrating compliance with subpart KK of
this part.
0
4. Section 63.3310 is amended by revising the definitions of ``coating
material(s)'' and ``web coating line''.
    The revisions and additions read as follows:

Sec.  63.3310   What definitions are used in this subpart?

* * * * *
    Coating material(s) means all liquid or semi-liquid materials,
including inks, varnishes, adhesives, primers, solvents, reducers, and
other materials applied to a substrate via a web coating line.
Materials used to form a substrate are not considered coating
materials.
* * * * *
    Web coating line means any number of work stations, of which one or
more applies a continuous layer of liquid or semi-liquid coating
material across the entire width or any portion of the width of a web
substrate, and any associated curing/drying equipment between an unwind
or feed station and a rewind or cutting station.
* * * * *
0
5. Section 63.3320 is amended by revising the introductory text of
paragraph (b) and revising paragraph (b)(4).
    The revisions read as follows:

Sec.  63.3320   What emission standards must I meet?

* * * * *
    (b) You must limit organic HAP emissions to the level specified in
paragraph (b)(1), (2), (3), or (4) of this section for all periods of
operation, including startup, shutdown, and malfunction.
* * * * *
    (4) If you use an oxidizer to control organic HAP emissions,
operate the oxidizer such that an outlet organic HAP concentration of
no greater than 20 parts per million by volume (ppmv) on a dry basis is
achieved and the efficiency of the capture system is 100 percent.
* * * * *
0
6. Section 63.3330 is revised to read as follows:

Sec.  63.3330   When must I comply?

    (a) For existing affected sources which commenced construction or
reconstruction prior to September 13, 2000, and for new affected
sources which commenced construction or reconstruction after September
13, 2000, but before September 19, 2019, you must comply as follows:
    (1) Before [DATE 180 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE
IN THE Federal Register], the affected coating operation(s) must be in
compliance with the applicable emission limit in Sec.  63.3320 at all
times, except during periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction
(SSM). On and after [DATE 180 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL
RULE IN THE Federal Register] the affected coating operation(s) must be
in compliance with the applicable emission limit in Sec.  63.3320 at
all times, including periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction.
    (2) A periodic performance test must be performed by [DATE 3 YEARS

AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE Federal Register], and subsequent
tests no later than 60 months thereafter, as required in Sec.  63.3360.
    (3) After [DATE 180 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN
THE Federal Register], you must electronically submit initial
notifications, semiannual compliance reports, and performance test
reports, as required in Sec.  63.3400.
    (b) For new affected sources which commenced construction or
reconstruction after September 19, 2019, you must comply as indicated
in (b)(1) through (4) of this section. Existing affected sources which
have undergone reconstruction as defined in Sec.  63.2 are subject to
the requirements for new affected sources. The costs associated with
the purchase and installation of air pollution control equipment are
not considered in determining whether the existing affected source has
been reconstructed. Additionally, the costs of retrofitting and
replacing of equipment that is installed specifically to comply with
this subpart are not considered reconstruction costs.
    (1) The coating operation(s) must be in compliance with the
applicable emission limit in Sec.  63.3320 at all times, including
periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction, immediately upon
startup.
    (2) You must complete any initial performance test required in
Sec.  63.3360 within the time limits specified in Sec.  63.7(a)(2), and
subsequent tests no later than 60 months thereafter.
    (3) You must electronically submit initial notifications and
performance test reports as required in Sec.  63.3400. After [DATE 180
DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE Federal Register],
you must electronically submit semiannual compliance reports as
required in Sec.  63.3400.
0
7. Section 63.3340 is revised to read as follows:

Sec.  63.3340   What general requirements must I meet to comply with
the standards?

    (a) Before [DATE 181 DAYS AFTER PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE
Federal Register], for each existing source, and for each new or
reconstructed source for which construction or reconstruction commenced
after September 13, 2000, but on or before September 19, 2019, you must
be in compliance with the emission limits and operating limits in this
subpart at all times, except during periods of startup, shutdown, and
malfunction. After [DATE 180 DAYS AFTER PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN
THE Federal Register], for each such source you must be in compliance
with the emission limits and operating limits in this subpart at all
times. For new and reconstructed sources for which construction or
reconstruction commenced after September 19, 2019, you must be in
compliance with the emission limits and operating limits in this
subpart at all times, immediately upon startup.
    (b) For affected sources as of September 19, 2019, before [DATE 181
DAYS AFTER PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE Federal Register], you must
always operate and maintain your affected source, including all air
pollution control and monitoring equipment you use for purposes of
complying with this subpart, according to the provisions in Sec.
63.6(e)(1)(i). On and after [DATE 180 DAYS AFTER PUBLICATION OF FINAL
RULE IN THE Federal Register] for such sources and after September 19,
2019 for new or reconstructed affected sources, you must always operate
and maintain your affected source, including associated air pollution
control equipment and monitoring equipment, in a manner consistent with
safety and good air pollution control practices for minimizing
emissions. The general duty to minimize emissions does not require the
owner or operator to make any further efforts to reduce emissions if
levels required by the applicable standard have been achieved.
Determination of whether a source is operating in compliance with
operation and maintenance requirements will be based on information
available to the Administrator which may include, but is not limited
to, monitoring results, review of operation and maintenance procedures,
review of operation and maintenance records, and inspection of the
source.
    (c) You must conduct each performance test required by Sec.
63.3360 according to the requirements in Sec.  63.3360(e)(2) and under
the conditions in this section unless you obtain a waiver of the
performance test according to the provisions in Sec.  63.7(h).
    (1) Representative coating operation operating conditions. You must
conduct the performance test under representative operating conditions
for the coating operation. Operations during periods of startup,
shutdown, and nonoperation do not constitute representative conditions.
You may not conduct performance tests during periods of malfunction.
You must record the process information that is necessary to document
operating conditions during the test and explain why the conditions
represent normal operation. Upon request, you shall make available to
the Administrator such records as may be necessary to determine the
conditions of performance tests.
    (2) Representative emission capture system and add-on control
device operating conditions. You must conduct the performance test when
the emission capture system and add-on control device are operating at
a representative flow rate, and the add-on control device is operating
at a representative inlet concentration. Representative conditions
exclude periods of startup and shutdown. You may not conduct
performance tests during periods of malfunction. You must record
information that is necessary to document emission capture system and
add-on control device operating conditions during the test and explain
why the conditions represent normal operation.
    (d) Table 2 to this subpart specifies the provisions of subpart A
of this part that apply if you are subject to subpart JJJJ of this
part.
0
8. Section 63.3350 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraph (b);
0
b. Revising the introductory text of paragraph (c);
0
c. Revising paragraph (d)(1)(iii);
0
d. Revising the introductory text of paragraph (e) and paragraph
(e)(2);
0
e. Revising paragraph (e)(4);
0
f. Redesignating paragraphs (e)(5) through (e)(10) as paragraphs (e)(6)
through (e)(11);
0
g. Adding paragraph (e)(5); and
0
h. Revising the newly designated paragraph (e)(10).
    The revisions and addition read as follows:

Sec.  63.3350   If I use a control device to comply with the emission
standards, what monitoring must I do?

* * * * *
    (b) Following the date on which the initial or periodic performance
test of a control device is completed to demonstrate continuing
compliance with the standards, you must monitor and inspect each
capture system and each control device used to comply with Sec.
63.3320. You must install and operate the monitoring equipment as
specified in paragraphs (c) and (f) of this section.
    (c) Bypass and coating use monitoring. If you own or operate web
coating lines with intermittently-controlled work stations, you must
monitor bypasses of the control device and the mass of each coating
material applied at the work station during any such bypass. If using a
control device for complying with the requirements of this subpart, you
must demonstrate that any coating material applied on a never-

controlled work station or an intermittently-controlled work station
operated in bypass mode is allowed in your compliance demonstration
according to Sec.  63.3370(o) and (p). The bypass monitoring must be
conducted using at least one of the procedures in paragraphs (c)(1)
through (4) of this section for each work station and associated dryer.
* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (iii) You must have valid data from at least 90 percent of the
hours when the process is operated. Invalid or missing data should be
reported as a deviation in the semiannual compliance report.
* * * * *
    (e) Continuous parameter monitoring system (CPMS). If you are using
a control device to comply with the emission standards in Sec.
63.3320, you must install, operate, and maintain each CPMS specified in
paragraphs (e)(10) and (11) and (f) of this section according to the
requirements in paragraphs (e)(1) through (9) of this section. You must
install, operate, and maintain each CPMS specified in paragraph (c) of
this section according to paragraphs (e)(5) through (8) of this
section.
    (1) * * *
    (2) You must have valid data from at least 90 percent of the hours
when the process is operated. Invalid or missing data should be
reported as a deviation in the semiannual compliance report.
* * * * *
    (4) You must determine the block 3-hour average of all recorded
readings for each operating period. To calculate the average for each
3-hour averaging period, you must have at least two of three of the
hourly averages for that period using only average values that are
based on valid data (i.e., not from out-of-control periods).
    (5) You must develop a quality control program, as required in
Sec.  63.8(d). The owner or operator shall keep these written
procedures on record for the life of the affected source or until the
affected source is no longer subject to the provisions of this part, to
be made available for inspection, upon request, by the Administrator.
If the performance evaluation plan is revised, the owner or operator
shall keep previous (i.e., superseded) versions of the performance
evaluation plan on record to be made available for inspection, upon
request, by the Administrator, for a period of 5 years after each
revision to the plan. The program of corrective action should be
included in the plan required under Sec.  63.8(d)(2).
* * * * *
    (10) Oxidizer. If you are using an oxidizer to comply with the
emission standards, you must comply with paragraphs (e)(10)(i) through
(vi) of this section.
    (i) Install, maintain, and operate temperature monitoring equipment
according to the manufacturer's specifications. Calibrate the chart
recorder or data logger at least quarterly.
    (ii) For an oxidizer other than a catalytic oxidizer, install,
operate, and maintain a temperature monitoring device equipped with a
continuous recorder. The device must have an accuracy of 1
percent of the temperature being monitored in degrees Fahrenheit, or
1.8 degree Fahrenheit, whichever is greater. The
temperature sensor must be installed in the combustion chamber at a
location in the combustion zone.
    (iii) For a catalytic oxidizer, install, operate, and maintain a
temperature monitoring device equipped with a continuous recorder. The
device must be capable of monitoring temperature with an accuracy of
1 percent of the temperature being monitored in degrees
Fahrenheit or 1.8 degree Fahrenheit, whichever is greater.
The temperature sensor must be installed in the vent stream at the
nearest feasible point to the inlet and outlet of the catalyst bed.
Calculate the temperature rise across the catalyst.
    (iv) Validate the temperature sensor at least quarterly using
method (iv)(A), (B), (C), (D), or (E):
    (A) Compare measured readings to a National Institute of Standards
and Technology (NIST) traceable temperature measurement device or
simulate a typical operating temperature using a NIST traceable
temperature simulation device. When the temperature measurement device
method is used, the sensor of the calibrated device must be placed as
close as practicable to the process sensor, and both devices must be
subjected to the same environmental conditions. The accuracy of the
temperature measured must be 2.5% of the temperature measured by the
NIST traceable device or 5 [deg]F whichever is greater.
    (B) Follow applicable procedures in the manufacturer owner's
manual.
    (C) Request the temperature sensor manufacturer to certify or re-
certify electromotive force (electrical properties) of the
thermocouple.
    (D) Replace the temperature sensor with a new certified temperature
sensor in lieu of validation.
    (E) Permanently install a redundant temperature sensor as close as
practicable to the process temperature sensor. The sensors must yield a
reading within 25 [deg]F of each other for thermal oxidizers and
catalytic oxidizers.
    (v) Conduct calibration and validation checks any time the
temperature sensor exceeds the manufacturer's specified maximum
operating temperature range or install a new temperature sensor.
    (vi) At least quarterly, inspect all components for integrity and
all electrical connections for continuity, oxidation, and galvanic
corrosion.
* * * * *
0
9. Section 63.3360 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraph (a);
0
b. Revising paragraph (b);
0
c. Revising paragraphs (c)(1)(i),and (2) through (4); and
0
d. Revising paragraphs (d)(1) through (3), (e)(1) and (2), the
introductory text of paragraph (f), and paragraph (g).
    The revisions read as follows:

Sec.  63.3360  What performance tests must I conduct?

    (a) The performance test methods you must conduct are as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
  If you control organic HAP on any
  individual web coating line or any               You must:
    group of web coating lines by:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) Limiting organic HAP or volatile   Determine the organic HAP or
 matter content of coatings.            volatile matter and coating
                                        solids content of coating
                                        materials according to
                                        procedures in paragraphs (c) and
                                        (d) of this section. If
                                        applicable, determine the mass
                                        of volatile matter retained in
                                        the coated web or otherwise not
                                        emitted to the atmosphere
                                        according to paragraph (g) of
                                        this section.

(2) Using a capture and control        (i) Initially, conduct a
 system.                                performance test for each
                                        capture and control system to
                                        determine: the destruction or
                                        removal efficiency of each
                                        control device other than
                                        solvent recovery according to
                                        paragraph (e) of this section,
                                        and the capture efficiency of
                                        each capture system according to
                                        paragraph (f) of this section.
                                        If applicable, determine the
                                        mass of volatile matter retained
                                        in the coated web or otherwise
                                        not emitted to the atmosphere
                                        according to paragraph (g) of
                                        this section.
                                       (ii) Perform a periodic test once
                                        every 5 years for each non-
                                        recovery control device to
                                        determine the destruction or
                                        removal efficiency according to
                                        paragraph (e) of this section.
                                        If applicable, perform a
                                        periodic test once every 5 years
                                        to determine the mass of
                                        volatile matter retained in the
                                        coated web or otherwise not
                                        emitted to the atmosphere
                                        according to paragraph (g) of
                                        this section.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (b) Control Device. If you are using a control device to comply
with the emission standards in Sec.  63.3320, you are not required to
conduct a performance test to demonstrate compliance if one or more of
the criteria in paragraphs (b)(1) through (3) of this section are met.
    (1) The control device is equipped with continuous emission
monitoring systems (CEMS) for determining inlet and outlet total
organic volatile matter concentration and meeting the requirements of
Performance Specification 6, 8, or 9 in Appendix B to 40 CFR part 60
and capture efficiency has been determined in accordance with the
requirements of this subpart such that an overall organic HAP control
efficiency can be calculated, and the CEMS are used to demonstrate
continuous compliance in accordance with Sec.  63.3350; or
    (2) You have met the requirements of Sec.  63.7(h) (for waiver of
performance testing); or
    (3) The control device is a solvent recovery system and you comply
by means of a monthly liquid-liquid material balance.
    (c) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (i) Include each organic HAP in Table 3 to this subpart determined
to be present at greater than or equal to 0.1 mass percent and greater
than or equal to 1.0 mass percent for other organic HAP compounds.
* * * * *
    (2) Method 24. For coatings, determine the volatile organic content
as mass fraction of nonaqueous volatile matter and use it as a
substitute for organic HAP using Method 24 of appendix A-7 to 40 CFR
part 60. The Method 24 determination may be performed by the
manufacturer of the coating and the results provided to you. One of the
voluntary consensus standards in paragraphs (c)(2)(i) through (v) of
this section may be used as an alternative to using Method 24.
    (i) ASTM D1963-85 (1996), (incorporated by reference, see Sec.
63.14);
    (ii) ASTM D2111-10 (Reapproved 2015), (incorporated by reference,
see Sec.  63.14);
    (iii) ASTM D2369-10 (Reapproved 2015)\e\, (incorporated by
reference, see Sec.  63.14);
    (iv) ASTM D2697-03 (2014), (incorporated by reference, see Sec.
63.14); and
    (v) ASTM D6093-97 (Reapproved 2016), (incorporated by reference,
see Sec.  63.14).
    (3) Formulation data. You may use formulation data to determine the
organic HAP mass fraction of a coating material. Formulation data may
be provided to the owner or operator by the manufacturer of the
material. In the event of an inconsistency between Method 311 (appendix
A to 40 CFR part 63) test data and a facility's formulation data, and
the Method 311 test value is higher, the Method 311 data will govern.
Formulation data may be used provided that the information represents
all organic HAP present at a level equal to or greater than 0.1 percent
for the organic HAP specified in Table 3 to this subpart and equal to
or greater than 1.0 percent for other organic HAP compounds in any raw
material used.
    (4) As-applied organic HAP mass fraction. If the as-purchased
coating material is applied to the web without any solvent or other
material added, then the as-applied organic HAP mass fraction is equal
to the as-purchased organic HAP mass fraction. Otherwise, the as-
applied organic HAP mass fraction must be calculated using Equation 4
of Sec.  63.3370.
    (d) * * *
    (1) Method 24. You may determine the volatile organic and coating
solids mass fraction of each coating applied using Method 24 (appendix
A-7 to 40 CFR part 60). The Method 24 determination may be performed by
the manufacturer of the material and the results provided to you. When
using volatile organic compound content as a surrogate for HAP, you may
also use ASTM D3960-98, (incorporated by reference, see Sec.  63.14) as
an alternative to Method 24. If these values cannot be determined using
either of these methods, you must submit an alternative technique for
determining their values for approval by the Administrator.
    (2) Formulation data. You may determine the volatile organic
content and coating solids content of a coating material based on
formulation data and may rely on volatile organic content data provided
by the manufacturer of the material. In the event of any inconsistency
between the formulation data and the results of Method 24 of appendix
A-7 to 40 CFR part 60 and the Method 24 results are higher, the results
of Method 24 will govern.
    (3) As-applied volatile organic content and coating solids content.
If the as-purchased coating material is applied to the web without any
solvent or other material added, then the as-applied volatile organic
content is equal to the as-purchased volatile content and the as-
applied coating solids content is equal to the as-purchased coating
solids content. Otherwise, the as-applied volatile organic content must
be calculated using Equation 5 of Sec.  63.3370 and the as-applied
coating solids content must be calculated using Equation 6 of Sec.
63.3370.
    (e) * * *
    (1) Initial performance test. An initial performance test to
establish the destruction or removal efficiency of the control device
must be conducted such that control device inlet and outlet testing is
conducted simultaneously, and the data are reduced in accordance with
the test methods and procedures in paragraphs (e)(1)(i) through (ix) of
this section. You must conduct three test runs as specified in Sec.
63.7(e)(3), and each test run must last at least 1 hour.
    (i) Method 1 or 1A of appendix A-1 to 40 CFR part 60 must be used
for sample and velocity traverses to determine sampling locations.
    (ii) Method 2, 2A, 2C, 2D, or 2F of appendix A-1 to 40 CFR part 60,
or Method 2G of appendix A-2 to 40 CFR part 60 must be used to
determine gas volumetric flow rate.

    (iii) Method 3, 3A, or 3B of appendix A-2 to 40 CFR part 60 must be
used for gas analysis to determine dry molecular weight. You may also
use as an alternative to Method 3B the manual method for measuring the
oxygen, carbon dioxide, and carbon monoxide content of exhaust gas in
ANSI/ASME PTC 19.10-1981 Part 10 (2010), (incorporated by reference,
see Sec.  63.14).
    (iv) Method 4 of appendix A-3 to 40 CFR part 60 must be used to
determine stack gas moisture.
    (v) Methods for determining the gas volumetric flow rate, dry
molecular weight, and stack gas moisture must be performed, as
applicable, during each test run.
    (vi) Method 25 or 25A of appendix A-7 to 40 CFR part 60 must be
used to determine total gaseous non-methane organic matter
concentration. Use the same test method for both the inlet and outlet
measurements which must be conducted simultaneously. You must submit
notice of the intended test method to the Administrator for approval
along with notification of the performance test required under Sec.
63.7(b). You must use Method 25A if any of the conditions described in
paragraphs (e)(1)(vi)(A) through (D) of this section apply to the
control device.
    (A) The control device is not an oxidizer.
    (B) The control device is an oxidizer but an exhaust gas volatile
organic matter concentration of 50 ppmv or less is required to comply
with the emission standards in Sec.  63.3320; or
    (C) The control device is an oxidizer but the volatile organic
matter concentration at the inlet to the control system and the
required level of control are such that they result in exhaust gas
volatile organic matter concentrations of 50 ppmv or less; or
    (D) The control device is an oxidizer but because of the high
efficiency of the control device the anticipated volatile organic
matter concentration at the control device exhaust is 50 ppmv or less,
regardless of inlet concentration.
    (vii) Except as provided in Sec.  63.7(e)(3), each performance test
must consist of three separate runs with each run conducted for at
least 1 hour under the conditions that exist when the affected source
is operating under normal operating conditions. For the purpose of
determining volatile organic compound concentrations and mass flow
rates, the average of the results of all the runs will apply.
    (viii) Volatile organic matter mass flow rates must be determined
for each run specified in paragraph (e)(1)(vii) of this section using
Equation 1:

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP19SE19.026

Where:

Mf = Total organic volatile matter mass flow rate,
kilograms (kg)/hour (h).
Qsd = Volumetric flow rate of gases entering or exiting
the control device, as determined according to paragraph (e)(1)(ii)
of this section, dry standard cubic meters (dscm)/h.
Cc = Concentration of organic compounds as carbon, ppmv.
12.0 = Molecular weight of carbon.
0.0416 = Conversion factor for molar volume, kg-moles per cubic
meter (mol/m\3\) (@293 Kelvin (K) and 760 millimeters of mercury
(mmHg)).

    (ix) For each run, emission control device destruction or removal
efficiency must be determined using Equation 2:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP19SE19.000

Where:

E = Organic volatile matter control efficiency of the control
device, percent.
Mfi = Organic volatile matter mass flow rate at the inlet
to the control device, kg/h.
Mfo = Organic volatile matter mass flow rate at the
outlet of the control device, kg/h.

    (x) The control device destruction or removal efficiency is
determined as the average of the efficiencies determined in the test
runs and calculated in Equation 2.
    (2) Process information. You must record such process information
as may be necessary to determine the conditions in existence at the
time of the performance test. Representative conditions exclude periods
of startup and shutdown. You may not conduct performance tests during
periods of malfunction. You must record the process information that is
necessary to document operating conditions during the test and include
in such record an explanation to support that such conditions represent
normal operation. Upon request, you shall make available to the
Administrator such records as may be necessary to determine the
conditions of performance tests.
* * * * *
    (f) Capture efficiency. If you demonstrate compliance by meeting
the requirements of Sec.  63.3370(f) through (i), (j)(2), (l), (o)(2)
or (3), or (q), you must determine capture efficiency using the
procedures in paragraph (f)(1), (2), or (3) of this section, as
applicable.
* * * * *
    (g) Volatile matter retained in the coated web or otherwise not
emitted to the atmosphere. You may choose to take into account the mass
of volatile matter retained in the coated web after curing or drying or
otherwise not emitted to the atmosphere when determining compliance
with the emission standards in Sec.  63.3320. If you choose this
option, you must develop a site- and product-specific emission factor
(EF) and determine the amount of volatile matter retained in the web
using Equation 3. The EF must be developed by conducting a performance
test using Method 25A of Appendix A-7 to 40 CFR part 60 and be
determined by obtaining the average of a three-run test. The EF should
equal the proportion of the mass of volatile organics emitted to the
mass of volatile organics in the coating materials evaluated. You may
use the EF in your compliance calculations only for periods that the
work station(s) was (were) used to make the product, or a similar
product, corresponding to that produced during the performance test.
You must develop a separate EF for each group of different products
that you choose to utilize an EF for calculating emissions by
conducting a separate performance test for that product.
    (1) Calculate the mass of volatile organics retained in the web for
the month from each group of similar products using Equation 3:

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP19SE19.001

Where:

Mvret = Mass of volatile matter retained in the coated
web after curing or drying, or otherwise not emitted to the
atmosphere, kg.
Cvi = Volatile organic content of coating material, i,
expressed as a mass fraction, kg/kg.
Mi = Mass of as-purchased coating material, i, applied in
a month, kg.
q = Number of different materials added to the coating material.
Cvij = Volatile organic content of material, j, added to
as-purchased coating material, i, expressed as a mass fraction, kg/
kg.
Mij = Mass of material, j, added to as-purchased coating
material, i, in a month, kg.
EFi = Volatile organic matter site- and product-specific
emission factor (three-run average determined from performance
testing, evaluated as proportion of mass volatile organics emitted
to mass of volatile organics in the coatings used during the
performance test).
* * * * *
0
10. Section 63.3370 is amended by:
0
a. Adding introductory text;
0
b. Revising paragraph (a);
0
c. Revising paragraph (c)(1)(ii);
0
d. Revising paragraphs (c)(2)(i) and (c)(2)(ii);
0
e. Revising paragraphs (c)(3) and (c)(4);
0
f. Revising paragraph (d);
0
g. Redesignating paragraphs (e) through (p) as paragraphs (f) through
(q);
0
h. Adding new paragraph (e);
0
i. Revising redesignated paragraphs (f) through (m);
0
j. Revising redesignated paragraphs (o) though (q); and
0
k. Adding paragraph (r).
    The additions and revisions read as follows:

Sec.  63.3370   How do I demonstrate compliance with the emission
standards?

    You must demonstrate compliance each month with the emission
limitations in Sec.  63.3320(b)(1) through (4). For each monthly
demonstration, you may apply any combination of the emission
limitations to each of your web coating lines individually, to each of
one or more groupings of your lines (including a single grouping
encompassing all lines of your affected source), or to any combination
of individual and grouped lines, so long as each web coating line is
included in the compliance demonstration for the month (i.e., you are
not required to apply the same emission limitation to each of the
individual lines or groups of lines). You may change the emission
limitation that you apply each month to your individual or grouped
lines, and you may change line groupings for your monthly compliance
demonstration.
    (a) A summary of how you must demonstrate compliance follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you choose to demonstrate      Then you must
       compliance by:           demonstrate that:    To accomplish this:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) Use of ``as-purchased''   (i) Each coating      Follow the
 compliant coating materials.  material used at an   procedures set out
                               existing affected     in Sec.
                               source does not       63.3370(b).
                               exceed 0.04 kg
                               organic HAP per kg
                               coating material,
                               and each coating
                               material used at a
                               new affected source
                               does not exceed
                               0.016 kg organic
                               HAP per kg coating
                               material as-
                               purchased; or
                              (ii) Each coating     Follow the
                               material used at an   procedures set out
                               existing affected     in Sec.
                               source does not       63.3370(b).
                               exceed 0.2 kg
                               organic HAP per kg
                               coating solids, and
                               each coating
                               material used at a
                               new affected source
                               does not exceed
                               0.08 kg organic HAP
                               per kg coating
                               solids as-purchased.
(2) Use of ``as-applied''     (i) Each coating      Follow the
 compliant coating materials.  material used at an   procedures set out
                               existing affected     in Sec.
                               source does not       63.3370(c)(1). Use
                               exceed 0.04 kg        either Equation 4
                               organic HAP per kg    or 5 of Sec.
                               coating material,     63.3370 to
                               and each coating      determine
                               material used at a    compliance with
                               new affected source   Sec.
                               does not exceed       63.3320(b)(2) in
                               0.016 kg organic      accordance with
                               HAP per kg coating    Sec.
                               material as-          63.3370(c)(5)(i).
                               applied; or
                              (ii) Each coating     Follow the
                               material used at an   procedures set out
                               existing affected     in Sec.
                               source does not       63.3370(c)(2). Use
                               exceed 0.2 kg         Equations 6 and 7
                               organic HAP per kg    of Sec.   63.3370
                               coating solids, and   to determine
                               each coating          compliance with
                               material used at a    Sec.
                               new affected source   63.3320(b)(3) in
                               does not exceed       accordance with
                               0.08 kg organic HAP   Sec.
                               per kg coating        63.3370(c)(5)(i).
                               solids as-applied;
                               or
                              (iii) Monthly         Follow the
                               average of all        procedures set out
                               coating materials     in Sec.
                               used at an existing   63.3370(c)(3). Use
                               affected source       Equation 8 of Sec.
                               does not exceed        63.3370 to
                               0.04 kg organic HAP   determine
                               per kg coating        compliance with
                               material, and         Sec.
                               monthly average of    63.3320(b)(2) in
                               all coating           accordance with
                               materials used at a   Sec.
                               new affected source   63.3370(c)(5)(ii).
                               does not exceed
                               0.016 kg organic
                               HAP per kg coating
                               material as-applied
                               on a monthly
                               average basis; or

                              (iv) Monthly average  Follow the
                               of all coating        procedures set out
                               materials used at     in Sec.
                               an existing           63.3370(c)(4). Use
                               affected source       Equation 9 of Sec.
                               does not exceed 0.2    63.3370 to
                               kg organic HAP per    determine
                               kg coating solids,    compliance with
                               and monthly average   Sec.
                               of all coating        63.3320(b)(3) in
                               materials used at a   accordance with
                               new affected source   Sec.
                               does not exceed       63.3370(c)(5)(ii).
                               0.08 kg organic HAP
                               per kg coating
                               solids as-applied
                               on a monthly
                               average basis.
(3) Tracking total monthly    Total monthly         Follow the
 organic HAP applied.          organic HAP applied   procedures set out
                               does not exceed the   in Sec.
                               calculated limit      63.3370(d). Show
                               based on emission     that total monthly
                               limitations.          HAP applied
                                                     (Equation 10 of
                                                     Sec.   63.3370) is
                                                     less than the