portable and stationary process vessels must be captured and the
captured emissions reduced by at least 95 percent, as total organic
HAP, using a control device other than a flare, reduced by venting non-
halogenated vent streams to a flare, or vented to a condenser. If a
condenser is used, the condenser must achieve a specified outlet gas
temperature depending on the partial pressure of the HAP contained in
the vessel. If a combustion device is used to control a halogenated
vent stream, then a halogen reduction device (e.g., a scrubber) must be
used to reduce hydrogen halide and halogen HAP by at least 95 percent;
or reduce overall emissions of hydrogen halide and halogen HAP to no
more than 0.45 kg/hr.
    We evaluated two options that could be potentially considered
technology developments under CAA section 112(d)(6). In the first
option, we considered increasing the control efficiency requirement for
process vessels at existing sources to match the control requirement
for new sources, which would increase the control efficiency for
organic HAP with a vapor pressure equal to or greater than 0.6 kPa from
75 percent to 95 percent. We consider this option to be a new
development because several facilities have controlled all process
vessels with thermal oxidizers to comply with the NESHAP.
    We estimated the costs of installing a thermal oxidizer on the six
plants in the MCM source category that currently do not have a thermal
oxidizer installed on process vessels. We did not estimate

costs for catalytic oxidizers because thermal oxidizers are cheaper
than catalytic oxidizers. The costs were estimated using the EPA Air
Pollution Control Cost Manual cost spreadsheet for thermal oxidizers
\21\ and the process vent flow rate from NEI or the facility operating
permit. The estimated cost effectiveness for these facilities ranged
from $20,000 per ton HAP removed to $150,000 per ton HAP removed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ https://www.epa.gov/economic-and-cost-analysis-air-pollution-regulations/cost-reports-and-guidance-air-pollution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The second option that we considered was to require controls to
limit particulate matter (PM) HAP emissions from process vessels in
which dry materials (e.g., pigments) containing inorganic HAP are added
to the process vessel. We considered provisions that would be similar
to those included in 40 CFR part 63, subpart CCCCCCC, the NESHAP for
Area Sources for Paints and Allied Products Manufacturing. This option
would reflect the fact that several facilities subject to 40 CFR part
63, subpart HHHHH have process vessels controlled with fabric filters
when dry materials are being added.
    We estimated costs for both a fabric filter baghouse and a
cartridge filter type of particulate control with a flow rate of 1,000
cubic feet per minute, plus 150 feet of flexible duct to capture the
fugitive PM when dry matter is being added to the mixing vessel. The
estimated cost effectiveness for this option ranged from $310,000 to
$2,100,000 per ton of particulate HAP reduced. We also evaluated
whether pigments could be added in a wetted or paste form, but not all
pigments are available or can be used in wetted or paste form.
    The EPA did not find the control technology development options
considered for process vessels in this technology review to be cost
effective, or, in some cases, technologically feasible. Consequently,
the EPA proposes that it is not necessary to amend the standards for
process vessels under the technology review. Further explanation of the
assumptions and methodologies for all options evaluated are provided in
the memorandum, Clean Air Act Section 112(d)(6) Technology Review for
the Miscellaneous Coatings Manufacturing Source Category, available in
the docket to this action.
2. Storage Tanks
    Storage tanks hold the liquid raw materials used in the coating
manufacturing process. Emissions occur from storage tanks through the
displacement of vapor-laden air as the tank is being filled (working
losses) and also due to changes in temperature that cause the vapor-
laden air in the head space of the tank to expand (breathing losses).
    Emissions from vertical tanks can be controlled by installing a
floating roof inside the tank. By floating on the surface of the
liquid, this roof design eliminates head space above the surface of the
liquid and, therefore, minimizes the evaporation of organic vapors
inside the tank. An internal floating roof (IFR) tank has a second
fixed roof over the floating roof. An external floating roof (EFR) tank
has no fixed roof over the floating roof and is exposed to the
elements.
    Emissions from horizontal tanks can be controlled with a closed
vent system that captures the emissions and delivers them to either a
recovery device or a destruction device. Control devices within the MCM
source category include carbon adsorbers and combustion devices.
Alternatively, a vapor balancing system can be used to eliminate
working loss emissions. In vapor balancing, the displaced vapors from
the receiving tank are piped back into the storage vessel from which
the liquid product is delivered.
    No facility in the MCM source category during the original MACT
development reported using IFRs, EFRs, or vapor balancing to reduce HAP
emissions from any storage tank.
    The MCM NESHAP regulates two classes of storage tanks. Group 1a
storage tanks are storage tanks at existing sources with capacities
greater than or equal to 20,000 gal storing material that has a maximum
true vapor pressure of total organic HAP greater than or equal to 1.9
psia. Group 1a storage tanks also include storage tanks at new sources
with capacities greater than or equal to 25,000 gal storing materials
with a maximum true vapor pressure of total HAP greater than or equal
to 0.1 psia, as well as storage tanks with capacities greater than or
equal to 20,000 gal and less than 25,000 gal storing materials with a
maximum true vapor pressure of total HAP greater than or equal to 1.5
psia.
    Group 1b storage tanks are storage tanks at new sources with
capacities greater than or equal to 10,000 gal, storing materials that
have a maximum true vapor pressure of total organic HAP greater than or
equal to 0.02 psia, and are not Group 1a storage tanks.
    Emissions from Group 1a storage tanks must be controlled by
complying with the provisions of 40 CFR part 63, subpart WW (NESHAP for
Storage Vessels (Tanks)--Control Level 2), which is based on the use of
an IFR or an EFR; by reducing total organic HAP emissions by at least
90 percent by weight by venting emissions through a closed-vent system
to a control device (excluding a flare); or by reducing total organic
HAP emissions from the storage tank by venting emissions from a non-
halogenated vent stream through a closed-vent system to a flare.
    The EPA did not identify in our technology review any developments
in practices, processes, and control technologies for storage tanks
that were not already considered in the development of the original
MACT. Because there were no improvements in the technologies considered
under MACT, the EPA proposes that it is not necessary to amend the
standards for storage tanks under the technology review. Further
explanation of the assumptions and methodologies for all options
evaluated are provided in the memorandum, Clean Air Act Section
112(d)(6) Technology Review for the Miscellaneous Coatings
Manufacturing Source Category, available in the docket to this action.
3. Transfer Operations
    Transfer operations involve the bulk loading of coating products
into either tanker trucks or tanker rail cars. Transfer operations do
not involve the filling of cans, pails, drums, or totes. Most coating
manufacturing facilities perform only the filling of cans, pails,
drums, or totes with coating products and do not perform transfer
operations to tanker trucks or rail cars. A few coating manufacturers
perform transfer operations because they provide coatings to
facilities, such as coil coating and metal can coating facilities, that
use large quantities of certain coatings and store those coatings in
large stationary storage tanks.
    Emissions during transfer operations are generated by the
displacement of the solvent vapor-laden air in the receiving tanker
truck or rail car as the tank is filled. The extent of the HAP
emissions will depend on the HAP content of the material being loaded
(i.e., weight percent HAP), the volatility of the HAP in the material
being loaded, and the total volume of coating being loaded. The MCM
NESHAP regulates the bulk loading of coating products if the coatings
contain 3.0 million gal or more per year of HAP with a weighted average
HAP partial pressure greater than or equal to 1.5 psia. The MCM NESHAP
requires the HAP emissions to be controlled by either venting the
emissions through a closed-vent system to any combination of control
devices (except a flare) and reducing emissions

by at least 75 percent, by venting the emissions from a non-halogenated
vent stream through a closed-vent system to a flare, or by using a
vapor balancing system to collect displaced organic HAP vapors and
route the vapors to the storage tank from which the liquid being loaded
originated or to another storage tank connected by a common header.
    The EPA did not identify in our technology review any developments
in practices, processes, and control technologies for bulk loading of
coating products that were not already considered in the development of
the original MACT. Because there were no improvements in the
technologies considered under MACT, the EPA proposes that it is not
necessary to amend the standards for transfer operations under the
technology review. Further explanation of the assumptions and
methodologies for all options evaluated are provided in the memorandum,
Clean Air Act Section 112(d)(6) Technology Review for the Miscellaneous
Coatings Manufacturing Source Category, available in the docket to this
action.
4. Equipment Leaks
    In the MCM source category, organic HAP vapors can escape from
leaks in connectors, valves, and pumps in liquid piping systems due to
mechanical defects in those items. MCM facilities use piping systems to
move liquid raw materials from storage tanks to process vessels and
then from process vessels to filling operations or bulk transfer
operations.
    Emissions can be minimized through periodic monitoring of the
connectors, valves, and pumps to check for leaks and the timely repair
of equipment that is found to be leaking. Leak detection can be through
sensory monitoring using sight, sound, and smell to detect leaks, or
leak detection can be through the use of a monitoring instrument (EPA
Method 21) that measures the concentration of organic vapors in parts
per million by volume (ppmv) in the air near each of the connectors,
valves, and pumps. Different NESHAP that specify the use of instrument
monitoring may define a different threshold vapor concentration that
constitutes a leak that triggers the need for repair.
    The MCM NESHAP requires existing sources to comply with the
equipment leaks provisions in 40 CFR part 63, subpart R, NESHAP for
Gasoline Distribution Facilities (Bulk Gasoline Terminals and Pipeline
Breakout Stations); subpart TT, NESHAP for Equipment Leaks, Control
Level 1; or subpart UU, NESHAP for Equipment Leaks, Control Level 2.
New sources must comply with the provisions of subparts UU or TT.
Subpart R requires monthly inspections for equipment leaks using sight,
sound, or smell. Subpart TT requires the use of instrument monitoring
and defines leaks as instrument readings of 10,000 ppmv for valves,
pumps, and connectors. Subpart UU also requires the use of instrument
monitoring and defines leaks as instrument readings of 500 ppmv for
valves, 1,000 ppmv for pumps, and 500 ppmv for connectors.
    Based on developments in other similar source categories, we
identified as a technology alternative to the current standard a more
stringent provision for existing sources that would eliminate sensory
monitoring and require instrument monitoring with lower leak
definitions than specified in 40 CFR part 63, subpart TT. For this
alternative, we estimated the incremental emission reductions and cost
effectiveness of employing instrument monitoring (EPA Method 21) with
an equipment leak defined as instrument readings of 500 ppmv for
valves, 2,000 ppmv for pumps, and 500 ppmv for connectors. We estimated
the costs of requiring instrument monitoring with more stringent leak
definitions for four model plants with 25, 50, 100, or 200 process
vessels. The estimated cost effectiveness for these model plants ranged
from $107,000 per ton HAP removed to $22,000 per ton HAP removed for
the smallest to largest model plant, and these values are higher than
organic HAP cost-effectiveness values that we historically have
considered cost effective.
    The EPA does not find the leak detection instrument monitoring
option that was evaluated to be cost effective. Consequently, the EPA
proposes that it is not necessary to amend the standards for equipment
leaks under the technology review. Further explanation of the
assumptions and methodologies for all options evaluated are provided in
the memorandum, Clean Air Act Section 112(d)(6) Technology Review for
the Miscellaneous Coatings Manufacturing Source Category, available in
the docket to this action.
5. Wastewater Streams
    Wastewater that comes in contact with organic HAP-containing
materials may be a source of organic HAP emissions as the organic HAP
evaporates from the wastewater. In coatings manufacturing, wastewater
containing organic HAP may be generated from the cleaning of process
vessels and other equipment between batches of different coatings.
    Emissions can be controlled from wastewater by collecting and
moving the wastewater in enclosed pipes and then treating the
wastewater to remove the organic HAP. Wastewater containing organic HAP
can be collected and treated as hazardous waste in which case it is
usually incinerated. It can also be treated by using steam to
volatilize the organic HAP and separate it from the wastewater.
Finally, if the organic HAP concentration is low enough, it can be
treated through enhanced biological treatment in which microorganisms
oxidize the organic HAP.
    The MCM NESHAP regulates wastewater streams that contain total
partially soluble and soluble HAP at an annual average concentration
greater than or equal to 4,000 ppmw and load greater than or equal to
750 lb/yr at existing sources, or that contain greater than or equal to
1,600 ppmw and any partially soluble and soluble HAP load at new
sources. Wastewater tanks used to store regulated wastewater streams
must have a fixed roof, which may have openings necessary for proper
venting of the tank, such as a pressure/vacuum vent or j-pipe vent.
Regulated wastewater streams must be conveyed using hard piping and
treated as a hazardous waste in accordance with 40 CFR part 264, 265,
or 266 either onsite or offsite. Alternatively, if the wastewater
contains less than 50 ppmw of partially soluble HAP, it may be treated
in an enhanced biological treatment system that is located either
onsite or offsite.
    Because our technology review identified no developments in
practices, processes, or controls for reducing wastewater emissions at
MCM facilities, we evaluated developments in other industries with
wastewater streams that contain organic HAP. We reviewed three options
that were considered in other industry technology reviews for their
applicability to the MCM wastewater streams. These options were:
    (1) Requiring wastewater drain and tank controls at facilities with
a total annual benzene quantity of less than 10 megagrams per year (Mg/
yr).
    (2) Requiring specific performance parameters (minimum fraction
biodegraded, fbio) for an enhanced biological unit beyond those
required in the Benzene NESHAP.
    (3) Requiring wastewater streams with a volatile organic compound
(VOC) content of 750 ppmw or higher to be treated by steam stripping
prior to any other treatment process for facilities with high organic
loading rates (i.e., facilities with total annualized benzene quantity
of 10 Mg/yr or more).

    The EPA did not find any of the three wastewater stream control
options evaluated to be cost effective. Consequently, the EPA proposes
that it is not necessary to amend the standards for wastewater streams
under the technology review. Further explanation of the assumptions and
methodologies for all options evaluated are provided in the memorandum,
Clean Air Act Section 112(d)(6) Technology Review for the Miscellaneous
Coatings Manufacturing Source Category, available in the docket to this
action.
6. Heat Exchange Systems
    Heat exchangers are devices or collections of devices used to
transfer heat from process fluids to another fluid (typically air or
water) without intentional direct contact of the process fluid with the
cooling fluid (i.e., non-contact heat exchangers).
    At times, the heat exchanger's internal tubing material can corrode
or crack, allowing some process fluids to mix or become entrained with
the cooling water. Pollutants in the process fluids may subsequently be
released from the cooling water into the atmosphere when the water is
exposed to air (e.g., in a cooling tower for closed-loop systems or at
trenches/ponds in a once-through system).
    The MCM NESHAP regulates heat exchangers by requiring them to meet
the provisions in 40 CFR part 63, subpart F, NESHAP for the Synthetic
Organic Chemical Manufacturing Industry. Specifically, under 40 CFR
63.104, facilities are required to monitor the cooling water in the
heat exchange system on a periodic basis to detect and repair leaks,
unless certain design and operating requirements are met. Those other
requirements include operating the system such that the cooling water
is at a higher pressure than the process fluid, using an intervening
cooling fluid between the water and process fluid and ensuring the
intervening fluid is not discharged, using a once-through heat exchange
system that is subject to a NPDES permit, or only using the heat
exchange system to cool process fluids that meet low-HAP content
criteria.
    The EPA did not identify in our technology review any developments
in practices, processes, and control technologies for heat exchange
systems that were not already considered in the development of the
original MACT. Because there were no improvements in the technologies
considered under MACT, the EPA proposes that it is not necessary to
amend the standards for heat exchange systems under the technology
review. Further explanation of the assumptions and methodologies for
all options evaluated are provided in the memorandum, Clean Air Act
Section 112(d)(6) Technology Review for the Miscellaneous Coatings
Manufacturing Source Category, available in the docket to this action.

D. What other actions are we proposing?

    In addition to the proposed decisions described above, we are
proposing additional revisions to the NESHAP. We are proposing
revisions to the SSM provisions of 40 CFR part 63, subpart HHHHH to be
consistent with the Court decision in Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F. 3d
1019 (D.C. Cir. 2008), which vacated rule provisions that exempt
sources from the provision to comply with otherwise applicable NESHAP
during periods of SSM. We also are proposing to require electronic
submittal of notifications, semi-annual reports and compliance reports
(which include performance test reports). We are proposing to require
periodic performance testing of oxidizers used to demonstrate
compliance. We are proposing technical and editorial revisions and
corrections.
1. SSM Provisions
    In its 2008 decision in Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F.3d 1019 (D.C.
Cir. 2008), the Court vacated portions of two provisions in the EPA's
CAA section 112 regulations governing the emissions of HAP during
periods of SSM. Specifically, the Court vacated the SSM exemption
contained in 40 CFR 63.6(f)(1) and 40 CFR 63.6(h)(1), holding that
under section 302(k) of the CAA, emissions standards or limitations
must be continuous in nature and that the SSM exemption violates the
CAA's requirement that some section 112 standards apply continuously.
    We are proposing the elimination of the SSM exemption in this rule
which appears at 40 CFR 63.8000(a). Consistent with Sierra Club v. EPA,
we are proposing standards in this rule that apply at all times. We are
also proposing several revisions to Table 10 (the General Provisions
Applicability Table) as explained in more detail below. For example, we
are proposing to eliminate the incorporation of the General Provisions'
requirement that the source develop an SSM plan. We also are proposing
to eliminate and revise certain recordkeeping and reporting
requirements related to the SSM exemption as further described below.
    The EPA has attempted to ensure that the provisions we are
proposing to eliminate are inappropriate, unnecessary, or redundant in
the absence of the SSM exemption. We are specifically seeking comment
on whether we have successfully done so.
    In addition, as explained in more detail in section IV.D.1.i.,
below, we are proposing language in 40 CFR 63.8005(h) to clarify that
any periods during which a control device is bypassed be included in
demonstrating compliance with the emission reduction provisions for
process vessels in Table 1 to 40 CFR part 63, subpart HHHHH. As
currently specified in 40 CFR 63.8005, 63.8010, and 63.8020, you must
establish operating limits for process vessels and storage tanks
controlled by closed vent systems and add-on controls, and for
wastewater streams controlled by enhanced biological treatment units.
This generally means that during startup and shutdown periods, in order
for a facility using add-on controls to meet the emissions and
operating standards, the add-on control device needs to be turned on
and operating at specified levels when the facility begins coating
manufacturing operations, and the control equipment needs to continue
to be operated until the facility ceases coating manufacturing
operations. In some cases, the facility would need to run thermal
oxidizers on supplemental fuel whenever there is insufficient
concentrations of VOC for the combustion to be self-sustaining. The
proposed language in 40 CFR 63.8000(a) requires that the owner or
operator operate and maintain the coating manufacturing operations,
including pollution control equipment, at all times to minimize
emissions, except as explained in more detail in section IV.D.1.i
below, to account for bypass periods of the controls for process
vessels as proposed in 40 CFR 63.8005(h).
    Periods of startup, normal operations, and shutdown are all
predictable and routine aspects of a source's operations. Malfunctions,
in contrast, are neither predictable nor routine. Instead they are, by
definition, sudden, infrequent, and not reasonably preventable failures
of emissions control, process, or monitoring equipment. (40 CFR 63.2)
(Definition of malfunction). The EPA interprets CAA section 112 as not
requiring emissions that occur during periods of malfunction to be
factored into development of CAA section 112 standards and this reading
has been upheld as reasonable by the Court in U.S. Sugar Corp. v. EPA,
830 F.3d 579, 606-610 (D.C. Cir. 2016). Under CAA section 112,
emissions standards for new sources must be no less stringent than the
level ``achieved'' by the best controlled similar source and for
existing sources generally must be no

less stringent than the average emission limitation ``achieved'' by the
best performing 12 percent of sources in the category. There is nothing
in CAA section 112 that directs the Agency to consider malfunctions in
determining the level ``achieved'' by the best performing sources when
setting emission standards. As the Court has recognized, the phrase
``average emissions limitation achieved by the best performing 12
percent of'' sources ``says nothing about how the performance of the
best units is to be calculated.'' Nat'l Ass'n of Clean Water Agencies
v. EPA, 734 F.3d 1115, 1141 (D.C. Cir. 2013). While the EPA accounts
for variability in setting emissions standards, nothing in CAA section
112 requires the Agency to consider malfunctions as part of that
analysis. The EPA is not required to treat a malfunction in the same
manner as the type of variation in performance that occurs during
routine operations of a source.
    As the Court recognized in U.S. Sugar Corp, accounting for
malfunctions in setting standards would be difficult, if not
impossible, given the myriad different types of malfunctions that can
occur across all sources in the category and given the difficulties
associated with predicting or accounting for the frequency, degree, and
duration of various malfunctions that might occur. Id. at 608 (``the
EPA would have to conceive of a standard that could apply equally to
the wide range of possible boiler malfunctions, ranging from an
explosion to minor mechanical defects. Any possible standard is likely
to be hopelessly generic to govern such a wide array of
circumstances.'') As such, the performance of units that are
malfunctioning is not ``reasonably'' foreseeable. See, e.g., Sierra
Club v. EPA, 167 F.3d 658, 662 (D.C. Cir. 1999) (``The EPA typically
has wide latitude in determining the extent of data-gathering necessary
to solve a problem. We generally defer to an agency's decision to
proceed on the basis of imperfect scientific information, rather than
to 'invest the resources to conduct the perfect study.' ''). See also,
Weyerhaeuser v. Costle, 590 F.2d 1011, 1058 (D.C. Cir. 1978) (``In the
nature of things, no general limit, individual permit, or even any
upset provision can anticipate all upset situations. After a certain
point, the transgression of regulatory limits caused by `uncontrollable
acts of third parties,' such as strikes, sabotage, operator
intoxication or insanity, and a variety of other eventualities, must be
a matter for the administrative exercise of case-by-case enforcement
discretion, not for specification in advance by regulation.''). In
addition, emissions during a malfunction event can be significantly
higher than emissions at any other time of source operation.
    Although no statutory language compels the EPA to set standards for
malfunctions, the EPA has the discretion to do so where feasible. For
example, in the Petroleum Refinery Sector RTR, the EPA established a
work practice standard for unique types of malfunctions that result in
releases from PRDs or emergency flaring events because the EPA had
information to determine that such work practices reflected the level
of control that applies to the best performers. 80 FR 75178, 75211-14
(December 1, 2015). The EPA will consider whether circumstances warrant
setting standards for a particular type of malfunction and, if so,
whether the EPA has sufficient information to identify the relevant
best performing sources and establish a standard for such malfunctions.
In this proposal at 40 CFR 63.8005(h), we provide a method to account
for control device bypass periods including periods of SSM, in
evaluating compliance with the overall control efficiency requirements
for process vessels in Table 1, as is discussed further. We encourage
commenters to provide any such information. Finally, in the 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.
    The specific changes that we propose to comport the rule with the
Sierra Club decision on SSM are listed in paragraphs a through i below:
a. 40 CFR 63.8000 General Duty
    We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table (Table 10)
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
63.8000(a) 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
63.8000(a) does not include that language from 40 CFR 63.6(e)(1).
    We are also proposing to revise the General Provisions table (Table
10) 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 provision being added at 40 CFR 63.8000(a).
b. SSM Plan
    We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table (Table 10)
entry for 40 CFR 63.6(e)(3) by consolidating the entries for
subparagraphs (i) to (ix) under a single entry for 40 CFR 63.6(e)(3)
and 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 provisions related to the SSM plan. As
noted, the EPA is proposing to remove the SSM exemptions. Therefore,
affected units will be subject to an emission standard during such
events. The applicability of a standard during such events will ensure
that sources have ample incentive to plan for and achieve compliance
and, thus, the SSM plan provisions are no longer necessary.
c. Compliance With Standards
    We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table (Table 10)
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 the Sierra Club decision vacated the exemptions contained in
this provision and held that the CAA requires that some section 112
standards apply continuously. Consistent with Sierra Club, the EPA is
proposing to revise standards in this rule to apply at all times.
    We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table (Table 10)
entry for 40 CFR 63.6(h)(1) by changing the ``yes'' in column 3 to a
``no.'' The current language of 40 CFR 63.6(h)(1) exempts sources from
opacity standards during periods of SSM. As discussed above, the Court
in Sierra Club vacated the exemptions contained in this provision and
held that the CAA

requires that some section 112 standard apply continuously. Consistent
with the Sierra Club decision, the EPA is proposing to revise standards
in this rule to apply at all times.
d. 40 CFR 63.8005(d) Performance Testing
    We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table (Table 10)
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 provisions.
The EPA is instead proposing to add performance testing provisions at
40 CFR 63.8005(d)(5). The performance testing provisions we are
proposing to add differ from the General Provisions performance testing
provisions in several respects. The regulatory text does not include
the language in 40 CFR 63.7(e)(1) that restated the SSM exemption and
language that precluded startup and shutdown periods from being
considered ``representative'' for purposes of performance testing. The
proposed performance testing provisions will exclude periods of startup
or shutdown as representative conditions for conducting performance
testing. As in 40 CFR 63.7(e)(1), performance tests conducted under
this subpart should not be conducted during malfunctions because
conditions during malfunctions are often not representative of normal
operating conditions. The EPA is proposing to add language that
requires owners or operators to record the process information that is
necessary to document operating conditions during tests and include in
such record explanations to support that such conditions represent
normal operation. Section 63.7(e) requires that owners or operators
make available to the Administrator upon request such records ``as may
be necessary to determine the condition of the performance test,'' but
does not specifically require the information to be recorded. The
regulatory text the EPA is proposing to add clarifies the necessary
information and makes explicit the provision to record the information.
e. Monitoring
    We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table (Table 10)
entry for 40 CFR 63.8 (c)(1)(i) and (iii) by changing the ``yes'' in
column 3 to a ``no'' for both entries. The cross-references to the
general duty and SSM plan provisions in those subparagraphs are not
necessary in light of other provisions of 40 CFR 63.8 that require good
air pollution control practices (40 CFR 63.8(c)(1)) and that set out
the provisions of a quality control program for monitoring equipment
(40 CFR 63.8(d)).
    We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table (Table 10)
entry for 40 CFR 63.8(d) by creating a separate entry for 40 CFR
63.8(d)(3) and by indicating ``no'' in column 3. The final sentence in
40 CFR 63.8(d)(3) refers to the General Provisions' SSM plan provision
which is no longer applicable. We are proposing to add to the rule at
40 CFR 63.8000(d)(8) text that is identical to 40 CFR 63.8(d)(3) except
that the final sentence is replaced with the following sentence: ``The
program of corrective action should be included in the plan required
under Sec.  63.8(d)(2).''
f. 40 CFR 63.8080 Recordkeeping
    We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table (Table 10)
entries for 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2) by creating a single row for 40 CFR
63.10(b)(2)(i) and (ii) and indicating a ``no'' in column 3. Section
63.10(b)(2)(i) describes the recordkeeping provisions during startup
and shutdown. Section 63.10(b)(2)(ii) describes the recordkeeping
provisions during a malfunction. These recordkeeping provisions are no
longer necessary because we are proposing to remove the exemptions and
other special provisions applicable to SSM periods so there is no
reason to retain additional recordkeeping for these periods. We are
also proposing to replace the references to 40 CFR 63.998(d)(3) and
63.998(c)(1)(ii)(D) through (G) in the former entry for 40 CFR
63.10(b)(2)(i) with a reference to a new paragraph 40 CFR 63.8080(h)
that specifies recordkeeping in the event of any deviation from an
emission limitation. The regulatory text we are proposing to add
differs from the General Provisions it is replacing in that the General
Provisions require the creation and retention of a record of the
occurrence and duration of each malfunction of process, air pollution
control, and monitoring equipment. We are proposing that this provision
apply to any failure to meet an applicable standard and is requiring
that the source record the date, time, and duration of the failure
rather than the ``occurrence.'' The EPA is also proposing to add to 40
CFR 63.8080(h) a provision that requires source owners or operators to
keep records that include a list of the affected source or equipment
and actions taken to minimize emissions, an estimate of the quantity of
each regulated pollutant emitted over the standard for which the source
failed to meet the standard, and a description of the method used to
estimate the emissions. Examples of such estimation methods would
include product-loss calculations, mass balance calculations,
measurements when available, or engineering judgment based on known
process parameters. The EPA is proposing to require that source owners
or operators keep records of this information to ensure that there is
adequate information to allow us 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 (Table 10)
entries for 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2) by creating a single row for 40 CFR
63.10(b)(2)(iv) and (v) and indicating a ``no'' in column 3. When
applicable, 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(iv) requires source owners or operators
to record actions taken during SSM events when actions were
inconsistent with their SSM plans. The provision in 40 CFR
63.10(b)(2)(v) requires source owners or operators to record actions
taken during SSM events to show that actions taken were consistent with
their SSM plans. These provisions will no longer be appropriate because
we propose that SSM plans will no longer be required. The provisions
previously applicable under 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(iv) and (v) to record
corrective actions is now applicable by reference to 40 CFR 63.8080(h).
    We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table (Table 10)
entry for 40 CFR 63.10(c)(15) by changing the ``yes'' in column 3 to a
``no.'' The EPA is proposing that 40 CFR 63.10(c)(15) no longer
applies. When applicable, the provision allows an owner or operator to
use the affected source's SSM plan or records kept to satisfy the
recordkeeping provisions of the SSM plan, specified in 40 CFR 63.6(e),
to also satisfy the provisions of 40 CFR 63.10(c)(10) through (12). The
EPA is proposing to eliminate this provision because SSM plans would no
longer be required; therefore, 40 CFR 63.10(c)(15) would no longer
serve any useful purpose for affected sources.
g. 40 CFR 63.8075 Reporting
    We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table (Table 10)
entry for 40 CFR 63.10(d)(5)(i) by removing the reference to 40 CFR
63.8075(e)(5) and (6), but retaining the ``no'' entry. The provisions
in 40 CFR 63.8075(e)(5) describe the reporting provisions for SSM in
place of those at 40 CFR 63.10(d)(5)(i). To replace the SSM reporting
provision, the EPA is

proposing to add reporting provisions to 40 CFR 63.8075(e)(6). The
replacement language differs from the General Provisions in that it
eliminates periodic SSM reports as a stand-alone report. We are
proposing language that requires source owners or operators 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. We are proposing that the report must contain
the number, date, time, duration, and the cause of such events
(including unknown cause, if applicable), a list of the affected source
or equipment, an estimate of the quantity of each regulated pollutant
emitted over any emission limit, and a description of the method used
to 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. The EPA is proposing this
provision to ensure that there is adequate information to determine
compliance, to allow the EPA to determine the severity of the failure
to meet an applicable standard, and to provide data that may document
how the source owner or operator met the general duty to minimize
emissions during a failure to meet an applicable standard.
h. Conforming Changes for Cross-References to Other Subparts
    We are proposing amendments to account for instances where 40 CFR
part 63, subpart HHHHH cross-references other subparts that contain SSM
provisions. Proposed 40 CFR 63.8000(f) lists the referenced provisions
in subparts SS, TT, and UU of part 63 that contain references to SSM
periods that will no longer apply after the compliance date for the
proposed amendments. Proposed 40 CFR 63.8000(f)(10) through (f)(22)
lists the paragraphs or phrases within the paragraphs that will not
apply after the applicable compliance dates for the proposed amendments
because they are no longer applicable as a result of the proposed SSM
revisions.
i. Provisions To Account for Control Device Bypass Periods in
Determining Compliance
    Because we are proposing to remove the SSM provisions and require
compliance at all times, we are proposing to amend 40 CFR 63.8000(c) to
account for bypass periods in determining compliance with the emission
percent reduction provisions in Table 1 to 40 CFR part 63, subpart
HHHHH for process vessels. These amendments will apply to process
vessels with closed vent systems and add-on controls that contain
bypass lines that could divert a vent stream to the atmosphere. We are
proposing that owners and operators must measure and record during each
semiannual compliance period the hours that the control device was
bypassed and the source's total operating hours. They must then use the
overall control efficiency required in Table 1, the total operating
hours, and the control efficiency of the control device to determine
the allowable bypass hours during the semiannual compliance period
using proposed Equation 1 in 40 CFR 63.8005(h). These changes are
required because SSM periods that may involve bypassing of the control
device cannot be excluded and must now be included in determining
compliance.
j. Safety Devices
    Because we are proposing to remove the SSM provisions and require
compliance at all times, we are proposing to revise 40 CFR
63.8000(b)(2), which allows the opening of a safety device at any time
conditions require it to avoid unsafe conditions. We are proposing to
revise 40 CFR 63.8000(b)(2) so that opening of a safety device to avoid
unsafe conditions is considered a deviation, unless it is a bypass of a
control for a process vessel and accounted for as specified in 40
CFR[thinsp]63.8005(h). We are also proposing to revise 40 CFR
63.8080(c), which is the provision to keep a record of each time a
safety device is opened, to add additional recordkeeping provisions
consistent with those for other deviations. As a result of these
proposed changes, the opening of a safety device would be considered a
deviation from the emission limits for sources using closed vent
systems and add-on control devices to comply with the emission
limitations in 40 CFR part 63, subpart HHHHH, unless it is a bypass of
a control for a process vessel and accounted for as specified in 40
CFR[thinsp]63.8005(h). In the event a safety device is opened, the
owners or operators would be required to comply with the general duty
provision in 40 CFR 63.8000(a) to minimize emissions at all times, and
to report and record information related to deviations as specified in
40 CFR 63.8075 and 63.8080, respectively, unless it is a bypass of a
control for a process vessel and accounted for as specified in 40
CFR[thinsp]63.8005(h).
2. Electronic Reporting Provisions
    Through this proposal, the EPA is proposing that owners and
operators of MCM facilities submit electronic copies of required
performance test reports, performance evaluation reports, compliance
reports, and NOCS reports through the EPA's Central Data Exchange (CDX)
using the Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface (CEDRI). A
description of the electronic data submission process is provided in
the memorandum, Electronic Reporting Requirements for New Source
Performance Standards (NSPS) and National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) Rules, available in Docket ID No.
EPA-HQ-OAR-2018-0747. The proposed rule requires that performance test
results collected using test methods that are supported by the EPA's
Electronic Reporting Tool (ERT) as listed on the ERT website \22\ at
the time of the test be submitted in the format generated through the
use of the ERT and that other performance test results be submitted in
portable document format (PDF) using the attachment module of the ERT.
Similarly, performance evaluation results of continuous monitoring
systems measuring relative accuracy test audit pollutants that are
supported by the ERT at the time of the test must be submitted in the
format generated through the use of the ERT and other performance
evaluation results be submitted in PDF using the attachment module of
the ERT.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ https://www.epa.gov/electronic-reporting-air-emissions/electronic-reporting-tool-ert.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For performance test reports, performance evaluation reports,
compliance reports, and NOCS reports, the proposed rule requires that
owners and operators use the appropriate spreadsheet template to submit
information to CEDRI. A draft version of the proposed templates for
these reports are included in the docket for this rulemaking.\23\ The
EPA specifically requests comment on the content, layout, and overall
design of the templates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ See MCM_Compliance_Report_Draft_Template.xlsx, available at
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2018-0747.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additionally, the EPA has identified two broad circumstances in
which electronic reporting extensions may be provided. In both
circumstances, the decision to accept the claim of needing additional
time to report is within the discretion of the Administrator, and
reporting should occur as soon as possible. The EPA is providing these
potential extensions to protect owners and operators from noncompliance
in

cases where they cannot successfully submit a report by the reporting
deadline for reasons outside of their control. The situation where an
extension may be warranted due to outages of the EPA's CDX or CEDRI
which precludes an owner or operator from accessing the system and
submitting required reports is addressed in 40 CFR 63.8075(i). The
situation where an extension may be warranted due to a force majeure
event, which is defined as an event that will be or has been caused by
circumstances beyond the control of the affected facility, its
contractors, or any entity controlled by the affected facility that
prevents an owner or operator from complying with the requirement to
submit a report electronically as required by this rule is addressed in
40 CFR 63.8075(j). Examples of such events are acts of nature, acts of
war or terrorism, or equipment failure or safety hazards beyond the
control of the facility.
    The electronic submittal of the reports addressed in this proposed
rulemaking will increase the usefulness of the data contained in those
reports, is in keeping with current trends in data availability and
transparency, will further assist in the protection of public health
and the environment, will improve compliance by facilitating the
ability of regulated facilities to demonstrate compliance with
provisions and by facilitating the ability of delegated state, local,
tribal, and territorial air agencies and the EPA to assess and
determine compliance, and will ultimately reduce burden on regulated
facilities, delegated air agencies, and the EPA. Electronic reporting
also eliminates paper-based, manual processes, thereby saving time and
resources, simplifying data entry, eliminating redundancies, minimizing
data reporting errors, and providing data quickly and accurately to the
affected facilities, air agencies, the EPA, and the public. Moreover,
electronic reporting is consistent with the EPA's plan \24\ to
implement Executive Order 13563 and is in keeping with the EPA's
Agency-wide policy \25\ developed in response to the White House's
Digital Government Strategy.\26\ For more information on the benefits
of electronic reporting, see the memorandum, Electronic Reporting
Requirements for New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) and National
Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) Rules,
available in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2018-0747.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ EPA's Final Plan for Periodic Retrospective Reviews, August
2011. Available at: https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=EPA-HQ-OAR-2018-0747.
    \25\ E-Reporting Policy Statement for EPA Regulations, September
2013. Available at: https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-03/documents/epa-ereporting-policy-statement-2013-09-30.pdf.
    \26\ Digital Government: Building a 21st Century Platform to
Better Serve the American People, May 2012. Available at: https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/omb/egov/digital-government/digital-government.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Other Technical Amendments
    The EPA is proposing to amend 40 CFR 63.8055(b)(4) to remove
reference to paragraph (d)(4) of the Occupational Safety and Health
Administration's (OSHA's) Hazard Communication standard, which dealt
with OSHA-defined carcinogens. The EPA is proposing to replace that
reference with its own list of HAP that must be regarded as potentially
carcinogenic based on the EPA guidelines. Although paragraph (d)(4) of
OSHA's standard was deleted when the Agency adopted the Globally
Harmonized System of Hazard Communication in 2012, it was replaced by
section A.6.4.2 of mandatory Appendix A of that standard, which reads
as follows:
    ``Where OSHA has included cancer as a health hazard to be
considered by classifiers for a chemical covered by 29 CFR part 1910,
subpart Z, Toxic and Hazardous Substances, chemical manufacturers,
importers, and employers shall classify the chemical as a carcinogen.''
Thus, where OSHA has regulated workplace exposure to a chemical based,
at least in part, on carcinogenic risk, OSHA requires the chemical to
be classified as a carcinogen. OSHA suggests that the EPA should refer
to section A.6.4.2 of Appendix A of 29 CFR 1910.1200 in its discussion
of 40 CFR 63.8055 and consider chemicals that meet this provision be
considered ``OSHA-defined carcinogens.''
    We are proposing to replace these references to carcinogens in 29
CFR 1910.1200(d)(4) with a list (in proposed new Table 11 to 40 CFR
part 63, subpart HHHHH) 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 11 to 40 CFR
part 63, subpart HHHHH 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), 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).
    There are several additional revisions that we are proposing to 40
CFR part 63, subpart HHHHH to clarify text or correct typographical
errors, grammatical errors, and cross-reference errors. These proposed
editorial corrections and clarifications are summarized in Table 4 of
this preamble.

 Table 4--Summary of Proposed Editorial and Minor Corrections to 40 CFR
                         Part 63, Subpart HHHHH
------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Provision                        Proposed revision
------------------------------------------------------------------------
40 CFR 63.7985(d)(2)...................  Remove the word ``future.''
40 CFR 63.8050(c)(3)...................  Correct reference to
                                          subparagraph (c)(2)(i) to
                                          (iii) to (c)(3)(i) to (iii).
40 CFR 63.8075(c)(1)...................  Clarify the paragraphs to say
                                          63.8005 through 63.8030 to
                                          include heat exchangers.
40 CFR 63.8075(d)......................  Change the reference from
                                          (d)(2) to (d)(1).
40 CFR 63.8075(d)(2)(ii)...............  Remove the word ``initial.''
40 CFR 63.8090(b)......................  Clarify the sentence to say,
                                          ``You are in compliance with
                                          this subpart if you have a
                                          storage tank with a fixed
                                          roof, closed-vent system, and
                                          control device in compliance
                                          with 40 CFR part 60, subpart
                                          Kb, and you are in compliance
                                          with the monitoring,
                                          recordkeeping, and reporting
                                          requirements in this
                                          subpart.''
Table 8 to 40 CFR part 63, subpart       Correct ``FFFF'' to ``HHHHH.''
 HHHHH.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

4. 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 provisions in the MCM 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. We are proposing periodic testing of add-on control
devices, in addition to the one-time initial emissions testing and
ongoing continuous parametric monitoring, to ensure ongoing compliance
with the standards.
    Although ongoing monitoring of operating parameters is required by
the NESHAP and is conducted by owners or operators, as control devices
age over time, the destruction efficiency of the control devices can be
compromised due to various factors. The EPA published several documents
that identify potential control device operational problems that could
decrease emission reduction efficiency, including, but not limited to
the following: Corrosion due to halogens in HAP exhaust for thermal
oxidizers, catalyst deactivation or poisoning for catalytic oxidizers,
leaking valves for regenerative oxidizers, adsorbent plugging and
fouling for adsorbers, and changing waste stream temperatures and
absorption characteristics for condensers and concentrators.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ 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 Technologies for Low
Concentration Organic Vapor Gas Streams, EPA-456/R-95-003, May 1995.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Institute of Clean Air Companies (ICAC), an industry trade
group currently representing 50 emission control device equipment
manufacturers, corroborated the fact that control equipment degrades
over time in their comments in a prior rulemaking. In their comments on
proposed revisions to the NESHAP General Provisions (72 FR 69, January
3, 2007), ICAC stated that ongoing maintenance and checks of control
devices are necessary in order to ensure emissions control technology
remains effective. Based on the need for vigilance in maintaining
equipment to stem degradation, in this action, we are proposing to
require periodic performance testing of certain add-on control devices
on a 5-year cycle and removing the allowance for demonstration of
compliance using a design evaluation for ``small control devices,''
defined as controlling less than 10 tons of HAP per year. We are not
proposing to revise performance demonstration requirements for
condensers because outlet gas temperature correlates directly with
control efficiency and continuous monitoring of outlet gas temperature
provides a direct indication of whether control efficiency has been
met. Likewise, the proposed performance testing provision of
incineration control devices allows an exception from periodic testing
for facilities using instruments to continuously measure VOC emissions.
Using VOC continuous emissions monitoring systems (CEMS) would be a
direct indicator of compliance. The use of VOC CEMS to demonstrate
compliance would obviate the need for initial or periodic control
device testing. Our available data indicates that the oxidizers are the
only other control device used to comply with this standard.
Incinerators, however, could experience this degradation and reduced
control efficiency that would not be captured with operating parameter
monitoring of temperature.
    We have identified several states with MCM facilities that already
require such testing every 5 years synchronized with 40 CFR part 70 air
operating permit renewals.
    The proposed periodic performance testing provisions would require
owners or operators of facilities complying with the standards using a
closed vent system to control 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, the owners or operators would conduct periodic testing
before they renew their operating permits, but no longer than 5 years
following the previous performance test. Additionally, owners or
operators of 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 provision would require periodic air emissions
testing to measure organic HAP destruction or removal efficiency at the
inlet and outlet of the thermal oxidizer. The emissions would be
measured as total gaseous organic mass emissions as carbon using either
EPA Method 18 of appendix A-6 to 40 CFR part 60, or 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 associated with this proposed provision,
which includes a control device emissions destruction or removal
efficiency test using EPA Method 18, 25 or 25A, would be approximately
$19,000 per control device every 5 years for those sources not already
required by their title V operating permit to conduct testing at least
every 5 years. The cost estimate is included in the memorandum titled
Draft Costs/Impacts of the 40 CFR part 63 Subpart HHHHH Monitoring
Review Revisions, in the MCM Docket. Based on the development of cost
estimates for other NESHAP, we know that certain states typically
require periodic testing as a condition of renewing title V operating
permits. We have assumed that facilities located in these states are
currently required to conduct periodic performance tests as a condition
of their 40 CFR part 70 operating permits, and the proposed periodic
testing would not add any new testing provisions and the estimated
costs would not apply to these facilities. We have assumed that
facilities in other states would have additional testing provisions and
costs. Periodic performance tests ensure that any thermal oxidizers
used to comply with the NESHAP in the future would be properly
maintained over time, thereby reducing the potential for acute
emissions episodes and non-compliance.

E. What compliance dates are we proposing?

    Amendments to the MCM NESHAP proposed in this rulemaking for
adoption under CAA section 112(d)(2) and (3) are subject to the
compliance deadlines outlined in the CAA under section 112(i).
    For all of the provisions we are proposing under CAA sections
112(d)(2) and (3), we are proposing all affected source owners or
operators must comply with all of the amendments no later than 3 years
after the effective date of the final rule, or upon startup, whichever
is later. For existing sources, CAA section 112(i) provides that the
compliance date be as expeditious as practicable, but no later than 3
years after the effective date of the standard. (``Section 112(i)(3)'s
three-year maximum compliance period applies generally to any emission
standard . . . promulgated under [section 112].'' Association of
Battery Recyclers v. EPA, 716 F.3d 667, 672 (D.C. Cir. 2013)). In
determining what compliance period is

as expeditious as practicable, we consider the amount of time needed to
plan and construct projects and change operating procedures. As
provided in CAA section 112(i), all new affected sources would comply
with these provisions by the effective date of the final amendments to
the MCM NESHAP or upon startup, whichever is later.
    All affected facilities would have to continue to meet the current
provisions of 40 CFR part 63, subpart HHHHH 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).
    We are proposing to change the provisions for SSM by removing the
exemption from the emission limitations (i.e., emission limits,
operating limits, and work practice standards) during SSM periods and
by removing the provision to develop and implement an SSM plan. We are
also proposing that owners and operators will now need to take into
account control device bypass periods, even if during SSM periods, when
demonstrating compliance with the percent emission reduction provisions
for process vessels in Table 1 to 40 CFR part 63, subpart HHHHH.
    Our experience with similar industries further shows that this sort
of regulated facility generally requires a substantial time period to
read and understand the amended rule provisions; 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 provisions. It is also possible that some
facilities may need to upgrade their emission capture and control
systems because of the proposed changes to the bypass provisions in the
compliance calculations. These upgrades may require additional time to
evaluate the current control system, plan for needed upgrades, and then
design, purchase, and install those upgrades. From our assessment of
the time frame needed for compliance with the entirety of the revised
requirements related to the SSM provisions, including the need to
account for bypass periods, the EPA considers a period of 3 years to be
the most expeditious compliance period practicable and, thus, is
proposing that existing affected sources be in compliance with 40 CFR
part 63, subpart HHHHH's revised SSM provisions within 3 years of the
final amendment's effective date.
    Therefore, for all affected sources that commence construction or
reconstruction on or before September 4, 2019, we are proposing that it
is necessary to provide 3 years after the effective date of the final
rule (or upon startup, whichever is later) for owners and operators to
comply with the provisions that have been amended to remove the
exemption from the emission limitations during SSM periods. For all
affected sources that commenced construction or reconstruction after
September 4, 2019, we are proposing that owners and operators comply
with the amended provisions by the effective date of the final rule (or
upon startup, whichever is later).
    As discussed elsewhere in this preamble, we are also proposing to
add a provision 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. Regarding electronic reporting, our
experience with similar industries shows that a time period of a
minimum of 90 days, and, more typically, 180 days, is generally
necessary 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. From our assessment of the time frame needed for
compliance with the new electronic reporting provisions, the EPA
considers a period of 180 days to be the most expeditious compliance
period practicable and, thus, is proposing that all sources would begin
complying with the new electronic reporting provisions beginning no
later than 180 days after 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 provisions and the time
needed to make the adjustments for compliance with any of the revised
provisions. 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, 43 major sources subject to the MCM NESHAP are operating
in the United States. The affected source under the NESHAP is the
facility-wide collection of equipment used to manufacture coatings and
includes all process vessels; storage tanks for feedstocks and
products; components such as pumps, compressors, agitators, pressure
relief devices, sampling connection systems, open-ended valves or
lines, valves, connectors, and instrumentation systems; wastewater
tanks; transfer racks; and cleaning operations. A coating is defined as
material such as paint, ink, or adhesive that is intended to be applied
to a substrate and consists of a mixture of resins, pigments, solvents,
and/or other additives, where the material is produced by a
manufacturing operation where materials are blended, mixed, diluted, or
otherwise formulated.

B. What are the air quality impacts?

    At the current level of control, estimated emissions of volatile
organic HAP from the MCM source category are approximately 405 tpy.
    The proposed amendments require that all 43 major sources in the
MCM source category 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 and would, therefore, have no indirect
or secondary air emissions impacts.

C. What are the cost impacts?

    We estimate that to comply with the proposed amendments each
facility in the MCM source category will experience increased reporting
and recordkeeping costs. The recordkeeping and reporting costs are
presented in

section VIII.C of this preamble. The costs include time 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 provision 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.
    We are also proposing a provision for performance testing no less
frequently than every 5 years for sources in the MCM source category
using add-on controls to demonstrate compliance. We estimate that 12
facilities subject to the MCM NESHAP and using add-on control devices
would incur costs to conduct control device performance testing because
they are not required by their permits to conduct testing every 5
years. This total does not include facilities in the MCM 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. The total cost for all 12 facilities to
test their add-on control devices in a single year, plus one facility
completing a retest to account for 5 percent of control devices failing
to pass the first test, would be $247,000. The total annualized testing
cost, including retests, is approximately $57,000 per year at an
interest rate of 5.25 percent and an additional $6,000 in reporting
costs per facility in the year in which the test occurs for the MCM
source category. For further information on the potential costs, see
the cost tables in the memoranda titled Estimated Costs/Impacts of the
40 CFR part 63 Subpart HHHHH Monitoring Review Revisions, May 2019, and
the Economic Impact and Small Business Screening Assessments for
Proposed Amendments to National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants for Miscellaneous Coating Manufacturing Facilities (Subpart
HHHHH), in the MCM Docket.

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 proposal, 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 1 year is compared to the total sales for the
ultimate owner of the affected facilities to estimate the total burden
for each facility.
    For the proposed revisions to the MCM NESHAP, the 2019 equivalent
annualized value (in 2018$) of the costs over the period 2020-2026 is
$66,000 assuming a 3-percent discount rate and $73,000 assuming a 7-
percent discount rate. The 43 affected facilities are owned by 27
different parent companies, and the total costs associated with the
proposed amendments range from 0.000005 to 0.025 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. Two of
the facilities potentially affected by the proposed revisions to the
MCM NESHAP are small entities. However, the costs associated with the
proposed amendments for these two affected small entities range from
0.002 to 0.025 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 are provided in the
technical document titled Economic Impact and Small Business Screening
Assessments for Proposed Amendments to the National Emission Standards
for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Miscellaneous Coating Manufacturing
(Subpart HHHHH), available in the MCM Docket.

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.
    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 receiving
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://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/miscellaneous-coating-manufacturing-national-emission-standards. The data files include detailed information for each HAP
emissions release point for the facilities in the source category.
    If you believe that the data are not representative or are
inaccurate, please identify the data in question, provide your reason
for concern, and provide any ``improved'' data that you have, if
available. When you submit data, we request that you provide
documentation of the basis for the revised values to support your
suggested changes. To submit comments on the data downloaded from the
RTR website, complete the following steps:
    1. Within this downloaded file, enter suggested revisions to the
data fields appropriate for that information.
    2. Fill in the commenter information fields for each suggested
revision (i.e., commenter name, commenter organization, commenter email
address, commenter phone number, and revision comments).
    3. Gather documentation for any suggested emissions revisions
(e.g., performance test reports, material balance calculations).
    4. Send the entire downloaded file with suggested revisions in
Microsoft[supreg] Access format and all accompanying documentation to
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2018-0747 (through the method described in the
ADDRESSES section of this preamble).
    5. If you are providing comments on a single facility or multiple
facilities, you need only submit one file for all

facilities. The file should contain all suggested changes for all
sources at that facility (or facilities). We request that all data
revision comments be submitted in the form of updated Microsoft[supreg]
Excel files that are generated by the Microsoft[supreg] Access file.
These files are provided on the RTR website at https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/miscellaneous-coating-manufacturing-national-emission-standards.

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. The ICR document that the
EPA prepared has been assigned EPA ICR number 2115.06. You can find a
copy of the ICR in the MCM Docket (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2018-0747),
and it is briefly summarized here.
    The EPA is proposing to revise the SSM provisions of the rule,
proposing to require periodic testing of control devices, 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 HHHHH.
    Respondents/affected entities: Facilities manufacturing surface
coatings.
    Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (40 CFR part 63,
subpart HHHHH).
    Estimated number of respondents: In the 3 years after the
amendments are final, approximately 43 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
175, in year 2 is 46, and in year 3 is 85.
    Total estimated burden: The average annual burden of the proposed
amendments to the 43 MCM facilities over the 3 years if the amendments
are finalized is estimated to be 565 hours (per year). The average
annual burden to the Agency over the 3 years after the amendments are
final is estimated to be 116 hours (per year). Burden is defined at 5
CFR 1320.3(b).
    Total estimated cost: The average annual cost of the proposed
amendments to the MCM facilities is $65,000 in labor costs in the first
3 years after the amendments are final. The average annual capital and
operation and maintenance costs are $82,000. The total average annual
agency cost of the proposed amendments over the first 3 years after the
amendments are final is estimated to be $5,500.
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for the
EPA's regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9.
    Submit your comments on the Agency's need for this information, the
accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods
for minimizing respondent burden to the EPA using the docket identified
at the beginning of this rule. You may also send your ICR-related
comments to OMB's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs via
email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Attention: Desk Officer for the
EPA. Since OMB is required to make a decision concerning the ICR
between 30 and 60 days after receipt, OMB must receive comments no
later than October 4, 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. In
making this determination, the impact of concern is any significant
adverse economic impact on small entities. An agency may certify that a
rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities if the rule relieves regulatory burden, has no
net burden, or otherwise has a positive economic effect on the small
entities subject to the rule. The annualized costs associated with the
proposed amendments 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. We have,
therefore, concluded that this action will have no net regulatory
burden for all directly regulated small entities.

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 (MCM).
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, and IV.A, B, and C of this preamble, and are
further documented in the Miscellaneous Coating Manufacturing Risk
Assessment Report, in the MCM Docket.

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

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

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

    This action involves technical standards. Therefore, the EPA
conducted searches for the MCM NESHAP through the Enhanced National
Standards Systems Network (NSSN) Database managed by the American
National Standards Institute (ANSI). We also contacted voluntary
consensus standards (VCS) organizations and accessed and searched their
databases. We conducted searches for EPA Methods 1, 1A, 2, 2A, 2C, 2D,
2F, 2G, 3, 3A, 3B, 4, 18, 21, 22, 24, 25, 25A, 25D, 26, 26A, and 29 of
40 CFR part 60, appendix A; 301, 305, 311, 316, and 320 of 40 CFR part
63, appendix A; 624, 625, 1624, 1625, 1666, and 1671 of 40 CFR part
136, appendix A; and 8260, 8260B (SW-846), 8270, Test Methods for
Evaluating Solid Waste, Physical/Chemical Methods, EPA Publication SW-
846 third edition. During the EPA's VCS search, if the title or
abstract (if provided) of the VCS described technical sampling and
analytical procedures that are similar to the EPA's reference method,
the EPA ordered a copy of the standard and reviewed it as a potential
equivalent method. We reviewed all potential standards to determine the
practicality of the VCS for this rule. This review requires significant
method validation data that meet the requirements of EPA Method 301 for
accepting alternative methods or scientific, engineering, and policy
equivalence to procedures in the EPA reference methods. The EPA may
reconsider determinations of impracticality when additional information
is available for particular VCS.
    No applicable VCS were identified for EPA Methods 1A, 2A, 2D, 2F,
2G, 21, 22, 25D, 305, 316, 625, 1624, 1625, 1666, 1671, 8260, 8260B
(SW-846), and 8270. The following VCS were identified as acceptable
alternatives to the EPA test methods for the purpose of this rule.
    The EPA proposes to use the VCS ANSI/ASME PTC 19-10-1981 Part 10
(2010), ``Flue and Exhaust Gas Analyses,'' as an acceptable alternative
to EPA Method 3B for the manual procedures only and not the
instrumental procedures. This method determines quantitatively the
gaseous constituents of exhausts resulting from stationary combustion
sources.
    Additionally, the EPA proposes to use the VCS ASTM D6420-18,
``Standard Test Method for Determination of Gaseous Organic Compounds
by Direct Interface Gas Chromatography-Mass Spectrometry,'' as an
acceptable alternative to EPA Method 18 with the following caveats.
This ASTM procedure has been approved by the EPA as an alternative to
EPA Method 18 only when the target compounds are all known and the
target compounds are all listed in ASTM D6420 as measurable. We are
proposing that ASTM D6420-18 should not be used for methane and ethane
because the atomic mass is less than 35; and ASTM D6420 should never be
specified as a total VOC method. This test method employs a direct
interface gas chromatograph/mass spectrometer to identify and quantify
VOC.
    The EPA proposes to use the VCS ASTM D2369-10(2015) el, ''Test
Method for Volatile Content of Coatings''; ASTM D2697-03 (2014),
``Standard Test Method for Volume Nonvolatile Matter in Clear or
Pigmented Coatings''; and ASTM D3960-98, `` 'Standard Practice for
Determining VOC Content of Paints and Related Coatings,'' as acceptable
alternatives to EPA Method 24. The ASTM D2369-10 (2015) method
describes a procedure for the determination of the weight percent
volatile content of solvent borne and waterborne coatings. The ASTM
D2697-03 (2014) method is intended to provide a measure of the volume
of dry coating obtainable from a given volume of liquid coating. The
ASTM D3960-98 method measures the VOC content of solvent borne and
waterborne paints and related coatings as determined from the quantity
of material released from a sample under specified bake conditions and
subtracting exempt volatile compounds and water if present.
    The EPA proposes to use the VCS CARB Method 310, ``Determination of
VOC in Consumer Products and Reactive Organic Compounds in Aerosol
Coating Products,'' as an acceptable alternative to EPA Method 311.
Method 310 determines the total volatile material in a product and the
presence of any compounds and is also used to determine the percent by
weight of the reactive organic compounds contained in aerosol coating
products.
    In addition, the EPA proposes to use the VCS ASTM D6348-12e1,
``Determination of Gaseous Compounds by Extractive Direct Interface
Fourier Transform (FTIR) Spectroscopy,'' as an acceptable alternative
to EPA Method 320 of appendix A to 40 CFR part 63 with caveats
requiring inclusion of selected annexes to the standard as mandatory.
We are proposing the test plan preparation and implementation in the
Annexes to ASTM D6348-12e1, Sections Al through A8 are mandatory; and
in ASTM D6348-12e1, Annex A5 (Analyte Spiking Technique), the percent
(%) R must be determined for each target analyte (Equation A5.5). We
are proposing that in order for the test data to be acceptable for a
compound, %R must be 70% >= R <= 130%. If the %R value does not meet
this criterion for a target compound, the test data is not acceptable
for that compound and the test must be repeated for that analyte (i.e.,
the sampling and/or analytical procedure should be adjusted before a
retest). We are proposing that the %R value for each compound be
reported in the test report, and all field measurements must be
corrected with the calculated %R value for that compound by using the
following equation:

Reported Results = (Measured Concentration in the Stack x 100)/% R.

    The ASTM D6348-12e1 method is an extractive FTIR based field test
method is used to quantify gas phase concentrations of multiple target
analytes from stationary source effluent.
    The six ASTM methods (ASTM D6420-18, ASTM D2369-10(2015)el, ASTM
D6348-12e1, ASTM D2697-03 (2014), ASTM D3960-98, and ASTM D6348-03) are
available at ASTM International, 1850 M Street NW, Suite 1030,
Washington, DC 20036. See https://www.astm.org/. The CARB method (VCS
CARB Method 310) is available at CARB, 1001 I Street, Sacramento, CA
95814. See https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/. The ANSI/ASME PTC 19 10 1981 Part
10 (2010) method is available at American National Standards Institute
(ANSI), 1899 L Street NW, 11th floor, Washington, DC 20036 and the
American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME), Three Park Avenue, New
York, NY 10016-5990 See https://wwww.ansi.org and https://www.asme.org.
    Finally, the search identified seven other VCS that were
potentially applicable for this rule in lieu of the EPA reference
methods. After reviewing the available standards, the EPA determined
that seven candidate VCS identified for measuring emissions of
pollutants or their surrogates subject to emission standards in the
rule would not be practical due to lack of equivalency, documentation,
validation data and other important technical and policy
considerations. Additional information for the VCS search and
determinations can be found in the memorandum, Voluntary Consensus
Standard Results for National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants: Miscellaneous Coatings Manufacturing,

which is available in the docket for this action.
    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 the EPA should use such standards 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
and IV.B of this preamble and the technical report titled Risk and
Technology Review--Analysis of Demographic Factors for Populations
Living Near Miscellaneous Coating Manufacturing Operations, January
2019, available in the MCM Docket.
    As discussed in sections IV.A and B of this preamble, we performed
a demographic analysis for the MCM 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 MCM source category across different social,
demographic, and economic groups within the populations living near
operations identified as having the highest risks.
    The results of the MCM source category demographic analysis
indicate that approximately 3,700 people are exposed to a cancer risk
greater than or equal to 1-in-1 million and no one is exposed to a
chronic noncancer HI greater than 1. For those people with a cancer
risk greater than or equal to 1-in-1 million, the African American and
Below Poverty Level demographic groups are 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 report titled Risk and Technology Review--
Analysis of Demographic Factors for Populations Living Near
Miscellaneous Coating Manufacturing Operations, January 2019, which is
available in the MCM Docket.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Hazardous
substances, Incorporation by reference, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.

    Dated: August 15, 2019.
Andrew R. Wheeler,
Administrator.
    For the reasons set forth 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--[Amended]

0
2. Section 63.14 is amended by:
0
a. Adding paragraph (e)(2),
0
b. Revising paragraphs (h)(26), and (30);
0
c. Redesignating paragraphs (h)(92) through (111) as paragraphs (h)(94)
through (113) and paragraphs (h)(50) through (h)(91) as paragraphs
(h)(51) through (h)(92), respectively;
0
d. Adding new paragraph (h)(50);
0
e. Revising newly redesignated paragraph (h)(85);
0
f. Adding new paragraph (h)(93);
0
g. Redesignating paragraphs (k)(1) through (k)(5) as paragraphs (k)(2)
through (k)(6); and
0
h. Adding new paragraph (k)(1).
    The revisions and additions read as follows:

Sec.  63.14   Incorporations by reference.

* * * * *
    (e) * * *
    (2) ANSI/ASME PTC 19.10-1981 (2010), Flue and Exhaust Gas Analyses
(Part 10, Instruments and Apparatus), re-issued 2010, IBR approved for
Sec.  63.8000(d).
* * * * *
    (h) * * *
    (26) ASTM D2369-10 (Reapproved 2015)e, Standard Test Method for
Volatile Content of Coatings, approved June 1, 2015, IBR approved for
Sec. Sec.  63.4141(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 63.8055(b).
* * * * *
    (30) ASTM D2697-03 (Reapproved 2014), Standard Test Method for
Volume Nonvolatile Matter in Clear or Pigmented Coatings, IBR approved
for Sec. Sec.  63.4141(b), 63.4741(a) and (b), 63.4941(b),, and
63.8055(b).
* * * * *
    (50) ASTM D3960-98, Standard Practice for Determining Volatile
Organic Compound (VOC) Content of Paints and Related Coatings IBR
approved for Sec.  63.8055(b).
* * * * *
    (85) ASTM D6348-12e1, Standard Test Method for Determination of
Gaseous Compounds by Extractive Direct Interface Fourier Transform
Infrared (FTIR) Spectroscopy, Approved February 1, 2012, IBR approved
for Sec. Sec.  63.1571(a), and 63.8000(d).
* * * * *
    (93) ASTM D6420-18, Standard Test Method for Determination of
Gaseous Organic Compounds by Direct Interface Gas Chromatography-Mass
Spectrometry, IBR approved for Sec.  63.8000(d).
* * * * *
    (k) * * *
    (1) Method 310, ``Determination of Volatile Organic Compounds in
Consumer Products and Reactive Organic Compounds in Aerosol Coating
Products,'' amended August 1, 2014, IBR approved for Sec.  63.8055(b).
* * * * *

Subpart HHHHH--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants: Miscellaneous Coating Manufacturing

0
3. Section 63.7985 is amended by revising paragraphs (a)(1) through
(3), paragraph (b) introductory text, paragraphs (b)(1) through (3),
and (d)(1) through (4) to read as follows:

Sec.  63.7985   Am I subject to the requirements in this subpart?

    (a) * * *
    (1) Are located at or are part of a major source of hazardous air
pollutants (HAP) emissions, as defined in section 112(a) of the Clean
Air Act (CAA);
    (2) Manufacture coatings as defined in Sec.  63.8105;
    (3) Process, use, or produce HAP; and
* * * * *
    (b) Miscellaneous coating manufacturing operations include the
facility-wide collection of equipment described in paragraphs (b)(1)
through (4) of this section that is used to

manufacture coatings as defined in Sec.  63.8105. Miscellaneous coating
manufacturing operations also include cleaning operations.
    (1) Process vessels;
    (2) Storage tanks for feedstocks and products;
    (3) Components such as pumps, compressors, agitators, pressure
relief devices, sampling connection systems, open-ended valves or
lines, valves, connectors, and instrumentation systems; and
* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (1) Research and development facilities, as defined in section
112(c)(7) of the CAA;
    (2) The affiliated operations located at an affected source under
subparts GG (National Emission Standards for Aerospace Manufacturing
and Rework Facilities), KK (National Emission Standards for the
Printing and Publishing Industry), JJJJ (NESHAP: Paper and Other Web
Coating), MMMM (National Emission Standards for Miscellaneous Metal
Parts and Products Surface Coating Operations) and SSSS (NESHAP:
Surface Coating of Metal Coil) of this part. Affiliated operations
include, but are not limited to, mixing or dissolving of coating
ingredients; coating mixing for viscosity adjustment, color tint or
additive blending, or pH adjustment; cleaning of coating lines and
coating line parts; handling and storage of coatings and solvent; and
conveyance and treatment of wastewater;
    (3) Ancillary equipment such as boilers and incinerators (only
those not used to comply with the emission limits in Tables 1 through 5
to this subpart), chillers and refrigeration systems, and other
equipment that is not directly involved in the manufacturing of a
coating (i.e., it operates as a closed system, and materials are not
combined with materials used to manufacture the coating);
    (4) Quality assurance/quality control laboratories; or
* * * * *
0
4. Section 63.7995 is amended by revising paragraph (a) introductory
text and paragraph (b), and adding paragraph (e) to read as follows:

Sec.  63.7995   When do I have to comply with this subpart?

* * * * *
    (a) Except as specified in paragraph (e) of this section, if you
have a new affected source, you must comply with this subpart according
to the requirements in paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) of this section.
     * * *
    (b) Except as specified in paragraphs (e) of this section, if you
have an existing affected source on December 11, 2003, then you must
comply with the requirements for existing sources in this subpart no
later than December 11, 2006.
* * * * *
    (e) All affected sources that commenced construction or
reconstruction on or before [DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN
THE Federal Register], must be in compliance with the requirements
listed in paragraphs (e)(1) through (5) of this section upon initial
startup or [date 3 years after date of publication of final rule in the
Federal Register], whichever is later. All affected sources that
commenced construction or reconstruction after [DATE OF PUBLICATION OF
THE FINAL RULE IN THE Federal Register], must be in compliance with the
requirements listed in paragraphs (e)(1) through (5) of this section
upon initial startup, or [date of publication of final rule in the
Federal Register], whichever is later.
    (1) The general requirements specified in Sec.  63.8000(a)(2),
(b)(2), (d)(8), and (f); and Sec.  63.8005(d)(5) and (h).
    (2) The reporting requirements specified in Sec.  63.8075(e)(5),
(e)(6)(ii)(B), (e)(6)(ii)(D), (e)(6)(iii)(C), and (e)(6)(iii)(E).
    (3) The recordkeeping requirements specified in Sec.  63.8080(c),
(e), (f), (h), and (i).
    (4) The definitions specified in Sec.  63.8105.
    (5) The general provisions as specified in Table 10 to subpart
HHHHH.
0
5. Section 63.8000 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraphs (a), (b)(2), (c)(3), introductory text to
paragraph (d)(1), and paragraphs (d)(1)(i) and (iii);
0
e. Removing and reserving paragraph (d)(2);
0
f. Revising paragraphs (d)(3),(4)(i)(A), (ii)(C), and (iv); and
0
h. Adding paragraphs (d)(8), (e), and (f).
    The revisions and additions read as follows:

Sec.  63.8000   What are my general requirements for complying with
this subpart?

    (a) You must comply with paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) of this section.
    (1) Except as specified in paragraph (a)(2) of this section, you
must be in compliance with the emission limits and work practice
standards in Tables 1 through 5 to this subpart at all times, except
during periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction. You must meet the
requirements specified in paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section. You
must meet the requirements specified in Sec. Sec.  63.8005 through
63.8025 (or the alternative means of compliance in Sec.  63.8050),
except as specified in paragraph (d) of this section. You must meet the
notification, reporting, and recordkeeping requirements specified in
Sec. Sec.  63.8070, 63.8075, and 63.8080.
    (2) Beginning no later than the compliance dates specified in Sec.
63.7995(e), paragraph (a)(1) of this section no longer applies.
Instead, beginning no later than the compliance dates specified in
Sec.  63.7995(e), you must be in compliance with the emission limits
and work practice standards in Tables 1 through 5 to this subpart at
all times. You must meet the requirements specified in paragraphs (b)
and (c) of this section. You must meet the requirements specified in
Sec. Sec.  63.8005 through 63.8030 (or the alternative means of
compliance in Sec.  63.8050), except as specified in paragraph (d) of
this section. You must meet the notification, reporting, and
recordkeeping requirements specified in Sec. Sec.  63.8070, 63.8075,
and 63.8080.
    (b) * * *
    (2) You must comply with paragraphs (b)(2)(i) and (ii) of this
section.
    (i) Except as specified in paragraph (b)(2)(ii) of this section,
opening of a safety device, as defined in Sec.  63.8105, is allowed at
any time conditions require it to avoid unsafe conditions.
    (ii) Beginning no later than the compliance dates specified in
Sec.  63.7995(e), paragraph (b)(2)(i) of this section no longer
applies. Instead, opening of a safety device, as defined in Sec.
63.8105, is considered a deviation, as defined in Sec.  63.8105, unless
it is a bypass of a control for a process vessel and accounted for as
specified in Sec.  63.8005(h).
    (c) * * *
    (3) If you use a halogen reduction device to reduce hydrogen halide
and halogen HAP emissions that are generated by combusting halogenated
vent streams, you must meet the requirements of Sec.  63.994, except as
specified in paragraph (f) of this section, and the requirements
referenced therein. If you use a halogen reduction device before a
combustion device, you must determine the halogen atom emission rate
prior to the combustion device according to the procedures in Sec.
63.115(d)(2)(v).
    (d) * * *
    (1) Requirements for performance tests. The requirements specified
in paragraphs (d)(1)(i) through (vi) of this section apply instead of
or in addition to the requirements for performance testing of control
devices as specified in subpart SS of 40 CFR part 63.

    (i) Conduct gas molecular weight analysis using Method 3, 3A, or 3B
in appendix A to 40 CFR part 60. As an alternative to EPA Method 3B for
the manual procedures only and not the instrumental procedures, you may
use ANSI/ASME PTC 19-10-1981 Part 10(incorporated by reference, see
Sec.  63.14) as an acceptable alternative.
* * * * *
    (iii) As an alternative to using Method 18, Method 25/25A, or
Method 26/26A of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A, to comply with any of the
emission limits specified in Tables 1 through 6 to this subpart you may
use the alternatives specified in paragraphs (d)(1)(iii)(A) or (B) of
this section.
    (A) As an alternative to using Method 18, Method 25/25A, or Method
26/26A of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A, you may use Method 320 of 40 CFR
part 60, appendix A. When using Method 320, you must follow the analyte
spiking procedures of section 13 of Method 320, unless you demonstrate
that the complete spiking procedure has been conducted at a similar
source. As an alternative to Method 320 of Appendix A to 40 CFR part
63, you may use ASTM Method D6348-12e1 (incorporated by reference, see
Sec.  63.14), with the caveats that the test plan preparation and
implementation in the Annexes to ASTM Method D6348-12el, Sections Al
through A8 are mandatory; and in ASTM Method D6348-12e1 Annex A5
(Analyte Spiking Technique), the percent (%) R must be determined for
each target analyte (Equation A5.5). In order for the test data to be
acceptable for a compound, %R must be 70% >= R <=130%. If the %R value
does not meet this criterion for a target compound, the test data is
not acceptable for that compound and the test must be repeated for that
analyte (i.e., the sampling and/or analytical procedure should be
adjusted before a retest). The %R value for each compound must be
reported in the test report, and all field measurements must be
corrected with the calculated %R value for that compound by using the
following equation:

Reported Results = (Measured Concentration in the Stack x 100)/% R.

    (B) As an alternative to using EPA Method 18, you may also use ASTM
D6420-18 (incorporated by reference, see Sec.  63.14), but only when
the target compounds are all known and the target compounds are all
listed in ASTM D6420-18 as measurable; ASTM D6420-18 should not be used
for methane and ethane; and ASTM D6420-18 may not be used as a total
VOC method.
* * * * *
    (vi) You must conduct periodic performance tests and establish the
operating limits required by Sec. Sec.  63.8005(e), 63.8010(b)(1), and
63,8050(d)(3) within 5 years following the previous performance test.
You must conduct the initial or 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.
    (2) [Reserved]
    (3) Periodic verification. For a control device with total inlet
HAP emissions less than 1 ton per year (tpy), you must establish at
least one operating limit for a parameter that you will measure and
record at least once per averaging period (i.e., daily or block) to
verify that the control device is operating properly. You may elect to
measure the same parameter that is required for control devices that
control inlet HAP emissions equal to or greater than 1 tpy. If the
parameter will not be measured continuously, you must request approval
of your proposed procedure in the precompliance report. You must
identify the operating limit or range and the measurement frequency,
and you must provide rationale to support how these measurements
demonstrate the control device is operating properly.
    (4) * * *
    (i) * * *
    (A) If you wish to use a CEMS other than a Fourier Transform
Infrared Spectroscopy (FTIR) meeting the requirements of Performance
Specification 15 or a hydrogen chloride (HCl) CEMS meeting the
requirements of Performance Specification 18 and Quality Assurance
Procedure 6 to measure hydrogen halide and halogen HAP before we
promulgate a Performance Specification for such CEMS, you must prepare
a monitoring plan and submit it for approval in accordance with the
procedures specified in Sec.  63.8.
* * * * *
    (ii) * * *
    (C) For CEMS meeting Performance Specification 8 used to monitor
performance of a noncombustion device, determine the predominant
organic HAP using either process knowledge or the screening procedures
of Method 18 on the control device inlet stream, calibrate the monitor
on the predominant organic HAP, and report the results as
C1. Use Method 18, ASTM D6420-18, or any approved
alternative as the reference method for the relative accuracy tests,
and report the results as C1.
* * * * *
    (iv) The CEMS data must be reduced to operating day or operating
block averages computed using valid data, except monitoring data also
are sufficient to constitute a valid hour of data if measured values
are available for at least two of the 15-minute periods during an hour
when calibration, quality assurance, or maintenance activities are
being performed. An operating block is a period of time from the
beginning to end of batch operations in the manufacturing of a coating.
Operating block averages may be used only for process vessel data.
* * * * *
    (8) Beginning no later than the compliance dates specified in Sec.
63.7995(e), in lieu of the requirements specified in Sec.  63.8(d)(3),
you must keep the written quality control program procedures required
by Sec.  63.8(d)(2) on record for the life of the affected source or
until the affected source is no longer subject to the provisions of
this part, to be made available for inspection, upon request, by the
Administrator. If the performance evaluation plan is revised, you shall
keep previous (i.e., superseded) versions of the performance evaluation
plan on record to be made available for inspection, upon request, by
the Administrator, for a period of 5 years after each revision to the
plan. The program of corrective action should be included in the plan
required under Sec.  63.8(d)(2).
    (e) General Duty. Beginning no later than [DATE 180 DAYS AFTER THE
DATE THE FINAL RULE IS PUBLISHED IN THE Federal Register], at all
times, you 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 you to make any further efforts to reduce
emissions if levels required by the applicable standard have been
achieved. Determination of whether a source is operating in compliance
with operation and maintenance

requirements will be based on information available to the
Administrator which may include, but is not limited to, monitoring
results, review of operation and maintenance procedures, review of
operation and maintenance records, and inspection of the source.
    (f) Beginning no later than the compliance dates specified in Sec.
63.7995(e), the referenced provisions specified in paragraphs (f)(1)
through (22) of this section do not apply when demonstrating compliance
with this subpart through referenced provisions of subpart SS, subpart
UU, and subpart TT of this part.
    (1) Sec.  63.983(a)(5) of subpart SS.
    (2) The phrase ``except during periods of start-up, shutdown and
malfunction as specified in the referencing subpart'' in Sec.
63.984(a) of subpart SS.
    (3) The phrase ``except during periods of start-up, shutdown and
malfunction as specified in the referencing subpart'' in Sec.
63.985(a) of subpart SS.
    (4) The phrase ``other than start-ups, shutdowns, or malfunctions''
in Sec.  63.994(c)(1)(ii)(D) of subpart SS.
    (5) Sec.  63.996(c)(2)(ii) of subpart SS.
    (6) Sec.  63.997(e)(1)(i) of subpart SS.
    (7) The term ``breakdowns'' from Sec. Sec.  63.998(b)(2)(i) of
subpart SS.
    (8) Sec.  63.998(b)(2)(iii) of subpart SS.
    (9) The phrase ``other than periods of startups, shutdowns, and
malfunctions'' from Sec.  63.998(b)(5)(i)(A) of subpart SS.
    (10) The phrase ``other than periods of startups, shutdowns, and
malfunctions'' from Sec.  63.998(b)(5)(i)(C) of subpart SS.
    (11) The phrase ``, except as provided in paragraphs (b)(6)(i)(A)
and (B) of this section'' from Sec.  63.998(b)(6)(i) of subpart SS.
    (12) The second sentence of Sec.  63.998(b)(6)(ii) of subpart SS.
    (13) Sec.  63.998(c)(1)(ii)(D), (E), (F), and (G) of subpart SS.
    (14) Sec.  63.998(d)(1)(ii) of subpart SS.
    (15) Sec.  63.998(d)(3)(i) and (ii) of subpart SS.
    (16) The phrase ``may be included as part of the startup, shutdown,
and malfunction plan, as required by the referencing subpart for the
source, or'' from Sec.  63.1005(e)(4)(i) of subpart TT.
    (17) The phrase ``(except periods of startup, shutdown, or
malfunction)'' from Sec.  63.1007(e)(1)(ii)(A) of subpart TT.
    (18) The phrase ``(except during periods of startup, shutdown, or
malfunction)'' from Sec.  63.1009(e)(1)(i)(A) of subpart TT.
    (19) The phrase ``(except during periods of startup, shutdown, or
malfunction)'' from Sec.  63.1012(b)(1) of subpart TT.
    (20) The phrase ``(except periods of startup, shutdown, or
malfunction)'' from Sec.  63.1026(e)(1)(ii)(A) of subpart UU.
    (21) The phrase ``(except periods of startup, shutdown, or
malfunction)'' from Sec.  63.1028(e)(1)(i)(A) of subpart UU.
    (22) The phrase ``(except periods of startup, shutdown, or
malfunction)'' from Sec.  63.1031(b)(1) of subpart UU.
0
6. Section 63.8005 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraph (a)(2);
0
b. Revising paragraph (d)(1) and adding paragraph (d)(5);
0
c. Revising paragraph (e) introductory text and paragraph (e)(2);
0
d. Revising paragraph (g); and
0
e. Adding paragraph (h)
    The revisions and addition read as follows:

Sec.  63.8005   What requirements apply to my process vessels?

    (a) * * *
    (2) For each control device used to comply with Table 1 to this
subpart, you must comply with subpart SS of this part 63 as specified
in Sec.  63.8000(c), except as specified in Sec.  63.8000(d) and (f),
and paragraphs (b) through (g) of this section.
* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (1) To demonstrate initial compliance with a percent reduction
emission limit in Table 1 to this subpart, you must conduct the
performance test or design evaluation under conditions as specified in
Sec.  63.7(e)(1), except as specified in paragraph (d)(5) of this
section, and except that the performance test or design evaluation must
be conducted under worst-case conditions. Also, the performance test
for a control device used to control emissions from process vessels
must be conducted according to Sec.  63.1257(b)(8), including the
submittal of a site-specific test plan for approval prior to testing.
The requirements in Sec.  63.997(e)(1)(i) and (iii) also do not apply
for performance tests conducted to determine compliance with the
emission limits for process vessels.
* * * * *
    (5) Beginning no later than the compliance dates specified in Sec.
63.7995(e), Sec.  63.7(e)(1) no longer applies and performance tests
shall be conducted under such conditions as the Administrator specifies
to the owner or operator based on representative performance of the
affected source for the period being tested. Representative conditions
exclude periods of startup and shutdown unless specified by the
Administrator or an applicable subpart. The owner or operator may not
conduct performance tests during periods of malfunction. The owner or
operator must record the process information that is necessary to
document operating conditions during the test and include in such
record an explanation to support that such conditions represent normal
operation. Upon request, the owner or operator shall make available to
the Administrator such records as may be necessary to determine the
conditions of performance tests.
    (e) Establishing operating limits. You must establish operating
limits under the conditions required for your initial compliance
demonstration and periodic performance tests, except you may elect to
establish operating limit(s) for conditions other than those under
which a performance test was conducted as specified in paragraph (e)(1)
of this section and, if applicable, paragraph (e)(2) of this section.
* * * * *
    (2) If you elect to establish separate operating limits for
different emission episodes, you must maintain records as specified in
Sec.  63.8080(g) of each point at which you change from one operating
limit to another, even if the duration of the monitoring for an
operating limit is less than 15 minutes.
* * * * *
    (g) Flow indicators. If flow to a control device could be
intermittent, you must install, calibrate, and operate a flow indicator
at the inlet or outlet of the control device to identify periods of no
flow. Periods of no flow may not be used in daily or block averages.
    (h) On and after the compliance date specified in Sec.  63.7995(e),
when determining compliance with the percent emission reduction
requirements in Table 1 to this subpart, you must account for the time
that the control device was bypassed. You must use Equation 1 of this
section to determine the allowable total hours of bypass for each semi-
annual compliance period. To demonstrate compliance, the actual total
hours of bypass must not exceed the allowable total hours of bypass
calculated by Equation 1 of this section.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP04SE19.000

Tbyp = Total allowable source operating time (hours) when the
control device for stationary process vessels can be bypassed during
the semiannual compliance period for any reason.
R = Control efficiency of control device, percent, as determined by
Equation 6 in Sec.  63.997(e)(2)(iv)(C).
OCE = The applicable percent emission reduction requirement in Table
1 to this subpart.
Top = Total source operating time (hours) for stationary process
vessels during the semiannual compliance period.

0
7. Section 63.8010 is amended by revising paragraph (a) to read as
follows:

Sec.  63.8010   What requirements apply to my storage tanks?

    (a) You must meet each emission limit in Table 2 to this subpart
that applies to your storage tanks, and you must meet each applicable
requirement specified in Sec.  63.8000(b). For each control device used
to comply with Table 2 to this subpart, you must comply with subpart SS
of this part 63 as specified in Sec.  63.8000(c), except as specified
in Sec.  63.8000(d) and (f), and paragraphs (b) through (d) of this
section.
* * * * *
0
8. Section 63.8025 is amended by revising paragraph (a) to read as
follows:

Sec.  63.8025   What requirements apply to my transfer operations?

    (a) You must comply with each emission limit and work practice
standard in Table 5 to this subpart that applies to your transfer
operations, and you must meet all applicable requirements specified in
Sec.  63.8000(b). For each control device used to comply with Table 5
to this subpart, you must comply with subpart SS of this part 63 as
specified in Sec.  63.8000(c), except as specified in Sec.  63.8000(d)
and (f), and paragraph (b) of this section.
* * * * *
0
9. Section 63.8050 is amended by adding paragraphs (c)(3)(i) through
(c)(3)(iii) to read as follows:

Sec.  63.8050   How do I comply with emissions averaging for stationary
process vessels at existing sources?

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (3) * * *
    (i) If emissions are routed through a closed-vent system to a
condenser control device, determine controlled emissions using the
procedures specified in Sec.  63.1257(d)(3).
    (ii) If emissions are routed through a closed-vent system to any
control device other than a condenser, determine actual emissions after
determining the efficiency of the control device using the procedures
in subpart SS of this part 63 as specified in Sec.  63.8000(c).
    (iii) If the vessel is vented to the atmosphere, then actual
emissions are equal to the uncontrolled emissions estimated in
accordance with paragraph (c)(1) of this section.
* * * * *
0
10. Section 63.8055 is amended by revising paragraphs (b)(1), (2), and
(4) to read as follows:

Sec.  63.8055   How do I comply with a weight percent HAP limit in
coating products?

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (1) Method 311 (appendix A to 40 CFR part 63). As an alternative to
Method 311, you may use California Air Resources Board Method 310,
Determination of Volatile Organic Compounds in Consumer Products and
Reactive Organic Compounds in Aerosol Coating Products for use with
aerosol cans.
    (2) Method 24 (appendix A to 40 CFR part 60). You may use Method 24
to determine the mass fraction of volatile matter and use that value as
a substitute for the mass fraction of HAP, or one of the alternatives
in paragraph (b)(1)(i) through (iii) of this section.
    (i) ASTM D2369-10(2015)e, (incorporated by reference, see Sec.
63.14);
    (ii) ASTM D2697-03 (2014) (incorporated by reference, see Sec.
63.14); or
    (iii) ASTM D3960-98 (incorporated by reference, see Sec.  63.14).
* * * * *
    (4) You may rely on formulation data from raw material suppliers if
it represents each organic HAP that is present at 0.1 percent by mass
or more for the HAP listed in Table 11 to this subpart, and at 1.0
percent by mass or more for other compounds. If the HAP weight percent
estimated based on formulation data conflicts with the results of a
test conducted according to paragraphs (b)(1) through (3) of this
section, then there is a rebuttal presumption that the test results are
accurate unless, after consultation, you demonstrate to the
satisfaction of the permitting authority that the test results are not
accurate and that the formulation data are more appropriate.
0
11. Section 63.8070 is amended by revising paragraph (c) to read as
follows:

Sec.  63.8070   What notifications must I submit and when?

* * * * *
    (c) Notification of performance test. If you are required to
conduct a performance test, you must submit a notification of intent to
conduct a performance test at least 60 calendar days before the
performance test is scheduled to begin as required in Sec.  63.7(b)(1).
For any performance test required as part of the compliance procedures
for process vessels in Table 1 to this subpart, you must also submit
the test plan required by Sec.  63.7(c) and the emission profile with
the notification of the performance test.
0
12. Section 63.8075 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraph (c)(1);
0
b. Revising paragraph (d) introductory text and paragraphs (d)(1) and
(d)(2)(ii);
0
c. Revising paragraph (e)(5) introductory text and paragraph
(e)(6)(ii)(B);
0
d. Adding paragraph (e)(6)(ii)(D);
0
e. Revising paragraph (e)(6)(iii) introductory text and paragraphs
(e)(6)(iii)(C) and (e)(6)(iii)(E);
0
f. Adding paragraph (e)(6)(iii)(L);
0
g. Removing and reserving paragraph (e)(8)(ii)(B); and
0
h. Adding paragraphs (f) through (k).
    The revisions and additions read as follows:

Sec.  63.8075   What reports must I submit and when?

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (1) Requests for approval to set operating limits for parameters
other than those specified in Sec. Sec.  63.8005 through 63.8030,
including parameters for enhanced biological treatment units.
Alternatively, you may make these requests according to Sec.  63.8(f).
* * * * *
    (d) Notification of compliance status report. You must submit a
notification of compliance status report according to the schedule in
paragraph (d)(1) of this section, and the notification of compliance
status report must include the information specified in paragraph
(d)(2) of this section.
    (1) You must submit the notification of compliance status report no
later than 150 days after the applicable compliance date specified in
Sec.  63.7995. You must submit a separate notification of compliance
status report after the applicable compliance date specified in Sec.
63.7995(e).
    (2) * * *
    (ii) The results of performance tests, engineering analyses, design
evaluations, flare compliance assessments, inspections and repairs, and
calculations used to demonstrate compliance according to Sec. Sec.
63.8005 through 63.8030 and 63.8055. For performance tests, results
must include descriptions of sampling and analysis procedures and
quality assurance procedures.
* * * * *
    (e) * * *
    (5) For each SSM during which excess emissions occur, the
compliance report must include the information specified in paragraphs
(e)(5)(i) and (ii) of this section. On and after the compliance date
specified in Sec.  63.7995(e), these paragraphs (e)(5), (e)(5)(i), and
(e)(5)(ii) of this section no longer apply.
* * * * *
    (6) * * *
    (ii) * * *
    (B) Before the compliance date specified in Sec.  63.7995(e),
information on the number, duration, and cause of deviations (including
unknown cause, if applicable), as applicable, and the

corrective action taken. On and after the compliance date specified in
Sec.  63.7995(e), report the number of failures to meet an applicable
standard. For each instance, report the date, time and duration of each
failure. For each failure the report must include a list of the
affected sources or equipment, an estimate of the quantity of each
regulated pollutant emitted over any emission limit, a description of
the method used to estimate the emissions, and the cause of deviations
(including unknown cause, if applicable), as applicable, and the
corrective action taken.
* * * * *
    (D) On and after the compliance date specified in Sec.  63.7995(e),
report the total bypass hours, as monitored according to the provisions
of Sec.  63.8080(h).
    (iii) For each deviation from an emission limit or operating limit
occurring at an affected source where you are using a CMS to comply
with the emission limit in this subpart, you must include the
information in paragraphs (e)(6)(iii)(A) through (L) of this section.
This includes periods of SSM.
* * * * *
    (C) Before the compliance date specified in Sec.  63.7995(e), the
date and time that each deviation started and stopped, and whether each
deviation occurred during a period of startup, shutdown, or malfunction
or during another period. On and after the compliance date specified in
Sec.  63.7995(e), report the number of failures to meet an applicable
standard. For each instance, report the date, time and duration of each
failure. For each failure the report must include a list of the
affected sources or equipment, an estimate of the quantity of each
regulated pollutant emitted over any emission limit, a description of
the method used to estimate the emissions, and the cause of deviations
(including unknown cause, if applicable), as applicable, and the