a facility (using add-on controls to meet the standards) to meet the
emission and operating standards, the control device for a coating
operation needs to be turned on and operating at specified levels
before the facility begins coating operations, and the control
equipment needs to continue to be operated until after the facility
ceases coating operations. In some cases, the facility needs to run
thermal oxidizers on supplemental fuel before VOC levels are sufficient
for the combustion to be (nearly) self-sustaining. Note that we are
also proposing new related language in 40 CFR 63.5140(b) to require
that the owner or operator operate and maintain the coating operation,
including pollution control equipment, at all times to minimize
emissions. See section IV.A.4.b.2 of this preamble for further
discussion of this proposed revision.
    Although no statutory language compels the EPA to set standards for
malfunctions, the EPA has the discretion to do so where feasible, as
discussed previously in section IV.A.4.b.1 of this preamble for the
Surface Coating of Metal Can source category.
    It is unlikely that a malfunction would result in a violation of
the standards during metal coil surface coatings operations for
facilities using the compliant material ``as-purchased'' or ``as-
applied'' options or the coating materials averaging option. Facilities
using these options have demonstrated that the organic HAP content of
each coating material as-purchased does not exceed 0.046 kg HAP per
liter of solids as purchased, or that each coating material as-applied
does not exceed 0.046 kg HAP per liter of solids on a rolling 12-month
average basis and determined on a monthly basis, or that the average
HAP content of all coating materials used does not exceed 0.046 kg HAP
per liter of solids as applied based on a rolling 12-month emission
rate and determined on a monthly basis.
    A malfunction event is more likely for metal coil coating
facilities that use the emission rate with add-on controls option or
the combination of compliant coatings and control device option. For
add-on control options, facilities must demonstrate an overall organic
HAP control efficiency of at least 98 percent, or that the oxidizer
outlet HAP concentration is no greater than 20 ppmv and 100-percent
capture efficiency and that operating limits are achieved continuously.
For the combination option, facilities must demonstrate that the
average equivalent emission rate does not exceed 0.046 kg HAP per liter
solids on a rolling 12-month average as-applied basis, determined
monthly. Operating limits for the capture and control devices are
listed in Table 1 to 40 CFR part 63, subpart SSSS of the Surface
Coating of Metal Coil NESHAP and must be achieved continuously. The
operating limits are based on maintaining an average temperature over a
3-hour block period, which must not fall below the temperature limit
established by the facility during its initial performance test.
    We currently have no information to suggest that it is feasible or
necessary to establish any type of standard for malfunctions associated
with the Surface Coating of Metal Coil source category. We encourage
commenters to provide any such information, if available.
    In the unlikely event that a source fails to comply with the
applicable CAA section 112(d) standards as a result of a malfunction
event, the EPA would determine an appropriate response based on, among
other things, the good faith efforts of the source to minimize
emissions during malfunction periods, including preventative and
corrective actions, as well as root cause analyses to ascertain and
rectify excess emissions. Refer to section IV.A.4.b.1 of this preamble
for further discussion of the EPA's actions in response to a source
failing to comply with the applicable CAA section 112(d) standards as a
result of a malfunction event for the Surface Coating of Metal Cans
source category, which applies to this source category.
2. Proposed Revisions to the General Provisions Applicability Table
a. 40 CFR 63.5140(b) General Duty
    We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table to subpart
SSSS (Table 2) entry for 40 CFR 63.6(e)(1)(i) by changing the ``yes''
in column 3 to a ``no.'' Section 63.6(e)(1)(i) describes the general
duty to minimize emissions. Some of the language in that section is no
longer necessary or appropriate in light of the elimination of the SSM
exemption. We are proposing instead to add general duty regulatory text
at 40 CFR 63.5140(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
63.5140(b) does not include that language from 40 CFR 63.6(e)(1).
    We are also proposing to revise the General Provisions table to
subpart SSSS (Table 2) entry for 40 CFR 63.6(e)(1)(ii) by changing the
``yes'' in column 3 to a ``no.'' Section 63.6(e)(1)(ii) imposes
requirements that are not necessary with the elimination of the SSM
exemption or are redundant with the general duty requirement being
added at 40 CFR 63.5140(b).
b. SSM Plan
    We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table to subpart
SSSS (Table 2) entry for 40 CFR 63.6(e)(3) by changing the ``yes'' in
column 3 to a ``no.'' Generally, these paragraphs require development
of an SSM plan and specify SSM recordkeeping and reporting requirements
related to the SSM plan. We are also proposing to remove from 40 CFR
part 63, subpart SSSS, the current provisions requiring the SSM plan in
40 CFR 63.5180(f) and requiring reporting related to the SSM plan in 40
CFR 63.5180(f)(1). As noted, the EPA is proposing to remove the SSM
exemptions. Therefore, affected units will be subject to an emission
standard during such events. The applicability of a standard during
such events will ensure that sources have ample incentive to plan for
and achieve compliance, and, thus, the SSM plan requirements are no
longer necessary.
c. Compliance With Standards
    We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table to subpart
SSSS (Table 2) entry for 40 CFR 63.6(f)(1) by changing the ``yes'' in
column 3 to a ``no.'' The current language of 40 CFR 63.6(f)(1) exempts
sources from non-opacity standards during periods of SSM. As discussed
above, the Court in Sierra Club vacated the exemptions contained in
this provision and held that the CAA requires that some CAA section 112
standards apply continuously. Consistent with Sierra Club, the EPA is
proposing to revise standards in this rule to apply at all times.
d. 40 CFR 63.5160 Performance Testing
    We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table to subpart
SSSS (Table 2) entry for 40 CFR 63.7(e)(1) by changing the ``yes'' in
column 3 to a ``no.'' Section 63.7(e)(1) describes performance testing
requirements. The EPA is instead proposing to add a performance testing
requirement at 40 CFR 63.5160(d)(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. Also, the proposed performance testing provisions will not
allow performance testing during startup or shutdown. As in 40 CFR
63.7(e)(1), performance tests conducted under this subpart should not
be conducted during malfunctions because conditions during malfunctions
are often not representative of normal operating conditions. Section
63.7(e) requires that the owner or operator maintain records of the
process information necessary to document operating conditions during
the test and include in such records an explanation to support that
such conditions represent normal operation. The EPA is proposing to add
language clarifying that the owner or operator must make such records
available to the Administrator upon request.
e. Monitoring
    We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table to subpart
SSSS (Table 2) entry for 40 CFR 63.8(a)(4) by changing the ``yes'' in
column 3 to a ``no.'' Section 63.8(a)(4) describes additional
monitoring requirements for control devices. Subpart SSSS of 40 CFR
part 63 does not have monitoring requirements for flares.
    We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table to subpart
SSSS (Table 2) entry for 40 CFR 63.8(c)(1) by changing the ``yes'' in
column 3 to a ``no.'' The cross-references to the general duty and SSM
plan requirements in those subparagraphs are not necessary in light of
other requirements of 40 CFR 63.8 that require good air pollution
control practices (40 CFR 63.8(c)(1)) and that set out the requirements
of a quality control program for monitoring equipment (40 CFR 63.8(d)).
Further, we are proposing to revise 40 CFR 63.5150(a) to add a
requirement to maintain the monitoring equipment at all times in
accordance with 40 CFR 63.5140(b) and keep the necessary parts readily
available for routine repairs of the monitoring equipment, consistent
with the requirements in 40 CFR 63.8(c)(1)(ii). The reference to 40 CFR
63.8(c)(1)(ii) is no longer needed since it is redundant to the
requirement in 40 CFR 63.5150(a).
    We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table to subpart
SSSS (Table 2) entry for 40 CFR 63.8(c)(6) by changing the ``yes'' in
column 3 to a ``no.'' The reference to 40 CFR 63.8(c)(6) is no longer
needed since it is redundant to the requirement in 40 CFR 63.5170 that
specifies the requirements for monitoring systems for capture systems
and add-on control devices at sources using these to comply.
    We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table to subpart
SSSS (Table 2) entry for 40 CFR 63.8(c)(8) by changing the ``yes'' in
column 3 to a ``no.'' The reference to 40 CFR 63.8(c)(8) is no longer
needed since it is redundant to the requirement in 40 CFR 63.5180(i)
that requires reporting of CEMS out-of-control periods.
    We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table to subpart
SSSS (Table 2) entry for 40 CFR 63.8(d)-(e) by changing the ``yes'' in
column 3 to a ``no.'' The requirements for quality control program and
performance evaluation of CMS are not required under 40 CFR part 63,
subpart SSSS.
    We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table to subpart
SSSS (Table 2) entry for 40 CFR 63.8(g) by changing the ``yes'' in
column 3 to a ``no.'' The reference to 40 CFR 63.8(c)(8) is no longer
needed since it is redundant to the requirement in 40 CFR 63.5170,
63.5140, 63.5150, and 63.5150 that specify monitoring data reduction.
f. 40 CFR 63.5190 Recordkeeping
    We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table to subpart
SSSS (Table 2) entry for 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(i) by changing the ``yes''
in column 3 to a ``no.'' Section 63.10(b)(2)(i) describes the
recordkeeping requirements during startup and shutdown. These recording
provisions are no longer necessary because the EPA is proposing that
recordkeeping and reporting applicable to normal operations will apply
to startup and shutdown. In the absence of special provisions
applicable to startup and shutdown, such as a startup and shutdown
plan, there is no reason to retain additional recordkeeping for startup
and shutdown periods.
    We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table to subpart
SSSS (Table 2) entry for 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(ii) by changing the ``yes''
in column 3 to a ``no.'' Section 63.10(b)(2)(ii) describes the
recordkeeping requirements during a malfunction, requiring a record of
``the occurrence and duration of each

malfunction.'' A similar record is already required in 40 CFR
63.5190(a)(5), which requires a record of ``the date, time, and
duration of each deviation,'' which the EPA is retaining. The
regulatory text in 40 CFR 63.5190(a)(5) differs from the General
Provisions in that the General Provisions requires the creation and
retention of a record of the occurrence and duration of each
malfunction of process, air pollution control, and monitoring
equipment; whereas 40 CFR 63.5190(a)(5) applies to any failure to meet
an applicable standard and is requiring that the source record the
date, time, and duration of the failure rather than the ``occurrence.''
The EPA is also proposing to add to 40 CFR 63.5190(a)(5) a requirement
that sources also keep records that include a list of the affected
source or equipment and actions taken to minimize emissions, an
estimate of the quantity of each regulated pollutant emitted over the
emission limit for which the source failed to meet the standard, and a
description of the method used to estimate the emissions. Examples of
such methods would include product-loss calculations, mass balance
calculations, measurements when available, or engineering judgment
based on known process parameters (e.g., coating HAP content and
application rates and control device efficiencies). The EPA proposes to
require that sources keep records of this information to ensure that
there is adequate information to allow the EPA to determine the
severity of any failure to meet a standard, and to provide data that
may document how the source met the general duty to minimize emissions
when the source has failed to meet an applicable standard.
    We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table to subpart
SSSS (Table 2) entry for 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(iv) by changing the ``yes''
in column 3 to a ``no.'' When applicable, the provision requires
sources to record actions taken during SSM events when actions were
inconsistent with their SSM plan. The requirement is no longer
appropriate because SSM plans will no longer be required. The
requirement previously applicable under 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(iv)(B) to
record actions to minimize emissions and record corrective actions is
now applicable by reference to 40 CFR 63.5190(a)(5).
    We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table to subpart
SSSS (Table 2) entry for 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(v) by changing the ``yes''
in column 3 to a ``no.'' When applicable, the provision requires
sources to record actions taken during SSM events to show that actions
taken were consistent with their SSM plan. The requirement is no longer
appropriate because SSM plans will no longer be required.
    We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table to subpart
SSSS (Table 2) entry for 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(x)-(xiii) by changing the
``yes'' in column 3 to a ``no.'' When applicable, the provision
requires sources to record actions taken during SSM events to show that
actions taken were consistent with their SSM plan. The requirement is
no longer appropriate because SSM plans will no longer be required.
g. 40 CFR 63.5180 Reporting
    We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table to subpart
SSSS (Table 2) entry for 40 CFR 63.10(d)(5) by changing the ``yes'' in
column 3 to a ``no.'' Section 63.10(d)(5) describes the reporting
requirements for startups, shutdowns, and malfunctions. To replace the
General Provisions reporting requirement, the EPA is proposing to add
reporting requirements to 40 CFR 63.5180(f). The replacement language
differs from the General Provisions requirement in that it eliminates
periodic SSM reports as a stand-alone report. We are proposing language
that requires sources that fail to meet an applicable standard at any
time to report the information concerning such events in the semi-
annual compliance report already required under this rule. Subpart SSSS
of 40 CFR part 63 currently requires reporting of the date, time
period, and cause of each deviation. We are clarifying in the rule
that, if the cause of a deviation from a standard is unknown, this
should be specified in the report. We are also proposing to change
``date and time period'' or ``date and time'' to ``date, time, and
duration'' (see proposed revisions to 40 CFR 63.5180(h)(2),
63.5180(h)(3), 63.5180(i)(3), and 63.5180(i)(4)). Further, we are
proposing that the report must also contain the number of deviations
from the standard and a list of the affected sources or equipment. For
deviation reports addressing deviations from an applicable emission
limit in Table 1 to 40 CFR 63.5170 or operating limit in Table 1 to 40
CFR part 63, subpart SSSS, we are proposing that the report also
include an estimate of the quantity of each regulated pollutant emitted
over any emission limit for which the source failed to meet the
standard, and a description of the method used to estimate the
emissions.
    Regarding the proposed new requirement discussed above to estimate
the quantity of each regulated pollutant emitted over any emission
limit for which the source failed to meet the standard, and a
description of the method used to estimate the emissions, examples of
such methods would include product-loss calculations, mass balance
calculations, measurements when available, or engineering judgment
based on known process parameters (e.g., coating HAP content and
application rates and control device efficiencies). The EPA is
proposing this requirement to ensure that there is adequate information
to determine compliance, to allow the EPA to determine the severity of
the failure to meet an applicable standard, and to provide data that
may document how the source met the general duty to minimize emissions
during a failure to meet an applicable standard.
    We will no longer require owners or operators to determine whether
actions taken to correct a malfunction are consistent with an SSM plan,
because plans would no longer be required. The proposed amendments,
therefore, eliminate 40 CFR 63.5180(f)(1) that requires reporting of
whether the source deviated from its SSM plan, including required
actions to communicate with the Administrator, and the cross reference
to 40 CFR 63.10(d)(5) that contains the description of the previously
required SSM report format and submittal schedule from this section.
These specifications are no longer necessary because the events will be
reported in otherwise required reports with similar format and
submittal requirements.
    We are proposing to remove the requirements in 40 CFR 63.5180(i)(6)
that deviation reports must specify whether a deviation from an
operating limit occurred during a period of SSM. We are also proposing
to remove the requirements in 40 CFR 63.5180(i)(6) to break down the
total duration of deviations into the startup and shutdown categories.
As discussed above in this section, we are proposing to require
reporting of the cause of each deviation. Further, the startup and
shutdown categories no longer apply because these periods are proposed
to be considered normal operation, as discussed in section IV.A.4.b.1
of this preamble for the Surface Coating of Metal Cans source category,
which also applies to this source category.
c. Technical Amendments to the Metal Coil NESHAP
    We propose to amend 40 CFR 63.5160(d)(1)(vi) to add the option of
conducting EPA Method 18 of appendix A to 40 CFR part 60, ``Measurement
of Gaseous Organic Compound Emissions

by Gas Chromatography,'' to measure and then subtract methane emissions
from measured total gaseous organic mass emissions as carbon.
Facilities using the emission rate with add-on control compliance
option can use either EPA Method 25 or EPA Method 25A to measure
control device destruction efficiency. Unlike EPA Method 25, EPA Method
25A does not exclude methane from the measurement of organic emissions.
Because exhaust streams from coating operations may contain methane
from natural gas combustion, we are proposing to allow facilities the
option to measure methane using EPA Method 18 and to subtract the
methane from the emissions as part of their compliance calculations. We
also propose to revise the format of references to test methods in 40
CFR part 60. The current references in 40 CFR 63.5160(d)(1) to EPA
Methods 1, 1A, 2, 2A, 2C, 2D, 2F, 2G, 3, 3A, 3B, 4, 25, and 25A specify
that each method is in ``appendix A'' of 40 CFR part 60. Appendix A of
40 CFR part 60 has been divided into appendices A-1 through A-8. We
propose to revise each reference to appendix A to indicate which of the
eight sections of appendix A applies to the method.
    We propose to amend 40 CFR 63.5160(b)(1)(i) and 63.5160(b)(4),
which describe how to demonstrate 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 propose to remove
this reference because 29 CFR 1910.1200(d)(4) has been amended and no
longer readily defines which compounds are carcinogens. We propose to
replace these references to OSHA-defined carcinogens at 29 CFR
1910.1200(d)(4) with a list (in proposed new Table 3 to 40 CFR part 63,
subpart SSSS) 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 SSSS 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),\32\ 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ See https://www.epa.gov/fera/dose-response-assessment-assessing-health-risks-associated-exposure-hazardous-air-pollutants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Current 40 CFR 63.5190 specifies records that must be maintained.
We propose to add clarification to this provision at 40 CFR 63.5190(c)
that specifies the allowance to retain electronic records applies to
all records that were submitted as reports electronically via the EPA's
CEDRI. We also propose to add text to the same provision clarifying
that this ability to maintain electronic copies does not affect the
requirement for facilities to make records, data, and reports available
upon request to a delegated air agency or the EPA as part of an on-site
compliance evaluation.
    We propose to clarify and harmonize the general requirement in 40
CFR 63.5140(a) with the reporting requirement in 40 CFR
63.5180(g)(2)(v) and 40 CFR 63.5180(h)(4) and the recordkeeping
requirement in 40 CFR 63.5190(a)(5). Section 40 CFR 63.5140(a)
currently states that, ``You must be in compliance with the standards
in this subpart at all times . . .''. We propose to add clarification
to this text to read; ``You must be in compliance with the applicable
emission standards in 40 CFR 63.5120 and the operating limits in Table
1 of this subpart at all times.''
    If there were no deviations from the applicable emission limit, 40
CFR 63.5180(g)(2)(v) requires you to submit a semiannual compliance
report containing specified information including, ``A statement that
there were no deviations from the standards during the reporting
period, and that no CEMS were inoperative, inactive, malfunctioning,
out-of-control, repaired, or adjusted.'' We are proposing to revise the
text to read, ``A statement that there were no deviations from the
applicable emission limit in Sec.  63.5120 or the applicable operating
limit(s) established according to Sec.  63.5121 during the reporting
period, and that no CEMS were inoperative, inactive, malfunctioning,
out-of-control, repaired, or adjusted.'' Conforming changes are also
being proposed to the reporting requirement at 40 CFR 63.5180(h)(4) and
the recordkeeping requirement at 40 CFR 63.5190(a)(5).
    We propose to revise one instance in 40 CFR 63.5160(e) regarding
performance testing in which an erroneous rule citation, ``Sec.
63.5170(h)(2) through (4),'' is specified. Section 63.5170 provides
requirements to demonstrate compliance with the standards for each
compliance option and refers back to the capture efficiency procedure
in 40 CFR 63.5160(e). Sections 63.5170(h)(2) through (4) pertain to the
mass of coatings and solvents used in the liquid-liquid material
balance calculation of HAP in Equation 10 of the subpart and are
unrelated to capture efficiency. Sections 63.5170(g)(2) through (4)
include capture efficiency determinations which are not referenced by
40 CFR 63.5160(e); therefore, we propose to change the erroneous
citation from ``Sec.  63.5170(h)(2) through (4)'' to ``Sec.
63.5170(g)(2) through (4).''
    We are proposing to amend 40 CFR 63.5130(a) to clarify that the
compliance date for existing affected sources is June 10, 2005.
    We are proposing to amend 40 CFR 63.5160(d)(3)(ii)(D) to correct a
typographical error in a reference to paragraphs ``(d)(3)(ii)(D)(1
(3).'' The correct reference is to paragraphs (d)(3)(ii)(D)(1)-(3).
    We are proposing to amend 40 CFR 63.5170(c)(1) and (2) to correct
the cross references to 40 CFR 63.5120(a)(1) or (2). The correct cross
references are to 40 CFR 63.5120(a)(1) or (3), because these are the
two compliance options relying on the overall organic HAP control
efficiency and the oxidizer outlet HAP concentration.
    We are proposing to amend Equation 11 in 40 CFR 63.5170 so that the
value calculated by the equation is correctly identified as
``He'' instead of just ``e.''
d. Ongoing Emissions Compliance Demonstrations
    As part of an ongoing effort to improve compliance with various
federal air emission regulations, the EPA reviewed the compliance
demonstration requirements in the Surface Coating of Metal Coil NESHAP.
Currently, if a source owner or operator chooses to comply with the
standards using add-on controls, the results of an initial performance
test are used to determine compliance; however, the rule does not
require ongoing periodic performance testing for these emission capture
systems and add-on controls. In this action we are proposing to require
periodic testing of add-on control devices, in addition to the one-time
initial emissions and capture efficiency testing, and ongoing
temperature measurement, to ensure ongoing compliance with the
standards.

    As described more fully in section IV.A.4.d of this preamble for
the Surface Coating of Metal Cans source category, the EPA documented
potential operational problems associated with control devices in
several publications; \33\ the ICAC, in their comments on a separate
rulemaking on the proposed revisions related to the NESHAP General
Provisions (72 FR 69, January 3, 2007), commented that ongoing
maintenance and checks of control devices are necessary in order to
ensure emissions control technology, including both thermal and
catalytic oxidizers, remains effective; \34\ and state websites list
CAA enforcement information that further corroborates the potential
problems identified by the EPA and ICAC comments and conclusions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ See Control Techniques for Volatile Organic Compound
Emissions from Stationary Sources, EPA/453/R-92-018, December 1992,
Control Technologies for Emissions from Stationary Sources, EPA/625/
6-91/014, June 1991, and Survey of Control for Low Concentration
Organic Vapor Gas Streams, EPA-456/R-95-003, May 1995. These
documents can be found in the Metal Cans and Metal Coil dockets for
this action.
    \34\ See Docket Item No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2004-0094-0173, available at
www.regulations.gov. A copy of the ICAC's comments on the proposed
revisions to the General Provisions is also included in the Metal
Cans and Metal Coil Dockets for this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Given the need for vigilance in maintaining equipment to stem
degradation, the EPA is proposing to require periodic testing of add-on
control devices, in addition to the one-time initial emissions and
capture efficiency testing and ongoing temperature measurement, to
ensure ongoing compliance with the Surface Coating of Metal Coil
NESHAP.
    In this action, the EPA is requiring periodic performance testing
of add-on control devices on a regular frequency (e.g., every 5 years)
to ensure the equipment continues to operate properly for facilities
using the emission rate with add-on controls compliance option. We note
that about half of the state operating permits for existing metal coil
coating sources already require such testing every 5 years synchronized
with 40 CFR part 70 air operating permit renewals. This proposed
periodic testing requirement includes an exception to the general
requirement for periodic testing for facilities using the catalytic
oxidizer control option at 40 CFR 63.5160(d)(3)(ii) and following the
catalyst maintenance procedures in 40 CFR 63.5160(d)(3)(ii)(C). This
exception is due to the catalyst maintenance procedures that already
require annual testing of the catalyst and other maintenance procedures
that provide ongoing demonstrations that the control system is
operating properly and may, thus, be considered comparable to
conducting a performance test.
    The proposed periodic performance testing requirement allows an
exception from periodic testing for facilities using instruments to
continuously measure emissions. Such CEMS would show actual emissions.
The use of CEMS to demonstrate compliance would obviate the need for
periodic oxidizer testing. Moreover, installation and operation of a
CEMS with a timesharing component, such that values from more than one
oxidizer exhaust could be tabulated in a recurring frequency, could
prove less expensive (estimated to have an annual cost below $15,000)
than ongoing oxidizer testing.
    This proposed requirement would not require periodic testing or
CEMS monitoring of facilities using the ``as purchased'' or ``as
applied'' compliant coatings options because these compliance options
do not use any add-on controls or control efficiency measurements in
the compliance calculations.
    The proposed periodic performance testing requirement would require
that facilities complying with the standards using emission capture
systems and add-on controls and which are not already on a 5-year
testing schedule to conduct the first of the periodic performance tests
within 3 years of the effective date of the revised standards.
Afterward, they would conduct the periodic testing before they renew
their operating permits, but no longer than 5 years following the
previous performance test. Additionally, facilities that have already
tested as a condition of their permit within the last 2 years before
the effective date would be permitted to maintain their current 5-year
schedule and not be required to move up the date of the next test to
the 3-year date specified above. This proposed requirement would
require periodic air emissions testing to measure organic HAP
destruction or removal efficiency at the inlet and outlet of the add-on
control device, or measurement of the control device outlet
concentration of organic HAP. The emissions would be measured as total
gaseous organic mass emissions as carbon using either EPA Method 25 or
25A of appendix A-7 to 40 CFR part 60, which are the methods currently
required for the initial compliance demonstration.
    We estimate that the cost to perform a control device emissions
destruction or removal efficiency test using EPA Method 25 or 25A would
be approximately $19,000 per control device. The cost estimate is
included in the memorandum titled Draft Costs/Impacts of the 40 CFR
part 63 subparts KKKK and SSSS Monitoring Review Revisions, in the
Metal Coil Docket. We have reviewed the operating permits for
facilities subject to the Surface Coating of Metal Coil NESHAP, and we
found that about one-half of the affected sources currently using
emission capture systems and add-on controls are required to conduct
periodic control device performance tests as a condition of their 40
CFR part 70 operating permits. We estimate that 21 metal coil coating
facilities with 30 add-on control devices currently are not required to
conduct periodic testing of their control devices as a condition of
their permit renewal. Periodic performance tests ensure that all
control systems used to comply with the NESHAP would be properly
maintained over time, thereby reducing the potential for acute
emissions episodes and non-compliance.
    We are requesting comment on adding periodic testing of add-on
control devices to the Surface Coating of Metal Coil NESHAP and on the
suggested 5-year schedule for the periodic testing.
e. IBR of Alternative Test Methods Under 1 CFR Part 51
    The EPA is proposing new and updated test methods for the Surface
Coating of Metal Coil NESHAP that include IBR. In accordance with
requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is proposing to add the following
optional EPA method and incorporate by reference the VCS described in
the amendments to 40 CFR 63.14:
     EPA Method 18 of appendix A to 40 CFR part 60, Measurement
of Gaseous Organic Compound Emissions by Gas Chromatography, proposed
for 40 CFR 63.5160(d)(vi);
     ASTM Method D1475-13, Standard Test Method for Density of
Liquid Coatings, Inks, and Related Products, proposed to be IBR
approved for 40 CFR 63.5160(c);
     ASTM D2111-10 (2015), Standard Test Methods for Specific
Gravity of Halogenated Organic Solvents and Their Admixtures, proposed
to be IBR approved for 40 CFR 63.5160(c);
     ASTM D2369-10 (2015), Test Method for Volatile Content of
Coatings, proposed to be IBR approved for 40 CFR 63.5160(b)(2);
     ASTM D2697-03 (2014), Standard Test Method for Volume
Nonvolatile Matter in Clear or Pigmented Coatings, proposed to be IBR
approved for 40 CFR 63.5160(c); and

     ASTM D6093-97 (2016), Standard Test Method for Percent
Volume Nonvolatile Matter in Clear or Pigmented Coatings Using Helium
Gas Pycnometer, proposed to be IBR approved for 40 CFR 63.5160(c).
    Older versions of ASTM methods D2697 and D6093 were incorporated by
reference when the Surface Coating of Metal Coil NESHAP was originally
promulgated (67 FR 39794, June 10, 2002). We are proposing to replace
the older versions of these methods with updated versions, which
requires IBR revisions. The updated version of the method replaces the
older version in the same paragraph of the rule text. We are also
proposing the addition of EPA Method 18 and incorporating by reference
ASTM methods D1475, D2111, and D2369 to the Surface Coating of Metal
Coil NESHAP for the first time in this rulemaking. Refer to section
VIII.J of this preamble for further discussion of these VCS.
5. What compliance dates are we proposing?
    The EPA is proposing that affected sources must comply with all of
the amendments, with the exception of the proposed electronic format
for submitting semiannual compliance reports, no later than 181 days
after the effective date of the final rule, or upon startup, whichever
is later. All affected facilities would have to continue to meet the
current requirements of 40 CFR part 63, subpart SSSS 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
SSSS. As discussed elsewhere in this preamble, we are proposing to add
a requirement that notifications, performance test results, and
semiannual compliance reports be submitted electronically. We are
proposing that the semiannual compliance report be submitted
electronically using a new template, which is available for review and
comment as part of this action. We are also proposing to change the
requirements for SSM by removing the exemption from the requirements to
meet the standard during SSM periods and by removing the requirement to
develop and implement an SSM plan. Our experience with similar
industries that are required to convert reporting mechanisms to install
necessary hardware and software, become familiar with the process of
submitting performance test results electronically through the EPA's
CEDRI, test these new electronic submission capabilities, and reliably
employ electronic reporting shows that a time period of a minimum of 90
days, and, more typically, 180 days is generally necessary to
successfully accomplish these revisions. Our experience with similar
industries further shows that this sort of regulated facility generally
requires a time period of 180 days to read and understand the amended
rule requirements; to evaluate their operations to ensure that they can
meet the standards during periods of startup and shutdown as defined in
the rule and make any necessary adjustments; and to update their
operation, maintenance, and monitoring plan to reflect the revised
requirements. The EPA recognizes the confusion that multiple different
compliance dates for individual requirements would create and the
additional burden such an assortment of dates would impose. From our
assessment of the timeframe needed for compliance with the entirety of
the revised requirements, the EPA considers a period of 180 days to be
the most expeditious compliance period practicable and, thus, is
proposing that existing affected sources be in compliance with all of
this regulation's revised requirements within 181 days of the
regulation's effective date.
    We solicit comment on these proposed compliance periods, and we
specifically request submission of information from sources in this
source category regarding specific actions that would need to be
undertaken to comply with the proposed amended requirements and the
time needed to make the adjustments for compliance with any of the
revised requirements. We note that information provided may result in
changes to the proposed compliance dates.

V. Summary of Cost, Environmental, and Economic Impacts

A. What are the affected sources?

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

B. What are the air quality impacts?

    At the current level of control, estimated emissions of volatile
organic HAP from the Surface Coating of Metal Cans source category are
approximately 77 tpy. Current estimated emissions of volatile organic
HAP from the Surface Coating of Metal Coil source category are
approximately 291 tpy.
    The proposed amendments require that all 53 major sources in the
Surface Coating of Metal Cans and Surface Coating of Metal Coil source
categories comply with the relevant emission standards at all times,
including periods of SSM. We were unable to quantify the emissions that
occur during periods of SSM or the specific emissions reductions that
would occur as a result of this action. However, eliminating the SSM
exemption has the potential to reduce emissions by requiring facilities
to meet the applicable standard during SSM periods.
    Indirect or secondary air emissions impacts are impacts that would
result

from the increased electricity usage associated with the operation of
control devices (e.g., increased secondary emissions of criteria
pollutants from power plants). Energy impacts consist of the
electricity and steam needed to operate control devices and other
equipment. The proposed amendments would have no effect on the energy
needs of the affected facilities in either of the two source categories
and would, therefore, have no indirect or secondary air emissions
impacts.

C. What are the cost impacts?

    We estimate that each facility in these two source categories will
experience costs as a result of these proposed amendments that are
estimated as part of the reporting and recordkeeping costs. Each
facility will experience costs to read and understand the rule
amendments. Costs associated with elimination of the SSM exemption were
estimated as part of the reporting and recordkeeping costs and include
time for re-evaluating previously developed SSM record systems. Costs
associated with the requirement to electronically submit notifications
and semi-annual compliance reports using CEDRI were estimated as part
of the reporting and recordkeeping costs and include time for becoming
familiar with CEDRI and the reporting template for semi-annual
compliance reports. The recordkeeping and reporting costs are presented
in section V.III.C of this preamble.
    We are also proposing a requirement for performance testing no less
frequently than every 5 years for sources in each source category using
the add-on controls compliance options. We estimate that one facility
subject to the Metal Can Surface Coating NESHAP and using three add-on
control devices would incur costs to conduct control device performance
testing because it is using the emission rate with add-on controls
compliance option and is not required by its permit to conduct testing
every 5 years. We estimate that 21 major source facilities subject to
the Surface Coating of Metal Coil NESHAP would incur costs to conduct
periodic testing because they are currently using the emission rate
with add-on controls compliance option and are not required by their
permits to conduct testing every 5 years. These 21 metal coil coating
facilities have a total of 30 add-on controls. This total does not
include facilities in the Surface Coating of Metal Coil source category
that have add-on controls and are currently required to perform
periodic performance testing as a condition of their state operating
permit. The cost for a facility to conduct a destruction or removal
efficiency performance test using EPA Method 25 or 25A is estimated to
be about $19,000, with tests of additional control devices at the same
facility costing 25 percent less due to reduced travel costs. The total
cost for the one metal can surface coating facility to test three add-
on control devices in a single year would be $47,000. The total cost
for all 21 facilities to test 30 add-on control devices in a single
year, plus two retests to account for 5 percent of control devices
failing to pass the first test, would be $560,000. The total annualized
testing cost is approximately $11,000 per year for the Metal Can
Surface Coating source category, and $130,000 per year for the Metal
Coil Surface Coating source category, including retests. In addition to
the testing costs, each facility performing a test will have an
additional $5,500 in reporting costs per facility in the year in which
the test occurs. For further information on the potential costs, see
the cost tables in the memoranda titled Estimated Costs/Impacts of the
40 CFR part 63 Subparts KKKK and SSSS Monitoring Review Revisions,
February 2019, and the Economic Impact and Small Business Screening
Assessments for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Metal Cans Coating Plants
(Subpart KKKK) and the Economic Impact and Small Business Screening
Assessments for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Metal Coil Coating Plants
(Subpart SSSS) in the Metal Cans and Metal Coil Dockets.

D. What are the economic impacts?

    The economic impact analysis is designed to inform decision makers
about the potential economic consequences of a regulatory action. For
the current proposals, the EPA estimated the cost of becoming familiar
with the rule and re-evaluating previously developed SSM record systems
and performing periodic emissions testing at certain facilities with
add-on controls that are not already required to perform testing. To
assess the maximum potential impact, the largest cost expected to be
experienced in any one year is compared to the total sales for the
ultimate owner of the affected facilities to estimate the total burden
for each facility.
    For the proposed revisions to the NESHAP for the Surface Coating of
Metal Cans, the total annualized cost is estimated to be $11,000 for
performance testing in year 3 for the five affected entities. The five
affected facilities are owned by three different parent companies, and
the total costs associated with the proposed requirements range from
0.00002 to 0.77 percent of annual sales revenue per ultimate owner.
These costs are not expected to result in a significant market impact,
regardless of whether they are passed on to the purchaser or absorbed
by the firms.
    For the proposed revisions to the NESHAP for the Surface Coating of
Metal Coil, the total annualized cost is estimated to be $130,000 for
performance testing in year 3 for the 48 affected entities. The 48
affected facilities are owned by 25 different parent companies, and the
total costs associated with the proposed requirements range from
0.00001 to 0.28 percent of annual sales revenue per ultimate owner.
These costs are not expected to result in a significant market impact,
regardless of whether they are passed on to the purchaser or absorbed
by the firms.
    The EPA also prepared a small business screening assessment to
determine whether any of the identified affected entities are small
entities, as defined by the U.S. Small Business Administration. One of
the facilities potentially affected by the proposed revisions to the
NESHAP for the Surface Coating of Metal Cans is a small entity. Ten of
the facilities potentially affected by the proposed revisions to the
NESHAP for the Surface Coating of Metal Coil are small entities.
However, the annualized costs associated with the proposed requirements
for the seven ultimate owners of these eleven affected small entities
range from 0.0029 to 0.77 percent of annual sales revenues per ultimate
owner. Therefore, there are no significant economic impacts on a
substantial number of small entities from these proposed amendments.
    More information and details of this analysis is provided in the
technical documents titled Economic Impact and Small Business Screening
Assessments for Proposed Amendments to the National Emission Standards
for Hazardous Air Pollutants for the Surface Coating of Metal Cans
(Subpart KKKK) and Economic Impact and Small Business Screening
Assessments for Proposed Amendments to the National Emission Standards
for Hazardous Air Pollutants for the Surface Coating of Metal Coil
(Subpart SSSS), available in the Metal Cans and Metal Coil Dockets,
respectively.

E. What are the benefits?

    As stated above in section V.B. of this preamble, we were unable to
quantify the specific emissions reductions associated with eliminating
the SSM exemption, although this proposed change has the potential to
reduce emissions of volatile organic HAP.

    Because these proposed amendments are not considered economically
significant, as defined by Executive Order 12866, we did not monetize
the benefits of reducing these emissions. This does not mean that there
are no benefits associated with the potential reduction in volatile
organic HAP from this rule.

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 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://www3.epa.gov/ttn/atw/rrisk/rtrpg.html. The data files include detailed information for each HAP
emissions release point for the facilities in these source categories.
    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 the Metal Cans Docket or Metal Coil Docket, as applicable,
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://www3.epa.gov/ttn/atw/rrisk/rtrpg.html.

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 Regulations 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 proposal have been
submitted for approval to OMB under the PRA, as discussed for each
source category covered by this proposal in sections VIII.C.1 through
2.
1. Surface Coating of Metal Cans
    The ICR document that the EPA prepared has been assigned EPA ICR
number 2079.07. You can find a copy of the ICR in the Metal Cans Docket
(Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0684), and it is briefly summarized
here.
    As part of the RTR for the Surface Coating of Metal Cans NESHAP,
the EPA is not proposing to revise the emission limit requirements. The
EPA is proposing to revise the SSM provisions of the rule and proposing
the use of electronic data reporting for future performance test data
submittals, notifications, and reports. This information is being
collected to assure compliance with 40 CFR part 63, subpart KKKK.
    Respondents/affected entities: Facilities performing surface
coating of metal cans.
    Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (40 CFR part 63,
subpart KKKK).
    Estimated number of respondents: In the 3 years after the
amendments are final, approximately five respondents per year would be
subject to the NESHAP and no additional respondents are expected to
become subject to the NESHAP during that period.
    Frequency of response: The total number of responses in year 1 is
15 and in year 3 is one. Year 2 would have no responses.
    Total estimated burden: The average annual burden to the five metal
can facilities over the 3 years if the amendments are finalized is
estimated to be 54 hours (per year). The average annual burden to the
Agency over the 3 years after the amendments are final is estimated to
be 23 hours (per year). Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).
    Total estimated cost: The average annual cost to the metal can
facilities is $6,200 in labor costs in the first 3 years after the
amendments are final. The average annual capital and operation and
maintenance (O&M) costs is $15,600. The total average annual Agency
cost over the first 3 years after the amendments are final is estimated
to be $1,090.
2. Surface Coating of Metal Coil
    The ICR document that the EPA prepared has been assigned EPA ICR
number 1957.09. You can find a copy of the ICR in the Metal Coil Docket
(Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0685), and it is briefly summarized
here.
    As part of the RTR for the Surface Coating of Metal Coil NESHAP,
the EPA is not proposing to revise the emission limit requirements. The
EPA is proposing to revise the SSM provisions of the rule and proposing
the use of electronic data reporting for future performance test data
submittals, notifications, and reports. This information is being
collected to assure compliance with 40 CFR part 63, subpart SSSS.
    Respondents/affected entities: Facilities performing surface
coating of metal coil.
    Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (40 CFR part 63,
subpart SSSS).
    Estimated number of respondents: In the 3 years after the
amendments are final, approximately 48 respondents per year will be
subject to the NESHAP and no additional respondents are expected to
become subject to the NESHAP during that period.
    Frequency of response: The total number of responses in year 1 is
144 and in year 3 is 69. Years 2 would have no responses.
    Total estimated burden: The average annual burden to the 48 metal
coil coating facilities over the 3 years if the amendments are
finalized is estimated to be 738 hours (per year). The average annual
burden to the Agency over the 3

years after the amendments are final is estimated to be 179 hours (per
year) for the Agency. Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).
    Total estimated cost: The average annual cost to the 48 metal coil
coating facilities is $85,000 in labor costs and $186,000 in capital
and O&M costs in the first 3 years after the amendments are final. The
average annual Agency cost over the first 3 years after the amendments
are final is estimated to be $8,530.
    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 dockets
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 July 5, 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
annualized costs associated with the proposed requirements in this
action for the affected small entities is described in section V.D.
above and additional detail is provided in the economic impact
memorandums associated with this action.

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

    This action does not contain an 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. No tribal facilities are known to be engaged in
any of the industries that would be affected by this action (metal can
surface coating and metal coil surface coating). 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.A and C, IV.A.1 and 2, IV.B.1 and 2, and IV.C.1 and 2 of
this preamble and are further documented in the Metal Cans Risk
Assessment Report and the Metal Coil Risk Assessment Report in the
Metal Cans Docket and the Metal Coil Docket, respectively.

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 rulemaking involves technical standards. The EPA is proposing
to amend the Surface Coating of Metal Coil NESHAP in this action to
provide owners and operators with the option of conducting two new
methods: EPA Method 18 of appendix A to 40 CFR part 60, ``Measurement
of Gaseous Organic Compound Emissions by Gas Chromatography'' to
measure and subtract methane emissions from measured total gaseous
organic mass emissions as carbon, and ASTM Method D1475-13, ``Standard
Test Method for Density of Liquid Coatings, Inks, and Related
Products.'' We are proposing to add these two standards to the Surface
Coating of Metal Coil NESHAP only, as these methods are already
provided in the Surface Coating of Metal Cans NESHAP.
    The EPA is also proposing to amend the Surface Coating of Metal
Cans NESHAP to update three ASTM test methods and amend the Surface
Coating of Metal Coil NESHAP to update two ASTM test methods. We are
proposing to update ASTM Method D1475-90, ``Standard Test Method for
Density of Liquid Coatings, Inks, and Related Products,'' in the
Surface Coating of Metal Cans NESHAP by incorporating by reference ASTM
Method D1475-13. The updated version, ASTM Method D1475-13 clarifies
units of measure and reduces the number of determinations required. We
are proposing to update ASTM Method D2697-86 (1998), ``Standard Test
Method for Volume Nonvolatile Matter in Clear or Pigmented Coatings,''
in both the Surface Coating of Metal Cans and the Surface Coating of
Metal Coil NESHAP by incorporating by reference ASTM D2697-03 (2014),
which is the updated version of the previously approved method. We are
also proposing to update ASTM Method D6093-97 (2003), ``Standard Test
Method for Percent Volume Nonvolatile Matter in Clear or Pigmented
Coatings Using Helium Gas Pycnometer,'' in both the Surface Coating of
Metal Cans and the Surface Coating of Metal Coil NESHAP by
incorporating by reference ASTM D6093-97 (2016), which is the updated
version of the previously approved method. ASTM D2697-03 (2014) is a
test method that can be used to determine the volume of nonvolatile
matter in clear and pigmented coatings and ASTM D6093-97 (2016) is a
test method that can be used to determine the percent volume of
nonvolatile matter in clear and pigmented coatings.
    For the Surface Coating of Metal Cans NESHAP and the Surface
Coating of Metal Coil NESHAP, the EPA proposes to incorporate by
reference the following VCS as an alternative to EPA Method 24 for the
determination of the volatile matter content in surface coatings:
     ASTM D2369-10 (2015), ``Test Method for Volatile Content
of Coatings.'' This test method allows for more accurate results for
multi-component chemical resistant coatings.
    For the Surface Coating of Metal Cans and the Surface Coating of
Metal Coil NESHAP, the EPA proposes to incorporate by reference the
following VCS for the determination of the specific gravity of
halogenated organic solvents in surface coatings:
     ASTM D2111-10 (2015), ``Standard Test Methods for Specific
Gravity of Halogenated Organic Solvents and Their

Admixtures'' (corrected to a standard temperature). This test method
allows measurement of specific gravity at different temperatures that
are chosen by the analyst.
    The ASTM standards are 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/.
    The EPA is not proposing ASTM D1963-85 (1996), ``Standard Test
Method for Specific Gravity of Drying Oils, Varnishes, Resins, and
Related Materials at 25/25 C,'' as an alternative for the determination
of the specific gravity because ASTM has withdrawn the method without
replacement. The EPA is also not proposing CARB Method 310,
``Determination of Volatile Organic Compounds in Consumer Products and
Reactive Organic Compounds in Aerosol Coating Products,'' as an
alternative to EPA Method 24 because the EPA has approved the method
only for consumer products and aerosol coatings, which do not apply to
the rulemakings or source categories addressed in this action.
    Although we identified another 21 VCS for the Surface Coating of
Metal Cans and another 20 VCS for the Surface Coating of Metal Coil as
being acceptable alternatives for methods included in these rules, we
are not proposing to add these VCS in these rulemakings. See the
memoranda titled Voluntary Consensus Standard Results for Surface
Coating of Metal Cans, August 16, 2018, and Voluntary Consensus
Standard Results for Surface Coating of Metal Coil, August 16, 2018, in
the Metal Cans Docket and the Metal Coil Docket, respectively, for the
reasons for these determinations.
    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 sections IV.A.1
and 2 and sections IV.B.1 and 2 of this preamble and the technical
reports titled Risk and Technology Review--Analysis of Demographic
Factors for Populations Living Near Surface Coating of Metal Cans
Source Category Operations, May 2018, and Risk and Technology Review--
Analysis of Demographic Factors for Populations Living Near Surface
Coating of Metal Coil Source Category Operations, May 2018, available
in the Metal Cans Docket and the Metal Coil Docket, respectively.
    As discussed in sections IV.A.1 and IV.B.1 of this preamble, we
performed a demographic analysis for each source category, which is an
assessment of risks to individual demographic groups, of the population
close to the facilities (within 50 km and within 5 km). In this
analysis, we evaluated the distribution of HAP-related cancer risks and
noncancer hazards from the Surface Coating of Metal Cans and the
Surface Coating of Metal Coil source categories across different
social, demographic, and economic groups within the populations living
near operations identified as having the highest risks.
    The results of the Surface Coating of Metal Cans source category
demographic analysis indicate that approximately 700 people are exposed
to a cancer risk at or above 1-in-1 million and no one is exposed to a
chronic noncancer HI greater than 1. None of the percentages of the at-
risk populations are higher than their respective nationwide
percentages.
    The proximity results (irrespective of risk) indicate that the
population percentages for six demographic categories located within 5
km of metal can coating facilities are higher than their respective
nationwide percentages.
    The results of the Surface Coating of Metal Coil source category
demographic analysis indicate that emissions from the source category
expose approximately 19,000 people to a cancer risk at or above 1-in-1
million and no one is exposed to a chronic noncancer HI greater than 1.
The percentages of the at-risk population in the following specific
demographic groups are higher than their respective nationwide
percentages: ``African American,'' and ``Below the Poverty Level.''
    The proximity results (irrespective of risk) indicate that the
population percentages for the ``Below the Poverty Level'' demographic
category within 5 km of metal coil coating facilities and the ``African
American'' demographic category within 50 km of metal coil coating
facilities are slightly higher than their respective nationwide
percentages.
    We do not expect this proposal to achieve significant reductions in
HAP emissions. The EPA anticipates 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) because it does not significantly affect the level
of protection provided to human health or the environment. The
documentation for this decision is contained in section IV of this
preamble and the technical reports titled Risk and Technology Review--
Analysis of Demographic Factors for Populations Living Near Surface
Coating of Metal Cans Source Category Operations, May 2018, and Risk
and Technology Review--Analysis of Demographic Factors for Populations
Living Near Surface Coating of Metal Coil Source Category Operations,
May 2018, which are available in the Metal Cans and Metal Coil Dockets,
respectively.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Hazardous
substances, Incorporation by reference, Surface coating of metal cans,
Surface coating of metal coil, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Appendix A.

    Dated: May 2, 2019.
Andrew R. Wheeler,
Administrator.
    For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Environmental
Protection Agency proposes to amend 40 CFR part 63 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--General Provisions

0
2. Section 63.14 is amended by revising paragraphs (h)(13), (21), (26),
(29), (30), (78) and (79) to read as follows:

Sec.  63.14  Incorporations by reference.

* * * * *
    (h) * * *
    (13) ASTM Method D1475-13, Standard Test Method for Density of

Liquid Coatings, Inks, and Related Products, approved November 1, 2013,
IBR approved for Sec. Sec.  63.3521(c), 63.3531(c), 63.4141(b) and (c),
63.4741(b) and (c), 63.4751(c), 63.4941(b) and (c), and 63.5160(c).
* * * * *
    (21) ASTM D2111-10 (Reapproved 2015), Standard Test Methods for
Specific Gravity of Halogenated Organic Solvents and Their Admixtures,
approved June 1, 2015, IBR approved for Sec. Sec.  63.3531(c),
63.4141(b) and (c), 63.4741(a), and 63.5160(c).
* * * * *
    (26) ASTM D2369-10 (Reapproved 2015)\e\, Standard Test Method for
Volatile Content of Coatings, approved June 1, 2015, IBR approved for
Sec. Sec.  63.3521(a), 63.3541(i)(3), 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),
63.4961(j), and 63.5160(b).
* * * * *
    (29) ASTM D2697-86 (Reapproved 1998), Standard Test Method for
Volume Nonvolatile Matter in Clear or Pigmented Coatings, IBR approved
for Sec. Sec.  63.3161(f), 63.3941(b), 63.4141(b), 63.4741(b), and
63.4941(b).
    (30) 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.  63.3521(b), 63.4141(b), 63.4741(a)
and (b), 63.4941(b), and 63.5160(c).
* * * * *
    (78) ASTM D6093-97 (Reapproved 2003), Standard Test Method for
Percent Volume Nonvolatile Matter in Clear or Pigmented Coatings Using
a Helium Gas Pycnometer, IBR approved for Sec. Sec.  63.3161 and
63.3941.
    (79) 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.  63.3521(b), 63.4141(b), 63.4741(a) and (b), 63.4941(b), and
63.5160(c).
* * * * *

Subpart KKKK--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants: Surface Coating of Metal Cans

0
3. Section 63.3481 is amended by revising paragraph (c)(5) to read as
follows:

Sec.  63.3481  Am I subject to this subpart?

    (c) * * *
    (5) Surface coating of metal pails, buckets, and drums. Subpart
MMMM of this part covers surface coating of all miscellaneous metal
parts and products not explicitly covered by another subpart.
0
4. Section 63.3492 is amended by revising paragraph (b) to read as
follows:

Sec.  63.3492  What operating limits must I meet?

* * * * *
    (b) For any controlled coating operation(s) on which you use the
emission rate with add-on controls option or the control efficiency/
outlet concentration option, except those for which you use a solvent
recovery system and conduct a liquid-liquid material balance according
to Sec.  63.3541(i), you must meet the operating limits specified in
Table 4 to this subpart. Those operating limits apply to the emission
capture and control systems for the coating operation(s) used for
purposes of complying with this subpart. You must establish the
operating limits during the performance tests required in Sec.  63.3540
or Sec.  63.3550 according to the requirements in Sec.  63.3546 or
Sec.  63.3556. You must meet the operating limits established during
the most recent performance tests required in Sec.  63.3540 or Sec.
63.3550 at all times after they have been established during the
performance test.
* * * * *
0
5. Section 63.3500 is amended by revising paragraphs (a)(1), (b), and
(c) to read as follows:

Sec.  63.3500  What are my general requirements for complying with this
subpart?

    (a) * * *
    (1) Any coating operation(s) for which you use the compliant
material option or the emission rate without add-on controls option, as
specified in Sec.  63.3491(a) and (b), must be in compliance with the
applicable emission limit in Sec.  63.3490 at all times.
* * * * *
    (b) Before [DATE 181 DAYS AFTER DATE OF 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
181 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE Federal
Register], at all times, the owner or operator must operate and
maintain any 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 that 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
affected source.
    (c) Before [DATE 181 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE
IN THE Federal Register], if your affected source uses an emission
capture system and add-on control device for purposes of complying with
this subpart, you must develop a written startup, shutdown, and
malfunction plan (SSMP) according to the provisions in Sec.
63.6(e)(3). The plan must address startup, shutdown, and corrective
actions in the event of a malfunction of the emission capture system or
the add-on control device. The plan must also address any coating
operation equipment that may cause increased emissions or that would
affect capture efficiency if the process equipment malfunctions, such
as conveyors that move parts among enclosures. On and after [DATE 181
DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE Federal Register],
the SSMP is not required.
0
6. Section 63.3511 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraphs (a)(4), (a)(5) introductory text, (a)(5)(i), and
(a)(5)(iv);
0
b. Adding paragraph (a)(5)(v);
0
c. Revising paragraph (a)(6) introductory text and (a)(6)(iii);
0
d. Adding paragraph (a)(6)(iv);
0
e. Revising paragraph (a)(7) introductory text, and paragraphs
(a)(7)(iii), (a)(7)(vi) through (viii), (a)(7)(x), and (a)(7)(xiii) and
(xiv);
0
f. Adding paragraph (a)(7)(xv);
0
g. Revising paragraph (a)(8) introductory text, and paragraphs
(a)(8)(i), (a)(8)(iv) through (vi), (a)(8)(viii), and (a)(8)(xi) and
(xii);
0
f. Adding paragraph (a)(8)(xiii);
0
g. Revising paragraph (c) introductory text; and
0
h. Adding paragraphs (d) through (h).
    The revisions and additions read as follows:

Sec.  63.3511  What reports must I submit?

    (a) * * *
    (4) No deviations. If there were no deviations from the emission
limits,

operating limits, or work practice standards in Sec. Sec.  63.3490,
63.3492, and 63.3493 that apply to you, the semiannual compliance
report must include a statement that there were no deviations from the
emission limitations during the reporting period. If you used the
emission rate with add-on controls option or the control efficiency/
outlet concentration option and there were no periods during which the
continuous parameter monitoring systems (CPMS) were out of control as
specified in Sec.  63.8(c)(7), the semiannual compliance report must
include a statement that there were no periods during which the CPMS
were out of control during the reporting period.
    (5) Deviations: Compliant material option. If you used the
compliant material option and there was a deviation from the applicable
emission limit in Sec.  63.3490, the semiannual compliance report must
contain the information in paragraphs (a)(5)(i) through (v) of this
section.
    (i) Identification of each coating used that deviated from the
emission limit, each thinner used that contained organic HAP, and the
date, time, and duration each was used.
* * * * *
    (iv) Before [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule
in the Federal Register], a statement of the cause of each deviation.
On and after [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in
the Federal Register], a statement of the cause of each deviation
(including unknown cause, if applicable).
    (v) On and after [date 181 days after date of publication of final
rule in the Federal Register], the number of deviations and, for each
deviation, a list of the affected source or equipment, an estimate of
the quantity of each regulated pollutant emitted over any applicable
emission limit in Sec.  63.3490, a description of the method used to
estimate the emissions, and the actions you took to minimize emissions
in accordance with Sec.  63.3500(b).
    (6) Deviations: Emission rate without add-on controls option. If
you used the emission rate without add-on controls option and there was
a deviation from the applicable emission limit in Sec.  63.3490, the
semiannual compliance report must contain the information in paragraphs
(a)(6)(i) through (iv) of this section.
* * * * *
    (iii) Before [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule
in the Federal Register], a statement of the cause of each deviation.
On and after [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in
the Federal Register], a statement of the cause of each deviation
(including unknown cause, if applicable).
    (iv) On and after [date 181 days after date of publication of final
rule in the Federal Register], the number of deviations, date, time,
duration, a list of the affected source or equipment, an estimate of
the quantity of each regulated pollutant emitted over any applicable
emission limit in Sec.  63.3490, a description of the method used to
estimate the emissions, and the actions you took to minimize emissions
in accordance with Sec.  63.3500(b).
    (7) Deviations: Emission rate with add-on controls option. If you
used the emission rate with add-on controls option and there was a
deviation from the applicable emission limit in Sec.  63.3490 or the
applicable operating limit(s) in Table 4 to this subpart (including any
periods when emissions bypassed the add-on control device and were
diverted to the atmosphere), before [date 181 days after date of
publication of final rule in the Federal Register], the semiannual
compliance report must contain the information in paragraphs (a)(7)(i)
through (xiv) of this section. That includes periods of startup,
shutdown, and malfunction during which deviations occurred. On and
after [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the
Federal Register], the semiannual compliance report must contain the
information in paragraphs (a)(7)(i) through (xii), (a)(7)(xiv), and
(a)(7)(xv) of this section. If you use the emission rate with add-on
controls option and there was a deviation from the applicable work
practice standards in Sec.  63.3493(b), the semiannual compliance
report must contain the information in paragraph (a)(7)(xiii) of this
section.
* * * * *
    (iii) The date and time that each malfunction of the capture system
or add-on control devices started and stopped.
* * * * *
    (vi) Before [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule
in the Federal Register], the date and time that each CPMS was
inoperative, except for zero (low-level) and high-level checks. On and
after [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the
Federal Register], the number of instances that the CPMS was
inoperative, and for each instance, except for zero (low-level) and
high-level checks, the date, time, and duration that the CPMS was
inoperative; the cause (including unknown cause) for the CPMS being
inoperative; and the actions you took to minimize emissions in
accordance with Sec.  63.3500(b).
    (vii) Before [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule
in the Federal Register], the date, time, and duration that each CPMS
was out of control, including the information in Sec.  63.8(c)(8). On
and after [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the
Federal Register], the number of instances that the CPMS was out of
control as specified in Sec.  63.8(c)(7) and, for each instance, the
date, time, and duration that the CPMS was out-of-control; the cause
(including unknown cause) for the CPMS being out-of-control; and
descriptions of corrective actions taken.
    (viii) Before [date 181 days after date of publication of final
rule in the Federal Register], the date and time period of each
deviation from an operating limit in Table 4 to this subpart; date and
time period of any bypass of the add-on control device; and whether
each deviation occurred during a period of startup, shutdown, or
malfunction or during another period. On and after [date 181 days after
date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register], the number
of deviations from an operating limit in Table 4 to this subpart and,
for each deviation, the date, time, and duration of each deviation; the
date, time, and duration of any bypass of the add-on control device.
* * * * *
    (x) Before [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule
in the Federal Register], a breakdown of the total duration of the
deviations from the operating limits in Table 4 to this subpart and
bypasses of the add-on control device during the semiannual reporting
period into those that were due to startup, shutdown, control equipment
problems, process problems, other known causes, and other unknown
causes. On and after [date 181 days after date of publication of final
rule in the Federal Register], a breakdown of the total duration of the
deviations from the operating limits in Table 4 to this subpart and
bypasses of the add-on control device during the semiannual reporting
period into those that were due to control equipment problems, process
problems, other known causes, and other unknown causes.
* * * * *
    (xiii) Before [date 181 days after date of publication of final
rule in the Federal Register], for each deviation from the work
practice standards, a description of the deviation; the date, and time
period of the deviation; and

the actions you took to correct the deviation. On and after [date 181
days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register],
for deviations from the work practice standards, the number of
deviations, and, for each deviation, the information in paragraphs
(a)(7)(xiii)(A) and (B) of this section:
    (A) A description of the deviation; the date, time, and duration of
the deviation; and the actions you took to minimize emissions in
accordance with Sec.  63.3500(b).
    (B) The description required in paragraph (a)(7)(xiii)(A) of this
section must include a list of the affected sources or equipment for
which a deviation occurred and the cause of the deviation (including
unknown cause, if applicable.
    (xiv) Before [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule
in the Federal Register], a statement of the cause of each deviation.
On and after [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in
the Federal Register], for deviations from an emission limit in Sec.
63.3490 or an operating limit in Table 4 to this subpart, a statement
of the cause of each deviation (including unknown cause, if applicable)
and the actions you took to minimize emissions in accordance with Sec.
63.3500(b).
    (xv) On and after [date 181 days after date of publication of final
rule in the Federal Register], for each deviation from an emission
limit in Sec.  63.3490 or operating limit in Table 4 to this subpart, a
list of the affected sources or equipment for which a deviation
occurred, an estimate of the quantity of each regulated pollutant
emitted over any emission limit in Sec.  63.3490 or operating limit in
Table 4 to this subpart, and a description of the method used to
estimate the emissions.
    (8) Deviations: Control efficiency/outlet concentration option. If
you used the control efficiency/outlet concentration option, and there
was a deviation from the applicable emission limit in Sec.  63.3490 or
the applicable operating limit(s) in Table 4 to this subpart (including
any periods when emissions bypassed the add-on control device and were
diverted to the atmosphere), before [date 181 days after date of
publication of final rule in the Federal Register], the semiannual
compliance report must contain the information in paragraphs (a)(8)(i)
through (xii) of this section. This includes periods of startup,
shutdown, and malfunction during which deviations occurred. On and
after [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the
Federal Register], the semiannual compliance report must specify the
number of deviations during the compliance period and contain the
information in paragraphs (a)(8)(i) through (x), (xii), and (xiii) of
this section. If you use the control efficiency/outlet concentration
option and there was a deviation from the applicable work practice
standards in Sec.  63.3493(b), the semiannual compliance report must
contain the information in paragraph (a)(8)(xi) of this section.
    (i) The date and time that each malfunction of the capture system
or add-on control devices started and stopped.
* * * * *
    (iv) Before [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule
in the Federal Register], the date and time that each CPMS was
inoperative, except for zero (low-level) and high-level checks. On and
after [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the
Federal Register], for each instance that the CPMS was inoperative,
except for zero (low-level) and high-level checks, the date, time, and
duration that the CPMS was inoperative; the cause (including unknown
cause) for the CPMS being inoperative; and the actions you took to
minimize emissions in accordance with Sec.  63.3500(b).
    (v) For each instance that the CPMS was out of control as specified
in Sec.  63.8(c)(7), the date, time, and duration that the CPMS was out
of control; the cause (including unknown cause) for the CPMS being out
of control; and the actions you took to minimize emissions in
accordance with Sec.  63.3500(b).
    (vi) Before [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule
in the Federal Register], the date and time period of each deviation
from an operating limit in Table 4 to this subpart; date and time of
any bypass of the add-on control device; and whether each deviation
occurred during a period of startup, shutdown, or malfunction or during
another period. On and after [date 181 days after date of publication
of final rule in the Federal Register], the date, time, and duration of
each deviation from an operating limit in Table 4 to this subpart; and
the date, time, and duration of any bypass of the add-on control
device.
* * * * *
    (viii) Before [date 181 days after date of publication of final
rule in the Federal Register], a breakdown of the total duration of the
deviations from the operating limits in Table 4 to this subpart and
bypasses of the add-on control device during the semiannual reporting
period into those that were due to startup, shutdown, control equipment
problems, process problems, other known causes, and other unknown
causes. On and after [date 181 days after date of publication of final
rule in the Federal Register], a breakdown of the total duration of the
deviations from the operating limits in Table 4 to this subpart and
bypasses of the add-on control device during the semiannual reporting
period into those that were due to control equipment problems, process
problems, other known causes, and other unknown causes.
* * * * *
    (xi) Before [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule
in the Federal Register], for each deviation from the work practice
standards, a description of the deviation; the date and time period of
the deviation; and the actions you took to correct the deviation. On
and after [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the
Federal Register], for deviations from the work practice standards in
Sec.  63.3493(b), the number of deviations, and, for each deviation,
the information in paragraphs (a)(8)(xiii)(A) and (B) of this section:
    (A) A description of the deviation; the date, time, and duration of
the deviation; and the actions you took to minimize emissions in
accordance with Sec.  63.3500(b).
    (B) The description required in paragraph (a)(8)(xi)(A) of this
section must include a list of the affected sources or equipment for
which a deviation occurred and the cause of the deviation (including
unknown cause, if applicable).
    (xii) Before [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule
in the Federal Register], a statement of the cause of each deviation.
On and after [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in
the Federal Register], for deviations from an emission limit in Sec.
63.3490 or operating limit in Table 4 to this subpart, a statement of
the cause of each deviation (including unknown cause, if applicable).
    (xiii) On and after [date 181 days after date of publication of
final rule in the Federal Register], for each deviation from an
emission limit in Sec.  63.3490 or operating limit in Table 4 to this
subpart, a list of the affected sources or equipment for which a
deviation occurred, an estimate of the quantity of each regulated
pollutant emitted over any emission limit in Sec.  63.3490, and a
description of the method used to estimate the emissions.
* * * * *
    (c) Startup, shutdown, malfunction reports. Before [date 181 days
after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register], if
you used the

emission rate with add-on controls option or the control efficiency/
outlet concentration option and you had a startup, shutdown, or
malfunction during the semiannual reporting period, you must submit the
reports specified in paragraphs (c)(1) and (2) of this section. On and
after [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule in the
Federal Register], the reports specified in paragraphs (c)(1) and (2)
of this section are not required.
* * * * *
    (d) On and after [date 181 days after date of publication of final
rule in the Federal Register], you must submit the results of the
performance test required in Sec. Sec.  63.3540 and 63.3550 following
the procedure specified in paragraphs (d)(1) through (3) of this
section.
    (1) For data collected using test methods supported by the EPA's
Electronic Reporting Tool (ERT) as listed on the EPA's ERT website
(https://www.epa.gov/electronic-reporting-air-emissions/electronic-reporting-tool-ert) at the time of the test, you must submit the
results of the performance test to the EPA via the Compliance and
Emissions Data Reporting Interface (CEDRI). The CEDRI interface can be
accessed through the EPA's Central Data Exchange (CDX) (https://cdx.epa.gov/). Performance test data must be submitted in a file format
generated through the use of the EPA's ERT or an alternate electronic
file format consistent with the extensible markup language (XML) schema
listed on the EPA's ERT website.
    (2) For data collected using test methods that are not supported by
the EPA's ERT as listed on the EPA's ERT website at the time of the
test, you must submit the results of the performance test in portable
document format (PDF) using the attachment module of the ERT.
    (3) If you claim that some of the performance test information
being submitted under paragraph (d)(1) of this section is confidential
business information (CBI), you must submit a complete file generated
through the use of the EPA's ERT or an alternate electronic file
consistent with the XML schema listed on the EPA's ERT website,
including information claimed to be CBI, on a compact disc, flash
drive, or other commonly used electronic storage medium to the EPA. The
electronic medium must be clearly marked as CBI and mailed to U.S. EPA/
OAPQS/CORE CBI Office, Attention: Group Leader, Measurement Policy
Group, MD C404-02, 4930 Old Page Rd., Durham, NC 27703. The same ERT or
alternate file with the CBI omitted must be submitted to the EPA via
the EPA's CDX as described in paragraph (c)(1) of this section.
    (e) On and after [date 181 days after date of publication of final
rule in the Federal Register], the owner or operator shall submit the
initial notifications required in Sec.  63.9(b) and the notification of
compliance status required in Sec.  63.9(h) and Sec.  63.3510(c) to the
EPA via the CEDRI. The CEDRI interface can be accessed through the
EPA's CDX (https://cdx.epa.gov). The owner or operator must upload to
CEDRI an electronic copy of each applicable notification in PDF. The
applicable notification must be submitted by the deadline specified in
this subpart, regardless of the method in which the reports are
submitted. Owners or operators who claim that some of the information
required to be submitted via CEDRI is confidential business information
(CBI) shall submit a complete report generated using the appropriate
form in CEDRI or an alternate electronic file consistent with the
extensible markup language (XML) schema listed on the EPA's CEDRI
website, including information claimed to be CBI, on a compact disc,
flash drive, or other commonly used electronic storage medium to the
EPA. The electronic medium shall be clearly marked as CBI and mailed to
U.S. EPA/OAQPS/CORE CBI Office, Attention: Group Leader, Measurement
Policy Group, MD C404-02, 4930 Old Page Rd., Durham, NC 27703. The same
file with the CBI omitted shall be submitted to the EPA via the EPA's
CDX as described earlier in this paragraph.
    (f) On and after [date 181 days after date of publication of final
rule in the Federal Register], or once the reporting template has been
available on the CEDRI website for 1 year, whichever date is later, the
owner or operator shall submit the semiannual compliance report
required in paragraph (a) of this section to the EPA via the CEDRI. The
CEDRI interface can be accessed through the EPA's CDX (https://cdx.epa.gov). The owner or operator must use the appropriate electronic
template on the CEDRI website for this subpart (https://www.epa.gov/electronic-reporting-air-emissions/compliance-and-emissions-data-reporting-interface-cedri). The date report templates become available
will be listed on the CEDRI website. If the reporting form for the
semiannual compliance report specific to this subpart is not available
in CEDRI at the time that the report is due, you must submit the report
to the Administrator at the appropriate addresses listed in Sec.
63.13. Once the form has been available in CEDRI for 1 year, you must
begin submitting all subsequent reports via CEDRI. The reports must be
submitted by the deadlines specified in this subpart, regardless of the
method in which the reports are submitted. Owners or operators who
claim that some of the information required to be submitted via CEDRI
is confidential business information (CBI) shall submit a complete
report generated using the appropriate form in CEDRI, including
information claimed to be CBI, on a compact disc, flash drive, or other
commonly used electronic storage medium to the EPA. The electronic
medium shall be clearly marked as CBI and mailed to U.S. EPA/OAQPS/CORE
CBI Office, Attention: Group Leader, Measurement Policy Group, MD C404-
02, 4930 Old Page Rd., Durham, NC 27703. The same file with the CBI
omitted shall be submitted to the EPA via the EPA's CDX as described
earlier in this paragraph.
    (g) If you are required to electronically submit a report through
the Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface (CEDRI) in the
EPA's Central Data Exchange (CDX), and due to a planned or actual
outage of either the EPA's CEDRI or CDX systems within the period of
time beginning 5 business days prior to the date that the submission is
due, you will be or are precluded from accessing CEDRI or CDX and
submitting a required report within the time prescribed, you may assert
a claim of EPA system outage for failure to timely comply with the
reporting requirement. You must submit notification to the
Administrator in writing as soon as possible following the date you
first knew, or through due diligence should have known, that the event
may cause or caused a delay in reporting. You must provide to the
Administrator a written description identifying the date, time and
length of the outage; a rationale for attributing the delay in
reporting beyond the regulatory deadline to the EPA system outage;
describe the measures taken or to be taken to minimize the delay in
reporting; and identify a date by which you propose to report, or if
you have already met the reporting requirement at the time of the
notification, the date you reported. In any circumstance, the report
must be submitted electronically as soon as possible after the outage
is resolved. The decision to accept the claim of EPA system outage and
allow an extension to the reporting deadline is solely within the
discretion of the Administrator.
    (h) If you are required to electronically submit a report through
CEDRI in the EPA's CDX and a force majeure event is about to occur,
occurs,

or has occurred or there are lingering effects from such an event
within the period of time beginning 5 business days prior to the date
the submission is due, the owner or operator may assert a claim of
force majeure for failure to timely comply with the reporting
requirement. For the purposes of this section, a force majeure event 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 you from
complying with the requirement to submit a report electronically within
the time period prescribed. Examples of such events are acts of nature
(e.g., hurricanes, earthquakes, or floods), acts of war or terrorism,
or equipment failure or safety hazard beyond the control of the
affected facility (e.g., large scale power outage). If you intend to
assert a claim of force majeure, you must submit notification to the
Administrator in writing as soon as possible following the date you
first knew, or through due diligence should have known, that the event
may cause or caused a delay in reporting. You must provide to the
Administrator a written description of the force majeure event and a
rationale for attributing the delay in reporting beyond the regulatory
deadline to the force majeure event; describe the measures taken or to
be taken to minimize the delay in reporting; and identify a date by
which you propose to report, or if you have already met the reporting
requirement at the time of the notification, the date you reported. In
any circumstance, the reporting must occur as soon as possible after
the force majeure event occurs. The decision to accept the claim of
force majeure and allow an extension to the reporting deadline is
solely within the discretion of the Administrator.
0
7. Section 63.3512 is amended by revising paragraphs (i), (j)
introductory text, and (j)(1) and (2) to read as follows:

Sec.  63.3512  What records must I keep?

* * * * *
    (i) Before [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule
in the Federal Register], a record of the date, time, and duration of
each deviation. On and after [date 181 days after date of publication
of final rule in the Federal Register], for each deviation from an
emission limitation reported under Sec.  63.3511(a)(5) through (8), a
record of the information specified in paragraphs (i)(1) through (4) of
this section, as applicable.
    (1) The date, time, and duration of the deviation, as reported
under Sec.  63.3511(a)(5) through (8).
    (2) A list of the affected sources or equipment for which the
deviation occurred and the cause of the deviation, as reported under
Sec.  63.3511(a)(5) through (8).
    (3) An estimate of the quantity of each regulated pollutant emitted
over any applicable emission limit in Sec.  63.3490 or any applicable
operating limit in Table 4 to this subpart, and a description of the
method used to calculate the estimate, as reported under Sec.
63.3511(a)(5) through (8).
    (4) A record of actions taken to minimize emissions in accordance
with Sec.  63.3500(b) and any corrective actions taken to return the
affected unit to its normal or usual manner of operation.
    (j) If you use the emission rate with add-on controls option or the
control efficiency/outlet concentration option, you must also keep the
records specified in paragraphs (j)(1) through (8) of this section.
    (1) Before [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule
in the Federal Register], for each deviation, a record of whether the
deviation occurred during a period of startup, shutdown, or
malfunction. On and after [date 181 days after date of publication of
final rule in the Federal Register], a record of whether the deviation
occurred during a period of startup, shutdown, or malfunction is not
required.
    (2) Before [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule
in the Federal Register], the records in Sec.  63.6(e)(3)(iii) through
(v) related to startup, shutdown, and malfunction. On and after [date
181 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal
Register], the records in Sec.  63.6(e)(3)(iii) through (v) related to
startup, shutdown, and malfunction are not required.
* * * * *
0
8. Section 63.3513 is amended by revising paragraph (a) to read as
follows:

Sec.  63.3513  In what form and for how long must I keep my records?

    (a) Your records must be kept in a form suitable and readily
available for expeditious review, according to Sec.  63.10(b)(1). Where
appropriate, the records may be maintained as electronic spreadsheets
or as a database. On and after [date 181 days after date of publication
of final rule in the Federal Register], any records required to be
maintained by this subpart that are in reports that were submitted
electronically via the EPA's CEDRI may be maintained in electronic
format. This ability to maintain electronic copies does not affect the
requirement for facilities to make records, data, and reports available
upon request to a delegated air agency or the EPA as part of an on-site
compliance evaluation.
* * * * *
0
9. Section 63.3521 is amended by revising paragraphs (a)(1)(i), (a)(2),
(a)(4), (b)(1), and (c) to read as follows:

Sec.  63.3521  How do I demonstrate initial compliance with the
emission limitations?

* * * * *
    (a) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (i) Count each organic HAP in Table 8 to this subpart that is
measured to be present at 0.1 percent by mass or more and at 1.0
percent by mass or more for other compounds. For example, if toluene
(not listed in Table 8 to this subpart) is measured to be 0.5 percent
of the material by mass, you do not have to count it. Express the mass
fraction of each organic HAP you count as a value truncated to four
places after the decimal point (e.g., 0.3791).
* * * * *
    (2) Method 24 (appendix A to 40 CFR part 60). For coatings, you may
use Method 24 to determine the mass fraction of nonaqueous volatile
matter and use that value as a substitute for mass fraction of organic
HAP. As an alternative to using Method 24, you may use ASTM D2369-10
(2015), ``Test Method for Volatile Content of Coatings'' (incorporated
by reference, see Sec.  63.14).
* * * * *
    (4) Information from the supplier or manufacturer of the material.
You may rely on information other than that generated by the test
methods specified in paragraphs (a)(1) through (3) of this section,
such as manufacturer's formulation data, if it represents each organic
HAP in Table 8 to this subpart that is present at 0.1 percent by mass
or more and at 1.0 percent by mass or more for other compounds. For
example, if toluene (not listed in Table 8 to this subpart) is 0.5
percent of the material by mass, you do not have to count it. If there
is a disagreement between such information and results of a test
conducted according to paragraphs (a)(1) through (3) of this section,
then the test method results will take precedence unless, after
consultation, a regulated source can demonstrate to the satisfaction of
the enforcement agency that the formulation data are correct.
* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (1) ASTM Method D2697-03 (2014) or D6093-97 (2016). You may use
ASTM Method D2697-03 (2014), ``Standard Test Method for Volume
Nonvolatile Matter in Clear or Pigmented Coatings,'' (incorporated by
reference, see Sec.  63.14)

or D6093-97 (2016), ``Standard Test Method for Percent Volume
Nonvolatile Matter in Clear or Pigmented Coatings Using a Helium Gas
Pycnometer'' (incorporated by reference, see Sec.  63.14), to determine
the volume fraction of coating solids for each coating. Divide the
nonvolatile volume percent obtained with the methods by 100 to
calculate volume fraction of coating solids. If these values cannot be
determined using these methods, the owner/operator may submit an
alternative technique for determining the values for approval by the
Administrator.
* * * * *
    (c) Determine the density of each coating. Determine the density of
each coating used during the compliance period from test results using
ASTM Method D1475-13 Standard Test Method for Density of Liquid
Coatings, Inks, and Related Products (incorporated by reference, see
Sec.  63.14) or information from the supplier or manufacturer of the
material. If there is disagreement between ASTM Method D1475-13 test
results and the supplier's or manufacturer's information, the test
results will take precedence.
* * * * *
0
10. Section 63.3531 is amended by revising paragraph (c) to read as
follows:

Sec.  63.3531  How do I demonstrate initial compliance with the
emission limitations?

* * * * *
    (c) Determine the density of each material. Determine the density
of each coating and thinner used during each month from test results
using ASTM Method D1475-13 or ASTM D2111-10 (2015) (both incorporated
by reference, see Sec.  63.14), information from the supplier or
manufacturer of the material, or reference sources providing density or
specific gravity data for pure materials. If there is disagreement
between ASTM Method D1475-13 or ASTM D2111-10 (2015) test results and
such other information sources, the test results will take precedence.
* * * * *
0
11. Section 63.3540 is amended by revising the section heading and
paragraphs (a)(1), (a)(4), and (b)(1) to read as follows:

Sec.  63.3540  By what date must I conduct performance tests and
initial compliance demonstrations?

    (a) * * *
    (1) All emission capture systems, add-on control devices, and CPMS
must be installed and operating no later than the applicable compliance
date specified in Sec.  63.3483. Except for solvent recovery systems
for which you conduct liquid-liquid material balances according to
Sec.  63.3541(i), you must conduct according to the schedule in
paragraphs (a)(1)(i) and (ii) of this section initial and periodic
performance tests of each capture system and add-on control device
according to the procedures in Sec. Sec.  63.3543, 63.3544, and 63.3545
and establish the operating limits required by Sec.  63.3492. For a
solvent recovery system for which you conduct liquid-liquid material
balances according to Sec.  63.3541(i), you must initiate the first
material balance no later than the applicable compliance date specified
in Sec.  63.3483.
    (i) You must conduct the initial performance test and establish the
operating limits required by Sec.  63.3492 no later than 180 days after
the applicable compliance date specified in Sec.  63.3483.
    (ii) You must conduct periodic performance tests and establish the
operating limits required by Sec.  63.3492 within 5 years following the
previous performance test. You must conduct the first periodic
performance test before [date 3 years after date of publication of
final rule in the Federal Register], unless you are already required to
complete periodic performance tests as a requirement of renewing your
facility's operating permit under 40 CFR part 70, or 40 CFR part 71,
and have conducted a performance test on or after [date 2 years before
date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register]. Thereafter
you must conduct a performance test no later than 5 years following the
previous performance test. Operating limits must be confirmed or
reestablished during each performance test.
* * * * *
    (4) For the initial compliance demonstration, you do not need to
comply with the operating limits for the emission capture system and
add-on control device required by Sec.  63.3492 until after you have
completed the initial performance tests specified in paragraph (a)(1)
of this section. Instead, you must maintain a log detailing the
operation and maintenance of the emission capture system, add-on
control device, and continuous parameter monitors during the period
between the compliance date and the performance test. You must begin
complying with the operating limits established based on the initial
performance tests specified in paragraph (a)(1) of this section for
your affected source on the date you complete the performance tests.
The requirements in this paragraph (a)(4) do not apply to solvent
recovery systems for which you conduct liquid-liquid material balances
according to the requirements in Sec.  63.3541(i).
    (b) * * *
    (1) All emission capture systems, add-on control devices, and CPMS
must be installed and operating no later than the applicable compliance
date specified in Sec.  63.3483. Except for solvent recovery systems
for which you conduct liquid-liquid material balances according to
Sec.  63.3541(i), you must conduct according to the schedule in
paragraphs (b)(1)(i) and (ii) of this section initial and periodic
performance tests of each capture system and add-on control device
according to the procedures in Sec. Sec.  63.3543, 63.3544, and 63.3545
and establish the operating limits required by Sec.  63.3492. For a
solvent recovery system for which you conduct liquid-liquid material
balances according to Sec.  63.3541(i), you must initiate the first
material balance no later than the compliance date specified in Sec.
63.3483.
    (i) You must conduct the initial performance test and establish the
operating limits required by Sec.  63.3492 no later than 180 days after
the applicable compliance date specified in Sec.  63.3483.
    (ii) You must conduct periodic performance tests and establish the
operating limits required by Sec.  63.3492 within 5 years following the
previous performance test. You must conduct the first periodic
performance test before [date 3 years after date of publication of
final rule in the Federal Register], unless you are already required to
complete periodic performance tests as a requirement of renewing your
facility's operating permit under 40 CFR part 70, or 40 CFR part 71,
and have conducted a performance test on or after [date 2 years before
date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register]. Thereafter
you must conduct a performance test no later than 5 years following the
previous performance test. Operating limits must be confirmed or
reestablished during each performance test.
* * * * *
0
12. Section 63.3541 is amended by revising paragraphs (h) introductory
text and (i)(3) to read as follows:

Sec.  63.3541  How do I demonstrate initial compliance?

* * * * *
    (h) Calculate the organic HAP emission reduction for each
controlled coating operation not using liquid-liquid material balances.
For each controlled coating operation using an emission capture system
and add-on control device, other than a solvent recovery system for
which you conduct liquid-liquid material balances, calculate the

organic HAP emission reduction, using Equation 1 of this section. The
calculation applies the emission capture system efficiency and add-on
control device efficiency to the mass of organic HAP contained in the
coatings and thinners that are used in the coating operation served by
the emission capture system and add-on control device during each
month. For any period of time a deviation specified in Sec.  63.3542(c)
or (d) occurs in the controlled coating operation, you must assume zero
efficiency for the emission capture system and add-on control device,
unless you have other data indicating the actual efficiency of the
emission capture system and add-on control device, and the use of these
data has been approved by the Administrator. Equation 1 of this section
treats the materials used during such a deviation as if they were used
on an uncontrolled coating operation for the time period of the
deviation. * * *
* * * * *
    (i) * * *
    (3) Determine the mass fraction of volatile organic matter for each
coating and thinner used in the coating operation controlled by the
solvent recovery system during the month, in kg volatile organic matter
per kg coating. You may determine the volatile organic matter mass
fraction using Method 24 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A, ASTM D2369-10
(2015), ``Test Method for Volatile Content of Coatings'' (incorporated
by reference, see Sec.  63.14), or an EPA approved alternative method.
Alternatively, you may determine the volatile organic matter mass
fraction using information provided by the manufacturer or supplier of
the coating. In the event of any inconsistency between information
provided by the manufacturer or supplier and the results of Method 24
of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A, ASTM D2369-10 (2015), ``Test Method for
Volatile Content of Coatings'' (incorporated by reference, see Sec.
63.14), or an approved alternative method, the test method results will
take precedence unless, after consultation, a regulated source can
demonstrate to the satisfaction of the enforcement agency that the
formulation data are correct.
* * * * *
0
13. Section 63.3542 is amended by revising paragraphs (f) and (h) to
read as follows:

Sec.  63.3542  How do I demonstrate continuous compliance with the
emission limitations?

* * * * *
    (f) As part of each semiannual compliance report required in Sec.
63.3511, you must identify the coating operation(s) for which you used
the emission rate with add-on controls option. If there were no
deviations from the emission limits in Sec.  63.3490, the operating
limits in Sec.  63.3492, and the work practice standards in Sec.
63.3493, submit a statement that you were in compliance with the
emission limitations during the reporting period because the organic
HAP emission rate for each compliance period was less than or equal to
the applicable emission limit in Sec.  63.3490, and you achieved the
operating limits required by Sec.  63.3492 and the work practice
standards required by Sec.  63.3493 during each compliance period.
* * * * *
    (h) Before [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule
in the Federal Register], consistent with Sec. Sec.  63.6(e) and
63.7(e)(1), deviations that occur during a period of startup, shutdown,
or malfunction of the emission capture system, add-on control device,
or coating operation that may affect emission capture or control device
efficiency are not violations if you demonstrate to the Administrator's
satisfaction that you were operating in accordance with Sec.
63.6(e)(1). The Administrator will determine whether deviations that
occur during a period you identify as a startup, shutdown, or
malfunction are violations according to the provisions in Sec.
63.6(e). On and after [date 181 days after date of publication of final
rule in the Federal Register], deviations that occur due to malfunction
of the emission capture system, add-on control device, or coating
operation that may affect emission capture or control device efficiency
are required to operate in accordance with Sec.  63.3500(b). The
Administrator will determine whether the deviations are violations
according to the provisions in Sec.  63.3500(b).
* * * * *
0
14. Section 63.3543 is amended by revising paragraphs (a) introductory
text and (a)(1) to read as follows:

Sec.  63.3543  What are the general requirements for performance tests?

    (a) Before [date 181 days after date of publication of final rule
in the Federal Register], you must conduct each performance test
required by Sec.  63.3540 according to the requirements in Sec.
63.7(e)(1) 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). On and after [date 181 days after date of publication of final
rule in the Federal Register], you must conduct each performance test
required by Sec.  63.3540 according to the requirements 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, or nonoperation do not constitute representative conditions
for purposes of conducting a performance test. The owner or operator
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 must make available to
the Administrator such records as may be necessary to determine the
conditions of performance tests.
* * * * *
0
15. Section 63.3544 is amended by revising the introductory text to
read as follows:

Sec.  63.3544  How do I determine the emission capture system
efficiency?

    You must use the procedures and test methods in this section to
determine capture efficiency as part of each performance test required
by Sec.  63.3540.
* * * * *
0
16. Section 63.3545 is amended by revising the introductory text,
paragraph (b) introductory text, and paragraphs (b)(1) through (4) to
read as follows:

Sec.  63.3545  How do I determine the add-on control device emission
destruction or removal efficiency?

    You must use the procedures and test methods in this section to
determine the add-on control device emission destruction or removal
efficiency as part of the performance tests required by Sec.  63.3540.
For each performance test, you must conduct three test runs as
specified in Sec.  63.7(e)(3) and each test run must last at least 1
hour.
* * * * *
    (b) Measure total gaseous organic mass emissions as carbon at the
inlet and outlet of the add-on control device simultaneously using
either Method 25 or 25A of appendix A-7 to 40 CFR part 60 as specified
in paragraphs (b)(1) through (5) of this section. You must use the same
method for both the inlet and outlet measurements.
    (1) Use Method 25 of appendix A-7 to 40 CFR part 60 if the add-on
control device is an oxidizer and you expect the total gaseous organic
concentration as carbon to be more than 50 ppm at the control device
outlet.

    (2) Use Method 25A of appendix A-7 to 40 CFR part 60 if the add-on
control device is an oxidizer and you expect the total gaseous organic
concentration as carbon to be 50 ppm or less at the control device
outlet.
    (3) Use Method 25A of appendix A-7 to 40 CFR part 60 if the add-
control device is not an oxidizer.
    (4) You may use Method 18 of appendix A-6 to 40 CFR part 60 to
subtract methane emissions from measured total gaseous organic mass
emissions as carbon.
* * * * *
0
17. Section 63.3546 is amended by revising the introductory text and
paragraphs (a)(1) and (2), (b)(1) through (3), (d)(1), (e)(1) and (2),
(f)(1) through (3), and (f)(5) and (6) to read as follows:

Sec.  63.3546  How do I establish the emission capture system and add-
on control device operating limits during the performance test?

    During performance tests required by Sec.  63.3540 and described in
Sec. Sec.  63.3543, 63.3544, and 63.3545, you must establish the
operating limits required by Sec.  63.3492 unless you have received
approval for alternative monitoring and operating limits under Sec.
63.8(f) as specified in Sec.  63.3492.
    (a) * * *
    (1) During performance tests, you must monitor and record the
combustion temperature at least once every 15 minutes during each of
the three test runs. You must monitor the temperature in the firebox of
the thermal oxidizer or immediately downstream of the firebox before
any substantial heat exchange occurs.
    (2) For each performance test, use the data collected during the
performance test to calculate and record the average combustion
temperature maintained during the performance test. That average
combustion temperature is the minimum operating limit for your thermal
oxidizer.
    (b) * * *
    (1) During performance tests, you must monitor and record the
temperature at the inlet to the catalyst bed and the temperature
difference across the catalyst bed at least once every 15 minutes
during each of the three test runs.
    (2) For each performance test, use the data collected during the
performance test to calculate and record the average temperature at the
inlet to the catalyst bed and the average temperature difference across
the catalyst bed maintained during the performance test. The average
temperature difference is the minimum operating limit for your
catalytic oxidizer.
    (3) As an alternative to monitoring the temperature difference
across the catalyst bed, you may monitor the temperature at the inlet
to the catalyst bed and implement a site-specific inspection and
maintenance plan for your catalytic oxidizer as specified in paragraph
(b)(4) of this section. During performance tests, you must monitor and
record the temperature at the inlet to the catalyst bed at least once
every 15 minutes during each of the three test runs. For each
performance test, use the data collected during the performance test to
calculate and record the average temperature at the inlet to the
catalyst bed during the performance test. That is the minimum operating
limit for your catalytic oxidizer.
* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (1) During performance tests, you must monitor and record the total
regeneration desorbing gas (e.g., steam or nitrogen) mass flow for each
regeneration cycle, and the carbon bed temperature after each carbon
bed regeneration and cooling cycle for the regeneration cycle either
immediately preceding or immediately following the performance test.
* * * * *
    (e) * * *
    (1) During performance tests, monitor and record the condenser
outlet (product side) gas temperature at least once every 15 minutes
during each of the three test runs of the performance test.
    (2) For each performance test, use the data collected during the
performance test to calculate and record the average condenser outlet
(product side) gas temperature maintained during the performance test.
This average condenser outlet gas temperature is the maximum operating
limit for your condenser.
    (f) * * *
    (1) During performance tests, monitor and record the inlet
temperature to the desorption/reactivation zone of the concentrator at
least once every 15 minutes during each of the three runs of the
performance test.
    (2) For each performance test, use the data collected during the
performance test to calculate and record the average temperature. This
is the minimum operating limit for the desorption/reactivation zone
inlet temperature.
    (3) During each performance test, monitor and record an
indicator(s) of performance for the desorption/reactivation fan
operation at least once every 15 minutes during each of the three runs