[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 158 (Friday, August 14, 2020)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 49724-49752]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-13439]



[[Page 49723]]

Vol. 85

Friday,

No. 158

August 14, 2020

Part II





 Environmental Protection Agency





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





40 CFR Part 63





National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Miscellaneous 
Coating Manufacturing Residual Risk and Technology Review; Final Rule

  Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 158 / Friday, August 14, 2020 / Rules 
and Regulations  

[[Page 49724]]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 63

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2018-0747; FRL-10010-12-OAR]
RIN 2060-AU16


National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: 
Miscellaneous Coating Manufacturing Residual Risk and Technology Review

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking final 
action on the residual risk and technology review (RTR) conducted for 
the Miscellaneous Coating Manufacturing (MCM) source category regulated 
under national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants 
(NESHAP). These final amendments also address emissions during periods 
of startup, shutdown, and malfunction (SSM), including clarifying 
regulatory provisions for certain vent control bypasses, provisions for 
electronic reporting of performance test results, performance 
evaluation reports, compliance reports, and Notification of Compliance 
Status (NOCS) reports; and provisions to conduct periodic performance 
testing of oxidizers used to reduce emissions of organic hazardous air 
pollutants (HAP).

DATES: This final rule is effective on August 14, 2020. The 
incorporation by reference (IBR) of certain publications listed in the 
rule is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of August 
14, 2020.

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a docket for this action under 
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2018-0747. All documents in the docket are 
listed on the https://www.regulations.gov/ website. Although listed, 
some information is not publicly available, e.g., Confidential Business 
Information or other information whose disclosure is restricted by 
statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not 
placed on the internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy 
form. Publicly available docket materials are available electronically 
through https://www.regulations.gov/. Out of an abundance of caution 
for members of the public and our staff, the EPA Docket Center and 
Reading Room was closed to public visitors on March 31, 2020, to reduce 
the risk of transmitting COVID-19. Our Docket Center staff will 
continue to provide remote customer service via email, phone, and 
webform. There is a temporary suspension of mail delivery to the EPA, 
and no hand deliveries will be accepted. For further information on EPA 
Docket Center services and the current status, please visit us online 
at https://www.epa.gov/dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For questions about this final action, 
contact Ms. Angela Carey, Sector Policies and Programs Division (E143-
01), Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711; 
telephone number: (919) 541-2187; fax number: (919) 541-0516; and email 
address: carey.angela@epa.gov. For specific information regarding the 
risk modeling methodology, contact Ms. Darcie Smith, Health and 
Environmental Impacts Division (C539-02), Office of Air Quality 
Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research 
Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711; telephone number: (919) 541-2076; 
fax number: (919) 541-0840; and email address: smith.darcie@epa.gov. 
For information about the applicability of the NESHAP to a particular 
entity, contact Mr. John Cox, Office of Enforcement and Compliance 
Assurance, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, WJC South Building 
(Mail Code 2227A), 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington DC 20460; 
telephone number: (202) 564-1395; and email address: cox.john@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Preamble acronyms and abbreviations. We use 
multiple acronyms and terms in this preamble. While this list may not 
be exhaustive, to ease the reading of this preamble and for reference 
purposes, the EPA defines the following terms and acronyms here:

ANSI American National Standards Institute
CAA Clean Air Act
CDX Central Data Exchange
CEDRI Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
HAP hazardous air pollutants(s)
HI hazard index
HQ hazard quotient
ICR Information Collection Request
IFR internal floating roof
km kilometer
LDAR leak detection and repair
MACT maximum achievable control technology
MCM miscellaneous coating manufacturing
MIR maximum individual risk
NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards
NESHAP national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants
NTTAA National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
OAQPS Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
OMB Office of Management and Budget
OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration
PB-HAP hazardous air pollutants known to be persistent and bio-
accumulative in the environment
PM particulate matter
POM polycyclic organic matter
ppmv parts per million by volume
ppmw parts per million by weight
PRD pressure relief device
REL reference exposure limit
RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act
RIN Regulatory Information Number
RTR residual risk and technology review
SSM startup, shutdown, and malfunction
the Court the United States Court of Appeals for the District of 
Columbia Circuit
TOSHI target organ-specific hazard index
tpy tons per year
UMRA Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
VCS voluntary consensus standards
VOC volatile organic compounds
    Background information. On September 4, 2019 (84 FR 46610), the EPA 
proposed revisions to the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air 
Pollutants for Miscellaneous Coating Manufacturing (MCM NESHAP) 
facilities NESHAP in conjunction with our RTR. In this action, we are 
finalizing decisions and revisions for the rule. We summarize some of 
the more significant comments we timely received regarding the proposed 
rule and provide our responses in this preamble. A summary of all other 
public comments on the proposal and the EPA's responses to those 
comments is available in the Summary of Public Comments and Responses 
for Risk and Technology Review for Miscellaneous Coating Manufacturing, 
in the MCM Docket (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2018-0747). A ``track 
changes'' version of the regulatory language that incorporates the 
changes in this action is available in the docket.
    Organization of this document. The information in this preamble is 
organized as follows:

I. General Information
    A. Does this action apply to me?
    B. Where can I get a copy of this document and other related 
information?
    C. Judicial Review and Administrative Reconsideration
II. Background
    A. What is the statutory authority for this action?
    B. What is the MCM source category and how does the NESHAP 
regulate HAP emissions from the source category?
    C. What changes did we propose for the MCM source category in 
our September 4, 2019, proposal?
III. What is included in this final rule?

[[Page 49725]]

    A. What are the final rule amendments based on the risk review 
for the MCM source category?
    B. What are the final rule amendments based on the technology 
review for the MCM source category?
    C. What are the final rule amendments addressing emissions 
during periods of SSM?
    D. What other changes have been made to the NESHAP?
    E. What are the requirements for submission of notifications, 
reports, and performance test data to the EPA?
    F. What are the effective and compliance dates of the standards?
IV. What is the rationale for our final decisions and amendments for 
the NESHAP for the MCM source category?
    A. Residual Risk Review for the MCM Source Category
    B. Technology Review for the MCM Source Category
    C. SSM Provisions
    D. Electronic Reporting Provisions
    E. Other Technical Amendments
    F. Ongoing Emissions Compliance Demonstrations
V. Summary of Cost, Environmental, and Economic Impacts and 
Additional Analyses Conducted
    A. What are the affected sources?
    B. What are the air quality impacts?
    C. What are the cost impacts?
    D. What are the economic impacts?
    E. What are the benefits?
    F. What analysis of environmental justice did we conduct?
    G. What analysis of children's environmental health did we 
conduct?
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
    A. Executive Orders 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and 
Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
    B. Executive Order 13771: Reducing Regulations and Controlling 
Regulatory Costs
    C. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
    D. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
    E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
    F. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
    G. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With 
Indian Tribal Governments
    H. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From 
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
    I. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That 
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
    J. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) and 
1 CFR Part 51
    K. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address 
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income 
Populations
    L. Congressional Review Act (CRA)

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

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

 Table 1--NESHAP and Industrial Source Categories Affected by This Final
                                 Action
------------------------------------------------------------------------
          NESHAP and source  category                NAICS \1\ codes
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Miscellaneous Coating Manufacturing Industry...  3255, 3259
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 \1\ North American Industry Classification System.

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

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

    In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of 
this final action will also be available on the internet. Following 
signature by the EPA Administrator, the EPA will post a copy of this 
final action at: https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/miscellaneous-coating-manufacturing-national-emission-standards. 
Following publication in the Federal Register, the EPA will post the 
Federal Register version and key technical documents at this same 
website.
    Additional information is available on the RTR website at https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/risk-and-technology-review-national-emissions-standards-hazardous. This information 
includes an overview of the RTR program, links to project websites for 
the RTR source categories.

C. Judicial Review and Administrative Reconsideration

    Under Clean Air Act (CAA) section 307(b)(1), judicial review of 
this final action is available only by filing a petition for review in 
the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit 
(the Court) by October 13, 2020. Under CAA section 307(b)(2), the 
requirements established by this final rule may not be challenged 
separately in any civil or criminal proceedings brought by the EPA to 
enforce the requirements.
    Section 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA further provides that only an 
objection to a rule or procedure which was raised with reasonable 
specificity during the period for public comment (including any public 
hearing) may be raised during judicial review. This section also 
provides a mechanism for the EPA to reconsider the rule if the person 
raising an objection can demonstrate to the Administrator that it was 
impracticable to raise such objection within the period for public 
comment or if the grounds for such objection arose after the period for 
public comment (but within the time specified for judicial review) and 
if such objection is of central relevance to the outcome of the rule. 
Any person seeking to make such a demonstration should submit a 
Petition for Reconsideration to the Office of the Administrator, U.S. 
EPA, Room 3000, WJC South Building, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, 
Washington, DC 20460, with a copy to both the person(s) listed in the 
preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section, and the Associate 
General Counsel for the Air and Radiation Law Office, Office of General 
Counsel (Mail Code 2344A), U.S. EPA, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, 
Washington, DC 20460.

II. Background

A. What is the statutory authority for this action?

    Section 112 of the CAA establishes a two-stage regulatory process 
to address emissions of HAP from stationary sources. In the first 
stage, we must identify categories of sources emitting one or more of 
the HAP listed in CAA section 112(b) and then promulgate technology-
based NESHAP for those sources. ``Major sources'' are those that emit, 
or have the potential to emit, any single HAP at a rate of 10 tons per 
year (tpy) or more, or 25 tpy or more of any combination of HAP. For 
major sources, these standards are commonly referred to as maximum 
achievable control technology (MACT) standards and must reflect the 
maximum degree of emission reductions of HAP achievable (after 
considering cost, energy requirements, and non-air quality health and 
environmental impacts). In developing MACT standards, CAA section 
112(d)(2) directs the EPA to consider the application of measures, 
processes, methods, systems, or techniques, including but not limited 
to those that reduce the volume of or eliminate HAP emissions through 
process changes, substitution of materials, or other modifications; 
enclose systems or

[[Page 49726]]

processes to eliminate emissions; collect, capture, or treat HAP when 
released from a process, stack, storage, or fugitive emissions point; 
are design, equipment, work practice, or operational standards; or any 
combination of the above.
    For these MACT standards, the statute specifies certain minimum 
stringency requirements, which are referred to as MACT floor 
requirements, and which may not be based on cost considerations. See 
CAA section 112(d)(3). For new sources, the MACT floor cannot be less 
stringent than the emission control achieved in practice by the best-
controlled similar source. The MACT standards for existing sources can 
be less stringent than floors for new sources, but they cannot be less 
stringent than the average emission limitation achieved by the best-
performing 12 percent of existing sources in the category or 
subcategory (or the best-performing five sources for categories or 
subcategories with fewer than 30 sources). In developing MACT 
standards, we must also consider control options that are more 
stringent than the floor under CAA section 112(d)(2). We may establish 
standards more stringent than the floor, based on the consideration of 
the cost of achieving the emissions reductions, any non-air quality 
health and environmental impacts, and energy requirements.
    In the second stage of the regulatory process, the CAA requires the 
EPA to undertake two different analyses, which we refer to as the 
technology review and the residual risk review. Under the technology 
review, we must review the technology-based standards and revise them 
``as necessary (taking into account developments in practices, 
processes, and control technologies),'' no less frequently than every 8 
years, pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6).\1\ Under the residual risk 
review, we must evaluate the risk to public health remaining after 
application of the technology-based standards and revise the standards, 
if necessary, to provide an ample margin of safety to protect public 
health or to prevent, taking into consideration costs, energy, safety, 
and other relevant factors, an adverse environmental effect. The 
residual risk review is required within 8 years after promulgation of 
the technology-based standards, pursuant to CAA section 112(f). In 
conducting the residual risk review, if the EPA determines that the 
current standards provide an ample margin of safety to protect public 
health, it is not necessary to revise the MACT standards pursuant to 
CAA section 112(f).\2\ For more information on the statutory authority 
for this rule, see the proposal preamble (84 FR 46610, September 4, 
2019) and the memorandum, CAA Section 112 Risk and Technology Reviews: 
Statutory Authority and Methodology, December 14, 2017, available in 
the docket for this rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ On April 21, 2020, as the Agency was preparing the final 
rule for signature, a decision was issued in LEAN v. EPA, 955 F. 3d. 
1088 (D.C. Cir. 2020) in which the Court held that the EPA has an 
obligation to set standards for unregulated pollutants as part of 
technology reviews under CAA section 112(d)(6). At the time of 
signature, the mandate in that case had not been issued and the EPA 
is continuing to evaluate the decision.
    \2\ The Court has affirmed this approach of implementing CAA 
section 112(f)(2)(A): NRDC v. EPA, 529 F.3d 1077, 1083 (D.C. Cir. 
2008) (``If EPA determines that the existing technology-based 
standards provide an `ample margin of safety,' then the Agency is 
free to readopt those standards during the residual risk 
rulemaking.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. What is the MCM source category and how does the NESHAP regulate HAP 
emissions from the source category?

    The EPA promulgated the MCM NESHAP on December 11, 2003 (68 FR 
69185). The standards are codified at 40 CFR part 63, subpart HHHHH. 
The MCM industry consists of facilities that are engaged in their 
manufacture without regard to the particular end uses or consumers of 
such products. The manufacturing of these products may occur in any 
combination at any facility. The source category covered by this MACT 
standard currently includes 43 facilities.
    The MCM source category includes the collection of equipment (i.e., 
process vessels; storage tanks; components such as pumps, valves, and 
connections; wastewater tanks; heat exchangers; and transfer racks) 
that is used to manufacture coatings at a facility. MCM operations may 
also include certain cleaning operations. Coatings manufactured at MCM 
facilities are materials such as paints, inks, or adhesives that are 
intended to be applied to a substrate to form a protective, decorative, 
or functional layer (e.g., an adhesive) and consist of a mixture of 
resins, pigments, solvents, and/or other additives. Coatings are 
produced by a manufacturing operation in which materials are blended, 
mixed, diluted, or otherwise formulated. Coatings do not include 
materials made in processes where a formulation component is 
synthesized by a chemical reaction or separation activity and then 
transferred to another vessel where it is formulated to produce a 
material used as a coating, where the synthesized or separated 
component is not stored prior to formulation.
    The equipment controlled by the MCM NESHAP includes process 
vessels, storage tanks for feedstocks and products, equipment leak 
components (pumps, compressors, agitators, pressure relief devices 
(PRDs), sampling connection systems, open-ended valves or lines, 
valves, connectors, and instrumentation systems), wastewater tanks, 
heat exchangers, and transfer racks.
    The current NESHAP regulates process vessels and storage tanks 
based on the volume of the process vessel or storage tank and the 
maximum true vapor pressure of the organic HAP processed or stored. 
Control requirements range from the use of tightly fitted lids on 
process vessels to also capturing and reducing organic HAP emissions 
through the use of add-on controls (i.e., a flare, oxidizer, or 
condenser). For halogenated vent streams from process vessels and 
storage tanks, the use of a flare is prohibited, and a halogen 
reduction device (i.e., an acid gas scrubber) is required after a 
combustion control device. For storage tanks, facilities may comply 
with the provisions in 40 CFR part 63, subpart HHHHH, by complying with 
the provisions in 40 CFR part 63, subpart WW.
    The NESHAP regulates emissions from equipment leaks at existing 
sources by requiring compliance with leak inspection and repair 
provisions using sight, sound, and smell in 40 CFR part 63, subpart R, 
or alternatively, the leak detection and repair (LDAR) provisions in 40 
CFR part 63, subpart TT or UU. New sources are required to comply with 
the LDAR provisions in 40 CFR part 63, subpart TT or UU.
    The NESHAP regulates wastewater streams by requiring the use of 
fixed roofs on wastewater tanks, treating the wastewater (either on-
site or off-site) as a hazardous waste under 40 CFR part 264, 265, or 
266, or using enhanced biological treatment if the wastewater contains 
less than 50 parts per million by weight (ppmw) of partially soluble 
HAP. If the wastewater is treated as a hazardous waste under 40 CFR 
part 264, 265, or 266, it may be treated by steam stripping or 
incineration. These standards apply only to wastewater streams that 
contain total partially soluble and soluble HAP at an annual average 
concentration greater than or equal to 4,000 ppmw and loads greater 
than or equal to 750 pounds per year (lb/yr) at an existing source. For 
new sources, these standards apply only to wastewater streams that 
contain total partially soluble and soluble HAP at an annual average 
concentration greater

[[Page 49727]]

than or equal to 1,600 ppmw and any partially soluble and soluble HAP 
load.
    The NESHAP regulates transfer operations if the operation involves 
the bulk loading of coating products that contain 3.0 million gallons 
per year or more of HAP with a weighted average HAP partial pressure 
greater than or equal to 1.5 pounds per square inch, absolute. 
Regulated transfer operations are required to reduce emissions by using 
a closed vent system and a control device (other than a flare) to 
reduce emissions by at least 75 percent; using a closed vent system and 
a flare for a non-halogenated vent stream; or using a vapor balancing 
system. When a non-flare combustion device is used to control a 
halogenated vent stream, then a halogen reduction device must be used 
either before or after the combustion device. If used after the 
combustion device, the halogen reduction device must meet either a 
minimum 95-percent reduction or a maximum 0.45 kilograms per hour (kg/
hr) emission rate of hydrogen halide or halogen. If used before the 
combustion device, the halogen reduction device must meet a maximum 
0.45 kg/hr emission rate of hydrogen halide or halogen.
    The NESHAP requires heat exchangers to meet the provisions of 40 
CFR part 63, subpart F, 40 CFR 63.104. Section 63.104 requires the 
implementation of a LDAR or monitoring program for heat exchange 
systems, unless the system meets certain design and operation 
provisions, or it is a once-through system that meets certain National 
Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit provisions.

C. What changes did we propose for the MCM source category in our 
September 4, 2019, proposal?

    On September 4, 2019, the EPA published a proposed rule in the 
Federal Register for the MCM NESHAP, 40 CFR part 63, subpart HHHHH, 
that took into consideration the RTR analyses. We proposed to find that 
after compliance with the current NESHAP (i.e., MACT standards) the 
risks to public health from the source category are acceptable, and 
that additional emission controls are not necessary to provide an ample 
margin of safety. Based on our technology review, we did not identify 
any cost-effective developments in practices, processes, or control 
technologies for the source category. Accordingly, we proposed no 
changes to the existing emission control requirements in 40 CFR part 
63, subpart HHHHH, based on the risk assessment or the technology 
review.
    We proposed the following amendments to improve rule effectiveness, 
provide regulatory flexibility, and comply with a legal ruling:
     A new requirement for electronic submittal of 
notifications, semi-annual reports, and compliance reports (which 
include performance test reports);
     revisions to the SSM provisions of the NESHAP to ensure 
that they are consistent with the Court decision in Sierra Club v. EPA, 
551 F. 3d 1019 (D.C. Cir. 2008), which vacated two provisions that 
exempted source owners or operators from the requirement to comply with 
otherwise applicable CAA section 112(d) emission standards during 
periods of SSM;
     revisions to account for instances where 40 CFR part 63, 
subpart HHHHH, cross-references other subparts that contain SSM 
provisions;
     language to add 40 CFR 63.8005(h) to clarify that any 
periods during which a control device for a process vessel is bypassed 
must be included in demonstrating compliance with the emission 
reduction provisions for process vessels in Table 1 to 40 CFR part 63, 
subpart HHHHH;
     revisions to 40 CFR 63.8000(b)(2), which allows the 
opening of a safety device at any time conditions require it to avoid 
unsafe conditions, to clarify that such an opening 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 
63.8005(h);
     removal of references to paragraph (d)(4) of the 
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) Hazard 
Communication standard (29 CFR 1910.1200), which dealt with OSHA-
defined carcinogens, and replacing that reference with a list of HAP 
that must be regarded as potentially carcinogenic based on EPA 
guidelines;
     a new requirement to fulfill performance testing and 
reestablish operating limits no less frequently than every 5 years for 
sources that are using add-on controls to demonstrate compliance, 
unless they are already required to perform periodic testing as a 
condition of renewing their title V operating permit; and
     to IBR alternative test methods and references to updated 
alternative test methods.

III. What is included in this final rule?

    This action finalizes the EPA's determinations pursuant to the RTR 
provisions of CAA section 112 for the MCM source category. This action 
also finalizes the changes to the NESHAP described in section II.C of 
this preamble, as proposed.

A. What are the final rule amendments based on the risk review for the 
MCM source category?

    This section describes the final decisions for the MCM NESHAP (40 
CFR part 63, subpart HHHHH) being promulgated pursuant to CAA section 
112(f). The EPA proposed no changes to this subpart based on the risk 
review conducted pursuant to CAA section 112(f). In this action, we are 
finalizing our proposed determination that risks from this source 
category are acceptable, and that the NESHAP at 40 CFR part 63, subpart 
HHHHH, provides an ample margin of safety to protect public health, and 
that more stringent standards are not necessary to prevent an adverse 
environmental effect. The EPA received no new data or other information 
during the public comment period that causes us to change that proposed 
determination. Therefore, we are not requiring additional emission 
controls under CAA section 112(f)(2) for this subpart in this action.

B. What are the final rule amendments based on the technology review 
for the MCM source category?

    We determined that there are no developments in practices, 
processes, and control technologies that warrant revisions to the MACT 
standards for this source category. The EPA received no new data or 
other information during the public comment period that causes us to 
change that proposed determination. Therefore, we are not finalizing 
revisions to the MACT standards under CAA section 112(d)(6).

C. What are the final rule amendments addressing emissions during 
periods of SSM?

    We are finalizing the proposed amendments to the MCM NESHAP to 
remove and revise provisions related to SSM. In its 2008 decision in 
Sierra Club v. EPA 551 F. 3d 1019 (D.C. Cir. 2008), the Court vacated 
portions of two provisions in the EPA's CAA section 112 regulations 
governing the emissions of HAP during periods of SSM. Specifically, the 
Court vacated the SSM exemption contained in 40 CFR 63.6(f)(1) and 
(h)(1), holding that under section 302(k) of the CAA, emissions 
standards or limitations must be continuous in nature and that the SSM 
exemption violates the CAA's requirement that some CAA section 112 
standards apply continuously. Previously, the 2003 MCM NESHAP included 
exemptions for standards during SSM. As detailed in section IV.D

[[Page 49728]]

of the proposal preamble (84 FR 46610, September 4, 2019), the final 
rule removes the SSM exemptions (see 40 CFR 63.8000(a)), consistent 
with the Court decision in Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F. 3d 1019 (D.C. 
Cir. 2008).
    Table 10 to subpart HHHHH of 40 CFR part 63 (General Provisions 
applicability table) is being revised to change the specification of 
the requirements that apply during periods of SSM. We eliminated or 
revised certain recordkeeping and reporting requirements related to the 
eliminated SSM exemptions. The EPA also made other harmonizing changes 
to remove or modify inappropriate, unnecessary, or redundant language 
in the absence of the SSM exemptions. We proposed to find that 
facilities in this source category can meet the applicable emission 
standards in the MCM NESHAP at all times, including periods of startup 
and shutdown, without additional standards or work practices. The EPA 
considered the requirements for control device bypasses and for safety 
devices that we are finalizing in this rule when proposing to find that 
the standards can be met at all times after the SSM provisions are 
revised. We received no information to cause us to change our 
conclusion; therefore, the EPA is finalizing the proposed determination 
that no additional standards are needed to address emissions during 
startup and shutdown periods. The legal rationale and detailed changes 
for startup and shutdown periods that we are finalizing here are set 
forth in the September 4, 2019, preamble to the proposed rule. See 84 
FR 46629 through 46630.
    Further, as proposed, the EPA is not including standards for 
malfunctions, except as related to the proposed revisions related to 
control device bypasses and for safety devices. As discussed in section 
IV.D of the September 4, 2019, proposal preamble, the EPA interprets 
CAA section 112 as not requiring emissions that occur during periods of 
malfunction to be factored into development of CAA section 112 
standards, although the EPA has the discretion to set standards for 
malfunctions where feasible. See 84 FR 46629 through 46630. For this 
source category, we proposed at 40 CFR 63.8005(h) to provide a method 
to account for control device bypass periods (including malfunction 
periods) when evaluating compliance with the overall control efficiency 
requirements for process vessels in Table 1 to 40 CFR part 63 subpart 
HHHHH, and we solicited commenters to provide additional information.
    We are revising the General Provisions table to 40 CFR part 63, 
subpart HHHHH, to eliminate requirements that include rule language 
providing an exemption for periods of SSM. Finally, we are revising as 
proposed the Deviation Notification Report and related records as they 
relate to malfunctions, as further described below. As discussed in 
detail in the proposal preamble, these revisions are consistent with 
the requirement in 40 CFR 63.8000(a) that the standards apply at all 
times. Refer to section IV.D.1 of the proposal preamble for a detailed 
discussion of these amendments (84 FR 46629, September 4, 2019).
    We are finalizing amendments to account for instances where 40 CFR 
part 63, subpart HHHHH, cross-references other subparts that contain 
SSM provisions. Listed in 40 CFR 63.8000(f) are the referenced 
provisions in subparts SS, TT, and UU of 40 CFR part 63 that contain 
references to SSM periods that will no longer apply after the 
compliance date for these amendments. Listed in 40 CFR 63.8000(f)(10) 
through (22) are the paragraphs or phrases within the paragraphs that 
will not apply after the applicable compliance date for the amendments 
as a result of the final SSM revisions.
    Because we are finalizing the revisions to remove the SSM 
provisions and require compliance at all times, we are also finalizing 
the amendment to add 40 CFR 63.8005(h) 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 finalizing the revisions that owners 
or 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 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 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.
    Because we are finalizing the revisions to remove the SSM 
provisions and require compliance at all times, we are also finalizing 
the revisions to 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 63.8005(h). We are also finalizing the proposed 
revisions to revise 40 CFR 63.8080(c), which is the provision requiring 
a record of each time a safety device is opened, to add additional 
recordkeeping provisions consistent with those for other deviations. In 
the event a safety device is opened, the owners or operators will 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 63.8005(h).

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

    The EPA is amending 40 CFR 63.8055(b)(4), as proposed, to remove a 
reference to paragraph (d)(4) of the OSHA's Hazard Communication 
standard addressing OSHA-defined carcinogens. We are replacing the 
reference to carcinogens in 29 CFR 1910.1200(d)(4) with a new table, 
Table 11 to 40 CFR part 63, subpart HHHHH, that lists 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 are including organic HAP in 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).
    The EPA is making several additional revisions to 40 CFR part 63, 
subpart HHHHH, to clarify text or correct typographical errors, 
grammatical errors, and cross-reference errors. These editorial 
corrections and clarifications are summarized in Table 2 of this 
preamble.

[[Page 49729]]



              Table 2--Summary of Editorial and Minor Corrections to 40 CFR Part 63, Subpart HHHHH
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    Provision                                                 Revision
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
40 CFR 63.7985(d)(2).............................................................  Remove the word ``future.''.
40 CFR 63.7990(a)................................................................  Revise 40 CFR 63.7990(a) to
                                                                                    refer to the affected source
                                                                                    definition that is in 40 CFR
                                                                                    63.7990(b), and not in 40
                                                                                    CFR 63.7985(a).
40 CFR 63.8000(a)(1).............................................................  Revise the reference to
                                                                                    ``Sec.  Sec.   63.8005
                                                                                    through 63.8025'' to ``Sec.
                                                                                    Sec.   63.8005 through
                                                                                    63.8030.''.
40 CFR 63.8050(c)(3).............................................................  Correcting a printing error
                                                                                    related to a May 13, 2005,
                                                                                    amendment (70 FR 25676) to
                                                                                    paragraph (c)(3) that
                                                                                    resulted in deleting
                                                                                    paragraphs (c)(3)(i) through
                                                                                    (iii).
40 CFR 63.8075(c)(1).............................................................  Clarify the paragraph to say
                                                                                    Sec.  Sec.   63.8005 through
                                                                                    63.8030 include heat
                                                                                    exchangers.
40 CFR 63.8075(d)................................................................  Change the first reference to
                                                                                    paragraph (d)(2) to instead
                                                                                    refer to paragraph (d)(1).
40 CFR 63.8075(d)(2)(ii).........................................................  Remove the word ``initial.''.
40 CFR 63.8090(b)................................................................  Clarify the sentence to
                                                                                    provide that you are in
                                                                                    compliance with the 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 the subpart.
40 CFR 63.8105, definition of ``Process vessel vent''............................  The EPA is not finalizing the
                                                                                    proposed change to the last
                                                                                    sentence of the definition,
                                                                                    which would have replaced
                                                                                    the words ``process vessel
                                                                                    vent'' with ``Sec.   63.8075
                                                                                    vent.''.
Table 7 to 40 CFR part 63, subpart HHHHH.........................................  Remove 2-Butanone (MEK) for
                                                                                    Partially Soluble Hazardous
                                                                                    Air Pollutants.
Table 8 to 40 CFR part 63, subpart HHHHH.........................................  Correct ``FFFF'' to
                                                                                    ``HHHHH.''.
Table 10 to 40 CFR part 63, subpart HHHHH........................................  Change proposed column 3
                                                                                    entry for the row
                                                                                    corresponding to Sec.
                                                                                    63.6(f)(1) from ``Yes,
                                                                                    before the compliance date
                                                                                    specified in Sec.
                                                                                    63.7995(e). No, on and after
                                                                                    the compliance date
                                                                                    specified in Sec.
                                                                                    63.7995(e).'' to ``No. See
                                                                                    Sec.   63.8000(a).''.
Table 10 to 40 CFR part 63, subpart HHHHH........................................  Change proposed column 3
                                                                                    entry for the row
                                                                                    corresponding to Sec.
                                                                                    63.6(h)(1) from ``Yes,
                                                                                    before the compliance date
                                                                                    specified in Sec.
                                                                                    63.7995(e). No, on and after
                                                                                    the compliance date
                                                                                    specified in Sec.
                                                                                    63.7995(e).'' to ``No. See
                                                                                    Sec.   63.8000(a).''.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We are including in the final rule a requirement for facilities to 
conduct control device performance testing no less frequently than once 
every 5 years when using emission capture systems and add-on controls 
to demonstrate compliance. For facilities with title V permits that 
require comparable periodic testing prior to permit renewal, no 
additional testing is required, and we included provisions in the rule 
to allow facilities to harmonize the NESHAP testing schedule with a 
facility's current title V testing schedule.

E. What are the requirements for electronic submission of 
notifications, reports, and performance test data to the EPA?

    The EPA is requiring owners or operators of MCM facilities to 
submit electronic copies of certain required notifications, semiannual 
reports, performance test reports, and performance evaluation reports, 
through the EPA's Central Data Exchange (CDX) using the Compliance and 
Emissions Data Reporting Interface (CEDRI). The final rule requires 
that certain performance test results be submitted using the Electronic 
Reporting Tool. For the semiannual compliance reports, the final rule 
requires that owners or operators use the appropriate spreadsheet 
template to submit information to CEDRI. The final version of the 
template for this report is located on the CEDRI website.
    The electronic submittal of the reports addressed in this 
rulemaking will increase the usefulness of the data contained in those 
reports, is in keeping with current trends in data availability and 
transparency, will further assist in the protection of public health 
and the environment, will improve compliance by facilitating the 
ability of regulated facilities to demonstrate compliance with 
requirements and by facilitating the ability of delegated state, local, 
tribal, and territorial air agencies and the EPA to assess and 
determine compliance, and will ultimately reduce burden on regulated 
facilities, delegated air agencies, and the EPA. Electronic reporting 
also eliminates paper-based, manual processes, thereby saving time and 
resources, simplifying data entry, eliminating redundancies, minimizing 
data reporting errors, and providing data quickly and accurately to the 
affected facilities, air agencies, the EPA, and the public. For a more 
thorough discussion 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.

F. What are the effective and compliance dates of the standards?

    The revisions to the MACT standards being promulgated in this 
action are effective on August 14, 2020.
    For all of the provisions we are finalizing under CAA sections 
112(d)(2) and (3), 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. 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, up to and no later than 
the applicable compliance date of the amended rule.
    We are finalizing the amendments to the provisions for SSM by 
removing the exemptions 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 requiring that owners or operators 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.
    For all affected sources that commence construction or 
reconstruction on or before September 4, 2019, we are providing 3 years 
after the effective date of the final rule (or upon startup, whichever 
is later) for owners or operators to comply with the provisions that 
have been amended to remove the exemption from the emission limitations 
during SSM periods, with the exception of the vacated SSM exemptions 
contained in 40 CFR 63.6(f)(1) and (h)(1). We are

[[Page 49730]]

revising Table 10 to clarify that for all affected sources, these 
exemptions do not apply following the Court vacatur in Sierra Club v. 
EPA, 551 F. 3d 1019 (D.C. Cir. 2008). For all affected sources that 
commenced construction or reconstruction after September 4, 2019, we 
are requiring that owners or operators comply with the amended 
provisions by the effective date of the final rule (or upon startup, 
whichever is later).
    We are also adding a provision that notifications, performance test 
results, and semiannual compliance reports be submitted electronically, 
and that the semiannual compliance report be submitted electronically 
using a new template. We are requiring that all sources begin complying 
with the new electronic reporting provisions beginning no later than 3 
years after the regulation's effective date.
    The EPA selected these compliance dates based on experience with 
similar industries and the EPA's detailed justification for the 
selected compliance dates is included in the preamble to the proposed 
rule (84 FR 46634, September 4, 2019).

IV. What is the rationale for our final decisions and amendments for 
the MCM source category?

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

A. Residual Risk Review for the MCM Source Category

1. What did we propose pursuant to CAA section 112(f) for the MCM 
source category?
    Pursuant to CAA section 112(f), the EPA conducted a residual risk 
review and presented the results of this review, along with our 
proposed decisions regarding risk acceptability and ample margin of 
safety, in the September 4, 2019, proposed rule for 40 CFR part 63, 
subpart HHHHH (84 FR 46610). The results of the risk assessment for the 
proposal are presented briefly below in Table 3 of this preamble. More 
detail is in the residual risk technical support document, Residual 
Risk Assessment for the Miscellaneous Coating Manufacturing Source 
Category in Support of the 2019 Risk and Technology Review Proposed 
Rule, available in the docket for this rulemaking.
    Table 3 of this preamble provides a summary of the results of the 
inhalation risk assessment for the source category.

                                                   Table 3--MCM Inhalation Risk Assessment Results \5\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Maximum                                                                       Maximum
                                                              individual                                   Annual cancer      Maximum        screening
              Risk assessment                  Number of      cancer risk   Population at increased risk     incidence        chronic          acute
                                            facilities \1\  (in 1 million)   of cancer >= 1-in-1 million    (cases per       noncancer     noncancer HQ
                                                                  \2\                                          year)         TOSHI \3\          \4\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source Category...........................              43               6                         3,700           0.002             0.4               2
Whole Facility............................  ..............              20                        50,100           0.006               2  ..............
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Number of facilities evaluated in the risk analysis.
\2\ Maximum individual excess lifetime cancer risk due to HAP emissions from the source category.
\3\ Maximum target organ-specific hazard index (TOSHI). The target organ system with the highest TOSHI for the source category is respiratory.
\4\ The maximum estimated acute exposure concentration was divided by available short-term threshold values to develop an array of hazard quotient (HQ)
  values. HQ values shown use the lowest available acute threshold value, which in most cases is the reference exposure limit (REL). When an HQ exceeds
  1, we also show the HQ using the next lowest available acute dose-response value. The HQ shown here is for glycol ethers, for which there are no other
  available acute dose-response values.
\5\ For this source category, it was determined that baseline allowable emissions are equal to baseline actual emissions and, therefore, the risk
  summaries are the same.

    The results of the inhalation risk modeling using the source 
category emissions for both actual and allowable emissions, as shown in 
Table 3 of this preamble, indicate the estimated cancer maximum 
individual risk (MIR) is 6-in-1 million, with chromium (VI) compounds 
from process vents as the major contributor to the risk. The total 
estimated cancer incidence from this source category is 0.002 excess 
cancer cases per year, or one excess case in every 500 years. 
Approximately 3,700 people are estimated to have cancer risks greater 
than or equal to 1-in-1 million from HAP emitted from the affected 
sources in this source category. The estimated maximum chronic 
noncancer TOSHI for the source category is 0.4 (respiratory), driven by 
emissions of acrylic acid from process vents. No one is exposed to 
TOSHI levels greater than 1 due to emissions from this source category.
    The results of the inhalation risk modeling using whole facility 
emissions data, as shown in Table 3 of this preamble, indicate that the 
estimated MIR is 20-in-1 million with emissions of hydrazine from 
sources subject to other standards driving the risk. These include 40 
CFR part 63 subparts FFFF (Miscellaneous Organic Chemicals 
Manufacturing NESHAP), H (Hazardous Organic NESHAP), and EEEE (Organic 
Liquids Distribution), which are not part of this source category. The 
total estimated whole facility cancer incidence is 0.006 excess cancer 
cases per year. Approximately 50,100 people are estimated to have 
cancer risks greater than or equal to 1-in-1 million. The estimated 
maximum chronic noncancer TOSHI is 2 (for the neurological target 
organ), driven by emissions of hydrogen cyanide from non-MCM source 
category emissions from carbon fiber production. Approximately 80 
people are estimated to be exposed to noncancer hazard index (HI) 
levels greater than 1.
    As shown in Table 3 of this preamble, for source category 
emissions, the highest acute HQ based on the reasonable worst-case 
scenario is 2, based on the REL for glycol ethers. This is the highest 
HQ that is outside facility boundaries. One facility is estimated to 
have an HQ greater than 1 based on the REL, which is the only available 
benchmark for glycol ethers.
    Potential multipathway health risks under a fisher and farmer/
gardener scenario were identified using a three-tier screening 
assessment of the HAP known to be persistent and bio-

[[Page 49731]]

accumulative in the environment (PB-HAP) emitted by facilities in this 
source category. For carcinogenic PB-HAP, one facility emits arsenic 
compounds, while two facilities emit polycyclic organic matter (POM). 
None of these emissions exceed a Tier 1 cancer screening value for 
arsenic or POM. For noncarcinogenic PB-HAP, one facility emits cadmium 
compounds and one facility emits mercury compounds. None of these 
emissions exceed a Tier 1 noncancer screening value for cadmium or 
mercury. Further analyses (i.e., Tier 2 or 3 screens) were not 
performed. For lead compounds, we did not estimate any exceedances of 
the lead National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS).
    A screening-level evaluation of the potential adverse environmental 
risk associated with emissions of the PB-HAP listed above, plus acid 
gases (hydrogen chloride is the only reported acid gas), indicated that 
no ecological benchmarks were exceeded. For lead compounds, we did not 
estimate any exceedances of the secondary lead NAAQS.
    We weighed all health risk factors, including those shown in Table 
2 of this preamble, in our risk acceptability determination and 
proposed that the residual risks from the MCM source category are 
acceptable (section IV.B.1 of the proposal preamble, 84 FR 46625, 
September 4, 2019).
    We then considered whether 40 CFR part 63, subpart HHHHH, provides 
an ample margin of safety to protect public health and prevents, taking 
into consideration costs, energy, safety, and other relevant factors, 
an adverse environmental effect. In considering whether the standards 
should be tightened to provide an ample margin of safety to protect 
public health, we considered the same risk factors that we considered 
for our acceptability determination and also considered the costs, 
technological feasibility, and other relevant factors related to 
emissions control options that might reduce risk associated with 
emissions from the source category. Related to risk, the baseline risks 
were low, and regardless of the availability of further control 
options, little risk reduction could be realized. As discussed further 
in section IV.B of this preamble, the only developments identified in 
the technology review were control options for inorganic HAP and 
organic HAP from process vessels. Because the baseline risks are being 
driven by inorganic HAP from process vessels, we evaluated a control 
option for inorganic HAP emissions from process vessels located at MCM 
facilities 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. Additionally, we evaluated increasing the 
control efficiency requirements for organic HAP emissions from process 
vessels. The process vessel options did not result in a decrease to the 
MIR or to the maximum chronic noncancer TOSHI because the MIR facility 
already had controls in place. However, there was a reduction seen in 
the population exposed to a cancer risk of 1-in-1 million from 3,700 to 
1,900 due to emissions reductions at other facilities. But, as 
described in section IV.C of the proposal preamble (84 FR 46626, 
September 4, 2019), we determined that these options were not cost 
effective. Therefore, given the low baseline risks and lack of options 
for further risk reductions, we proposed that additional emission 
controls for this source category are not necessary to provide an ample 
margin of safety (see section IV.B.2 of the proposal preamble, 84 FR 
46626, September 4, 2019).
2. How did the risk review change for the MCM Source Category?
    We have not changed any aspect of the risk assessment for the MCM 
source category as a result of public comments received on the 
September 4, 2019, proposal.
3. What key comments did we receive on the risk review, and what are 
our responses?
    We received comments in support of and against the proposed 
residual risk review and our determination is that no revisions were 
warranted under CAA section 112(f)(2) for the source category. 
Generally, the comments that were not supportive of the determination 
from the risk reviews suggested changes to the underlying risk 
assessment methodology. For example, one commenter stated that the EPA 
should lower the acceptability benchmark so that risks below 100-in-1 
million are unacceptable, include emissions outside of the source 
category assessed, and assume that pollutants with noncancer health 
risks have no safe level of exposure. After review of all the comments 
received, we determined that no changes are needed to the risk 
assessment. The comments and our specific responses can be found in the 
document, Summary of Public Comments and Responses for Risk and 
Technology Review for Miscellaneous Coating Manufacturing, available in 
the docket for this rulemaking.
4. What is the rationale for our final approach and final decisions for 
the risk review?
    As noted in our proposal, the EPA sets standards under CAA section 
112(f)(2) using ``a two-step standard-setting approach, with an 
analytical first step to determine an `acceptable risk' that considers 
all health information, including risk estimation uncertainty, and 
includes a presumptive limit on the maximum individual risk (MIR) of 
approximately 1-in-10 thousand'' (see 54 FR 38045, September 14, 1989). 
We weigh all health risk factors in our risk acceptability 
determination, including the cancer MIR, cancer incidence, the maximum 
cancer TOSHI, the maximum acute noncancer HQ, the extent of noncancer 
risks, the distribution of cancer and noncancer risks in the exposed 
population, and the risk estimation uncertainties.
    Since proposal, neither the risk assessment nor our determinations 
regarding risk acceptability, ample margin of safety, or adverse 
environmental effects have changed. For the reasons explained in the 
proposed rule, we determined that the risks from the MCM source 
category are acceptable, the current standards provide an ample margin 
of safety to protect public health, and more stringent standards are 
not necessary to prevent an adverse environmental effect. Therefore, we 
are not revising this subpart to require additional controls pursuant 
to CAA section 112(f)(2) based on the residual risk review, and we are 
readopting the existing standards under CAA section 112(f)(2).

B. Technology Review for the MCM Source Category

1. What did we propose pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6) for the MCM 
source category?
    Sources of HAP emissions regulated by the MCM NESHAP are process 
vessels, storage tanks, transfer racks, equipment leaks, wastewater 
streams, and heat exchange systems. MCM processes occur as batch 
operations, which involve intermittent or discontinuous feed of raw 
materials into equipment, and generally involve emptying of the 
equipment after the operation ceases and prior to beginning a new 
operation.
    For process vessels, 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

[[Page 49732]]

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 kilopascals 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. The costs were estimated using 
the EPA Air Pollution Control Cost Manual cost spreadsheet for thermal 
oxidizers \3\ and the process vent flow rate from the National 
Emissions Inventory (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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ https://www.epa.gov/economic-and-cost-analysis-air-pollution-regulations/cost-reports-and-guidance-air-pollution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The second option for process vessels that we considered was to 
require controls to limit particulate matter (PM) HAP emissions when 
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 proposed that it is not necessary to amend the standards for 
process vessels under the technology review.
    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 subpart UU or TT. 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 parts per million by volume 
(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 reasonable. The EPA did not find the leak detection 
instrument monitoring option that was evaluated to be cost effective. 
Consequently, the EPA proposed that it was not necessary to amend the 
standards for equipment leaks under the technology review.
    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 on-site or off-site. 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 on-
site or off-site.
    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.
    (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 megagrams per year or more).
    The EPA did not find any of the three wastewater stream control 
options evaluated to be cost effective. Consequently, the EPA proposed 
that it was not necessary to amend the standards for wastewater streams 
under the technology review.
    The EPA did not identify in our technology review any developments 
in practices, processes, and control technologies for storage tanks, 
transfer operations (i.e., bulk loading) of coating products, or heat 
exchange systems that were not already considered in the development of 
the original MACT.
    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 Coating Manufacturing 
Source Category, available in the docket to this action.
2. How did the technology review change for the MCM source category?
    We are making no changes to the conclusions of the technology 
review and are finalizing the results of the technology review for the 
MCM source category as proposed.
3. What key comments did we receive on the technology review, and what 
are our responses?
    Comment: Some of the commenters supported the EPA's proposed

[[Page 49733]]

determination that no changes to the MCM NESHAP were needed based on 
the technology review.
    However, one commenter argued that the standard should be 
strengthened to reduce HAP emissions. The commenter argued that the EPA 
should establish a standard of zero allowed leaks to prohibit all 
uncontrolled releases, or to establish more stringent standards based 
on the latest advancements in LDAR. The commenter also argued that the 
EPA should establish more stringent standards for HAP metals based on 
the use of fabric filters when dry materials are added to process 
vessels, as in the Paints and Allied Products Manufacturing rule for 
area sources. Finally, the commenter argued that the EPA should 
establish standards for storage vessels based on internal floating 
roofs (IFR) or the use of closed vent systems and recovery or 
destruction devices. The commenter argued that CAA section 112(d)(6) 
does not allow the EPA to use cost as a factor in deciding whether more 
stringent standards should be adopted.
    Response: In this technology review, we specifically looked for 
developments in practices, processes, and controls, including 
improvements in previously considered control technologies, and 
concluded there were no cost-effective developments applicable to this 
source category. The comment suggesting additional or more stringent 
controls be imposed has not provided data to support a revision to the 
proposed technology review; for this reason, we are adopting no changes 
to the NESHAP under the technology review.
    With respect to the role of cost in our decisions under the 
technology review, we note that courts have not required the EPA to 
demonstrate that a technology is ``cost-prohibitive'' in order not to 
require adopting a new technology under CAA section 112(d)(6); a simple 
finding that a control is not cost effective is enough. See Association 
of Battery Recyclers, et al. v. EPA, et al., 716 F.3d 667, 673-74 (D.C. 
Cir. 2015) (approving the EPA's consideration of cost as a factor in 
its 42 U.S.C. 7412(d)(6) decision-making and the EPA's reliance on cost 
effectiveness as a factor in its standard-setting).
    The option to require controls to limit PM HAP emissions from 
process vessels in which dry materials containing inorganic HAP are 
added to the process vessel was considered during the proposal for this 
rule. As stated in the MCM technology review memorandum, Clean Air Act 
Section 112(d)(6) Technology Review for Process Vessels, Storage Tanks, 
Equipment Leaks, Wastewater Streams, Transfer Operations, and Heat 
Exchange Systems Located in the Miscellaneous Coating Manufacturing 
Source Category (Docket Item No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2018-0747-0033), we 
reviewed the permits for the 12 facilities subject to 40 CFR part 63, 
subpart HHHHH, for which the 2014 NEI included emissions of particulate 
HAP and found that the permits for all but one of the facilities 
confirmed that some type of particulate control was already fitted on 
the process vessels. These controls included baghouse fabric filters, 
cartridge filters, and wet scrubbers, and we proposed that it was not 
cost effective to require any additional PM controls.
    Also, as described in the MCM technology review memorandum, we 
evaluated installing an IFR, external floating roof, closed vent system 
to an emission control device, vapor balancing, and considered maximum 
total vapor pressure thresholds; however, we did not identify any 
control technology development options for storage tanks to be cost 
effective.
    Finally, in the MCM technology review memorandum, we concluded that 
more stringent leak definitions for pumps, valves, and connectors using 
EPA Method 21 equipment leak monitoring were not cost effective for 
this source category.
4. What is the rationale for our final approach for the technology 
review?
    For the reasons explained in the preamble to the proposed rule (84 
FR 46626, September 4, 2019) and in the comment responses above in 
section IV.B.3 of this preamble, and the response to comment document, 
we are making no changes and are finalizing the results of the 
technology review as proposed.

C. SSM Provisions

1. What did we propose?
    In the September 4, 2019, action, we proposed amendments to the MCM 
NESHAP to remove and revise provisions related to SSM that are not 
consistent with the requirement that the standards apply at all times. 
More information concerning the elimination of SSM provisions is in the 
preamble to the proposed rule (84 FR 46629, September 4, 2019).
    We proposed amendments to account for instances where 40 CFR part 
63, subpart HHHHH, cross-references other subparts that contain SSM 
provisions. We proposed 40 CFR 63.8000(f) that lists the referenced 
provisions, including individual paragraphs or phrases, in subparts SS, 
TT, and UU of 40 CFR part 63 that contain references to SSM periods 
that will no longer apply after the compliance date for the final 
amendments as a result of the final SSM revisions.
    Because we proposed to remove the SSM provisions and require 
compliance at all times, we proposed 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 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 proposed that 
owners or 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.
    Because we proposed to remove the SSM provisions and require 
compliance at all times, we proposed 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 63.8005(h). We 
also proposed 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 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

[[Page 49734]]

and accounted for as specified in 40 CFR 63.8005(h).
2. What changed since proposal?
    We are finalizing the SSM provisions as proposed with no changes 
(84 FR 46629, September 4, 2019).
    We are also revising the bypass provisions to allow the use of 
bypass valve or damper position indicators to determine the time and 
duration of possible bypasses as an alternative to the proposed 
requirement to use a flow indicator. In the final rule, we are 
providing the following options to comply with the bypass monitoring 
requirements: (1) Use a flow indicator that provides a continuous 
reading of flow and no flow, (2) use valve position indicator or bypass 
damper indicator that provides a continuous reading of damper position, 
or (3) secure the bypass line valve in the non-diverting position with 
a car-seal or a lock-and-key type configuration. For flow indicators, 
facilities will have to perform a flow meter verification check 
annually. The annual verification check must be performed for at least 
two points, one at the instrument's zero and the other at the 
instrument's span. For valve position indicators, facilities must 
ensure that any bypass line valve or damper is in the closed position 
through continuous monitoring of valve position when the control device 
is in operation. The monitoring system must be inspected semiannually 
to verify that the monitor will accurately indicate valve position. For 
car-seal or lock-and-key type configurations, facilities must ensure 
that any seal or closure mechanism is maintained in the non-diverting 
position and the vent stream is not diverted through a bypass line. The 
visual inspections on the seal or closure mechanism must be completed 
at least once every month.
    We are finalizing the provisions related to safety device openings 
in 40 CFR 63.8000(b)(2) and 63.8080(c) as proposed with no changes (84 
FR 46632, September 4, 2019).
    We have corrected an error in the proposed amendatory language at 
40 CFR 63.7995(e) (84 FR 46640). In the proposal, we indicated that 
sources that began construction or reconstruction on or before the 
publication of the final rule in the Federal Register are given 3 years 
to comply with the provisions listed in 40 CFR 63.7995(e)(1) through 
(5). That was incorrect and the text should have indicated that those 
that began construction or reconstruction on or before the proposal 
publication date of September 4, 2019, have 3 years to comply with the 
provisions listed in 40 CFR 63.7995(e)(1) to (5).
3. What key comments did we receive and what are our responses?
    Comment: One commenter requested specific SSM provisions for PRDs, 
flares, and maintenance venting. The commenter requested that the 
opening of a safety device be allowed if it is a PRD meeting the 
requirements in 40 CFR part 63, subpart TT (40 CFR 63.1010 or 63.1011) 
or UU (40 CFR 63.1029 or 63.1030), and suggested certain work practices 
are followed that were specified by the commenter. The commenter also 
requested that certain types of safety devices and PRDs be exempt from 
the requirements for safety devices.
    The commenter requested that the definition of ``process vessel 
vent'' be revised to exclude ``maintenance vents after the equipment 
has been washed or purged in accordance with site maintenance practices 
to minimize, to the extent possible, emissions of HAP.'' The commenter 
also suggested as a second option, if the EPA decides to regulate HAP 
emissions from maintenance activities associated with process vessel 
vents, that the EPA should add work practice standards in place of 
emission limitations, consistent with the language in the Petroleum 
Refinery MACT, 40 CFR 63.643(c), and the proposed changes to the 
Ethylene Production MACT, 40 CFR 63.1103(e)(5).
    The commenter requested that, consistent with the Column 3 note on 
40 CFR 63.6(h)(2) through (9) in Table 10 to 40 CFR part 63, subpart 
HHHHH, the EPA should clarify the ``Yes'' language on 40 CFR 63.6(h)(1) 
by adding the italicized language as follows: ``Yes, before the 
compliance date specified in Sec.  63.7995(e), specifically for flares 
subject to Method 22 observations that are required as part of a 
compliance assessment. No, on or after the compliance date specified in 
Sec.  63.7995(e).''
    Response: We are making none of the suggested changes because they 
are not necessary. There is a low likelihood of PRDs or flares being 
used in this source category because operations are conducted at 
ambient conditions (i.e., process overpressures are less likely because 
operations are conducted at lower temperature and pressures) and 
facilities typically comply with the standards using thermal oxidizers 
or condensers. Additionally, the bypass provisions apply to all SSM 
events, including events associated with maintenance venting, and no 
examples were provided to the EPA to support adding provisions for 
maintenance venting in the MCM source category.
4. What is the rationale for our final approach for the SSM provisions?
    We evaluated all comments on the EPA's proposed amendments to the 
SSM provisions. For the reasons explained in the proposed rule, we 
determined that these amendments to the SSM provisions for the MCM 
NESHAP remove and revise provisions related to SSM that are not 
consistent with the requirement that the standards apply at all times. 
More information concerning the amendments we are finalizing for SSM 
provisions is in the preamble to the proposed rule (84 FR 46629, 
September 4, 2019). Therefore, we are finalizing our approach for the 
SSM provisions as proposed.

D. Electronic Reporting Provisions

1. What did we propose?
    In the September 4, 2019, document, we proposed to require owners 
or operators of MCM sources to submit electronic copies of 
notifications, reports, and performance tests through the EPA's CDX, 
using the CEDRI. These include the initial notifications required in 40 
CFR 63.9(b) and 63.8070(b), the NOCS required in 40 CFR 63.9(h) and 
63.8075(d), the performance test report required in 40 CFR 63.8075(f), 
the performance evaluation report required in 40 CFR 63.8075(g), and 
the semiannual reports required in 40 CFR 63.8075(b) and (c). A 
description of the electronic submission process is provided in the 
memorandum, Electronic Reporting Requirements for New Source 
Performance Standards (NSPS) and National Emission Standards for 
Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) Rules, August 8, 2018, available in 
the docket for this rulemaking. The proposed rule requirements would 
replace the current rule requirements to submit the notifications and 
reports to the Administrator at the appropriate address listed in 40 
CFR 63.13. The proposed rule requirement would not affect submittals 
required by state air agencies. The proposed compliance schedule 
language in 40 CFR 63.8075(h) for submission of initial compliance 
reports, NOCS reports, and compliance reports would have provided 3 
years after the final rule is published to begin electronic reporting.
2. What changed since proposal?
    We are finalizing the electronic reporting provisions as proposed 
with no changes (84 FR 46632, September 4, 2019).
    We are revising the proposed electronic reporting template to 
incorporate changes identified in the

[[Page 49735]]

public comments and described completely in the Summary of Public 
Comments and Responses for Risk and Technology Review for Miscellaneous 
Coating Manufacturing, available in the docket for this rulemaking.
3. What key comments did we receive and what are our responses?
    Comment: The EPA received comments that identified several 
corrections and additions to the draft CEDRI template and described 
them in detail in their comment letter. These changes to the draft 
CEDRI template are described completely in the Summary of Public 
Comments and Responses for Risk and Technology Review for Miscellaneous 
Coating Manufacturing, available in the docket for this rulemaking.
    Response: The EPA has evaluated these comments and has made the 
appropriate corrections to the CEDRI template as described in Summary 
of Public Comments and Responses for Risk and Technology Review for 
Miscellaneous Coating Manufacturing, available in the docket for this 
rulemaking.
4. What is the rationale for our final approach for the electronic 
reporting provisions?
    For the reasons explained in the preamble to the proposed rules (84 
FR 46632, September 4, 2019), and in the comment responses above in 
section IV.D.3 of this preamble, and in the response to comment 
document, we are finalizing the electronic reporting provisions for the 
MCM NESHAP, as proposed. We are revising the CEDRI reporting template 
as appropriate to incorporate the corrections and additions identified 
in the public comments.

E. Other Technical Amendments

1. What did we propose?
    The EPA proposed to amend 40 CFR 63.8055(b)(4) to remove reference 
to paragraph (d)(4) of the OSHA's Hazard Communication standard, which 
dealt with OSHA-defined carcinogens. We proposed 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 also proposed additional technical and editorial 
corrections that were listed in Table 4 of the proposal preamble.
2. What changed since proposal?
    We are finalizing the technical amendments as proposed with no 
changes (84 FR 46633, September 4, 2019).
3. What key comments did we receive and what are our responses?
    We received comments supporting the addition of Table 11 to 40 CFR 
part 63, subpart HHHHH. We also received comments indicating several 
additional technical and editorial corrections that are detailed in the 
Summary of Public Comments and Responses for Risk and Technology Review 
for Miscellaneous Coating Manufacturing, available in the docket for 
this rulemaking.
4. What is the rationale for our final approach for the other technical 
amendments?
    For the reasons explained in the preamble to the proposed rules (84 
FR 46633, September 4, 2019), in the comment responses above in section 
IV.E.3 of this preamble, and in the response to comment document, we 
are finalizing the other technical amendments for the MCM NESHAP, as 
proposed. The proposed technical amendments, to include the new Table 
11, are being finalized in this action. The editorial corrections 
proposed in Table 4 of the proposal preamble are being finalized, with 
edits based on responses from commenters. These edits are shown in 
Table 2 of this preamble.

F. Ongoing Emissions Compliance Demonstrations

1. What did we propose?
    We proposed to require owners or operators of facilities complying 
with the standards using a closed vent system and add-on controls to 
control emissions to perform periodic testing to confirm the 
performance of the add-on control device. We proposed to require owners 
or operators that 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.
2. What changed since proposal?
    We are finalizing the periodic performance testing and ongoing 
compliance demonstration provisions as proposed with no changes (84 FR 
46634, September 4, 2019).
3. What key comments did we receive and what are our responses?
    Comment: The EPA received comments that performance testing should 
not be required except when the facility has a change in operations, or 
where the change is not considered to be within the previously 
established worst-case conditions as specified in 40 CFR 
63.8005(d)(1)(iv). The EPA also received comments that periodic 
performance testing should only be required for thermal oxidizers and 
should not be required for carbon adsorbers or for condensers, and that 
the EPA should not eliminate design evaluations of small control 
devices. See 40 CFR 63.8000(d)(2). The commenters argued that testing 
small control devices is often impractical (for example, once-through 
carbon adsorption) and needless where the performance (such as for 
condensers) can be predicted with a high degree of certainty.
    Response: We disagree that performance tests should only be 
required when the facility has a change in operations. As explained in 
the preamble to the proposed rule, periodic performance tests help 
identify potential degradation of the add-on control device over time 
and ensure the control device remains effective, reducing the potential 
for acute emissions episodes or noncompliance. Also as explained in the 
preamble to the proposed rule, many facilities using add-on controls to 
demonstrate compliance with the NESHAP are currently required to 
conduct performance tests every 5 years as a condition for renewing 
their title V operating permit. The requirement to conduct testing 
every 5 years also eliminates uncertainty of determining whether a 
change in facility operations should trigger a new performance test. 
Further, removing the design evaluation for small control devices will 
not affect facilities using condensers because they may still comply by 
meeting the condenser outlet temperature requirements specified in 
Table 1 to 40 CFR part 63, subpart HHHHH. We do not expect many 
facilities to be controlling with carbon adsorbers, and, therefore, we 
are not exempting carbon adsorbers from these requirements.
    The comments and responses on the proposed performance testing 
requirements are detailed in the

[[Page 49736]]

Summary of Public Comments and Responses for Risk and Technology Review 
for Miscellaneous Coating Manufacturing, available in the docket for 
this rulemaking.
4. What is the rationale for our final approach for the ongoing 
compliance demonstrations?
    For the reasons explained in the preamble to the proposed rules (84 
FR 46634, September 4, 2019) and in the comment responses above in 
section IV.F.3 of this preamble and the response to comment document, 
we are finalizing the periodic testing provisions for the MCM NESHAP, 
as proposed.

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

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 final 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 will occur as a result of this action. However, 
eliminating the SSM exemption has the potential to reduce emissions by 
requiring facilities to meet the applicable standard during SSM 
periods.
    Indirect or secondary air emissions impacts are impacts that will 
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 amendments will have no effect on the energy needs of 
the affected facilities and will, therefore, have no indirect or 
secondary air emissions impacts.

C. What are the cost impacts?

    We estimate that to comply with the final amendments, each facility 
in the MCM source category will experience increased reporting and 
recordkeeping costs. The recordkeeping and reporting costs are 
presented in section VI.C of this preamble. The costs include time to 
read and understand the rule amendments. Costs associated with 
elimination of the SSM exemptions 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 finalizing 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 of 
the facilities subject to the MCM NESHAP and using add-on control 
devices will 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, will 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, Estimated Costs/Impacts 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 the 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 final rule, 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 final 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 
final 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 final revisions to the MCM 
NESHAP are small entities. However, the costs associated with the final 
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 final 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

[[Page 49737]]

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 final 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.

F. What analysis of environmental justice did we conduct?

    Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994) establishes 
Federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision 
directs federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and 
permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission 
by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high 
and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs, 
policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income 
populations in the United States.
    To examine the potential for any environmental justice issues that 
might be associated with the source category, during the proposal, we 
performed a demographic analysis, which is an assessment of risk to 
individual demographic groups of the populations living within 5 
kilometers (km) and within 50 km of the facilities. In the analysis, we 
evaluated the distribution of HAP-related cancer and noncancer risk 
from the MCM source category across different demographic groups within 
the populations living near facilities.
    The results of the demographic analysis are summarized in Table 4 
of this preamble. These results, for various demographic groups, are 
based on the estimated risk from actual emissions levels for the 
population living within 50 km of the facilities. These results have 
not changed since the proposal.

                                 Table 4--MCM Demographic Risk Analysis Results
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                    Population
                                                                                    with cancer     Population
                                                                                    risk at or     with chronic
                                                                    Nationwide     above 1-in-1   HI above 1 due
                                                                                  million due to      to MCM
                                                                                        MCM
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Population................................................     371,746,049           3,665               0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          White and Minority by Percent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
White...........................................................              62              64               0
Minority........................................................              38              36               0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                               Minority by Percent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
African American................................................              12              32               0
Native American.................................................             0.8            0.05               0
Hispanic or Latino (includes White and nonwhite)................              18               2               0
Other and Multiracial...........................................               7               2               0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                Income by Percent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Below Poverty Level.............................................              14              29               0
Above Poverty Level.............................................              86              71               0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              Education by Percent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Over 25 and without High School Diploma.........................              14              19               0
Over 25 and with a High School Diploma..........................              86              81               0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       Linguistically Isolated by Percent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Linguistically Isolated.........................................               6               1               0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The results of the MCM source category demographic analysis 
indicate that emissions from the source category expose approximately 
3,700 people to a cancer risk at or above 1-in-1 million and zero 
people to a chronic noncancer TOSHI greater than 1. The percentages of 
the at-risk population in each demographic group (except for African 
American, Below Poverty Level, Hispanic or Latino, and Above Poverty 
Level) are similar to (within 5 percent of) their respective nationwide 
percentages. The African American and Below Poverty Level demographic 
groups are greater than their respective nationwide percentages, while 
the Hispanic or Latino (includes White and nonwhite) and Above Poverty 
Level are lower than their respective nationwide percentages.
    The methodology and the results of the demographic analysis are 
presented in a technical report, Risk and Technology Review--Analysis 
of Demographic Factors for Populations Living Near Miscellaneous 
Coating Manufacturing Facilities, available in the docket for this 
rulemaking.

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

    The EPA does not believe the environmental health or safety risks 
addressed by this action present a disproportionate risk to children. 
This action's health and risk assessments are summarized in section 
IV.A of this preamble and are further documented in

[[Page 49738]]

the Residual Risk Assessment for the Miscellaneous Coating 
Manufacturing Source Category in Support of the 2019 Risk and 
Technology Review Proposed Rule, available in the docket for this 
rulemaking.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

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

A. Executive Orders 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 the Office of Management and Budget (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 final rule will be 
submitted for approval to OMB under the PRA. The information collection 
request (ICR) document that the EPA prepared has been assigned EPA ICR 
number 2115.07. 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 finalizing revisions to the SSM provisions of the rule, 
requiring periodic testing of control devices, and requiring the use of 
electronic data reporting for future performance test data submittals, 
notifications, and reports. This information is being collected to 
assure compliance with 40 CFR part 63, subpart 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 will be 
subject to the NESHAP and no additional respondents are expected to 
become subject to the NESHAP during that period.
    Frequency of response: The total number of responses in year 1 is 
175, in year 2 is 46, and in year 3 is 85.
    Total estimated burden: The average annual burden of the final 
amendments to the 43 MCM facilities over the 3 years 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 final rule 
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. When OMB 
approves this ICR, the Agency will announce that approval in the 
Federal Register and publish a technical amendment to 40 CFR part 9 to 
display the OMB control number for the approved information collection 
activities contained in this final rule.

D. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

    I certify that this action will not have a significant economic 
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. The 
Agency has determined that two of the facilities potentially affected 
by the final revisions to the MCM NESHAP are small entities and may 
experience an impact of 0.002 to 0.025 percent of annual sales revenues 
per ultimate owner. Details of this analysis are presented in section 
V.D of this preamble and additional detail is provided in the economic 
impact memoranda 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. While this action 
creates an enforceable duty on the private sector, the cost does not 
exceed $100 million or more.

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 will 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, III.C, and IV.A 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 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

[[Page 49739]]

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 is including in the final rule 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 is used to quantify 
the oxygen and carbon dioxide concentration in exhaust from stationary 
combustion sources, and is available at the American National Standards 
Institute, 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://www.ansi.org and https://www.asme.org.
    Additionally, the EPA is including in the final rule 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 employs a direct interface gas 
chromatograph/mass spectrometer (GCMS) to identify and quantify the 36 
volatile organic compounds (or sub-set of these compounds) listed in 
the method, and 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. 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.
    The EPA is including in the final rule 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 for determining the weight-percent HAP 
content of coatings, by determining the volatile matter or VOC content 
of coatings and use that value as a substitute for the mass fraction of 
HAP, for demonstrating compliance with the weight-percent HAP limit 
alternative in 40 CFR 63.8055. ASTM D2369-10(2015) el is used for 
calculating the weight percent volatile organic content in coatings and 
the weight percent solids content. ASTM D2697-03 (2014) measures the 
volume of dry coating solids in a given volume of liquid coating. ASTM 
D3960-98 is used for determining the VOC content of paints and related 
coatings and for calculating the VOC content expressed as the mass of 
VOC: (1) Per unit volume of coating less water and exempt volatile 
compounds, and (2) per unit volume of coating solids and (3) per unit 
mass of coating solids.
    In addition, the EPA is including in the final rule-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. ASTM D6348-12e1 identifies and measures the concentration of 
organic compounds in an exhaust stream. 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). 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.

    The five ASTM methods (ASTM D2369-10(2015) el, ASTM D2697-03, ASTM 
D3960-98, ASTM D6348-12e1, and ASTM D6420-18) are available at ASTM 
International, 1850 M Street NW, Suite 1030, Washington, DC 20036. See 
https://www.astm.org/.
    The EPA is including in the final rule the VCS CARB Method 310, 
``Determination of Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) in Consumer 
Products and Reactive Organic Compounds (ROC) in Aerosol Coating 
Products,'' as an acceptable alternative to EPA Method 311 for 
determining the weight-percent HAP content of coatings, by determining 
the mass fraction of volatile matter and use that value as a substitute 
for the mass fraction of HAP, for demonstrating compliance with the 
weight-percent HAP limit alternative in 40 CFR 63.8055. This method is 
used to determine the weight percent of VOC in consumer products and 
ROC in aerosol coating products and is available from the California 
Air Resources Board (CARB), 1001 I Street, Sacramento, CA 95814. See 
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/.
    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 
Coating Manufacturing, which is available in the docket for this 
rulemaking.

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) 
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 V.F of this preamble and the technical 
report, Risk and Technology Review--Analysis of Demographic Factors for 
Populations Living Near Miscellaneous Coating Manufacturing Facilities, 
available in the docket for this rulemaking.

[[Page 49740]]

L. Congressional Review Act (CRA)

    This action is subject to the CRA, and the EPA will submit a rule 
report to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of 
the United States. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 
U.S.C. 804(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63

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

Andrew Wheeler,
Administrator.

    For the reasons stated in the preamble, the EPA amends 40 CFR part 
63 as follows:

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

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

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

Subpart A--General Provisions

0
2. Section 63.14 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraphs (e)(1) and (h)(26), (30), (50), (86), and (94);
0
b. Redesignating paragraphs (k)(1) through (5) as paragraphs (k)(2) 
through (6); and
0
c. Adding new paragraph (k)(1).
    The revisions and addition read as follows:


Sec.  63.14   Incorporations by reference.

* * * * *
    (e) * * *
    (1) ANSI/ASME PTC 19.10-1981, Flue and Exhaust Gas Analyses [Part 
10, Instruments and Apparatus], issued August 31, 1981, IBR approved 
for Sec. Sec.  63.309(k), 63.457(k), 63.772(e) and (h), 63.865(b), 
63.997(e), 63.1282(d) and (g), and 63.1625(b), table 5 to subpart EEEE, 
Sec. Sec.  63.3166(a), 63.3360(e), 63.3545(a), 63.3555(a), 63.4166(a), 
63.4362(a), 63.4766(a), 63.4965(a), and 63.5160(d), table 4 to subpart 
UUUU, table 3 to subpart YYYY, Sec. Sec.  63.7822(b), 63.7824(e), 
63.7825(b), 63.8000(d), 63.9307(c), 63.9323(a), 63.9621(b) and (c), 
63.11148(e), 63.11155(e), 63.11162(f), 63.11163(g), 63.11410(j), 
63.11551(a), 63.11646(a), and 63.11945, and table 4 to subpart AAAAA, 
table 5 to subpart DDDDD, table 4 to subpart JJJJJ, table 4 to subpart 
KKKKK, tables 4 and 5 of subpart UUUUU, table 1 to subpart ZZZZZ, and 
table 4 to subpart JJJJJJ.
* * * * *
    (h) * * *
    (26) ASTM D2369-10 (Reapproved 2015)e1, Standard Test Method for 
Volatile Content of Coatings, approved June 1, 2015, IBR approved for 
Sec. Sec.  63.3151(a), 63.3360(c), 63.3961(j), 63.4141(a) and (b), 
63.4161(h), 63.4321(e), 63.4341(e), 63.4351(d), 63.4541(a), and 
63.4561(j), appendix A to subpart PPPP, and Sec. Sec.  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, approved July 
1, 2014, IBR approved for Sec. Sec.  63.3161(f), 63.3360(c), 
63.3941(b), 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, approved 
November 10, 1998, IBR approved for Sec. Sec.  63.3360(c) and 
63.8055(b).
* * * * *
    (86) 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.  63.997(e), 63.1571(a), and 63.2354(b), table 5 to 
subpart EEEE, table 4 to subpart UUUU, and Sec. Sec.  63.7142(a) and 
(b) and 63.8000(d).
* * * * *
    (94) ASTM D6420-18, Standard Test Method for Determination of 
Gaseous Organic Compounds by Direct Interface Gas Chromatography-Mass 
Spectrometry, approved November 1, 2018, IBR approved for Sec. Sec.  
63.987(b), 63.997(e), and 63.2354(b), table 5 to subpart EEEE, and 
Sec. Sec.  63.2450(j) and 63.8000(d).
* * * * *
    (k) * * *
    (1) Method 310, ``Determination of Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) 
in Consumer Products and Reactive Organic Compounds (ROC) in Aerosol 
Coating Products,'' amended May 25, 2018, 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), (b) introductory text, (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);

[[Page 49741]]

    (4) Quality assurance/quality control laboratories; or
* * * * *

0
4. Section 63.7990 is amended by revising paragraph (a) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  63.7990   What parts of my plant does this subpart cover?

    (a) This subpart applies to each miscellaneous coating 
manufacturing affected source as defined in paragraph (b) of this 
section.
* * * * *

0
5. Section 63.7995 is amended by revising paragraphs (a) introductory 
text and (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 paragraph (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 after September 4, 2019, must be in compliance 
with the requirements listed in paragraphs (e)(1) through (5) of this 
section upon initial startup or no later than August 14, 2020, 
whichever is later. All affected sources that commenced construction or 
reconstruction before September 4, 2019, must be in compliance with the 
requirements listed in paragraphs (e)(1) through (5) of this section no 
later than August 14, 2023.
    (1) The general requirements specified in Sec. Sec.  63.8000(a)(2), 
(b)(2), (d)(8), and (f) and 63.8005(d)(5) and (h).
    (2) The reporting requirements specified in Sec.  63.8075(e)(5), 
(e)(6)(ii)(B) and (D), and (e)(6)(iii)(C) and (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 this 
subpart.

0
6. Section 63.8000 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraphs (a), (b)(2), (c)(3), (d)(1) introductory text, 
and (d)(1)(i) and (iii);
0
b. Adding paragraph (d)(1)(vi);
0
c. Removing and reserving paragraph (d)(2);
0
d. Revising paragraphs (d)(3), (d)(4)(i)(A), (d)(4)(ii)(C), and 
(d)(4)(iv); and
0
e. 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) Applicability. 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 
63.8030 (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.
    (2) Beginning on 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 on 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 this part.
    (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 paragraph (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 
appendix A to this part. 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 this 
part, 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

[[Page 49742]]

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 
August 14, 2023, 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 71, and have conducted a 
performance test on or after August 15, 2022. 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 in appendix B to 40 CFR part 60 or a hydrogen chloride 
(HCl) CEMS meeting the requirements of Performance Specification 18 in 
appendix B to 40 CFR part 60 and Quality Assurance Procedure 6 in 
appendix F to 40 CFR part 60 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 in appendix A-6 to 40 CFR part 60 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 
(incorporated by reference, see Sec.  63.14), 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) Quality control program. 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 August 14, 2023, 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) Removal of startup, shutdown, and malfunction requirements. 
Beginning on 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 subparts SS, UU, and TT of 
this part.
    (1) Section 63.983(a)(5).
    (2) The phrase ``except during periods of start-up, shutdown and 
malfunction as specified in the referencing subpart'' in Sec.  
63.984(a).
    (3) The phrase ``except during periods of start-up, shutdown and 
malfunction as specified in the referencing subpart'' in Sec.  
63.985(a).
    (4) The phrase ``other than start-ups, shutdowns, or malfunctions'' 
in Sec.  63.994(c)(1)(ii)(D).
    (5) Section 63.996(c)(2)(ii).
    (6) Section 63.997(e)(1)(i).
    (7) The term ``breakdowns'' from Sec.  63.998(b)(2)(i).
    (8) Section 63.998(b)(2)(iii).
    (9) The phrase ``other than periods of startups, shutdowns, and 
malfunctions'' from Sec.  63.998(b)(5)(i)(A).
    (10) The phrase ``other than periods of startups, shutdowns, and 
malfunctions'' from Sec.  63.998(b)(5)(i)(C).
    (11) The phrase ``, except as provided in paragraphs (b)(6)(i)(A) 
and (B) of this section'' from Sec.  63.998(b)(6)(i).
    (12) The second sentence of Sec.  63.998(b)(6)(ii).

[[Page 49743]]

    (13) Section 63.998(c)(1)(ii)(D), (E), (F), and (G).
    (14) Section 63.998(d)(1)(ii).
    (15) Section 63.998(d)(3)(i) and (ii).
    (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).
    (17) The phrase ``(except periods of startup, shutdown, or 
malfunction)'' from Sec.  63.1007(e)(1)(ii)(A).
    (18) The phrase ``(except during periods of startup, shutdown, or 
malfunction)'' from Sec.  63.1009(e)(1)(i)(A).
    (19) The phrase ``(except during periods of startup, shutdown, or 
malfunction)'' from Sec.  63.1012(b)(1).
    (20) The phrase ``(except periods of startup, shutdown, or 
malfunction)'' from Sec.  63.1026(e)(1)(ii)(A).
    (21) The phrase ``(except periods of startup, shutdown, or 
malfunction)'' from Sec.  63.1028(e)(1)(i)(A).
    (22) The phrase ``(except periods of startup, shutdown, or 
malfunction)'' from Sec.  63.1031(b)(1).

0
7. Section 63.8005 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraphs (a)(2) and (d)(1);
0
b. Adding paragraph (d)(5);
0
c. Revising paragraphs (e) introductory text, (e)(2), and (g); and
0
d. Adding paragraph (h).
    The revisions and additions 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 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 on 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 or bypassed, you must install, calibrate, and operate a 
flow indicator at the inlet or outlet of the control device to identify 
periods of no flow, or you must comply with the alternatives 
requirements of paragraph (g)(1) or (2) of this section. Periods of no 
flow may not be used in daily or block averages. You must perform a 
flow meter verification check annually for at least two points: One at 
the instrument's zero and the other at the instrument's span.
    (1) You must use a valve position or bypass damper position 
indicator that provides a continuous reading and record of the bypass 
valve or damper position when the control device is in operation. You 
must inspect the monitoring system semiannually to verify that the 
monitor will indicate valve position.
    (2) You must secure the bypass line valve or bypass damper in the 
non-diverting position with a car-seal or a lock-and-key type 
configuration. You must visually inspect the seal or closure mechanism 
at least once every month to ensure that the valve is maintained in the 
non-diverting position and that the vent stream is not diverted through 
the bypass line. You must also record the occurrence of all periods 
when the seal or closure mechanism is broken, or the key for a lock-
and-key type lock has been checked out.
    (h) Bypass. Beginning no later than 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 to 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 to this 
section.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14AU20.000

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.

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

[[Page 49744]]

Sec.  63.8010  What requirements apply to my storage tanks?

    (a) Introduction. 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 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
9. 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 as 
specified in Sec.  63.8000(c), except as specified in Sec.  63.8000(d) 
and (f) and paragraph (b) of this section.
* * * * *

0
10. Section 63.8050 is amended by adding paragraphs (c)(3)(i) through 
(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 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
11. 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 this part). As an alternative to 
Method 311, you may use California Air Resources Board Method 310, 
Determination of Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) in Consumer Products 
and Reactive Organic Compounds (ROC) in Aerosol Coating Products 
(incorporated by reference, see Sec.  63.14) 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 paragraphs (b)(2)(i) through (iii) of this section.
    (i) ASTM D2369-10 (Reapproved 2015)e1, (incorporated by reference, 
see Sec.  63.14);
    (ii) ASTM D2697-03 (Reapproved 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
12. 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
13. Section 63.8075 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraphs (c)(1), (d) introductory text, (d)(1), 
(d)(2)(ii), (e)(5) introductory text, (e)(6)(ii) introductory text, and 
(e)(6)(ii)(B);
0
b. Adding paragraph (e)(6)(ii)(D);
0
c. Revising paragraphs (e)(6)(iii) introductory text and (e)(6)(iii)(C) 
and (E);
0
d. Adding paragraph (e)(6)(iii)(L);
0
e. Removing and reserving paragraph (e)(8)(ii)(B); and
0
f. 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), this paragraph (e)(5) no longer applies.
* * * * *
    (6) * * *
    (ii) For each deviation from an emission limit, operating limit, 
and work practice standard that occurs at an affected source where you 
are not using

[[Page 49745]]

a continuous monitoring system (CMS) to comply with the emission limit 
or work practice standards in this subpart, you must include the 
information in paragraphs (e)(6)(ii)(A) through (D) of this section.
* * * * *
    (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 SSM 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 corrective action taken.
* * * * *
    (E) Before the compliance date specified in Sec.  63.7995(e), a 
breakdown of the total duration of the deviations during the reporting 
period into those that are due to startup, shutdown, control equipment 
problems, process problems, other known causes, and other unknown 
causes. On and after the compliance date specified in Sec.  63.7995(e), 
a breakdown of the total duration of the deviations during the 
reporting period into those that are due to control equipment problems, 
process problems, other known causes, and other unknown causes.
* * * * *
    (L) A summary of the total duration of CMS data unavailability 
during the reporting period, and the total duration as a percent of the 
total source operating time during that reporting period.
* * * * *
    (f) Performance test report. On and after August 14, 2023, within 
60 days after the date of completing each performance test required by 
Sec.  63.8000, Sec.  63.8005, or Sec.  63.8010, you must submit the 
results of the performance test following the procedures specified in 
paragraphs (f)(1) through (3) of this section. The requirements of this 
paragraph (f) do not affect the schedule for completing performance 
tests specified in Sec. Sec.  63.8000, 63.8005, and 63.8010.
    (1) Data collected using test methods supported by the EPA's 
Electronic Reporting Tool (ERT) as listed on the EPA's ERT website 
(https://www.epa.gov/electronic-reporting-air-emissions/electronic-reporting-tool-ert) at the time of the test. Submit the results of the 
performance test to the EPA via the Compliance and Emissions Data 
Reporting Interface (CEDRI), which can be accessed through the EPA's 
Central Data Exchange (CDX) (https://cdx.epa.gov/). The data must be 
submitted in a file format generated through the use of the EPA's ERT. 
Alternatively, you may submit an electronic file consistent with the 
extensible markup language (XML) schema listed on the EPA's ERT 
website. Submit the results of the performance test to the EPA via 
CEDRI, which can be accessed through the EPA's CDX (https://cdx.epa.gov/). The data must be submitted in a file format generated 
through the use of the EPA's ERT. Alternatively, you may submit an 
electronic file consistent with the XML schema listed on the EPA's ERT 
website.
    (2) Data collected using test methods that are not supported by the 
EPA's ERT as listed on the EPA's ERT website at the time of the test. 
The results of the performance test must be included as an attachment 
in the ERT or an alternate electronic file consistent with the XML 
schema listed on the EPA's ERT website. Submit the ERT generated 
package or alternative file to the EPA via CEDRI.
    (3) Confidential business information (CBI). If you claim that some 
of the performance test information being submitted under paragraph (f) 
of this section is CBI, you must submit a complete file, including 
information claimed to be CBI, to the EPA. The file must be generated 
through the use of the EPA's ERT or an alternate electronic file 
consistent with the XML schema listed on the EPA's ERT website. Submit 
the file on a compact disc, flash drive, or other commonly used 
electronic storage medium and clearly mark the medium as CBI. Mail the 
electronic medium to U.S. EPA/OAPQS/CORE CBI Office, Attention: Group 
Leader, Measurement Policy Group, MD C404-02, 4930 Old Page Rd., 
Durham, NC 27703. The same file with the CBI omitted must be submitted 
to the EPA via the EPA's CDX as described in this paragraph (f).
    (g) Performance evaluation report. On and after August 14, 2023, 
within 60 days after the date of completing each CMS performance 
evaluation (as defined in Sec.  63.2), you must submit the results of 
the performance evaluation following the procedures specified in 
paragraphs (g)(1) through (3) of this section.
    (1) Performance evaluations of CMS measuring relative accuracy test 
audit (RATA) pollutants that are supported by the EPA's ERT as listed 
on the EPA's ERT website at the time of the evaluation. Submit the 
results of the performance evaluation to the EPA via CEDRI, which can 
be accessed through the EPA's CDX. The data must be submitted in a file 
format generated through the use of the EPA's ERT. Alternatively, you 
may submit an electronic file consistent with the XML schema listed on 
the EPA's ERT website.
    (2) Performance evaluations of CMS measuring RATA pollutants that 
are not supported by the EPA's ERT as listed on the EPA's ERT website 
at the time of the evaluation. The results of the performance 
evaluation must be included as an attachment in the ERT or an alternate 
electronic file consistent with the XML schema listed on the EPA's ERT 
website. Submit the ERT generated package or alternative file to the 
EPA via CEDRI.
    (3) CBI. If you claim some of the information submitted under 
paragraph (g) of this section is CBI, you must submit a complete file, 
including information claimed to be CBI, to the EPA. The file must be 
generated through the use of the EPA's ERT or an alternate electronic 
file consistent with the XML

[[Page 49746]]

schema listed on the EPA's ERT website. Submit the file on a compact 
disc, flash drive, or other commonly used electronic storage medium and 
clearly mark the medium as CBI. Mail the electronic medium to U.S. EPA/
OAQPS/CORE CBI Office, Attention: Group Leader, Measurement Policy 
Group, MD C404-02, 4930 Old Page Rd., Durham, NC 27703. The same file 
with the CBI omitted must be submitted to the EPA via the EPA's CDX as 
described in paragraph (f) of this section.
    (h) Reporting. You must submit to the Administrator initial 
compliance reports, notification of compliance status reports, and 
compliance reports of the following information. Beginning on and after 
August 14, 2023, submit all subsequent reports following the procedure 
specified in paragraph (i) of this section.
    (i) CEDRI reports. If you are required to submit reports following 
the procedure specified in this paragraph (i), you must submit reports 
to the EPA via CEDRI, which can be accessed through the EPA's CDX 
(https://cdx.epa.gov).
    (1) Compliance reports. The requirements of this paragraph (i) do 
not affect the schedule for submitting the initial notification or the 
notification of compliance status reports. You must use the appropriate 
electronic compliance report template on the CEDRI website (https://www.epa.gov/electronic-reporting-air-emissions/compliance-and-emissions-data-reporting-interface-cedri) for this subpart. The date 
report templates become available will be listed on the CEDRI website.
    (2) Initial notification reports and notification of compliance 
status reports. You must upload to CEDRI a portable document format 
(PDF) file of each initial notification and of each notification of 
compliance status.
    (3) All reports. The report must be submitted by the deadline 
specified in this subpart, regardless of the method in which the report 
is submitted. If you claim some of the information required to be 
submitted via CEDRI is CBI, submit a complete report, including 
information claimed to be CBI, to the EPA. The report must be generated 
using the appropriate form on the CEDRI website, where applicable. 
Submit the file on a compact disc, flash drive, or other commonly used 
electronic storage medium and clearly mark the medium as CBI. Mail the 
electronic medium to U.S. EPA/OAQPS/CORE CBI Office, Attention: Group 
Leader, Measurement Policy Group, MD C404-02, 4930 Old Page Rd., 
Durham, NC 27703. The same file with the CBI omitted shall be submitted 
to the EPA via the EPA's CDX as described in this paragraph (i).
    (j) Extensions for CDX/CEDRI outages and force majeure events. If 
you are required to electronically submit a report through CEDRI in the 
EPA's CDX, you may assert a claim of EPA system outage for failure to 
timely comply with the reporting requirement in this section. To assert 
a claim of EPA system outage, you must meet the requirements outlined 
in paragraphs (j)(1) through (7) of this section.
    (1) You must have been or will be precluded from accessing CEDRI 
and submitting a required report within the time prescribed due to an 
outage of either the EPA's CEDRI or CDX systems.
    (2) The outage must have occurred within the period of time 
beginning 5 business days prior to the date that the submission is due.
    (3) The outage may be planned or unplanned.
    (4) You must submit notification to the Administrator in writing as 
soon as possible following the date you first knew, or through due 
diligence should have known, that the event may cause or caused a delay 
in reporting.
    (5) You must provide to the Administrator a written description 
identifying:
    (i) The date(s) and time(s) when CDX or CEDRI was accessed and the 
system was unavailable;
    (ii) A rationale for attributing the delay in reporting beyond the 
regulatory deadline to EPA system outage;
    (iii) Measures taken or to be taken to minimize the delay in 
reporting; and
    (iv) The date by which you propose to report, or if you have 
already met the reporting requirement at the time of the notification, 
the date you reported.
    (6) The decision to accept the claim of EPA system outage and allow 
an extension to the reporting deadline is solely within the discretion 
of the Administrator.
    (7) In any circumstance, the report must be submitted 
electronically as soon as possible after the outage is resolved.
    (k) Force majeure. If you are required to electronically submit a 
report through CEDRI in the EPA's CDX, you may assert a claim of force 
majeure for failure to timely comply with the reporting requirement in 
this section. To assert a claim of force majeure, you must meet the 
requirements outlined in paragraphs (k)(1) through (5) of this section.
    (1) You may submit a claim if a force majeure event is about to 
occur, occurs, or has occurred or there are lingering effects from such 
an event within the period of time beginning five business days prior 
to the date the submission is due. For purposes of this section, a 
force majeure event is defined as an event that will be or has been 
caused by circumstances beyond the control of the affected facility, 
its contractors, or any entity controlled by the affected facility that 
prevents you from complying with the requirement to submit a report 
electronically within the time period prescribed. Examples of such 
events are acts of nature (e.g., hurricanes, earthquakes, or floods), 
acts of war or terrorism, or equipment failure or safety hazard beyond 
the control of the affected facility (e.g., large scale power outage).
    (2) You must submit notification to the Administrator in writing as 
soon as possible following the date you first knew, or through due 
diligence should have known, that the event may cause or has caused a 
delay in reporting.
    (3) You must provide to the Administrator:
    (i) A written description of the force majeure event;
    (ii) A rationale for attributing the delay in reporting beyond the 
regulatory deadline to the force majeure event;
    (iii) Measures taken or to be taken to minimize the delay in 
reporting; and
    (iv) The date by which you propose to report, or if you have 
already met the reporting requirement at the time of the notification, 
the date you reported.
    (4) The decision to accept the claim of force majeure and allow an 
extension to the reporting deadline is solely within the discretion of 
the Administrator.
    (5) In any circumstance, the reporting must occur as soon as 
possible after the force majeure event occurs.

0
14. Section 63.8080 is amended by revising the introductory text and 
paragraphs (c), (e), and (f) and adding paragraphs (h) through (j) to 
read as follows:


Sec.  63.8080   What records must I keep?

    You must keep the records specified in paragraphs (a) through (h) 
of this section.
* * * * *
    (c) Before the compliance date specified in Sec.  63.7995(e), a 
record of each time a safety device is opened to avoid unsafe 
conditions in accordance with Sec.  63.8000(b)(2). On and after the 
compliance date specified in Sec.  63.7995(e), a record of the 
information in paragraphs (c)(1) through (3) of this section.
    (1) The source, nature, and cause of the opening.
    (2) The date, time, and duration of the opening.

[[Page 49747]]

    (3) An estimate of the quantity of total HAP emitted during the 
opening and the method used for determining this quantity.
* * * * *
    (e) Before the compliance date specified in Sec.  63.7995(e), for 
each CEMS, you must keep the records of the date and time that each 
deviation started and stopped, and whether the deviation occurred 
during a period of SSM or during another period. On and after the 
compliance date specified in Sec.  63.7995(e), for each CEMS, you must 
keep the records of the date and time that each deviation started and 
stopped, and whether the deviation occurred during a period of SSM or 
during another period.
    (f) Before the compliance date specified in Sec.  63.7995(e), in 
the SSMP required by Sec.  63.6(e)(3), you are not required to include 
Group 2 or non-affected emission points. For equipment leaks only, the 
SSMP requirement is limited to control devices and is optional for 
other equipment. On and after the compliance date specified in Sec.  
63.7995(e), the requirements of this paragraph (f) no longer apply.
* * * * *
    (h) On and after the compliance date specified in Sec.  63.7995(e), 
records of the total source operating time (hours) for stationary 
process vessels during the semiannual compliance period, and the source 
operating time (hours) when the control device for stationary process 
vessels was bypassed during the semiannual compliance period for any 
reason, as used in determining compliance with the percent emission 
reduction requirements in Table 1 to this subpart, as specified in 
Sec.  63.8005(h).
    (i) On and after the compliance date specified in Sec.  63.7995(e), 
for each deviation from an emission limitation reported under Sec.  
63.8075(e)(5), a record of the information specified in paragraphs 
(i)(1) and (2) of this section, as applicable.
    (1) In the event that an affected unit fails to meet an applicable 
standard, record the number of failures. For each failure record the 
date, time, and duration of each failure.
    (2) For each failure to meet an applicable standard, record and 
retain a list of the affected sources 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.
    (j) Any records required to be maintained by this subpart that are 
submitted electronically via the EPA's CEDRI may be maintained in 
electronic format. This ability to maintain electronic copies does not 
affect the requirement for facilities to make records, data, and 
reports available upon request to a delegated air agency or the EPA as 
part of an on-site compliance evaluation.

0
15. Section 63.8090 is amended by revising paragraph (b) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  63.8090   What compliance options do I have if part of my plant 
is subject to both this subpart and another subpart?

* * * * *
    (b) Compliance with 40 CFR part 60, subpart Kb. After the 
compliance dates specified in Sec.  63.7995, you are in compliance with 
this subpart for any storage tank that is assigned to miscellaneous 
coating manufacturing operations and that is both controlled with a 
floating roof and in compliance with the provisions of 40 CFR part 60, 
subpart Kb. 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. You must also identify in your 
notification of compliance status report required by Sec.  63.8075(d) 
which storage tanks are in compliance with 40 CFR part 60, subpart Kb.
* * * * *

0
16. Section 63.8105 is amended in paragraph (g) by revising the 
definition for ``Deviation'' and removing the definition for ``Small 
control device'' to read as follows:


Sec.  63.8105  What definitions apply to this subpart?

* * * * *
    (g) * * *
    Deviation means any instance in which an affected source subject to 
this subpart, or an owner or operator of such a source:
    (i) Fails to meet any requirement or obligation established by this 
subpart including, but not limited to, any emission limit, operating 
limit, or work practice standard;
    (ii) Fails to meet any term or condition that is adopted to 
implement an applicable requirement in this subpart and that is 
included in the operating permit for any affected source required to 
obtain such a permit; or
    (iii) Before the compliance date specified in Sec.  63.7995(e), 
fails to meet any emission limit, operating limit, or work practice 
standard in this subpart during SSM, regardless of whether or not such 
failure is permitted by this subpart. On and after the compliance date 
specified in Sec.  63.7995(e), this paragraph (iii) no longer applies.
* * * * *

0
17. Table 1 to subpart HHHHH of part 63 is amended by revising row 4 to 
read as follows:
* * * * *

 Table 1 to Subpart HHHHH of Part 63--Emission Limits and Work Practice
                      Standards for Process Vessels
------------------------------------------------------------------------
       For each . . .            You must . . .      And you must . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                              * * * * * * *
4. Halogenated vent stream    a. Use a halogen      i. Reduce overall
 from a process vessel         reduction device      emissions of
 subject to the requirements   after the             hydrogen halide and
 of item 2 or 3 of this        combustion control    halogen HAP by >=95
 table for which you use a     device; or.           percent; or
 combustion control device    b. Use a halogen      ii. Reduce overall
 to control organic HAP        reduction device      emissions of
 emissions.                    before the            hydrogen halide and
                               combustion control    halogen HAP to
                               device.               <=0.45 kilogram per
                                                     hour (kg/hr).
                                                    Reduce the halogen
                                                     atom mass emission
                                                     rate to <=0.45 kg/
                                                     hr.
------------------------------------------------------------------------


0
18. Table 3 to subpart HHHHH of part 63 is revised to read as follows:
    As required in Sec.  63.8015, you must meet each requirement in the 
following table that applies to your equipment leaks.

[[Page 49748]]



  Table 3 to Subpart HHHHH of Part 63--Requirements for Equipment Leaks
------------------------------------------------------------------------
             For all . . .                        You must . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Equipment that is in organic HAP      a. Comply with the requirements
 service at an existing source.           in Sec.  Sec.   63.424(a)
                                          through (d) and 63.428(e),
                                          (f), and (h)(4), except as
                                          specified in Sec.
                                          63.8015(b); or
                                         b. Comply with the requirements
                                          of subpart TT of this part,
                                          except as specified in Sec.
                                          63.8000(f); or
                                         c. Comply with the requirements
                                          of subpart UU of this part,
                                          except as specified in Sec.
                                          Sec.   63.8000(f) and
                                          63.8015(c) and (d).
2. Equipment that is in organic HAP      a. Comply with the requirements
 service at a new source.                 of subpart TT of this part,
                                          except as specified in Sec.
                                          63.8000(f); or
                                         b. Comply with the requirements
                                          of subpart UU of this part,
                                          except as specified in Sec.
                                          Sec.   63.8000(f) and
                                          63.8015(c) and (d).
------------------------------------------------------------------------


0
19. Table 7 to subpart HHHHH of part 63 is revised to read as follows:
    As specified in Sec.  63.8020, the partially soluble HAP in 
wastewater that are subject to management and treatment requirements in 
this subpart are listed in the following table:

  Table 7 to Subpart HHHHH of Part 63--Partially Soluble Hazardous Air
                               Pollutants
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                   Chemical name . . .                        CAS No.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 1,1,1-Trichloroethane (methyl chloroform)............           71556
2. 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane............................           79345
3. 1,1,2-Trichloroethane................................           79005
4. 1,1-Dichloroethylene (vinylidene chloride)...........           75354
5. 1,2-Dibromoethane....................................          106934
6. 1,2-Dichloroethane (ethylene dichloride).............          107062
7. 1,2-Dichloropropane..................................           78875
8. 1,3-Dichloropropene..................................          542756
9. 2,4,5-Trichlorophenol................................           95954
10. 1,4-Dichlorobenzene.................................          106467
11. 2-Nitropropane......................................           79469
12. 4-Methyl-2-pentanone (MIBK).........................          108101
13. Acetaldehyde........................................           75070
14. Acrolein............................................          107028
15. Acrylonitrile.......................................          107131
16. Allyl chloride......................................          107051
17. Benzene.............................................           71432
18. Benzyl chloride.....................................          100447
19. Biphenyl............................................           92524
20. Bromoform (tribromomethane).........................           75252
21. Bromomethane........................................           74839
22. Butadiene...........................................          106990
23. Carbon disulfide....................................           75150
24. Chlorobenzene.......................................          108907
25. Chloroethane (ethyl chloride).......................           75003
26. Chloroform..........................................           67663
27. Chloromethane.......................................           74873
28. Chloroprene.........................................          126998
29. Cumene..............................................           98828
30. Dichloroethyl ether.................................          111444
31. Dinitrophenol.......................................           51285
32. Epichlorohydrin.....................................          106898
33. Ethyl acrylate......................................          140885
34. Ethylbenzene........................................          100414
35. Ethylene oxide......................................           75218
36. Ethylidene dichloride...............................           75343
37. Hexachlorobenzene...................................          118741
38. Hexachlorobutadiene.................................           87683
39. Hexachloroethane....................................           67721
40. Methyl methacrylate.................................           80626
41. Methyl-t-butyl ether................................         1634044
42. Methylene chloride..................................           75092
43. N-hexane............................................          110543
44. N,N-dimethylaniline.................................          121697
45. Naphthalene.........................................           91203
46. Phosgene............................................           75445
47. Propionaldehyde.....................................          123386
48. Propylene oxide.....................................           75569
49. Styrene.............................................          100425
50. Tetrachloroethylene (perchloroethylene).............          127184
51. Tetrachloromethane (carbon tetrachloride)...........           56235

[[Page 49749]]

 
52. Toluene.............................................          108883
53. Trichlorobenzene (1,2,4-)...........................          120821
54. Trichloroethylene...................................           79016
55. Trimethylpentane....................................          540841
56. Vinyl acetate.......................................          108054
57. Vinyl chloride......................................           75014
58. Xylene (m)..........................................          108383
59. Xylene (o)..........................................           95476
60. Xylene (p)..........................................          106423
------------------------------------------------------------------------


0
20. The heading of table 8 to subpart HHHHH of part 63 is revised to 
read as follows:

Table 8 to Subpart HHHHH of Part 63--Soluble Hazardous Air Pollutants

* * * * *

0
21. Table 9 to subpart HHHHH of part 63 is amended by adding rows 4 and 
5 to read as follows:
* * * * *

      Table 9 to Subpart HHHHH of Part 63--Requirements for Reports
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                 The report must     You must submit the
   You must submit a . . .        contain . . .         report . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                              * * * * * * *
4. Performance test report..  The information       Within 60 days after
                               specified in Sec.     completing each
                               63.8075(f).           performance test
                                                     according to the
                                                     requirements in
                                                     Sec.   63.8075(f).
5. Performance evaluation     The information       Within 60 days after
 report.                       specified in Sec.     completing each CMS
                               63.8075(g).           performance
                                                     evaluation
                                                     according to the
                                                     requirements in
                                                     Sec.   63.8075(g).
------------------------------------------------------------------------


0
22. Table 10 to subpart HHHHH of part 63 is revised to read as follows:
    As specified in Sec.  63.8095, the parts of the general provisions 
that apply to you are shown in the following table:

     Table 10 to Subpart HHHHH of Part 63--Applicability of General
                       Provisions to This Subpart
------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Citation                  Subject              Explanation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec.   63.1................  Applicability........  Yes.
Sec.   63.2................  Definitions..........  Yes.
Sec.   63.3................  Units and              Yes.
                              Abbreviations.
Sec.   63.4................  Prohibited Activities  Yes.
Sec.   63.5................  Construction/          Yes.
                              Reconstruction.
Sec.   63.6(a).............  Applicability........  Yes.
Sec.   63.6(b)(1)-(4)......  Compliance Dates for   Yes.
                              New and
                              Reconstructed
                              sources.
Sec.   63.6(b)(5)..........  Notification.........  Yes.
Sec.   63.6(b)(6)..........  [Reserved]...........  ....................
Sec.   63.6(b)(7)..........  Compliance Dates for   Yes.
                              New and
                              Reconstructed Area
                              Sources That Become
                              Major.
Sec.   63.6(c)(1)-(2)......  Compliance Dates for   Yes.
                              Existing Sources.
Sec.   63.6(c)(3)-(4)......  [Reserved]...........  ....................
Sec.   63.6(c)(5)..........  Compliance Dates for   Yes.
                              Existing Area
                              Sources That Become
                              Major.
Sec.   63.6(d).............  [Reserved]...........  ....................
Sec.   63.6(e)(1)(i).......  General Duty to        Yes, before the
                              Minimize Emissions.    compliance date
                                                     specified in Sec.
                                                     63.7995(e). No, on
                                                     and after the
                                                     compliance date
                                                     specified in Sec.
                                                     63.7995(e). See
                                                     Sec.   63.8000(e)
                                                     for the general
                                                     duty requirement.
Sec.   63.6(e)(1)(ii)......  Requirement to         Yes, before the
                              Correct Malfunctions   compliance date
                              as Soon as Possible.   specified in Sec.
                                                     63.7995(e). No, on
                                                     and after the
                                                     compliance date
                                                     specified in Sec.
                                                     63.7995(e).
Sec.   63.6(e)(1)(iii)-(2).  Operation and          Yes.
                              Maintenance.
Sec.   63.6(e)(3)..........  SSM Plan.............  Yes, before the
                                                     compliance date
                                                     specified in Sec.
                                                     63.7995(e). No, on
                                                     and after the
                                                     compliance date
                                                     specified in Sec.
                                                     63.7995(e).
Sec.   63.6(f)(1)..........  Compliance with Non-   No. See Sec.
                              Opacity Standards      63.8000(a).
                              Except During SSM.
Sec.   63.6(f)(2)-(3)......  Methods for            Yes.
                              Determining
                              Compliance.
Sec.   63.6(g)(1)-(3)......  Alternative Standard.  Yes.
Sec.   63.6(h)(1)..........  Compliance with        No. See Sec.
                              Opacity/Visible        63.8000(a).
                              Emission (VE)
                              Standards Except
                              During SSM.
Sec.   63.6(h)(2)-(9)......  Opacity/VE Standards.  Only for flares for
                                                     which Method 22 of
                                                     40 CFR part 60,
                                                     appendix A-7,
                                                     observations are
                                                     required as part of
                                                     a flare compliance
                                                     assessment.
Sec.   63.6(i)(1)-(14).....  Compliance Extension.  Yes.
Sec.   63.6(j).............  Presidential           Yes.
                              Compliance Exemption.
Sec.   63.7(a)(1)-(2)......  Performance Test       Yes, except
                              Dates.                 substitute 150 days
                                                     for 180 days.
Sec.   63.7(a)(3)-(4)......  CAA Section 114        Yes, and these
                              Authority, Force       paragraphs also
                              Majeure.               apply to flare
                                                     compliance
                                                     assessments as
                                                     specified under
                                                     Sec.
                                                     63.997(b)(2).

[[Page 49750]]

 
Sec.   63.7(b)(1)..........  Notification of        Yes.
                              Performance Test.
Sec.   63.7(b)(2)..........  Notification of        Yes.
                              Rescheduling.
Sec.   63.7(c).............  Quality Assurance/     Yes, except the test
                              Test Plan.             plan must be
                                                     submitted with the
                                                     notification of the
                                                     performance test if
                                                     the control device
                                                     controls process
                                                     vessels.
Sec.   63.7(d).............  Testing Facilities...  Yes.
Sec.   63.7(e)(1)..........  Conditions for         Yes, before the
                              Conducting             compliance date
                              Performance Tests.     specified in Sec.
                                                     63.7995(e), except
                                                     that performance
                                                     tests for process
                                                     vessels must be
                                                     conducted under
                                                     worst-case
                                                     conditions as
                                                     specified in Sec.
                                                     63.8005. No, on and
                                                     after the
                                                     compliance date
                                                     specified in Sec.
                                                     63.7995(e). See
                                                     Sec.   63.8005(d).
Sec.   63.7(e)(2)..........  Conditions for         Yes.
                              Conducting
                              Performance Tests.
Sec.   63.7(e)(3)..........  Test Run Duration....  Yes.
Sec.   63.7(f).............  Alternative Test       Yes.
                              Method.
Sec.   63.7(g).............  Performance Test Data  Yes.
                              Analysis.
Sec.   63.7(h).............  Waiver of Tests......  Yes.
Sec.   63.8(a)(1)..........  Applicability of       Yes.
                              Monitoring
                              Requirements.
Sec.   63.8(a)(2)..........  Performance            Yes.
                              Specifications.
Sec.   63.8(a)(3)..........  [Reserved]...........  ....................
Sec.   63.8(a)(4)..........  Monitoring with        Yes.
                              Flares.
Sec.   63.8(b)(1)..........  Monitoring...........  Yes.
Sec.   63.8(b)(2)-(3)......  Multiple Effluents     Yes.
                              and Multiple
                              Monitoring Systems.
Sec.   63.8(c)(1)..........  Monitoring System      Yes.
                              Operation and
                              Maintenance.
Sec.   63.8(c)(1)(i).......  Maintain and operate   Yes, before the
                              CMS.                   compliance date
                                                     specified in Sec.
                                                     63.7995(e). No, on
                                                     and after the
                                                     compliance date
                                                     specified in Sec.
                                                     63.7995(e). See
                                                     Sec.   63.8000(e)
                                                     for the general
                                                     duty to maintain
                                                     and operate each
                                                     CMS.
Sec.   63.8(c)(1)(ii)......  Routine repairs......  Yes.
Sec.   63.8(c)(1)(iii).....  Requirement to         Yes, before the
                              develop SSM plan for   compliance date
                              CMS.                   specified in Sec.
                                                     63.7995(e). No, on
                                                     and after the
                                                     compliance date
                                                     specified in Sec.
                                                     63.7995(e).
Sec.   63.8(c)(2)-(3)......  Monitoring System      Yes.
                              Installation.
Sec.   63.8(c)(4)..........  Requirements.........  Only for CEMS;
                                                     requirements for
                                                     CPMS are specified
                                                     in referenced
                                                     subpart SS of this
                                                     part. This subpart
                                                     does not contain
                                                     requirements for
                                                     continuous opacity
                                                     monitoring systems
                                                     (COMS).
Sec.   63.8(c)(4)(i).......  CMS Requirements.....  No. This subpart
                                                     does not require
                                                     COMS.
Sec.   63.8(c)(4)(ii)......  CMS requirements.....  Yes.
Sec.   63.8(c)(5)..........  COMS Minimum           No. This subpart
                              Procedures.            does not contain
                                                     opacity or VE
                                                     limits.
Sec.   63.8(c)(6)..........  CMS Requirements.....  Only for CEMS;
                                                     requirements for
                                                     CPMS are specified
                                                     in referenced
                                                     subpart SS of this
                                                     part.
Sec.   63.8(c)(7)-(8)......  CMS Requirements.....  Only for CEMS.
                                                     Requirements for
                                                     CPMS are specified
                                                     in referenced
                                                     subpart SS of this
                                                     part.
Sec.   63.8(d)(1)-(2)......  CMS Quality Control..  Only for CEMS;
                                                     requirements for
                                                     CPMS are specified
                                                     in referenced
                                                     subpart SS of this
                                                     part.
Sec.   63.8(d)(3)..........  Written procedures     Yes, before the
                              for CMS.               compliance date
                                                     specified in Sec.
                                                     63.7995(e). No, on
                                                     and after the
                                                     compliance date
                                                     specified in Sec.
                                                     63.7995(e). See
                                                     Sec.
                                                     63.8000(d)(8).
Sec.   63.8(e).............  CMS Performance        Section
                              Evaluation.            63.8(e)(6)(ii) does
                                                     not apply because
                                                     this subpart does
                                                     not require COMS.
                                                     Other sections
                                                     apply only for
                                                     CEMS; requirements
                                                     for CPMS are
                                                     specified in
                                                     referenced subpart
                                                     SS of this part.
Sec.   63.8(f)(1)-(5)......  Alternative            Yes, except you may
                              Monitoring Method.     also request
                                                     approval using the
                                                     precompliance
                                                     report.
Sec.   63.8(f)(6)..........  Alternative to         Only for CEMS.
                              Relative Accuracy
                              Test.
Sec.   63.8(g)(1)-(4)......  Data Reduction.......  Only when using
                                                     CEMS, except Sec.
                                                     63.8(g)(2) does not
                                                     apply because data
                                                     reduction
                                                     requirements for
                                                     CEMS are specified
                                                     in Sec.
                                                     63.8000(d)(4)(iv).
                                                    The requirements for
                                                     COMS do not apply
                                                     because this
                                                     subpart has no
                                                     opacity or VE
                                                     limits.
Sec.   63.8(g)(5)..........  Data Reduction.......  No. Requirements for
                                                     CEMS are specified
                                                     in Sec.
                                                     63.8000(d)(4).
                                                     Requirements for
                                                     CPMS are specified
                                                     in referenced
                                                     subpart SS of this
                                                     part.
Sec.   63.9(a).............  Notification           Yes.
                              Requirements.
Sec.   63.9(b)(1)-(5)......  Initial Notifications  Yes.
Sec.   63.9(c).............  Request for            Yes.
                              Compliance Extension.
Sec.   63.9(d).............  Notification of        Yes.
                              Special Compliance
                              Requirements for New
                              Source.
Sec.   63.9(e).............  Notification of        Yes.
                              Performance Test.
Sec.   63.9(f).............  Notification of VE/    No. This subpart
                              Opacity Test.          does not contain
                                                     opacity or VE
                                                     limits.
Sec.   63.9(g).............  Additional             Only for CEMS;
                              Notifications When     requirements for
                              Using CMS.             CPMS are specified
                                                     in referenced
                                                     subpart SS of this
                                                     part.
Sec.   63.9(h)(1)-(6)......  Notification of        Yes, except this
                              Compliance Status.     subpart has no
                                                     opacity or VE
                                                     limits, and Sec.
                                                     63.9(h)(2) does not
                                                     apply because Sec.
                                                      63.8075(d)
                                                     specifies the
                                                     required contents
                                                     and due date of the
                                                     notification of
                                                     compliance status
                                                     report.
Sec.   63.9(i).............  Adjustment of          Yes.
                              Submittal Deadlines.
Sec.   63.9(j).............  Change in Previous     No, Sec.
                              Information.           63.8075(e)(8)
                                                     specifies reporting
                                                     requirements for
                                                     process changes.
Sec.   63.10(a)............  Recordkeeping/         Yes.
                              Reporting.
Sec.   63.10(b)(1).........  Recordkeeping/         Yes.
                              Reporting.
Sec.   63.10(b)(2)(i)-(ii).  Records related to     No. Before the
                              SSM.                   compliance date
                                                     specified in Sec.
                                                     63.7995(e), see
                                                     Sec.
                                                     63.998(c)(1)(ii)(D)
                                                     through (G) and
                                                     (d)(3) for
                                                     recordkeeping
                                                     requirements for
                                                     periods of SSM. On
                                                     and after the
                                                     compliance date
                                                     specified in Sec.
                                                     63.7995(e), see
                                                     Sec.   63.8080(i).

[[Page 49751]]

 
Sec.   63.10(b)(2)(iii)....  Records related to     Yes.
                              maintenance of air
                              pollution control
                              equipment.
Sec.   63.10(b)(2)(iv)-(v).  Records related to     Yes, before the
                              SSM.                   compliance date
                                                     specified in Sec.
                                                     63.7995(e). No, on
                                                     and after the
                                                     compliance date
                                                     specified in Sec.
                                                     63.7995(e).
Sec.   63.10(b)(2)(vi),      CMS Records..........  Only for CEMS;
 (x), and (xi).                                      requirements for
                                                     CPMS are specified
                                                     in referenced
                                                     subpart SS of this
                                                     part.
Sec.   63.10(b)(2)(vii)-     Records..............  Yes.
 (ix).
Sec.   63.10(b)(2)(xii)....  Records..............  Yes.
Sec.   63.10(b)(2)(xiii)...  Records..............  Yes.
Sec.   63.10(b)(2)(xiv)....  Records..............  Yes.
Sec.   63.10(b)(3).........  Records..............  Yes.
Sec.   63.10(c)(1)-(6), (9)- Records..............  Only for CEMS;
 (14).                                               requirements for
                                                     CPMS are specified
                                                     in referenced
                                                     subpart SS of this
                                                     part.
Sec.   63.10(c)(7)-(8),      Records..............  No. Recordkeeping
 (15).                                               requirements are
                                                     specified in Sec.
                                                     63.8080.
Sec.   63.10(d)(1).........  General Reporting      Yes.
                              Requirements.
Sec.   63.10(d)(2).........  Report of Performance  Yes.
                              Test Results.
Sec.   63.10(d)(3).........  Reporting Opacity or   No. This subpart
                              VE Observations.       does not contain
                                                     opacity or VE
                                                     limits.
Sec.   63.10(d)(4).........  Progress Reports.....  Yes.
Sec.   63.10(d)(5)(i)......  SSM Reports..........  No. Before the
                                                     compliance date
                                                     specified in Sec.
                                                     63.7995(e), see
                                                     Sec.
                                                     63.8075(e)(5) and
                                                     (6) for the SSM
                                                     reporting
                                                     requirements. On
                                                     and after the
                                                     compliance date
                                                     specified in Sec.
                                                     63.7995(e), these
                                                     requirements no
                                                     longer apply.
Sec.   63.10(d)(5)(ii).....  Immediate SSM reports  No.
Sec.   63.10(e)(1)-(2).....  Additional CMS         Only for CEMS, but
                              Reports.               Sec.
                                                     63.10(e)(2)(ii)
                                                     does not apply
                                                     because this
                                                     subpart does not
                                                     require COMS.
Sec.   63.10(e)(3).........  Reports..............  No. Reporting
                                                     requirements are
                                                     specified in Sec.
                                                     63.8075.
Sec.   63.10(e)(3)(i)-(iii)  Reports..............  No. Reporting
                                                     requirements are
                                                     specified in Sec.
                                                     63.8075.
Sec.   63.10(e)(3)(iv)-(v).  Excess Emissions       No. Reporting
                              Reports.               requirements are
                                                     specified in Sec.
                                                     63.8075.
Sec.   63.10(e)(3)(vi-viii)  Excess Emissions       No. Reporting
                              Report and Summary     requirements are
                              Report.                specified in Sec.
                                                     63.8075.
Sec.   63.10(e)(4).........  Reporting COMS data..  No. This subpart
                                                     does not contain
                                                     opacity or VE
                                                     limits.
Sec.   63.10(f)............  Waiver for             Yes.
                              Recordkeeping/
                              Reporting.
Sec.   63.11...............  Control and work       Yes.
                              practice
                              requirements.
Sec.   63.12...............  Delegation...........  Yes.
Sec.   63.13...............  Addresses............  Yes.
Sec.   63.14...............  Incorporation by       Yes.
                              Reference.
Sec.   63.15...............  Availability of        Yes.
                              Information.
------------------------------------------------------------------------


0
23. Table 11 to subpart HHHHH of part 63 is added to read as follows:

 Table 11 to Subpart HHHHH of Part 63--List of Hazardous Air Pollutants
 That Must Be Counted Toward Total Organic HAP Content If Present at 0.1
                         Percent or More by Mass
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                      Chemical name                           CAS No.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane...............................         79-34-5
1,1,2-Trichloroethane...................................         79-00-5
1,1-Dimethylhydrazine...................................         57-14-7
1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane.............................         96-12-8
1,2-Diphenylhydrazine...................................        122-66-7
1,3-Butadiene...........................................        106-99-0
1,3-Dichloropropene.....................................        542-75-6
1,4-Dioxane.............................................        123-91-1
2,4,6-Trichlorophenol...................................         88-06-2
2,4/2,6-Dinitrotoluene (mixture)........................      25321-14-6
2,4-Dinitrotoluene......................................        121-14-2
2,4-Toluene diamine.....................................         95-80-7
2-Nitropropane..........................................         79-46-9
3,3'-Dichlorobenzidine..................................         91-94-1
3,3'-Dimethoxybenzidine.................................        119-90-4
3,3'-Dimethylbenzidine..................................        119-93-7
4,4'-Methylene bis(2-chloroaniline).....................        101-14-4
Acetaldehyde............................................         75-07-0
Acrylamide..............................................         79-06-1
Acrylonitrile...........................................        107-13-1
Allyl chloride..........................................        107-05-1
alpha-Hexachlorocyclohexane (a-HCH).....................        319-84-6
Aniline.................................................         62-53-3
Benzene.................................................         71-43-2
Benzidine...............................................         92-87-5
Benzotrichloride........................................         98-07-7
Benzyl chloride.........................................        100-44-7
beta-Hexachlorocyclohexane (b-HCH)......................        319-85-7
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate..............................        117-81-7
Bis(chloromethyl)ether..................................        542-88-1

[[Page 49752]]

 
Bromoform...............................................         75-25-2
Captan..................................................        133-06-2
Carbon tetrachloride....................................         56-23-5
Chlordane...............................................         57-74-9
Chlorobenzilate.........................................        510-15-6
Chloroform..............................................         67-66-3
Chloroprene.............................................        126-99-8
Cresols (mixed).........................................       1319-77-3
DDE.....................................................       3547-04-4
Dichloroethyl ether.....................................        111-44-4
Dichlorvos..............................................         62-73-7
Epichlorohydrin.........................................        106-89-8
Ethyl acrylate..........................................        140-88-5
Ethylene dibromide......................................        106-93-4
Ethylene dichloride.....................................        107-06-2
Ethylene oxide..........................................         75-21-8
Ethylene thiourea.......................................         96-45-7
Ethylidene dichloride (1,1-Dichloroethane)..............         75-34-3
Formaldehyde............................................         50-00-0
Heptachlor..............................................         76-44-8
Hexachlorobenzene.......................................        118-74-1
Hexachlorobutadiene.....................................         87-68-3
Hexachloroethane........................................         67-72-1
Hydrazine...............................................        302-01-2
Isophorone..............................................         78-59-1
Lindane (hexachlorocyclohexane, all isomers)............         58-89-9
m-Cresol................................................        108-39-4
Methylene chloride......................................         75-09-2
Naphthalene.............................................         91-20-3
Nitrobenzene............................................         98-95-3
Nitrosodimethylamine....................................         62-75-9
o-Cresol................................................         95-48-7
o-Toluidine.............................................         95-53-4
Parathion...............................................         56-38-2
p-Cresol................................................        106-44-5
p-Dichlorobenzene.......................................        106-46-7
Pentachloronitrobenzene.................................         82-68-8
Pentachlorophenol.......................................         87-86-5
Propoxur................................................        114-26-1
Propylene dichloride....................................         78-87-5
Propylene oxide.........................................         75-56-9
Quinoline...............................................         91-22-5
Tetrachloroethene.......................................        127-18-4
Toxaphene...............................................       8001-35-2
Trichloroethylene.......................................         79-01-6
Trifluralin.............................................       1582-09-8
Vinyl bromide...........................................        593-60-2
Vinyl chloride..........................................         75-01-4
Vinylidene chloride.....................................         75-35-4
------------------------------------------------------------------------


[FR Doc. 2020-13439 Filed 8-13-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


