# National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Surface Coating of Large Appliances > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/fr%3A00-32023 ## Record - **Collection:** Federal Register - **Document type:** Proposed Rule - **Published:** December 22, 2000 - **Citation:** 65 FR 81134 ## Text ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 63 [FRL-6917-3] RIN 2060-AG34 National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Surface Coating of Large Appliances AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: This action proposes national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP) for large appliance surface coating operations located at major sources of hazardous air pollutants (HAP). These proposed standards would implement section 112(d) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) by requiring these operations to meet HAP emission standards reflecting the application of the maximum achievable control technology (MACT). The HAP emitted by these operations include ethylbenzene, glycol ethers (including 2-butoxyethanol), hexane, methylene chloride, 4,4'-methylene diphenyl diisocyanate, methyl ethyl ketone, methyl isobutyl ketone, toluene, and xylene. Exposure to these substances has been demonstrated to cause adverse health effects such as irritation of the lung, eye, and mucus membranes, asthma, effects on the central nervous system, and cancer. In general, these findings have only been shown with concentrations higher than those typically in the ambient air. The adverse health effects associated with the exposure to these specific HAP are further described in the docket for this rulemaking. The proposed standards would reduce nationwide HAP emissions from major sources by approximately 45 percent. DATES: Comments. Submit comments on or before February 20, 2001. Public Hearing. If anyone contacts the EPA requesting to speak at a public hearing, they should do so by January 11, 2001. If requested, a public hearing will be held within approximately 30 days following publication of this notice in the Federal Register . ADDRESSES: Comments. By U.S. Postal Service, send comments (in duplicate if possible) to: Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center (6102), Attention Docket Number A-97-41, U.S. EPA, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20460. In person or by courier, deliver comments (in duplicate if possible) to: Air and Radiation docket and Information Center (6102), Attention Docket Number A-97-41, U.S. EPA, 401 M Street, SW, Room M-1500, Washington, DC 20460. The EPA requests a separate copy also be sent to the contact person listed in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT . Public Hearing. If a public hearing is held, it will be held at our Office of Administration auditorium in Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. You should contact Ms. Janet Eck, Coatings and Consumer Products Group, Emission Standards Division (MD-13), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711, telephone number (919) 541-7946, to request to speak at a public hearing or to find out if a hearing will be held. Docket. Docket No. A-97-41 contains supporting information used in developing the proposed standards. The docket is located at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M Street, SW, Washington, DC 20460 in Room M-1500, Waterside Mall (ground floor), and may be inspected from 8:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Mohamed Serageldin, Coatings and Consumer Products Group, Emission Standards Division (MD-13), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711; telephone number (919) 541-2379; facsimile number (919) 541-5689; electronic mail (e-mail) address: serageldin.mohamed@epa.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments. Comments and data may be submitted by e-mail to: a-and-r-docket@epa.gov. Electronic comments must be submitted as an ASCII file to avoid the use of special characters and encryption problems and will also be accepted on disks in WordPerfect ® version 5.1, 6.1, or Corel 8 file format. All comments and data submitted in electronic form must note the docket number: A-97-41. No confidential business information (CBI) should be submitted by e-mail. Electronic comments may be filed online at many Federal Depository Libraries. Commenters wishing to submit proprietary information for consideration must clearly distinguish such information from other comments and clearly label it as CBI. Send submissions containing such proprietary information directly to the following address, and not to the public docket, to ensure that proprietary information is not inadvertently placed in the docket: Dr. Mohamed Serageldin, c/o OAQPS Document Control Officer (Room 740B), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 411 W. Chapel Hill Street, Durham NC 27701. The EPA will disclose information identified as CBI only to the extent allowed by the procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. If no claim of confidentiality accompanies a submission when it is received by EPA, the information may be made available to the public without further notice to the commenter. Public Hearing. Persons interested in presenting oral testimony or inquiring as to whether a hearing is to be held should contact Ms. Janet Eck, Coatings and Consumer Products Group, Emission Standards Division (MD-13), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711; telephone number (919) 541-7946 at least 2 days in advance of the public hearing. Persons interested in attending the public hearing should also contact Ms. Eck to verify the time, date, and location of the hearing. The public hearing will provide interested parties the opportunity to present data, views, or arguments concerning these proposed emission standards. Docket. The docket is an organized and complete file of all the information considered by EPA in the development of this rulemaking. The docket is a dynamic file because material is added throughout the rulemaking process. The docketing system is intended to allow members of the public and industries involved to readily identify and locate documents so that they can effectively participate in the rulemaking process. Along with the proposed and promulgated standards and their preambles, the contents of the docket will serve as the record in the case of judicial review. (See section 307(d)(7)(A) of the CAA.) The regulatory text and other materials related to this rulemaking are available for review in the docket or copies may be mailed on request from the Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center by calling (202) 260-7548. A reasonable fee may be charged for copying docket materials. World Wide Web (WWW). In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of this proposed rule is also available on the WWW through the Technology Transfer Network (TTN). Following signature, a copy of the proposed rule will be posted on the TTN's policy and guidance page for newly proposed or promulgated rules at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg. The TTN provides information and technology exchange in various areas of air pollution control. If more information regarding the TTN is needed, call the TTN HELP line at (919) 541-5384. Regulated Entities. The proposed source category definition includes facilities that apply coatings to large appliances or components of large appliances. In general, facilities that coat large appliances are covered under the Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) and North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes listed in the following table. However, facilities classified under other SIC or NAICS codes may be subject to the proposed standards if they meet the applicability criteria. Not all facilities classified under the SIC and NAICS codes in the following table will be subject to the proposed standards because some of the classifications cover products outside the scope of the NESHAP for large appliances. Product description 1987 SIC code Equivalent 1997 NAICS code(s) Equivalent 1997 NAICS product description Household Cooking Equipment 3631 335221 Household Cooking Appliance Manufacturing. Household Refrigerators and Home and Farm Freezers 3632 335222 Household Refrigerator and Home Freezer Manufacturing. Household Laundry Equipment 3633 335224 Household Laundry Equipment Manufacturing. Household Appliances; not elsewhere classified 3639 335228 Other Major Household Appliance Manufacturing. Floor Waxing and Floor Polishing Machines 3639 335212 Household Vacuum Cleaner Manufacturing. Air Conditioning and Warm Air Heating Equipment and Commercial Industrial Refrigeration Equipment 3585 333415 Air Conditioning and Warm Air Heating Equipment and Commercial Industrial Refrigeration Equipment Manufacturing. Motor Vehicle Air Conditioning 3585 336391 Motor Vehicle Air Conditioning Manufacturing. Service Industry Machinery; not elsewhere classified 3589 333319 Other Commercial and Service Industry Machinery Manufacturing. This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated by this action. To determine whether your coating operation is regulated by this action, you should examine the applicability criteria in § 63.4081 of the proposed rule. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. Outline. The information presented in this preamble is organized as follows: I. Background A. What is the source of authority for development of NESHAP? B. What criteria are used in the development of NESHAP? C. What are the health effects associated with HAP emissions from the surface coating of large appliances? II. Summary of the Proposed Rule A. What source categories are affected by this proposed rule? B. What is the relationship to other rules? C. What are the primary sources of emissions and what are the emissions? D. What is the affected source? E. What are the emission limits, operating limits, and other standards? F. What are the testing and initial compliance requirements? G. What are the continuous compliance provisions? H. What are the notification, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements? III. Rationale for Selecting the Proposed Standards A. How did we select the source category? B. How did we select the regulated pollutants? C. How did we select the affected source? D. How did we determine the basis and level of the proposed standards for existing and new sources? E. How did we select the format of the standards? F. How did we select the testing and initial compliance requirements? G. How did we select the continuous compliance requirements? H. How did we select the notification, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements? I. How did we select the compliance date? IV. Summary of Environmental, Energy, and Economic Impacts A. What are the air impacts? B. What are the cost impacts? C. What are the economic impacts? D. What are the non-air health, environmental, and energy impacts? V. Administrative Requirements A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review B. Executive Order 13132, Federalism C. Executive Order 13084, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments D. Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 F. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as Amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), 5 U.S.C. 601, et seq. G. Paperwork Reduction Act H. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act I. Background A. What Is the Source of Authority for Development of NESHAP? Section 112 of the CAA requires us to list categories and subcategories of major sources and area sources of HAP and to establish NESHAP for the listed source categories and subcategories. The Large Appliance (Surface Coating) category of major sources was listed on July 16, 1992 (57 FR 31576) under the Surface Coating Processes industry group. Major sources of HAP are those that emit or have the potential to emit equal to, or greater than, 10 tons per year (tpy) of any one HAP or 25 tpy of any combination of HAP. B. What Criteria Are Used in the Development of NESHAP? Section 112 of the CAA requires that we establish NESHAP for the control of HAP from both new and existing major sources. The CAA requires the NESHAP to reflect the maximum degree of reduction in emissions of HAP that is achievable. This level of control is commonly referred to as the MACT. The MACT floor is the minimum control level allowed for NESHAP and is defined under section 112(d)(3) of the CAA. In essence, the MACT floor ensures that the standard is set at a level that assures that all major sources achieve the level of control at least as stringent as that already achieved by the better-controlled and lower-emitting sources in each source category or subcategory. For new sources, the MACT floor cannot be less stringent than the emission control that is achieved in practice by the best-controlled similar source. The MACT standards for existing sources can be less stringent than standards 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, we also consider control options that are more stringent than the floor. We may establish standards more stringent than the floor based on the consideration of the cost of achieving the emission reductions, any non-air quality health and environmental impacts, and energy requirements. C. What Are the Health Effects Associated With HAP Emissions From the Surface Coating of Large Appliances? The HAP emitted from the surface coating of large appliances include ethylbenzene, glycol ethers (including 2-butoxyethanol), hexane, methylene chloride, 4,4′-methylene diphenyl diisocyanate, methyl ethyl ketone, methyl isobutyl ketone, toluene, and xylene. These compounds account for over 80 percent of the nationwide HAP emissions from this source category. The HAP that would be controlled with this proposed rule are associated with a variety of adverse health effects. These adverse health effects include chronic health disorders ( e.g ., irritation of the lung, eyes, and mucus membranes and effects on the central nervous system), and acute health disorders ( e.g ., lung irritation and congestion, alimentary effects such as nausea and vomiting, and effects on the central nervous system). The EPA has classified one of the HAP (methylene chloride) as a probable human carcinogen. We do not have the type of current detailed data on each of the facilities covered by the emission standards for this source category, and the people living around the facilities, that would be necessary to conduct an analysis to determine the actual population exposures to the HAP emitted from these facilities and potential for resultant health effects. Therefore, we do not know the extent to which the adverse health effects described above occur in the populations surrounding these facilities. However, to the extent the adverse effects do occur, the proposed rule would reduce emissions and subsequent exposures. II. Summary of the Proposed Rule A. What Source Categories Are Affected by This Proposed rule? The proposed rule would apply to you if you own or operate a large appliance surface coating facility that is a major source, or is located at a major source, or is part of a major source of HAP emissions. We have defined a large appliance surface coating facility as any facility engaged in the surface coating of any large appliance part or product. You would not be subject to the proposed rule if your large appliance surface coating facility is located at an area source. An area source of HAP is any facility that has the potential to emit HAP but is not a major source. You may establish area source status by limiting the source's potential to emit HAP through appropriate mechanisms available through your permitting authority. The source category does not include research or laboratory facilities or janitorial, building, and facility maintenance operations. The source category also does not include coating applications using handheld nonrefillable aerosol containers. B. What Is the Relationship to Other Rules? Affected sources subject to the proposed rule may also be subject to other rules. We specifically request comments on how monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements can be consolidated for sources that are subject to more than one rule. New Source Performance Standards—40 CFR Part 60, Subpart SS. The new source performance standards (NSPS) for large appliances apply to facilities that apply organic coatings to large appliances and that began construction, reconstruction, or modification after October 27, 1982. The pollutants regulated are volatile organic compounds (VOC). Emissions of VOC are limited to 0.9 kilogram HAP per liter (kg HAP/liter) of coating solids applied (7.52 pounds per gallon (lbs/gal)), and the affected source is each individual coating operation. The proposed rule differs from the NSPS in three ways. First, the affected source for the proposed rule is defined broadly as the collection of all coating operations and related activities and equipment at the facility, whereas the affected facility for the NSPS is defined narrowly as each individual coating operation. The broader definition of an affected source allows a facility's emissions to be combined for compliance purposes. Second, the proposed rule regulates organic HAP. While most organic HAP emitted from large appliance surface coating operations are VOC, some VOC are not listed as HAP, and, therefore, the NSPS regulates a broader range of pollutants than the proposed NESHAP. Third, the HAP emission limitations in the proposed rule are based on the amount of coating solids used at the affected source. The VOC limitations in the NSPS are based on the amount of coating solids actually applied to the large appliances, which necessitates estimates of transfer efficiency in the compliance calculations. Because of the differences between the two rules, compliance with either rule cannot be deemed compliance with the other. A large appliance surface coating operation that meets the applicability requirements of both rules must comply with both. Overlapping reporting, recordkeeping, and monitoring requirements may be resolved through your title V permit. Future national emission standards for the surface coating of miscellaneous metal parts and products. Large appliances often contain parts, such as metal handles, hinges, and fasteners, that have a wider use beyond large appliances. The coating of such metal parts would be subject to the proposed rule if the coating takes place at a facility that coats other large appliance parts or products; otherwise, the coating operation would be subject to the future NESHAP for the surface coating of miscellaneous metal parts and products. Future national emission standards for the surface coating of plastic parts and products. Plastic parts and products may be components ( e.g., plastic handles) of large appliances. The coating of such plastic parts would be subject to the proposed rule if the coating takes place at a facility that coats other large appliance parts or products; otherwise, the coating operation would be subject to the future NESHAP for the surface coating of plastic parts and products. C. What Are the Primary Sources of Emissions and What Are the Emissions? HAP Emission Sources. Emissions from coating applications account for approximately 80 percent of the HAP emissions from large appliance surface coating operations. The remaining emissions are primarily from cleaning operations. In most cases, HAP emissions from mixing and storage are relatively small. The organic HAP emissions associated with coatings (the term “coatings” includes protective and decorative coatings as well as adhesives) occur at several points. Coatings are most often applied either by using a spray gun in a spray booth or by dipping the substrate in a tank containing the coating. In a spray booth, volatile components evaporate from the coating as it is applied to the part and from the overspray. The coated part then passes through an open (flash-off) area where additional volatiles evaporate from the coating. Finally, the coated part passes through a drying/curing oven, or is allowed to air dry, where the remaining volatiles are evaporated. Organic HAP emissions also occur from the activities undertaken during cleaning operations, where solvent is used to remove coating residue or other unwanted materials. Cleaning in this industry includes cleaning of spray guns and transfer lines ( e.g., tubing or piping), tanks, and the interior of spray booths. Cleaning also includes applying solvents to manufactured parts prior to coating application and to equipment ( e.g., cleaning rollers, pumps, conveyors, etc. ). Mixing and Storage. Organic HAP emissions can also occur from displacement of organic vapor-laden air in containers used to store HAP solvents or to mix coatings containing HAP solvents. The displacement of vapor-laden air can occur during the filling of containers and can be caused by changes in temperature or barometric pressure, or by agitation during mixing. Organic HAP. Available emission data collected during the development of the proposed NESHAP show that the primary organic HAP emitted from the surface coating of large appliances include xylene, glycol ethers, toluene, methylene diphenyl diisocyanate, and methyl ethyl ketone. These compounds account for approximately 82 percent of this category's nationwide organic HAP emissions. Other significant organic HAP identified include methyl isobutyl ketone, hexane, and methylene chloride. Inorganic HAP. Based on information reported in survey responses during the development of the proposed NESHAP, inorganic HAP, including chromium, cobalt, lead, and manganese compounds, are components of some specialty coatings used by this source category. No inorganic HAP were reported in cleaning materials. Most of the inorganic HAP components remain as solids in the dry coating film on the parts being coated or are deposited onto the walls, floor, and grates of the spray booths in which they are applied. Some of the inorganic HAP particles are entrained in the spray booth exhaust air. Spray booths in the large appliance industry typically have either water curtains or dry filters to remove overspray particles. Therefore, inorganic HAP emission levels are expected to be very low, and have not been quantified. D. What Is the Affected Source? We define an affected source as a stationary source, a group of stationary sources, or part of a stationary source to which a specific emission standard applies. The proposed standards define the affected source as the collection of all operations associated with the surface coating of large appliances or parts of large appliances. These operations include preparation of a coating for application ( e.g., mixing with thinners); surface preparation of the large appliances or part; coating application and flash-off; drying and/or curing of applied coatings; cleaning of equipment used in surface coating; storage of coatings, thinners, and cleaning materials; and handling and conveyance of waste materials from the surface coating operations. E. What Are the Emission Limits, Operating Limits, and Other Standards? We are proposing standards that would limit HAP emissions from the surface coating of large appliances. The proposed standards include emission limits and operating limits. Emission Limits. We are proposing to limit organic HAP emissions from each new and reconstructed affected source to no more than 0.022 kg HAP/liter of coating solids used (0.18 lb/gal) in each monthly compliance period. The proposed limit for each existing affected source is 0.13 kg HAP/liter used (1.1 lb/gal). You can choose from several compliance options in the proposed rule to achieve the emission limits. You could comply by applying materials (coatings, thinners, and cleaning materials) that meet the emission limits, either individually or collectively, during each monthly compliance period. You could also use a capture system and add-on control device to meet the emission limits. You could also comply by using a combination of both approaches. Operating Limits. If you reduce emissions by using a capture system and add-on control device (other than a solvent recovery system for which you conduct a liquid-liquid material balance), the proposed operating limits would apply to you. These limits are site-specific parameter limits that you determine during the initial performance test of the system. For capture systems that are not permanent total enclosures, you would establish average volumetric flow rates or duct static pressure limits for each capture device (or enclosure) in each capture system. For capture systems that are permanent total enclosures, you would establish limits on average facial velocity or pressure drop across openings in the enclosure. For oxidizers, you would monitor the combustion temperature (for thermal oxidizers) or the temperature immediately before and after the catalyst bed (for catalytic oxidizers). For carbon adsorbers for which you do not conduct a liquid-liquid material balance, you would monitor the carbon bed temperature and the amount of steam or nitrogen used to desorb the bed. For condensers, you would monitor the outlet gas temperature from the condenser. The site-specific parameter limits that you establish must reflect operation of the capture system and control devices during a performance test that demonstrates achievement of the emission limits during representative operating conditions. General Provisions. The General Provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart A) also would apply to you as indicated in the proposed rule. The General Provisions codify certain procedures and criteria for all 40 CFR part 63 NESHAP. The General Provisions contain administrative procedures, preconstruction review procedures for new sources, and procedures for conducting compliance-related activities such as notifications, reporting and recordkeeping, performance testing, and monitoring. The proposed rule refers to individual sections of the General Provisions to emphasize key sections that are relevant. However, unless specifically overridden in the proposed rule, all of the applicable General Provisions requirements would apply to you. F. What Are the Testing and Initial Compliance Requirements? Compliance Dates. Existing affected sources would have to be in compliance with the final standards no later than [Date 3 years after the date the final rule is published in the Federal Register ]. New and reconstructed sources would have to be in compliance upon startup of the affected source or no later than [Date the final rule is published in the Federal Register ], whichever is later. The proposed initial compliance period begins on the compliance date and ends on the last day of the first full calendar month following the compliance date; except that for new and reconstructed sources required to conduct performance tests, the initial compliance period ends on the last day of the first full calendar month following the performance test if the performance test is conducted later than the compliance date (the proposed rule allows the test to be conducted up to 180 days later). Being “in compliance” means that the owner or operator of the affected source meets the requirements to achieve the proposed emission limitations by the end of the initial compliance period. At the end of the initial compliance period, the owner or operator would use the data and records generated to determine whether or not the affected source is in compliance for that period. If the affected source does not meet the applicable limits and other requirements, it is out of compliance for the entire initial compliance period. Emission Limits. There are several proposed options for complying with the proposed emission limits, and the testing and initial compliance requirements vary accordingly. Option 1: Compliance based on materials used in the affected source If you demonstrate compliance based on the materials used, you would determine the mass of organic HAP and the volume fraction of coating solids in all materials used during the compliance period. To determine the mass of organic HAP in coatings, thinners, and cleaning materials and the volume fraction of coating solids, you could either rely on manufacturer's data or on results from the test methods listed below. You may use alternative test methods provided you get EPA approval in accordance with the NESHAP General Provisions, 40 CFR 63.7(f). However, if there is any inconsistency between the test method results (either EPA's or an approved alternative) and manufacturer's data, the test method results would prevail for compliance and enforcement purposes. • For organic HAP content, use Method 311 of 40 CFR part 63, appendix A; • The proposed rule allows you to use non-aqueous volatile matter as a surrogate for organic HAP, which would include all organic HAP plus all other organic compounds, and excluding water. If you choose this option, use Method 24 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A; and • For volume fraction of coating solids, use either Equation 1 in § 63.4141 of the proposed rule, ASTM Method D2697-86 (1998), or ASTM Method D6093-97. To demonstrate initial compliance based on the materials used, you would be required to demonstrate that either the organic HAP content of each coating meets the emission limits and that you use no organic HAP-containing thinners or cleaning materials, or that the total mass of organic HAP in all coatings, thinners, and cleaning materials divided by the total volume of coating solids meets the emission limits. For the latter option, you would be required to: • Determine the quantity of each coating, thinner, and cleaning material used. • Determine the mass of organic HAP in each coating, thinner, and cleaning material. • Determine the volume fraction of coating solids for each coating. • Calculate the total mass of organic HAP in all materials and total volume of coating solids for the compliance period. You may subtract from the total mass of organic HAP the amount contained in waste materials you send to a hazardous waste treatment, storage, and disposal facility regulated under 40 CFR part 262, 264, 265, or 266. • Calculate the ratio of the total mass of organic HAP for the materials used to the total volume of coating solids used. • Record the calculations and results and include them in your Notification of Compliance Status. Option 2: Compliance based on using a capture system and add-on control device If you use a capture system and add-on control device, other than a solvent recovery system for which you conduct a liquid-liquid material balance, your testing and initial compliance requirements are as follows: • Conduct an initial performance test to determine the capture and control efficiencies of the equipment and to establish operating limits to be achieved on a continuous basis. The performance test would have to be completed no later than the compliance date for existing sources and 180 days after the compliance date for new and reconstructed sources. You would also need to schedule it in time to obtain the results for use in completing your compliance determination for the initial compliance period. • Determine the mass of organic HAP in each material and the volume fraction of coating solids for each coating used during the initial compliance period. • Calculate the organic HAP emissions from the controlled coating operations using the capture and control efficiencies determined during the performance test and the total mass of organic HAP in materials used in controlled coating operations. • Calculate the ratio of the total mass of HAP emissions to the total volume of coating solids used during the initial compliance period. • Record the calculations and results and include them in your Notification of Compliance Status. If you use a capture system and add-on control device, other than a solvent recovery system for which you conduct liquid-liquid material balances, you would determine both the efficiency of the capture system and the emission reduction efficiency of the control device. To determine the capture efficiency, you would either verify the presence of a permanent total enclosure using EPA Method 204 of 40 CFR part 51, appendix M (and all materials must be applied and dried within the enclosure); or use one of three protocols in § 63.4165 to measure capture efficiency. If you have a permanent total enclosure and all materials are applied and dried within the enclosure and you route all exhaust gases from the enclosure to a control device, you would assume 100 percent capture. To determine the emission reduction efficiency of the control device, you would conduct measurements of the inlet and outlet gas streams. The test would consist of three runs, each run lasting 1 hour, using the following EPA Methods in 40 CFR part 60, appendix A: • Method 1 or 1A for selection of the sampling sites. • Method 2, 2A, 2C, 2D, 2F, or 2G to determine the gas volumetric flow rate. • Method 3, 3A, or 3B for gas analysis to determine dry molecular weight. • Method 4 to determine stack moisture. • Method 25 or 25A to determine organic volatile matter concentration. Alternatively, any other test method or data that have been validated according to the applicable procedures in Method 301 of 40 CFR part 63, appendix A, and approved by the Administrator, could be used. If you use a solvent recovery system, you could determine the overall control efficiency using a liquid-liquid material balance instead of conducting an initial performance test. If you use the material balance alternative, you would be required to measure the amount of all materials used in the affected source during the compliance period and determine the total volatile matter contained in these materials. You would also measure the amount of volatile matter recovered by the solvent recovery system during the compliance period. Then you would compare the amount recovered to the amount used to determine the overall control efficiency, and apply this efficiency to the organic HAP-to-coating solids ratio for the materials used. You would record the calculations and results and include them in your Notification of Compliance Status. Operating Limits. As mentioned above, you would establish operating limits as part of the initial performance test of a capture system and control device, other than a solvent recovery system for which you conduct liquid-liquid material balances. The operating limits are the minimum or maximum (as applicable) values achieved for capture systems and control devices during the most recent performance test that demonstrated compliance with the emission limits. If you operate your capture system and control device at different sets of representative operating conditions, you must establish operating limits for the parameters for each different operating condition. The proposed rule specifies the parameters to monitor for the types of emission control systems commonly used in the industry. You would be required to install, calibrate, maintain, and continuously operate all monitoring equipment according to manufacturer's specifications and ensure that the continuous parameter monitoring systems (CPMS) meet the requirements in § 63.4168 of the proposed rule. If you use control devices other than those identified in the proposed rule, you would submit the operating parameters to be monitored to the Administrator for approval. The authority to approve the parameters to be monitored is retained by EPA and is not delegated to States. If you use a thermal or catalytic oxidizer, you would continuously monitor the appropriate temperature and record it at least every 15 minutes. For thermal oxidizers, the temperature monitor is placed in the firebox or in the duct immediately downstream of the firebox before any substantial heat exchange occurs. The operating limit would be the average temperature measured during the performance test, and for each consecutive 3-hour period the average temperature would have to be at or above this limit. For catalytic oxidizers, temperature monitors are placed immediately before and after the catalyst bed. The operating limits would be the average temperature just before the catalyst bed and the average temperature difference across the catalyst bed during the performance test, and for each 3-hour period the average temperature and the average temperature difference would have to be at or above these limits. If you use a carbon adsorber and do not conduct liquid-liquid material balances to demonstrate compliance, you would monitor the carbon bed temperature after each regeneration and the total amount of steam or nitrogen used to desorb the bed for each regeneration. The operating limits would be the carbon bed temperature (not to be exceeded) and the amount of steam or nitrogen used for desorption (to be met as a minimum). If you use a condenser, you would monitor the outlet gas temperature to ensure that the air stream is being cooled to a low enough temperature. The operating limit would be the average condenser outlet gas temperature measured during the performance test, and for each consecutive 3-hour period the average temperature would have to be at or below this limit. For each capture system that is not a permanent total enclosure, you would establish operating limits for gas volumetric flow rate or duct static pressure for each enclosure or capture device. The operating limit would be the average volumetric flow rate or duct static pressure during the performance test, to be met as a minimum. For each capture system that is a permanent total enclosure, the operating limit would require the average facial velocity of air through all natural draft openings to be at least 200 feet per minute or the pressure drop across the enclosure to be at least 0.007 inches water. G. What Are the Continuous Compliance Provisions? Emission Limits. If you demonstrate compliance with the proposed emission limits based on the materials used, you would demonstrate continuous compliance if, for each monthly compliance period, the ratio of organic HAP to coating solids is less than or equal to the emission limits. You would follow the same procedures for calculating the organic HAP to coating solids ratio that you used for the initial compliance period. For each coating operation on which you use a capture system and control device, other than solvent recovery for which you conduct a liquid-liquid material balance, you would use the continuous parameter monitoring results for the month in determining the mass of organic HAP emissions. If the monitoring results indicate no deviations from the operating limits and there were no bypasses of the control device, you would assume the capture system and control device are achieving the same percent emission reduction efficiency as they did during the most recent performance test in which compliance was demonstrated. You would then apply this percent reduction to the total mass of organic HAP in materials used in controlled coating operations to determine the monthly emission rate from those operations. If there were any deviations from the operating limits during the month or any bypasses of the control device, you would account for them in the calculation of the monthly emission rate by assuming the capture system and control device were achieving zero emission reduction during the periods of deviation. For each coating operation on which you use a solvent recovery system and conduct a liquid-liquid material balance each month, you would use the liquid-liquid material balance to determine control efficiency. To determine the overall control efficiency, you must measure the amount of all materials used during each month and determine the volatile matter content of these materials. You must also measure the amount of volatile matter recovered by the solvent recovery system during the month, calculate the overall control efficiency, and apply it to the total mass of organic HAP in the materials used to determine total organic HAP emissions. Operating Limits. If you use a capture system and control device, the proposed rule would require you to achieve on a continuous basis the operating limits you establish during the performance test. If the continuous monitoring shows that the capture system and control device are operating outside the range of values established during the performance test, you have deviated from the established operating limits. If you operate a capture system and control device that allow emissions to bypass the control device, you would have to demonstrate that HAP emissions from each emission point within the affected source are being routed to the control device by monitoring for potential bypass of the control device. You may choose from the following four monitoring procedures: • Flow control position indicator to provide a record of whether the exhaust stream is directed to the control device; • Car-seal or lock-and-key valve closures to secure the bypass line valve in the closed position when the control device is operating; • Valve closure continuous monitoring to ensure any bypass line valve or damper is closed when the control device is operating; or • Automatic shutdown system to stop the coating operation when flow is diverted from the control device. If the bypass monitoring procedures indicate that emissions are not routed to the control device, you have deviated from the emission limits. Operations During Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction. If you use a capture system and control device for compliance, you would be required to develop and operate according to a startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan during periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction of the capture system and control device. Emissions Reductions Plan for Mixing, Storage, and Waste Handling. If you use a capture system and add-on control device for compliance, you would be required to develop and operate according to a plan for reducing emissions from mixing operations, storage tanks or other containers, and waste handling operations. This plan would include a description of all steps taken to minimize emissions from these sources ( e.g., using closed storage containers practices to minimize emissions during filling and transfer of contents from containers, using spill minimization techniques, placing solvent-laden cloth in closed containers immediately after use, etc. ). If you do not develop a plan for reducing HAP emissions or you do not implement the plan, this would be a deviation from the work practice standard. You would have to make the emissions reductions plan available for inspection if the Administrator requests to see it. Under the option where emissions are reduced by using lower-HAP or no-HAP materials, we are assuming that all the HAP in the materials entering the affected source are volatilized (emitted), unless the facility can show that a portion of the HAP released is recovered. Therefore, emissions from operations occurring within the affected source ( e.g., mixing operations) are accounted for in the estimate of total materials usage at the affected source. However, when you comply by using capture systems and add-on control devices, these systems and control devices may not be associated with some operations within the affected source, such as the mixing, storage, and waste handling operations. An emissions reductions plan is needed to assure that emissions are reduced from those uncontrolled operations using best available practices. When the plan is instituted as a work practice, it should provide a level of quality control and assurance. H. What Are the Notification, Recordkeeping, and Reporting Requirements? You are required to comply with the applicable requirements in the NESHAP General Provisions, subpart A of 40 CFR part 63, as described in the proposed rule. The General Provisions notification requirements include: initial notifications, notification of performance test if you are complying using a capture system and control device, notification of compliance status, and additional notifications required for affected sources with continuous monitoring systems. The General Provisions also require certain records and periodic reports. Initial Notifications. If the proposed standards apply to you, you must send a notification to the EPA Regional Office in the region where your facility is located, and to your State agency, at least 1 year before the compliance date for existing sources and within 120 days after the date of initial startup for new and reconstructed sources, or 120 days after publication of the final rule, whichever is later. That report notifies us and your State agency that you have an existing facility that is subject to the proposed standards or that you have constructed a new facility. Thus, it allows you and the permitting authority to plan for compliance activities. You would also need to send a notification of planned construction or reconstruction of a source that would be subject to the proposed rule and apply for approval to construct or reconstruct. Notification of Performance Test. If you demonstrate compliance by using a capture system and control device for which you do not conduct a liquid-liquid material balance, you would conduct a performance test. The performance test would be required no later than the compliance date for an existing affected source, and no later than 180 days after startup or 180 days after publication of the final rule, whichever is later, for a new or reconstructed source. You must notify us (or the delegated State or local agency) at least 60 calendar days before the performance test is scheduled to begin, as indicated in the General Provisions for the NESHAP. Notification of Compliance Status. Your compliance procedures would depend on which compliance option you choose. For each compliance option, you would send us a Notification of Compliance Status within 30 days after the end of the initial compliance period. In the notification, you would certify whether the affected source has complied with the proposed standards, identify the option(s) you used to demonstrate initial compliance, summarize the data and calculations supporting the compliance demonstration, and describe how you will determine continuous compliance. If you elect to comply by using a capture system and control device for which you conduct performance tests, you must provide the results of the tests. Your notification would also include the measured range of each monitored parameter and the operating limits established during the performance test, and information showing whether the source has complied with its operating limits during the initial compliance period. Recordkeeping Requirements. You would be required to keep records of reported information and all other information necessary to document compliance with the proposed rule for 5 years. As required under the General Provisions, records for the 2 most recent years must be kept on-site; the other 3 years' records may be kept off-site. Records pertaining to the design and operation of the control and monitoring equipment must be kept for the life of the equipment. Depending on the compliance option that you choose, you may need to keep records of the following: • Organic HAP content, volatile matter content, coating solids content, and quantity of the coatings, thinners, and cleaning materials used during each compliance period; and • All documentation supporting initial notifications and notifications of compliance status. If you demonstrate compliance by using a capture system and control device, you would also need to keep records of the following: • The occurrence and duration of each startup, shutdown, or malfunction of the emission capture system and control device; • All maintenance performed on the capture system and control device; • Actions taken during startup, shutdown, and malfunction that are different from the procedures specified in the affected source's startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan; • All information necessary to demonstrate conformance with the affected source's startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan when the plan procedures are followed; • All information necessary to demonstrate conformance with the affected source's plan for minimizing emissions from mixing, storage, and waste handling operations; • Each period during which a CPMS is malfunctioning or inoperative (including out-of-control periods); • All required measurements needed to demonstrate compliance with the standards; and • All results of performance tests. The proposed rule would require you to collect and keep records according to certain minimum data requirements for the CPMS. Failure to collect and keep the specified minimum data would be a deviation that is separate from any emission limits, operating limits, or work practice standards. Deviations, as determined from these records, would need to be recorded and also reported. A deviation is any instance when any requirement or obligation established by the proposed rule including, but not limited to, the emission limits, operating limits, and work practice standards, is not met. If you use a capture system and control device to reduce HAP emissions, you would have to make your startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan available for inspection if the Administrator requests to see it. It would stay in your records for the life of the affected source or until the source is no longer subject to the proposed standards. If you revise the plan, you would need to keep the previous superseded versions on record for 5 years following the revision. Periodic Reports. Each reporting year is divided into two semiannual reporting periods. If no deviations occur during a semiannual reporting period, you would submit a semiannual report stating that the affected source has been in continuous compliance. If deviations occur, you would include them in the report as follows: • Report each deviation from the monthly emission limit. • If you are complying by using a thermal oxidizer, report all times when a consecutive 3-hour average temperature is below the operating limit. • If you are complying by using a catalytic oxidizer, report all times when a consecutive 3-hour average temperature difference across the catalyst bed is below the operating limit, and also report all times when a 3-hour average temperature before the catalyst bed is below the operating limit. • If you are complying by using oxidizers, or solvent recovery systems where liquid-liquid material balances are not conducted, report all times when the value of the site-specific operating parameter used to monitor the capture system performance was less than the operating limit established for the capture system. • If you are complying by using a carbon adsorber for which you do not conduct liquid-liquid material balances, report all times when the steam or nitrogen flow is less than the operating limit and also report all times when the carbon bed temperature is more than the operating limit. • If you are complying by using a condenser, report all times when a 3-hour average outlet temperature is higher than the operating limit. • If your capture system contains bypass lines that could divert emissions from the control device to the atmosphere, report all times when emissions were not routed to the control device. • Report other specific information on the periods of time the deviations occurred. You would also have to include an explanation in each semiannual report if a change occurs that might affect the compliance status of the affected source, or you change to another option for meeting the emission limit. Other Reports. You would be required to submit reports for periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction of the capture system and control device. If the procedures you follow during any startup, shutdown, or malfunction are inconsistent with your plan, you would report those procedures with your semiannual reports in addition to immediate reports required by § 63.10(d)(5)(ii). III. Rationale for Selecting the Proposed Standards A. How Did We Select the Source Category? The surface coating of large appliances is a source category that is on the list of source categories to be regulated because it contains major sources which emit or have the potential to emit at least 10 tons of any one HAP or at least 25 tons of any combination of HAP annually. The proposed rule would control HAP emissions from both new and existing major sources. Area sources are not being regulated under this proposed rule. The surface coating of large appliances as described in the listing includes any facility engaged in the surface coating of large appliance parts or products. We use the large appliance product lists contained in the SIC and NAICS code descriptions to describe the vast array of large appliance parts and products. We intend the source category to include facilities for which the surface coating of large appliances is either their principal activity or an integral part of a production process that is the principal activity. Most coating operations are located at plant sites that are dedicated to these activities. However, some may be located at sites for which some other activity is principal. Collocated surface coating operations comparable to the types and sizes of the dedicated facilities, in terms of the coating operation and applicable emission control techniques, are included in the source category. The source category does not include research or laboratory facilities or janitorial, building, and facility maintenance operations. B. How did we select the regulated pollutants? Organic HAP. Available emission data collected during the development of the proposed NESHAP show that the primary organic HAP emitted from the surface coating of large appliances include xylene, glycol ethers, toluene, methylene diphenyl diisocyanate, and methyl ethyl ketone. These compounds account for approximately 82 percent of this category's nationwide organic HAP emissions. However, many other organic HAP are used, or can be used, in large appliance coatings, thinners, and cleaning materials. Therefore, the proposed rule would regulate emissions of all organic HAP. Inorganic HAP. Although most of the coatings used in this source category do not contain inorganic HAP, some special purpose coatings used by this source category do contain inorganic HAP such as chromium, cobalt, lead, and manganese. Emissions of these materials to the atmosphere are minimal because the facilities in this source category employ either water curtains or dry filters that remove overspray particles from the spray booth exhaust. At this time, it does not appear that emissions of inorganic HAP from this source category warrant Federal regulation. C. How Did We Select the Affected Source? In selecting the affected source(s) for emission standards, our primary goal is to ensure that MACT is applied to HAP-emitting operations or activities within the source category being regulated. The affected source also serves to establish where new source MACT applies under a particular standard. Specifically, the General Provisions in subpart A of 40 CFR part 63 define the terms “construction” and “reconstruction” with reference to the term “affected source” and provide that new source MACT applies when construction or reconstruction of an affected source occurs. The collection of equipment and activities evaluated in determining MACT (including the MACT floor) is used in defining the affected source. When an emission standard is based on a collection of emissions sources, or total facility emissions, we select an affected source based on that same collection of emission sources, or the total facility, as well. This approach for defining the affected source broadly is particularly appropriate for industries where a plantwide emission standard provides the opportunity and incentive for owners and operators to utilize control strategies that are more cost effective than if separate standards were established for each emission point within a facility. Selection of Affected Source. The affected source for these proposed standards is broadly defined to include all operations associated with the coating of large appliances and the cleaning of product substrates or coating operation equipment. These operations include storage and mixing of coatings and other materials; surface preparation of the large appliances prior to coating application; coating application and flash-off, drying and curing of applied coatings; cleaning operations; and waste handling operations. In selecting the affected source, we considered, for each operation, the extent to which HAP-containing materials are used and the amount of HAP that are emitted. Cleaning and coating application, flash-off, and curing/drying operations account for the majority of HAP emissions at large appliance surface coating operations. These operations are included in the affected source. We were not able to obtain data to adequately quantify HAP emissions from storage, mixing, and waste handling. However, solvents that are added to coatings as thinners, and other HAP-containing additives to coatings, may be emitted during mixing and storage. The level of emissions depends on the type of mixing and the type of storage container and the work practices used at the facility. Emissions from waste handling operations depend on the type of system used to collect and transport organic HAP-containing waste coatings, thinners, and cleaning materials in the facility. For example, solvent-laden rags that are used to clean spray booths or tanks could be a source of HAP emissions. The method used to isolate and store such rags affects the level of emissions to ambient air. Mixing, storage, and waste handling operations are included in the affected source. A broad definition of the affected source was selected to provide maximum flexibility in complying with the proposed emission limits for organic HAP. In planning its total usage of HAP-containing materials, each facility can select among available coatings, thinners, and cleaning materials to comply with the proposed limits. Additional information on the large appliance surface coating operations selected for regulation, and other operations, are included in the docket for the proposed standards. D. How did we determine the basis and level of the proposed standards for existing and new sources? The sections below present the rationale for determining the MACT floor, regulatory alternatives beyond the floor, and selection of the proposed standards for existing and new affected sources. How did we determine the MACT floor technology? After we identify the specific source categories or subcategories of sources to regulate under section 112 of the CAA, we must develop emission standards for each category and subcategory. Section 112(d)(3) establishes a minimum baseline or “floor” for standards. For new sources in a category or subcategory, the standards cannot be less stringent than the emission control that is achieved in practice by the best-controlled similar source. The standards for existing sources can be less stringent than standards for new sources, but they cannot be less stringent than the average emission limitation achieved by the best-performing 12 percent of existing sources (or the best-performing five sources for categories or subcategories with fewer than 30 sources). Within the large appliance industry, organic HAP emission control for cleaning and surface coating operations is accomplished primarily through the use of lower-HAP coatings, thinners, and cleaning materials. Add-on capture and control systems for organic HAP are rarely used by the industry. While lower organic HAP materials have achieved broad use throughout the industry, each particular coating technology is not used at every facility. Rather, facilities use various combinations of low-HAP coatings, thinners, and cleaning materials. Thus, we judged the most reasonable approach to establishing a MACT floor to be the evaluation of a facility's organic HAP emissions from all coating-related operations. To account for differences in production levels from one facility to another, we normalized the organic HAP emission rate by the volume of coating solids used. We believe coating solids usage is an appropriate indicator of overall production levels. We used information obtained from industry survey responses to estimate the sourcewide organic HAP emission rate from each survey respondent. We calculated total organic HAP emissions by assuming that 100 percent of the volatile components in all coatings (including adhesives), thinners, and cleaning materials (including surface preparation materials) are emitted. Major sources were identified as: those facilities that listed “major source” or “synthetic minor source” as their title V status on their questionnaire response; those facilities that reported their HAP emissions under “maximum design capacity” as greater than 9.1 megagrams per year (Mg/yr) (10 tpy); and other facilities that we judged to have the capacity to increase their HAP emissions to at least 9.1 Mg/yr, even though they did not identify themselves as major or synthetic minor sources. The final group of facilities were included because they reported actual HAP emissions of greater than 3 Mg (3.3 tons) during the reporting year and did not report a “maximum design capacity.” If these facilities operate at full capacity over multiple shifts each day, their annual emission rate may equal or exceed 9.1 Mg/yr. The survey response information was used to determine the total volume of coating solids used by each source from all types of coatings. We included decorative, protective, and functional coatings in this total. Using the sourcewide organic HAP emissions and the total volume of coating solids used for each survey respondent, we calculated the normalized organic HAP emissions (emission rate) in units of kilograms organic HAP per liter of coating solids used. The facilities were then ranked from the lowest emission rate to the highest, with the following exceptions. Facilities that reported the predominant use of powder coatings (greater than 90 percent of all coating solids usage) were excluded from the MACT floor calculations. While powder coating technology is a proven low-HAP coating technology, its applicability is not considered to be universal for all products manufactured within the source category. For those facilities whose products can be coated with this technology, the use of powder coatings is a very effective and efficient means of reducing HAP emissions. The degree of HAP reductions that can be achieved with the powder coating technology is close to 100 percent. However, because many large appliance parts and products cannot be satisfactorily coated with powder coating technology, we concluded that it would not be appropriate to define the MACT floors based primarily on their use. Facilities that used lesser amounts of powder coatings in combination with other low-HAP coating technologies were included in the MACT floor determination. For some facilities, the organic HAP to coating solids ratio was very low due to the facilities' usage of unusually large quantities of low-HAP and non-HAP adhesives. The low- and non-HAP adhesives usage for these facilities ranged from 40 to 84 percent of all coating solids. While many facilities in the source category use adhesives (a functional coating), their use is not as widespread compared to the decorative and protective coatings usually associated with the appearance of large appliance products. On the average, adhesive usage among all facilities in the source category database is about 4 percent of the total solids used. We concluded that because of the specific function served by adhesives, the low-HAP adhesive technology employed in the facilities described above may not be transferable to the decorative and protective coatings which account for the remaining 96 percent of coating solids usage in the industry. Thus, we concluded that the facilities using atypically large quantities of these adhesives relative to decorative and protective coatings should not be included in the floor determination of existing sources or new sources. For the existing source MACT floor, the top 12 percent of the facilities were determined based on the number of facilities in the MACT floor database (95 database facilities ×12 percent=11.4). Because the calculated value was greater than 11, we used data from 12 facilities to determine the MACT floor. The floor was calculated as the arithmetic average of the emission rates of the top 12 best-performing representative facilities. This process resulted in a MACT floor equal to 0.13 kg HAP/liter of coating solids (1.1 lb/gal). The survey data showed no appreciable differences between the floor facilities and the remaining facilities in the database in terms of the substrates coated, the coating technologies used, or the applicability of control measures across the various operations. Therefore, we believe the floor level of control is achievable by all existing sources. The best performing facility in our database has an emission rate of 0.022 kg HAP/liter of coating solids (0.18 lb/gal). This facility operates under SIC 3585 and manufactures supermarket display cases and equipment. This facility uses both solvent-based coatings and powder coatings and is considered similar to the other sources in the category in terms of the substrate coated and the coating technologies used. Therefore, the new source MACT floor was based on the data from this facility and was determined to be 0.022 kg HAP/liter (0.18 lb/gal) of coating solids. How did we consider beyond-the-floor technology? After the floors have been determined for new and existing sources in a source category or subcategory, we must set emission standards that are technically achievable and no less stringent than the floors. Such standards must then be met by all sources within the category or subcategory. We identify and consider any reasonable regulatory alternatives that are “beyond-the-floor,” taking into account emissions reductions, cost, non-air quality health and environmental impacts, and energy requirements. These alternatives may be different for new and existing sources because of different MACT floors, and separate standards may be established for new and existing sources. We identified three regulatory alternatives more stringent than the MACT floor level of control for organic HAP. These alternatives were conversion to powder coatings; conversion to liquid coatings that have a very low, or no, organic HAP content; and use of add-on capture systems and control devices. Information indicates that several large appliance surface coating facilities have converted to using only powder coatings. Such facilities typically produce a single type of product (such as laundry equipment), do not require unusual finishes, and use a small number of colors. Many large appliance surface coating facilities, however, manufacture more than one product and often use a wide array of colors. Although powder coatings may be somewhat more durable than conventional liquid coatings, specialty finishes such as antique and crackle, as well as the palette of designer colors offered by some manufacturers, may not be adequately duplicated by powder coatings. Consequently, while powder coating is a proven technology that can be used in many situations, it is not universally applicable in the large appliance industry and was, therefore, rejected as a beyond-the-floor option. Lower organic HAP liquid coatings fall into two primary categories. The most common category is coatings formulated with solvents that are not organic HAP (but may be VOC). The second category is those coatings that result from alternate technologies such as ultraviolet (UV)—curable coatings and electron beam (EB)—curable coatings. These coatings do not employ organic HAP or VOC to keep the pigment and other components of the coating in solution until curing. Therefore, organic HAP emissions are very small. These lower organic HAP coatings are currently in production use in some industries, but their applicability in the large appliance industry is limited. Given the limited applicability of UV—curable and EB—curable coatings, we do not believe it is feasible to require the use of these coatings and rejected them as a beyond-the-floor option for organic HAP. It is technically feasible to reduce emissions from affected sources by at least 95 percent through the use of capture systems and add-on control devices. Based on the model plants analysis used to estimate the impacts of the proposed rule, over half of the existing facilities will be required to achieve HAP emissions reductions of greater than 80 percent to meet the existing source MACT floor level of control. For these facilities, the incremental HAP reductions that could be achieved by using capture systems and control devices to comply with a “beyond-the-floor” alternative of 95 percent reduction would range from about 0.30 Mg (0.33 tons) to about 1.7 Mg (1.9 tons). The estimated cost of a permanent total enclosure and a control device, such as an oxidizer, for these facilities could be as much as $1 million. We believe the incremental emissions reductions that would be achieved at this time do not warrant the additional cost that each existing source would incur by using add-on control systems. Therefore, we rejected requiring capture systems and add-on control devices as a beyond-the-floor option for organic HAP. How did we select the proposed standards? For existing sources, we based the proposed standards on the existing source MACT floor. As described earlier, we determined that beyond-the-floor options were not technically or economically feasible for all existing sources. For the same reasons, we based the proposed standards for new sources on the new source MACT floor. The MACT levels of control for new and existing sources can be achieved in several different ways. Many sources would be able to use lower-HAP coatings, although they may not be available to meet the needs of every source. If a source is also using cleaning materials that contain organic HAP, then it may be able to switch to lower-HAP or non-HAP cleaning materials, which are widely available, to reduce the sourcewide organic HAP emissions rate to the MACT level. Other available options are the use of powder coatings or capture systems and add-on control devices to reduce emissions. We note here that our assumption, used in the development of the MACT floors, that 100 percent of the organic HAP in the materials used are emitted by the affected source would not apply when the source sends waste organic HAP-containing materials to a facility for treatment or disposal. We made that assumption because the industry survey responses provided little information as to the amount of organic HAP recovered and recycled or treated and disposed. We, therefore, concluded that that practice may not be common within the large appliance industry. We recognize, however, that some large appliance facilities may conduct such activities and should be allowed to account for such activities in determining their emissions. Thus, the proposed rule allows you to reduce the organic HAP emissions by the amount of any organic HAP contained in waste treated or disposed at a hazardous waste treatment, storage, and disposal facility that is regulated under 40 CFR part 262, 264, 265, or 266. E. How did we select the format of the standards? Numerical emission standards are required by section 112(h) of the CAA unless we can justify that it is not feasible to prescribe or enforce an emission standard, in which case a design, equipment, work practice, or operational standard can be set. We selected the format of the standards to be mass of organic HAP per volume of coating solids. The performance-based nature of this proposed format would allow large appliance coating operation owners and operators flexibility in choosing any combination of means (including coating reformulation, use of lower-HAP or non-HAP materials, solvent elimination, work practices, and add-on control devices) to comply with the emission limits that is workable for their particular situations. We selected volume of coating solids as a component of the proposed standards to normalize the rate of organic HAP emissions across all sizes and types of facilities. We selected the volume of coating solids used because it is directly related to the surface area coated ( i.e., the average dry film thickness of coatings on most large appliance parts or products is generally consistent) and, therefore, provides an equitable basis for all coatings, regardless of differences in coating densities. A format based on the mass or weight of coating solids (instead of volume) could result in inequitable standards for higher-density pigmented coatings, such as basecoats or enamels, compared to coatings with lower densities per unit volume. Other choices for the format of the standards that we considered, but rejected, included a usage limit (mass per unit time) and a never-to-be-exceeded limit on the organic HAP content of coatings, solvents, or cleaning materials. As it is not our intent to limit a facility's production under these proposed standards, we rejected a usage limit. We also rejected a never-to-be-exceeded limit, as the proposed standards allow averaging of HAP emissions from the materials used during the compliance period. F. How did we select the testing and initial compliance requirements? The proposed standards would allow you to choose among several methods to demonstrate compliance with the proposed standards for organic HAP: coatings with low or no organic HAP; an overall organic HAP emission rate from all coatings, thinners, and cleaning materials that is less than the applicable emission limit; or capture systems and control devices. Coatings with Low or No Organic HAP. You would be required to document the organic HAP content of all coatings and show that each is less than the applicable emission limit. You would also have to show that each thinner and each cleaning material used contains no organic HAP. Method 311 is the method developed by EPA for determining the mass fraction of organic HAP in coatings and has been used in previous surface coating NESHAP. We have not identified any other methods that provide advantages over Method 311 for use in the proposed standards. Method 24 is the method developed by EPA for determining the mass fraction of volatile matter for coatings and can be used if you choose to determine the non-aqueous volatile matter content as a surrogate for organic HAP. In past standards, VOC emission control measures have been implemented in coating industries, with Method 24 as the compliance method. We have not identified any other methods that provide advantages over Method 24 for use in the proposed standards. The proposed requirements for determining volume fraction of coating solids would allow you to choose between calculating the value using Equation 1 in § 63.4141 of the proposed standards or measuring the volume with either ASTM Method D2697-86 (1998) or ASTM Method D6093-97. Overall Organic HAP Emission Rate. To demonstrate initial compliance using this option, you would calculate the organic HAP emission rate for one or more coating operations in the affected source, based on the mass of organic HAP in all coatings, thinners, and cleaners and the volume of coating solids used during the compliance period, and demonstrate that it does not exceed the applicable emission limit. You would determine these values using the methods discussed previously. Capture Systems and Control Devices. If you use a capture system and control device, other than a solvent recovery device for which you conduct a liquid-liquid material balance, you would be required to conduct an initial performance test of the system to determine its overall control efficiency. For a solvent recovery system for which you conduct a liquid-liquid material balance, you would determine the quantity of volatile matter applied and the quantity recovered during the initial compliance period to determine its overall control efficiency. For both cases, the overall control efficiency would be combined with the monthly mass of organic HAP in the coatings and other materials used to calculate the monthly HAP emission rate in kg HAP/liter of coating solids. If you conduct a performance test, you would also determine parameter operating limits during the test. The test methods that the proposed standards would require for the performance test have been required under many standards of performance for industrial surface coating sources under 40 CFR part 60 and NESHAP under 40 CFR part 63. We have not identified any other methods that provide advantages over these methods. G. How Did We Select the Continuous Compliance Requirements? To ensure continuous compliance with the proposed organic HAP emission limits and/or operating limits, the proposed standards would require continuous parameter monitoring of capture systems and control devices and recordkeeping. We selected the following requirements based on reasonable cost, ease of execution, and usefulness of the resulting data to both the owners or operators and EPA for ensuring continuous compliance with the emission limits and/or operating limits. We are proposing that certain parameters be continuously monitored for the types of capture systems and control devices commonly used in the industry. These monitoring parameters have been used in other standards for similar industries. The values of these parameters that correspond to compliance with the proposed emission limits are established during the initial or most recent performance test that demonstrates compliance. These values are your operating limits for the capture system and control device. You would be required to determine 3-hour average values for most monitored parameters for the affected source. We selected this averaging period to reflect operating conditions during the performance test to ensure the control system is continuously operating at the same or better control level as during a performance test demonstrating compliance with the emission limits. To demonstrate continuous compliance with the monthly emission limits, you would also need records of the quantity of coatings and other materials used and the data and calculations supporting your determination of their organic HAP content. If you conduct liquid-liquid material balances, you would need records of the quantity of volatile matter used and the quantity recovered by the solvent recovery system each month. H. How Did We Select the Notification, Recordkeeping, and Reporting Requirements? You would be required to comply with the applicable requirements in the NESHAP General Provisions, subpart A of 40 CFR part 63, as described in Table 2 of the proposed subpart NNNN. We evaluated the General Provisions requirements and included those we determined to be the minimum notification, recordkeeping, and reporting necessary to ensure compliance with, and effective enforcement of, the proposed standards. I. How Did We Select the Compliance Date? You would be allowed 3 years to comply with the final standards for existing affected sources. This is the maximum period allowed by the CAA. We believe that 3 years for compliance is necessary to allow adequate time to accommodate the variety of compliance methods that existing sources may use. Most sources in this category would need this 3-year maximum amount of time to develop and test reformulated coatings, particularly those that may opt to comply using a different lower-emitting coating technology. We want to encourage the use of these pollution prevention technologies. In addition, time would be needed to establish records management systems required for enforcement purposes. Some sources may need the time to purchase and install emission capture and control systems. In such cases, you would need to obtain a permit for the use of add-on controls, which will require time for approval from the permitting authority. The CAA requires that new or reconstructed affected sources comply with standards immediately upon startup or the effective date of the final rule, whichever is later. IV. Summary of Environmental, Energy, and Economic Impacts Model plants were developed to aid in the estimation of the impacts the proposed standards would have on the large appliance industry. Four model plants distinguished by size, as measured by the total volume of coating solids used, were developed. Impacts were then developed for each model plant, and these individual impacts were scaled to nationwide levels based on the number of facilities corresponding to each model plant size. We used the model plant approach because we did not have adequate data to estimate impacts for each actual facility. A variety of compliance methods are available to the industry to meet the proposed emission limits. We analyzed the information obtained from the industry survey responses, industry site visits, trade groups, and industry representatives to determine which compliance methods would most likely be used by existing and new sources. We expect that the most widely-used method for existing sources would be low-HAP content liquid coatings (coatings with HAP contents at or below the emission limits). Powder coatings, no-HAP cleaning materials, and add-on capture and control systems would likely be used by existing sources, but to a lesser extent. Various combinations of these methods may be used. New sources are largely expected to use powder coating technologies or a combination of low-HAP coatings and no-HAP cleaning materials. For the purpose of assessing impacts, we assumed that all existing sources would convert to liquid coatings and thinners with lower-HAP content than presently used and no-HAP cleaning materials. We assumed that new sources would use either powder coatings or lower-HAP coatings and no-HAP cleaning materials. We first estimated the impacts of the proposed emission limits on the four model plants. To scale up the model plant impacts to nationwide levels, we multiplied the individual model plant impacts by the estimated number of major sources in the United States corresponding to each plant size. We estimated that there are 74 existing major source facilities nationwide. For more information on how impacts were estimated, see Chapters 6 and 7 of the background information document, EPA-453/R-00-006. A. What Are the Air Impacts? For existing major sources, we estimated that compliance with the proposed emission limits would result in reductions of nationwide organic HAP emissions of 1,080 Mg/yr (1,191 tpy). This represents a reduction of 45 percent from the baseline organic HAP emissions of 2,394 Mg/yr (2,639 tpy). For new sources, we have assumed that most, if not all, will use coating technologies that are considered to be “state-of-the-art” coatings ( e.g., powder coatings and low-HAP liquid coatings). Powder coating technology has advanced rapidly in recent years and is gaining widespread acceptance in the large appliance industry. Powder coatings are not only very cost effective, their use eliminates the problems associated with worker exposure to organic solvents. Many of the facilities in the database indicated that they were in the process of converting part or all of their coating operations to use powder coatings. Also, four of the most recently constructed facilities in the database are using powder coatings extensively and have HAP emission levels below the MACT level for new sources. For these reasons, we project the baseline emission levels for new sources to be at, or below, the requirements in the proposed standards. Therefore, we have assumed no emissions reductions from new sources attributable to the proposed standards. B. What Are the Cost Impacts? We have estimated the costs related to complying with the emission limitations and meeting the monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements. The costs to comply with the emission limitations include the increased cost of reformulated low-HAP coating materials, as well as any capital expenditures that would be required to facilitate the use of these materials. Alternatively, facilities could choose to purchase, install, and operate capture systems and add-on control devices. We have assumed for this analysis that all affected facilities will comply through the use of reformulated coatings, thinners, and cleaning materials, and that these materials can be utilized without the need for capital expenditures. Annual costs for meeting the monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements of the proposed rule have also been included. Existing sources. To comply with the proposed standards, existing facilities will likely use reformulated coatings, thinners, and cleaning materials. Compliance costs were estimated to be the incremental cost difference between the materials currently used and the complying materials. Estimates of cost impacts were based on four model plants that were developed to represent the range of sizes and coating materials found throughout the industry. Each model plant was assumed to comply with the proposed standards by switching to non-HAP adhesives, surface preparation materials, and cleaning materials and reducing the HAP content of the coatings and thinners. The annual incremental cost of the reformulated raw materials ranged from approximately $700 for model plant 1, representing the segment of industry with the lowest coating solids usage, to $26,000 for model plant 4, representing the segment of industry that uses over 200,000 liters of coating solids. The nationwide cost impact was estimated for each industry segment by multiplying the annual costs for each model plant by the number of facilities represented by that model plant. A total nationwide cost impact associated with material usage was estimated by summing the nationwide costs for each of the four industry segments. In addition, we included estimates for monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting costs for all 74 affected sources. We estimate total nationwide annual costs in the fifth year to comply with the proposed emission limits to be $1.63 million for existing sources. These costs include approximately $.48 million for direct costs associated with material usage and $1.15 million for recordkeeping and reporting. New sources. We estimate the number of new major sources to be four per year, based on an average of the number of new facilities constructed from 1993 to 1997. In the absence of the proposed standards, we anticipate that most, if not all, new sources will primarily use newer coating technologies such as powder coatings, higher solids, and low-HAP liquid coatings. Because these coatings are very cost effective and new facilities would likely choose to use them even in the absence of the proposed standards, no additional costs associated with material usage were assigned for complying with the proposed standards. Therefore, only the costs of monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting have been assigned to new facilities. We estimate the annual cost in the fifth year due to monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting to be $341,000. We estimated $91,000 each year for the four new sources ($23,000 per facility) for their initial year of monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting. In each subsequent year of operation, the estimated monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting cost is $16,000 per facility. C. What Are the Economic Impacts? We performed an economic impact analysis (EIA) to provide an estimate of the facility and market impacts of the proposed standards as well as the social costs. In general, we expect the economic impacts of the proposed standards to be minimal, with price increases and production decreases of less than 0.01 percent. Based on a model referred to as a “perfectly competitive economic model” of this industry, we estimate social costs of approximately $1.62 million in the fifth year for existing sources, with the burden being roughly equally shared by consumers and producers. For affected facilities, the distribution of costs is slanted toward the lower impact levels with many facilities incurring only those related to monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting. The EIA indicates that these regulatory costs are expected to represent only 0.01 percent of the value of product shipments, which should not cause producers to cease or alter their current operations. Hence, no firms or facilities are expected to become at risk of closure because of the proposed standards. International trade impacts are expected to be negligible because of the very small price increase ( i.e., 0.01 percent). Based on the projected characteristics and costs for new sources, we do not expect any differential impact on these sources. For more information, refer to the “Economic Impact Analysis of the Proposed NESHAP: Surface Coating of Large Appliances” (Docket No. A-97-41). D. What Are the Non-Air Health, Environmental, and Energy Impacts? Based on information from the industry survey responses, we found no indication that the use of low organic HAP content coatings, thinners, and cleaning materials at existing sources would result in any increase or decrease in non-air health, environmental, and energy impacts. There would be no change in the utility requirements associated with the use of these materials, so there would be no change in the amount of energy consumed as a result of the material conversion. Also, there would be no significant change in the amount of materials used or the amount of waste produced. Because new sources are expected to comply with the proposed standards through the use of low-HAP coating technologies rather than add-on control devices, there would be no significant change in energy usage or waste production. V. Administrative Requirements A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), EPA must determine whether the regulatory action is “significant” and therefore subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and the requirements of the Executive Order. The Executive Order defines “significant regulatory action” as one that is likely to result in a rule that may: (1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or communities; (2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency; (3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs, or the rights and obligation of recipients thereof; or (4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in the Executive Order. Pursuant to the terms of Executive Order 12866, it has been determined that this rule is not a “significant regulatory action” because none of the listed criteria apply to this action. Consequently, this action was not submitted to OMB for review under Executive Order 12866. B. Executive Order 13132, Federalism Executive Order 13132, entitled “Federalism” (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure “meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.” “Policies that have federalism implications” is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations that 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.” Under section 6 of Executive Order 13132, EPA may not issue a regulation that has federalism implications, that imposes substantial direct compliance costs, and that is not required by statute, unless the Federal government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance costs incurred by State and local governments, or EPA consults with State and local officials early in the process of developing the proposed regulation. The EPA also may not issue a regulation that has federalism implications and that preempts State law, unless the Agency consults with State and local officials early in the process of developing the proposed regulation. This proposed rule 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, as specified in Executive Order 13132. Pursuant to the terms of Executive Order 13132, it has been determined that this rule does not have “federalism implications,” because it does not meet the necessary criteria. Thus, the requirements of section 6 of the Executive Order do not apply to this proposed rule. C. Executive Order 13084, Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments Under Executive Order 13084, EPA may not issue a regulation that is not required by statute, that significantly or uniquely affects the communities of Indian tribal governments, and that imposes substantial direct compliance costs on those communities, unless the Federal government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance costs incurred by the tribal governments, or EPA consults with those governments. If EPA complies by consulting, Executive Order 13084 requires EPA to provide to OMB, in a separately identified section of the preamble to the rule, a description of the extent of EPA's prior consultation with representatives of affected tribal governments, a summary of the nature of their concerns, and a statement supporting the need to issue the regulation. In addition, Executive Order 13084 requires EPA to develop an effective process permitting elected officials and other representatives of Indian tribal governments “to provide meaningful and timely input in the development of regulatory policies on matters that significantly or uniquely affect their communities.” Today's proposed rule does not significantly or uniquely affect the communities of Indian tribal governments. No tribal governments own or operate large appliance surface coating facilities. Accordingly, the requirements of section 3(b) of Executive Order 13084 do not apply to this action. D. Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children From Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies to any rule that: (1) Is determined to be “economically significant” as defined under Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns an environmental health or safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may have a disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets both criteria, EPA must evaluate the environmental health or safety effects of the planned rule on children, and explain why the planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the Agency. The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those regulatory actions that are based on health or safety risks, such that the analysis required under section 5-501 of the Executive Order has the potential to influence the regulation. This proposed rule is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it does not establish an environmental standard based on an assessment of health or safety risks. No children's risk analysis was performed because no alternative technologies exist that would provide greater stringency at a reasonable cost. Furthermore, this rule has been determined not to be “economically significant” as defined under Executive Order 12866. E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public Law 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, EPA generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit analysis, for proposed and final rules with “Federal mandates” that may result in expenditures by State, local, and tribal governments, in aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more in any 1 year. Before promulgating an EPA rule for which a written statement is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires EPA to identify and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt the least-costly, most cost-effective, or least-burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of section 205 do not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover, section 205 allows EPA to adopt an alternative other than the least-costly, most cost-effective, or least-burdensome alternative if the Administrator publishes with the final rule an explanation why that alternative was not adopted. Before EPA establishes any regulatory requirements that may significantly or uniquely affect small governments, including tribal governments, it must have developed under section 203 of the UMRA a small government agency plan. The plan must provide for notifying potentially affected small governments, enabling officials of affected small governments to have meaningful and timely input in the development of EPA regulatory proposals with significant Federal intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and advising small governments on compliance with the regulatory requirements. The EPA has determined that this proposed rule does not contain a Federal mandate that may result in expenditures of $100 million or more for State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the private sector in any 1 year. The maximum total annual cost of this rule for any year has been estimated to be slightly less than $2 million. Thus, today's proposed rule is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA. In addition, EPA has determined that this proposed rule contains no regulatory requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small governments because it contains no requirements that apply to such governments or impose obligations upon them. Therefore, today's proposed rule is not subject to the requirements of section 203 of the UMRA. F. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as Amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), 5 U.S.C. 601, et seq. The RFA generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedures Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions. For the purposes of assessing the impacts of today's proposed rule on small entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business ranging from 100-1,000 employees or less than $3.5 million in annual sales; (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a city, county, town, school district, or special district with a population of less than 50,000; and (3) a small organization that is any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field. In accordance with the RFA and SBREFA, EPA conducted an assessment of the proposed standards on small businesses within the large appliance coating industry. Based on Small Business Administration size definitions and reported sales and employment data, EPA's survey identified 221 facilities that apply surface coatings to large appliances. These facilities, which include major and area sources, are owned by 84 companies. Of these companies, 34 are small businesses. Although small businesses represent about 40 percent of the companies within the source category, they are expected to incur only 10 percent of the total industry compliance costs. Under the proposed standards, the average annual compliance cost share of sales for small businesses is only 0.20 percent, with 26 of the 34 small businesses not expected to incur any additional costs because they are area sources or are permitted as synthetic minor HAP emission sources. After reviewing the range of costs to be borne by small businesses, EPA has determined the costs are typically small and, thus, certifies that this action will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. Although this proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, EPA has nonetheless worked aggressively to minimize the impact of this proposed rule on small entities, consistent with our obligations under the CAA. We solicited input from small entities during the data-gathering phase of the proposed rulemaking. We are proposing compliance options which give small entities flexibility in choosing the most cost effective and least burdensome alternative for their operation. For example, a facility could purchase and use low-HAP coatings ( i.e., pollution prevention) that meet the proposed standards instead of using add-on capture and control systems. This method of compliance can be demonstrated with minimum burden by using purchase and usage records. No testing of materials would be required, as the facility owner could show that their coatings meet the emission limits by providing formulation data supplied by the manufacturer. We continue to be interested in the potential impacts of the proposed standards on small entities and welcome comments on issues related to such impacts. For more information, consult the docket for this project. G. Paperwork Reduction Act The information collection requirements in the proposed rule will be submitted for approval to the OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq. An Information Collection Request (ICR) document has been prepared by EPA (ICR No. 1954.01) and a copy may be obtained from Sandy Farmer by mail at the Collection Strategies Division (2822), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20460, by email at farmer.sandy@epa.gov, or by calling (202) 260-2740. A copy may also be downloaded off the internet at http://www.epa.gov/icr. The information requirements are not effective until OMB approves them. The information requirements are based on notification, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements in the NESHAP General Provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart A), which are mandatory for all operators subject to national emission standards. These recordkeeping and reporting requirements are specifically authorized by section 114 of the CAA (42 U.S.C. 7414). All information submitted to EPA pursuant to the recordkeeping and reporting requirements for which a claim of confidentiality is made is safeguarded according to Agency policies set forth in 40 CFR part 2, subpart B. The proposed standards would require maintaining records of all coatings, thinners, and cleaning materials data and calculations used to determine compliance. This information includes the volume used during each monthly compliance period, mass fraction organic HAP, density, and, for coatings only, volume fraction of coating solids. If an add-on control device is used, records must be kept of the capture efficiency of the capture system, destruction or removal efficiency of the add-on control device, and the monitored operating parameters. In addition, records must be kept of each calculation of the affected sourcewide emissions for each monthly compliance period and all data, calculations, test results, and other supporting information used to determine this value. The monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting burden in the fifth year after the effective date of the promulgated rule is estimated to be 32,000 labor hours at a cost of $1.50 million for new and existing sources. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information. 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 EPA's regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act, EPA must consider the paperwork burden imposed by any information collection request in a proposed or final rule. The proposed standards will not impose any new information collection requirements beyond those specified in the ICR document. Comments are requested on the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden, including through the use of automated collection techniques. By U.S. Postal Service, send comments on the ICR to the Director, Collection Strategies Division; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2822); 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington, DC 20460 (or by courier, send comments on the ICR to the Director, Collection Strategies Division; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2822); 401 M Street, SW, Room 925H, West Tower; Washington, DC) and to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th St., NW., Washington, DC 20503, marked “Attention: Desk Officer for EPA.” Include the ICR number in any correspondence. Since OMB is required to make a decision concerning the ICR between 30 and 60 days after December 22, 2000, a comment to OMB is best assured of having its full effect if OMB receives it by January 22, 2001. The final rule will respond to any OMB or public comments on the information collection requirements contained in this proposal. H. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law No. 104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note), directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS) in their regulatory and procurement activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. The VCS are technical standards ( e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, business practices) developed or adopted by one or more voluntary consensus bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA to provide Congress, through annual reports to the OMB, with explanations when an agency does not use available and applicable VCS. This proposed rulemaking involves technical standards. The EPA proposes in this rule to use EPA Methods 1, 1A, 2, 2A, 2C, 2D, 2F, 2G, 3, 3A, 3B, 4, 24, 25, 25A, 204, 204A-F, 311, and 316. Consistent with the NTTAA, EPA conducted searches to identify VCS in addition to these EPA methods. No applicable VCS were identified for EPA Methods 1A, 2A, 2D, 2F, 2G, 204, 204A-F, and 316. The search and review results have been documented and are placed in the docket for this proposed rule. Two VCS were identified for determining the volume of coating solids (nonvolatiles), and EPA proposes to use them in this rule. The standards are ASTM D2697-86 (Reapproved 1998), “Standard Test Method for Volume Nonvolatile Matter in Clear or Pigmented Coatings,” and ASTM D6093-97, “Standard Test Method for Percent Volume Nonvolatile Matter in Clear or Pigmented Coatings Using a Helium Gas Pycnometer.” These standards fill a void in EPA Method 24 which directs that the volume fraction of coating solids be calculated from the coating manufacturer's formulation. The proposed rule does allow for the use of the volume fraction of coating solids calculated from the coating manufacturer's formulation, however, test results will take precedence if they do not agree with calculated values. Six VCS: ASTM D1475-90, ASTM D2369-95, ASTM D3792-91, ASTM D4017-96a, ASTM D4457-85 (Reapproved 1991), and ASTM D5403-93 are already incorporated by reference in EPA Method 24. In addition, we are separately specifying the use of ASTM D1475-90 for measuring the density of individual coating components, such as organic solvents. Five VCS: ASTM D1979-91, ASTM D3432-89, ASTM D4747-87, ASTM D4827-93, and ASTM PS 9-94 are incorporated by reference in EPA Method 311. In addition to the VCS EPA proposes to use in this rule, the search for emission measurement procedures identified 17 other VCS. The EPA determined that 11 of these 17 standards were impractical alternatives to EPA test methods for the purposes of this proposed rulemaking. Therefore, EPA does not propose to adopt these standards today. The reason for this determination for the 11 methods are discussed below. The standard ISO 10780:1994, “Stationary Source Emissions—Measurement of Velocity and Volume Flowrate of Gas Streams in Ducts,” is impractical as an alternative to EPA Method 2 in this proposed rulemaking. This standard, ISO 10780:1994, recommends the use of L-shaped pitots, which historically have not been recommended by EPA because the S type design has large openings which are less likely to plug up with dust. The standard ASTM D3464-96, “Standard Test Method Average Velocity in a Duct Using a Thermal Anemometer,” is impractical as an alternative to EPA Method 2 for the purposes of this proposed rulemaking primarily because applicability specifications are not clearly defined, e.g., range of gas composition, temperature limits. Also, the lack of supporting quality assurance data for the calibration procedures and specifications, and certain variability issues that are not adequately addressed by the standard limit EPA's ability to make a definitive comparison of the method in these areas. The standard EN 12619:1999, “Stationary Source Emissions—Determination of the Mass Concentration of Total Gaseous Organic Carbon at Low Concentrations in Flue Gases—Continuous Flame Ionization Detector Method,” is an impractical alternative to EPA Method 25A for the purposes of this proposed rulemaking. This standard is impractical because it does not measure solvent process vapors in concentrations greater than 40 parts per million (ppm) carbon. A method whose upper limit is 40 ppm carbon has a measurement range too limited to be useful in measuring source emissions. Five of the 11 voluntary consensus standards are impractical alternatives to EPA test methods for the purposes of this proposed rulemaking because they are too general, too broad, or not sufficiently detailed to assure compliance with EPA regulatory requirements: ASME C00031 or PTC 19-10-1981—Part 10, “Flue and Exhaust Gas Analyses,” for EPA Method 3; ASTM 3796-90 (Reapproved 1996), “Standard Practice for Calibration of Type S Pitot Tubes,” for EPA Method 2; ASTM D3271-87, “Standard Practice for Direct Injection of Solvent-Reducible Paints into a Gas Chromatograph for Solvent Analysis,” for EPA Method 311; ASTM E337-84 (Reapproved 1996), “Standard Test Method for Measuring Humidity with a Psychrometer (the Measurement of Wet- and Dry-Bulb Temperatures),” for EPA Method 4; and CAN/CSA Z223.2—M86(1986), “Method for the Continuous Measurement of Oxygen, Carbon Dioxide, Carbon Monoxide, Sulphur Dioxide, and Oxides of Nitrogen in Enclosed Combustion Flue Gas Streams,” for EPA Method 3A. Three of the 11 VCS are impractical alternatives to EPA test methods for the purposes of this proposed rulemaking because they lacked sufficient quality assurance and quality control requirements necessary for EPA compliance assurance requirements: ASTM D3154-91, “Standard Method for Average Velocity in a Duct (Pitot Tube Method),” for EPA Methods 1, 2, 2C, 3, 3B, and 4; ASTM D5835-95, “Standard Practice for Sampling Stationary Source Emissions for Automated Determination of Gas Concentration,” for EPA Method 3A; and ISO 10396:1993, “Stationary Source Emissions: Sampling for the Automated Determination of Gas Concentrations,” for EPA Method 3A. The following six of the 17 VCS identified in this search were not available at the time the review was conducted for the purposes of this proposed rulemaking because they are under development by a voluntary consensus body: ASME/BSR MFC 12M, “Flow in Closed Conduits Using Multiport Averaging Pitot Primary Flowmeters,” for EPA Method 2; ASME/BSR MFC 13M, “Flow Measurement by Velocity Traverse,” for EPA Method 1 (and possibly 2); ISO/DIS 11890-1 Part 1, “Paints and Varnishes—Determination of Volatile Organic Compound (VOC) Content—Difference Method,” for EPA Method 24; ISO/DIS 11890-2 Part 2, “Paints and Varnishes—Determination of Volatile Organic Compound (VOC) Content—Gas Chromatographic Method,” for EPA Method 24; ISO/DIS 12039, “Stationary Source Emissions—Determination of Carbon Monoxide, Carbon Dioxide, and Oxygen—Automated Methods,” for EPA Method 3A; and ISO/FDIS 14965, “Air Quality—Determination of Total Nonmethane Organic Compounds—Cryogenic Preconcentration and Direct Flame Ionization Method,” for EPA Method 25A and parts of Method 25. While we are not proposing to include these six VCS in today's proposal, EPA will consider the standards when final. The EPA takes comment on compliance demonstration requirements proposed in this rulemaking and specifically invites the public to identify potentially applicable VCS. Commenters should also explain why this proposed rule should adopt these VCS in lieu of or in addition to EPA's standards. Emission test methods and performance specifications submitted for evaluation should be accompanied with a basis for the recommendation, including method validation data and the procedure used to validate the candidate method (if a method other than Method 301, 40 CFR part 63, appendix A, was used). Sections 63.4901, 63.3911, 63.4921, and Table 3 to subpart NNNN of the proposed standards list EPA testing methods included in the proposed rule. Under § 63.8 of subpart A of the General Provisions, a source may apply to EPA for permission to use alternative monitoring in place of any of the EPA testing methods. List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63 Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Air pollution control, Hazardous substances, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Dated: December 8, 2000. Carol M. Browner, Administrator. For the reasons stated in the preamble, title 40, chapter I, part 63 of the Code of Federal Regulations is proposed to be amended as follows: PART 63—[AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for part 63 continues to read as follows: Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401, et seq. 2. Part 63 is amended by adding subpart NNNN to read as follows: Subpart NNNN—National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Surface Coating of Large Appliances Sec. What this Subpart Covers 63.4080 What is the purpose of this subpart? 63.4081 Am I subject to this subpart? 63.4082 What parts of my plant does this subpart cover? 63.4083 When do I have to comply with this subpart? Emission Limitations 63.4090 What emission limits must I meet? 63.4091 What are my options for meeting the emission limits? 63.4092 What operating limits must I meet? 63.4093 What work practice standards must I meet? General Compliance Requirements 63.4100 What are my general requirements for complying with this subpart? 63.4101 What parts of the General Provisions apply to me? Notifications, Reports, and Records 63.4110 What notifications must I submit? 63.4120 What reports must I submit? 63.4130 What records must I keep? 63.4131 In what form and for how long must I keep my records? Compliance Requirements for the Compliant Material Option 63.4140 By what date must I conduct the initial compliance demonstration? 63.4141 How do I demonstrate initial compliance with the emission limitations? 63.4142 How do I demonstrate continuous compliance with the emission limitations? Compliance Requirements for the Emission Rate Without Add-On Controls Option 63.4150 By what date must I conduct the initial compliance demonstration? 63.4151 How do I demonstrate initial compliance with the emission limitations? 63.4152 How do I demonstrate continuous compliance with the emission limitations? Compliance Requirements for the Emission Rate With Add-On Controls Option 63.4160 By what date must I conduct performance tests and other initial compliance demonstrations? 63.4161 How do I demonstrate initial compliance? 63.4162 How do I determine the organic HAP emission rate for a controlled coating operation not using a material balance if I operate it under different sets of representative operating conditions? 63.4163 How do I demonstrate continuous compliance with the emission limitations? 63.4164 What are the general requirements for performance tests? 63.4165 How do I determine the emission capture system efficiency? 63.4166 How do I determine the add-on control device emission destruction or removal efficiency? 63.4167 How do I establish the emission capture system and add-on control device operating limits during the performance test? 63.4168 What are the requirements for continuous monitoring system (CMS) installation, operation, and maintenance? Other Requirements and Information 63.4180 Who implements and enforces this subpart? 63.4181 What definitions apply to this subpart? Tables Table 1 to Subpart NNNN. Operating Limits if Using the Emission Rate with Add-on Controls Option Table 2 to Subpart NNNN. Applicability of General Provisions to Subpart NNNN Table 3 to Subpart NNNN. Organic HAP Content of Solvents and Solvent Blends Table 4 to Subpart NNNN. Organic HAP Conte [Text truncated at 120,000 characters. The full text is on the page linked above.] --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/fr%3A00-32023. Public record. Not legal advice.