# National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Surface Coating of Miscellaneous Metal Parts and Products > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/fr%3A02-14759 ## Record - **Collection:** Federal Register - **Document type:** Proposed Rule - **Published:** August 13, 2002 - **Citation:** 67 FR 52780 ## Text ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 63 [FRL-7229-7] RIN 2060-AG56 National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Surface Coating of Miscellaneous Metal Parts and Products AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: This action proposes national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP) for miscellaneous metal parts and products surface coating operations located at major sources of hazardous air pollutants (HAP). The 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 xylene, toluene, methyl ethyl ketone (MEK), phenol, cresols/cresylic acid, 2-butoxyethanol, styrene, methyl isobutyl ketone (MIBK), ethyl benzene, and glycol ethers. 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 proposed standards would reduce nationwide HAP emissions from major sources in this source category by approximately 48 percent. DATES: Comments. Submit comments on or before October 15, 2002. Public Hearing. If anyone contacts the EPA requesting to speak at a public hearing, they should do so by September 2, 2002. 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-97-34, 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-97-34, 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 the new EPA facility complex in Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. You should contact Ms. Janet Eck, Coatings and Consumer Products Group, Emission Standards Division (C539-03), U.S. EPA, 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-97-34 contains supporting information used in developing the proposed standards. The docket is located at the U.S. EPA, 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: Ms. Kim Teal, Coatings and Consumer Products Group, Emission Standards Division (C539-03), U.S. EPA, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711; telephone number (919) 541-5580; facsimile number (919) 541-5689; electronic mail (e-mail) address: teal.kim@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® file format. All comments and data submitted in electronic form must note the docket number: A-97-34. 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: Ms. Kim Teal, c/o OAQPS Document Control Officer (C404-02), U.S. EPA, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711. 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 (C539-03), U.S. EPA, 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 will also be available on the World Wide Web through the Technology Transfer Network (TTN). Following signature by the EPA Administrator, 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 miscellaneous metal parts and products. Facilities that coat miscellaneous metal parts and products are covered under a wide range of Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) and North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes. Some examples of common product types included in this source category are listed in the following table. However, facilities classified under many other SIC or NAICS codes may be subject to the proposed standards if they meet the applicability criteria. Table 1.—Categories and Entities Potentially Regulated by the Proposed Standards Category SIC NAICS Examples of potentially regulated entities Aerospace Equipment 3724 336413 Aircraft engines, aircraft parts, aerospace ground equipment. 3728 336414 376X 336415 54171 Automobile Parts 3711 335312 Engine parts, vehicle parts and accessories, brakes, axles, etc. 3713 336111 3714 336211 3292 336312 3429 33632 3465 33633 3694 33634 3829 33637 336399 Extruded Aluminum 3354 331316 Extruded aluminum, architectural components, coils, rod, and tubes. 3365 331524 3442 332321 3446 332323 Heavy Equipment 3511 33312 Tractors, earth moving machinery. 3519 333611 352X 333618 353X Job Shops 3441 332312 Any of the products from the miscellaneous metal parts and products segments. 3471 332722 3499 332813 3999 332991 332999 334119 336413 339999 Large Trucks and Buses 3711 33612 Large trucks and buses. 3713 336211 3716 Magnet Wire 3351 331319 Magnet wire. 3357 331422 335929 Metal Buildings 3448 332311 Prefabricated metal: buildings, carports, docks, dwellings, greenhouses, panels for buildings. Metal Containers 2655 33242 Drums, kegs, pails, shipping containers. 3089 81131 3325 322214 3412 326199 3443 331513 5085 332439 Metal Pipe and Foundry 331X 331111 Plate, tube, rods, nails, spikes, etc. 332X 331513 336X 33121 3399 331221 331511 Rail Transportation 3731 33651 Brakes, engines, freight cars, locomotives. 3743 336611 4011 482111 4741 Recreational Vehicles 3083 3369 Motorcycles, motor homes, semitrailers, truck trailers. 3354 331316 3713 336991 3714 336211 3716 336112 375X 336213 3792 336214 336399 Rubber-to-Metal Products 3061 326291 Engine mounts, rubberized tank tread, harmonic balancers. 3069 326299 3479 Structural Steel 3441 332311 Joists, railway bridge sections, highway bridge sections. 3448 332312 Other Transportation Equipment 3711 336212 Miscellaneous transportation related equipment and parts. 3519 336999 3714 33635 3715 56121 3795 8111 3621 56211 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 § 63.3881 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 miscellaneous metal parts and products? II. Summary of the Proposed Rule A. What source categories are affected by the 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 proposed 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 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments D. Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks E. Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 G. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as Amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), 5 U.S.C. 601, et seq. H. Paperwork Reduction Act I. 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 Miscellaneous Metal Parts and Products (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 9.1 megagrams per year (Mg/yr) (10 tons per year (tpy)) of any one HAP or 22.7 Mg/yr (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 Miscellaneous Metal Parts and Products? The HAP emitted from the surface coating of miscellaneous metal parts and products include xylene, toluene, MEK, phenol, cresols/cresylic acid, 2-butoxyethanol, styrene, MIBK, ethyl benzene, and glycol ethers. These compounds account for about 90 percent of the nationwide HAP emissions from this source category. The HAP that would be controlled with the 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). We do not have the type of current detailed data on each of the facilities covered by the proposed 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 the Proposed Rule? The proposed rule would apply to you if you own or operate a miscellaneous metal parts and products surface coating facility that uses at least 250 gallons of coating materials per year and 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 miscellaneous metal parts and products surface coating facility as any facility engaged in the surface coating of any metal part or product that is not included in the definition of the affected source in NESHAP for another source category. The proposed rule would also apply to the surface coating of the plastic contained in parts and products that are pre-assembled from plastic and metal components, where greater than 50 percent of the coatings (by volume, determined on a rolling 12-month basis) are applied to the metal surfaces, and where the surface coating of the metal surfaces is subject to the proposed rule. If your source is subject to the proposed rule and you can demonstrate that more than 50 percent of your coatings are applied to the metal surfaces of pre-assembled plastic and metal components, then compliance with the proposed rule constitutes compliance with the plastic parts and products surface coating NESHAP currently under development. You must maintain records (such as coating usage or surface area) to document that more than 50 percent of the coatings are applied to metal surfaces. You would not be subject to the proposed rule if your miscellaneous metal parts and products 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 proposed rule also does not apply to surface coating conducted at a source that uses only coatings, thinners, and cleaning materials that contain no organic HAP, as determined according to the provisions in the proposed rule. The source category does not include research or laboratory facilities; janitorial, building, and facility maintenance operations; or hobby shops that are operated for personal rather than for commercial purposes. The source category also does not include coating applications using handheld non-refillable aerosol containers. Also included on the July 16,1992 source category list (57 FR 31576) were major sources emitting HAP from “asphalt/coal tar application-metal pipes” (hereafter referred to as asphalt coating). In developing the proposed rule, we decided not to establish MACT standards separately for the asphalt coating category but, rather, to include asphalt coating of metal pipes in the source category for coating of miscellaneous metal parts and products. Data and information gathered from the asphalt coating industry indicate that the equipment, emission characteristics, and applicable emission reduction measures are similar to the broad group of miscellaneous metal sources. Therefore, we are including asphalt coating in the proposed rule. We believe it is technically feasible to regulate emissions from a variety of metal coating operations by a single rule. Many of the metal coating operations that we are proposing to regulate are collocated within individual facilities. Facilities with collocated metal coating operations could more easily comply with a single rule than with individual rules for each of the collocated operations. Several industry representatives also expressed interest in a generic rule that would specify consistent requirements for a wide range of coating operations. Another reason to develop a single rule to regulate metal coating operations is that it is more efficient and less costly to develop a single rule than to develop separate rules for several individually listed source categories which have similar emission characteristics and applicable emission reduction measures. A single rule will ensure that coating operations with comparable HAP emissions and emission reduction measures are subject to the same requirements. In addition, compliance and enforcement activities would be more efficient and less costly. B. What Is the Relationship to Other Rules? Affected sources subject to the proposed rule may also be subject to other rules if they perform surface coating of products that are included in another source category. If you own or operate an affected source that is subject to the proposed rule and at the same affected source you also perform surface coating that is subject to any other NESHAP, you may choose to be subject to the requirements of the more stringent of the NESHAP for the entire surface coating affected source. If you choose to comply with the requirements of more stringent NESHAP and you demonstrate that the resulting HAP emission level (tpy) would be less than or equal to that achieved by complying separately with all applicable subparts, compliance with the more stringent NESHAP will constitute compliance with the requirements of the proposed rule. We specifically request comments on how monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements can be consolidated for sources that are subject to more than one rule. 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 miscellaneous metal parts and products 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 miscellaneous metal parts and products include xylene, toluene, MEK, phenol, cresols/cresylic acid, 2-butoxyethanol, styrene, MIBK, ethyl benzene, and glycol ethers. These compounds account for approximately 90 percent of this category's nationwide organic HAP emissions. 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 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 miscellaneous metal parts and products 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 miscellaneous metal parts and products. These operations include preparation of a coating for application ( e.g. , mixing with thinners); surface preparation of the miscellaneous metal parts and products (including paint stripping for the purpose of preparing a substrate for the application of a coating); 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. The coating operation does not include the application of coatings using hand-held aerosol containers. E. What Are the Emission Limits, Operating Limits, and Other Standards? Emission Limits We are proposing to limit organic HAP emissions from each affected source as specified in the following tables. For each of the subcategories (defined in the proposed standards), the emission limit is expressed as the mass of HAP emissions per volume of coating solids used during each 12-month compliance period. Table 2.—Emission Limits for New and Reconstructed Affected Sources Coating type Emission limit (kg HAP/liter of coating solids) Emission limit (lbs HAP/gallon of coating solids) General Use Subcategory: • General Use Coatings 0.23 1.94 • High Performance Coatings 3.30 27.54 Magnet Wire Subcategory 0.05 0.44 Rubber-to-Metal Subcategory 0.82 6.80 Table 3.—Emission Limits for Existing Affected Sources Coating type Emission limit (kg HAP/liter of coating solids) Emission limit (lbs HAP/gallon of coating solids) General Use Subcategory: • General Use Coatings 0.31 2.60 • High Performance Coatings 3.30 27.54 Magnet Wire Subcategory 0.12 1.00 Rubber-to-Metal Subcategory 4.50 37.70 The proposed standards contain provisions that allow you to calculate a facility-specific emission limit if your facility is in the general use subcategory and applies both general use and high performance coatings. The facility-specific limit is a weighted average emission limit based on the relative percentages of each coating type you use during the compliance period. 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 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 thermal oxidizers, you would monitor the combustion temperature. For catalytic oxidizers, you would monitor the temperature immediately before and after the catalyst bed, or you would monitor the temperature before the catalyst bed and implement a site-specific inspection and maintenance plan for the catalytic oxidizer. 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. Work Practice Standards If you use an emission capture system and control device for compliance, you would be required to develop and implement a work practice plan to minimize organic HAP emissions from mixing operations, storage tanks and other containers, and handling operations for coatings, thinners, cleaning materials, and waste materials. The work practice plan must include steps to ensure that, at a minimum: all organic HAP coatings, thinners, cleaning materials, and waste materials are stored in closed containers; spills of organic HAP coatings, thinners, cleaning materials, and waste materials are minimized; organic HAP coatings, thinners, cleaning materials, and waste materials are conveyed from one location to another in closed containers or pipes; mixing vessels which contain organic HAP coatings and other materials are closed except when adding to, removing, or mixing the contents; and emissions of organic HAP are minimized during cleaning of storage, mixing, and conveying equipment. If your affected source has an existing documented plan that incorporates steps taken to minimize emissions from the aforementioned sources, then your existing plan may be used to satisfy the requirement for a work practice plan. Operations During Startup, Shutdown, or 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 (SSMP) during periods of startup, shutdown, or malfunction of the capture system and control device. General Provisions The NESHAP General Provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart A) also would apply to you as indicated in the proposed standards. 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 standards refer to individual sections of the General Provisions to emphasize key sections that are relevant. However, unless specifically overridden in the proposed standards, 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 OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE 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 OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE Federal Register ], whichever is later. The proposed initial compliance period begins on the applicable compliance date and ends on the last day of the twelfth month following the compliance date. If the compliance date occurs on any day other than the first day of a month, then the initial compliance period extends through the end of that month plus the next 12 months. We have defined “month” as a calendar month or a pre-specified period of 28 to 35 days to allow for flexibility at sources where data are based on a business accounting period. 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 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 nonaqueous 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. • For volume fraction of coating solids, use either Equation 1 in § 63.3941 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 the 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 § 63.3965 of the proposed rule 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 § 63.3968 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. As an alternative method for catalytic oxidizers, you would continuously monitor the temperature immediately before the catalyst bed and record it at least every 15 minutes. The operating limit would be the average temperature just before the catalyst bed during the performance test, and for each 3-hour period the average temperature would have to be at or above these limits. As part of the alternative method, you must also develop and implement an inspection and maintenance plan for your catalytic oxidizer. 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. Work Practices If you use the emission rate with add-on controls option, you would be required to develop and implement on an ongoing basis a work practice plan for minimizing organic HAP emissions from storage, mixing, material handling, and waste handling operations. You would have to make the plan available for inspection if the Administrator requests to see it. If your affected source has an existing documented plan that incorporates steps taken to minimize emissions from the aforementioned sources, then your existing plan may be used to satisfy the requirement for a work practice plan. Operations During Startup, Shutdown, or Malfunction If you use a capture system and control device for compliance, you would be required to develop and operate according to a SSMP during periods of startup, shutdown, or malfunction of the capture system and control device. 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 compliance period, the ratio of organic HAP to coating solids is less than or equal to the emission limits. A compliance period consists of 12 months. Each month after the end of the initial compliance period is the end of a compliance period consisting of that month and the preceding 11 months. 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 compliance period 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 compliance period emission rate from those operations. If there were any deviations from the operating limits during the compliance period or any bypasses of the control device, you would account for them in the calculation of the compliance period 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 compliance period, 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 compliance period 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 compliance period, 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. Work Practice Plan If you use the emission rate with add-on controls option, you would be required to implement, on an ongoing basis, the work practice plan you developed during the initial compliance period. If you did not develop a plan for reducing organic HAP emissions or you do not implement the plan, this would be a deviation from the work practice standard. 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 SSMP during periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction of the capture system and control device. 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, no later than 1 year after the effective date for existing sources and no later than 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 and submit a report of the performance test results no later than 60 days after the test 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 your facility is subject to the proposed standards and to NESHAP for another surface coating source category and you have chosen to comply with the more stringent of the standards for the entire facility, your notification would include a certification to that effect. You would also submit documentation that the resulting HAP emission levels are less than or equal to the level that would be achieved by complying with each applicable NESHAP. 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 SSMP; • All information necessary to demonstrate conformance with the affected source's SSMP 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 SSMP 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 emission limitations that apply to you. • 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) of the General Provisions. You must also submit reports of performance test results for emission capture systems and add-on control devices no later than 60 days after completing the tests as specified in § 63.10(d)(2). III. Rationale for Selecting the Proposed Standards A. How Did We Select the Source Category? The surface coating of miscellaneous metal parts and products 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 9.7 Mg (10 tons) of any one HAP or at least 22.7 Mg (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 the proposed rule. The surface coating of miscellaneous metal parts and products as described in the listing includes any facility engaged in the surface coating of miscellaneous metal parts or products. We have used product lists contained in the SIC and NAICS code descriptions to describe examples of the vast array of miscellaneous metal parts and products. We intend the source category to include facilities for which the surface coating of miscellaneous metal parts and products 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; janitorial, building, and facility maintenance operations; or hobby shops where surface coating is performed for noncommercial purposes. 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 miscellaneous metal parts and products include xylene, toluene, MEK, phenol, cresols/cresylic acid, 2-butoxyethanol, styrene, MIBK, ethyl benzene, and glycol ethers. These compounds account for approximately 90 percent of this category's nationwide organic HAP emissions. However, many other organic HAP are used, or can be used, in miscellaneous metal parts and products 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 rulemaking. 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” (40 CFR 63.2) and provide that new source MACT applies when construction or reconstruction of an affected source occurs (40 CFR 63.5). 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 the proposed standards is broadly defined to include all operations associated with the coating of miscellaneous metal parts and products 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 miscellaneous metal parts and products 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 miscellaneous metal parts and products 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 miscellaneous metal parts and products surface coating operations selected for rulemaking, 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. 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). The miscellaneous metal parts and products surface coating source category includes facilities that coat metal parts and products which are not applicable to other specific surface coating MACT source categories. This source category comprises numerous diverse operations that apply surface coatings to metal parts and products including, but not limited to, railroad cars, medical equipment, electronic equipment, wheelbarrows, magnet wire, heavy duty trucks, hardware, power tools, pipes, structural steel, sporting goods, lawn mowers, bicycles, auto parts, musical instruments, steel drums, army tanks, and industrial machinery. In addition, a wide variety of coating technologies and application methods are employed across all these industry segments. Nationwide, there are thousands of facilities involved in coating of miscellaneous metal parts and products, with an estimated 1,500 or more being classified as major sources. Because of the diversity of the products coated and the coating technologies and application methods employed, identification of the top performing facilities in this category is inherently difficult, especially since the control techniques that make these facilities the top performers must be transferrable to other facilities in the category. Consequently, it has been necessary to employ innovation in developing a regulatory approach for this category that provides significant emission reductions while being achievable across the source category. There are no existing Federal or State regulations requiring control of HAP emissions from this category. Reasonably available control technology (RACT) requirements have been in place for reduction of volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions from this category since the late 1970's and may have resulted in some degree of coincidental reductions in HAP emissions. However, since the RACT requirements generally apply only to facilities located in ozone nonattainment areas, and many States have applicability thresholds for the RACT requirements, there are a great number of unregulated miscellaneous metal parts and products facilities remaining. To gather data to support the development of the proposed rule, we utilized written requests for information submitted to owners and operators of facilities within the source category. The results of a two-page screening survey sent to approximately 3,000 facilities were used to identify major and synthetic minor sources that perform coating operations on miscellaneous metal parts and products. This list was augmented with names of facilities provided by trade associations and resulted in a list of 312 corporate owners to which a subsequent, more detailed survey was distributed. The detailed survey resulted in responses from 639 major and synthetic minor sources. Of the facilities responding to the survey, only 332 submitted data of sufficient quality to perform some degree of analysis on coating material usage. We explored various approaches to determining the MACT floor and eventual regulatory strategy based on the data obtained from our data gathering efforts. From the outset, the various facilities were grouped into industry “segments” based on the type of products coated. This was done to identify trends among the segments and to indicate whether one or more segments were influencing the floor determination. It also enabled the stakeholders to more easily check the results for their respective industry segments and give us feedback on the apparent accuracy of the information reported. One approach considered in an effort to minimize the effect of the extreme diversity of the miscellaneous metal parts and products source category was to develop MACT floors using a “coating category” approach. In the coating category approach, the specific industry and the part or product coated had no bearing on the analysis. For this analysis, coatings would be grouped according to their type (primers, color coats, top coats, clear coats, adhesives, etc. ) along with the thinners and additives specified for their use. They could be further categorized by resin type (acrylic, alkyd, epoxy, polyurethane, etc.). Then, the HAP content “as applied” ( i.e., after thinning and mixing of additives) could be determined and the average of the best coatings in each category could represent the MACT floor for that coating category. This approach is similar to the coating category approaches used in the wood furniture manufacturing NESHAP (40 CFR part 63, subpart JJ) and the shipbuilding and ship repair NESHAP (40 CFR part 63, subpart II). However, it is more complex than those since the miscellaneous metal parts and products category comprises a vast array of coatings and is further broken down by resin type. A serious drawback to the detailed coating category approach was that the analysis depended on high quality survey responses that would allow us to correlate coating type with resin type and HAP content for a multitude of combinations. Unfortunately, the survey data did not provide the level of information required to enable us to perform a meaningful analysis of the coating categories. As an alternative to the detailed coating category approach, we attempted an analysis of each facility based on emissions reported from the various coating operations. In many cases, respondents reported HAP emissions for individual coating lines and other emission points as requested. In many others, however, such estimates were not provided. In those cases, we used available survey information on materials used to derive emission estimates for the various emission points at the facility. The combined reported and derived emission estimates were used in conjunction with material data reported to develop a facilitywide ratio of HAP emitted per volume of solids used. This “one number” approach accounted for all coating-related emissions (painting, mixing, thinning, cleaning, etc.) and eliminated the need to separately account for thinning and cleaning solvents, paint additives, etc. Although the “one number” approach is relatively simple, allows flexibility, and accounts for emissions from all operations within the boundaries of the coating operation, we questioned the appropriateness of using a combination of bases to estimate emissions. To check for potential problems, we examined the emissions and materials data reported for several facilities. In many cases, the emissions reported could not be reconciled with the HAP content of the materials used. In some cases, the emissions were reported to be greater than the total HAP content of all materials reported. To avoid basing the MACT floor and eventual rules on questionable, unreconcilable data, we decided to abandon the “emissions” approach and rely solely on the reported HAP content of materials to determine the overall “one number” ratio of pounds HAP to gallons (gal) solids. Using material formulation data reported in the survey, the volatile HAP content and the solids content were both summed across all materials, and a ratio of pounds (lb) HAP used per gal solids used was calculated for each facility. This number was modified to reflect any reductions from add-on controls or from waste materials collected and shipped offsite. Solvents recycled onsite were not subtracted, since they would be reused within the boundaries of the coating operation and would not affect the material balance. Recycled materials coming into the operation from offsite were counted the same as new materials purchased. Once the overall HAP-to-solids ratio was determined for each facility, the facilities were ranked in ascending order based on this ratio ( i.e., ranked best performing to worst performing). The top 12 percent of these facilities were identified and their average ratio represented the MACT floor for the entire source category. A similar procedure was performed on the facilities in 16 individual industry segments to determine the effect certain segments may have on the floor calculation and to qualitatively assess how individual segments may be affected by rules based on the floor. The floor calculation based on all facilities ( i.e., no segmentation) yielded an average ratio of less than 0.1 lb HAP per gal of coating solids. The floor calculations for individual segments yielded averages ranging from zero lb HAP/gal solids (auto parts, structural steel) to very high averages of 13 lb HAP/gal solids (magnet wire) and 58 lb HAP/gal solids (rubber-to-metal products). This variation from segment to segment indicated that a single floor, with no subcategorization, would not be representative of all sources in the source category. A tentative decision was made to divide the source category into at least three subcategories (magnet wire, rubber-to-metal, and all other facilities grouped into a “general use” subcategory) and possibly more depending on the level of homogeneity that could be achieved within each subcategory. In order for the MACT floor to be calculated based on similar sources within a subcategory, the makeup of the subcategory must be homogeneous in terms of processes, application methods, coating types, and applicable HAP control technologies. Too much diversity (with respect to products coated, coating performance requirements, etc. ) within a subcategory could result in an inappropriate MACT floor since the top-performing facilities (and the specific products they coat) may not be representative of the subcategory. After careful review of the survey results from individual facilities and consultation with several stakeholder groups, we concluded that the diversity within the various industry segments of the general use subcategories remained extremely broad. We concluded that some other means of disaggregating the miscellaneous metal parts and products general use subcategory was needed. Because of this lack of homogeneity, we attempted to regroup the products coated within the general use subcategory into a different set of potential subcategories. For example, instead of “automobile parts,” “large trucks and buses,” “recreational vehicles,” “heavy equipment,” and “rail transportation,” the products within these industry segments were regrouped as “vehicle finishing,” “vehicle body parts,” “vehicle mechanical parts,” “engines and engine parts,” and “electrical parts” in order to group more homogeneous products and performance requirements within the subcategory. After further analysis of the data and discussions with stakeholders associated with these existing segments and potential subcategories, we concluded that the top performing facilities within the newly regrouped potential subcategories were still unrepresentative. We concluded at this point that the most frequently used approaches to determining a MACT floor for a source category were unlikely to be applicable to the miscellaneous metal parts and products general use subcategory. An innovative approach was needed to provide reasonable HAP emission reductions while maintaining a realistic expectation that the control measures imposed could, in fact, be achievable across this diverse collection of industries. Instead of determining the MACT floor directly from facility emissions or materials information, we decided to use a combination of State VOC limits and locations of specific miscellaneous metal parts and products facilities to establish the MACT floor using the VOC limits as a surrogate for HAP. The miscellaneous metal parts and products database contains 321 facilities (332 facilities with usable materials information, minus the 11 magnet wire and rubber-to-metal facilities) that are major sources or synthetic minor sources. Using information from the survey, we identified the State in which each facility is located. A review of existing State and local VOC requirements showed that the most stringent limits are those imposed by the various air quality management districts in California. For most coating types, this limit is 2.80 lb VOC per gal of coating (as applied), less water and exempt (non-VOC) solvents. The State of Louisiana imposes a VOC limit of 3.00 lb VOC/gal coating as applied, less water and exempt solvents. The remainder of the States require the 3.50 lb VOC/gal coating limit presented in the Federal control techniques guidelines (CTG) document (Massachusetts and North Carolina express their limits as 6.70 lb VOC/gal solids, which is equivalent to 3.50 lb VOC/gal coating, less water and exempt solvents). The limits discussed here apply to most coating types (general use coatings). Certain specialty coatings are subject to different VOC limits under the California rules and will be addressed in later paragraphs. Knowing the State VOC limits and the locations of the miscellaneous metal parts and products facilities in the database, we were able to determine what the average State VOC limit would be for the top 12 percent of the industry. From a total of 321 facilities, 39 facilities comprised the top 12 percent as follows: California—9 facilities @ 2.80 lb VOC/gal; Louisiana—no facilities @ 3.00 lb VOC/gal; and other States—30 facilities @ 3.50 lb VOC/gal. Using these limits and the facilities subject to them, the average State limit for the top 12 percent was calculated to be 3.30 lb VOC/gal coating, less water and exempt solvents, or 6.00 lb VOC/gal solids. Similarly, the best controlled similar sources would be those subject to the California limit of 2.80 lb VOC/gal coating, or 4.50 lb VOC/gal solids. In order to use the average VOC limit as a surrogate for HAP emissions, we developed a correction factor that relates VOC emissions to HAP emissions within the miscellaneous metal parts and products category. To develop this factor, we calculated the average HAP-to-VOC ratio for all material usage reported by the facilities in the miscellaneous metal parts and products database. By dividing the total amount of HAP reported by the total amount of VOC reported across the miscellaneous metal parts and products category (except for magnet wire and rubber-to-metal products), we determined that the average HAP-to-VOC ratio of materials used is 43 percent. Using this approach, the MACT floor for existing sources was determined by multiplying the average of the top 12 percent (6.00 lb VOC/gal solids) by the correction factor (43 lb HAP/100 lb VOC). This results in an existing source MACT floor of 2.60 lb HAP/gal solids. A similar calculation using the California limit results in a new source MACT floor of 1.90 lb HAP/gal solids. As mentioned earlier, these floor determinations apply to most coatings (those now referred to as “general use” coatings) used within the miscellaneous metal parts and products category. General use coatings are any coatings that do not meet the definitions of the specialty coating categories that are addressed in the following paragraphs. For most industries within the general use subcategory, the coating type used will be defined as “general use coatings” and will be represented by the MACT floor values described above. Certain specialty coatings that are used by some facilities within the general use subcategory have been identified as “high performance coatings.” These coatings are not used in any one industry exclusively, but may be used in varying amounts in many different industries. This coating type includes coatings used in severe conditions such as high temperatures or exposure to a variety of harsh chemicals. Certain architectural coatings are also included in this coating type. The proposed rule contains specific definitions that must be met for coatings to be considered high performance coatings. The new and existing source MACT floor for these types of coatings was developed from California's 6.20 lbs VOC/gal of coating provisions for specialty coatings. This limit was used for both the new and existing source MACT floors because it is the most stringent limit found specifically for these coating types, and because it is currently applicable to facilities in California. The HAP-to-VOC ratio of these coatings, based on information received from industry, is on average about 70 percent. The MACT floor for these coatings is, therefore, 27.54 lbs HAP/gal coating solids (3.30 kg HAP/liter coating solids). The rubber-to-metal products industry segment is considered as a separate subcategory because acceptable low HAP coatings have not been demonstrated for many applications within this industry. Because there are less than 30 facilities within this subcategory, the MACT floor was based on data from the five best performing facilities for which we have data. An analysis of the HAP data provided by the industry in the survey responses lead to the development of a new source floor of 6.80 lbs HAP/gal coating solids (0.82 kg HAP/liter coating solids) and an existing source floor of 37.70 lbs HAP/gal coating solids (4.50 kg HAP/liter coating solids). Magnet wire coating is also considered as a separate subcategory for which specific MACT floor values were determined. The magnet wire industry is unique within the source category because of the design of the curing ovens used in the industry. These ovens are designed to utilize volatile organics in the exhaust gas stream as a supplemental fuel. They typically operate at temperatures that achieve high volatile organic destruction efficiencies. Based on the HAP data provided by the best performing five of the seven facilities for which we have data (there are less than 30 facilities in the subcategory), the new source MACT floor is 0.44 lbs HAP/gal coating solids (0.05 kg HAP/liter coating solids). The MACT floor for existing facilities is 1.00 lb HAP/gal coating solids (0.12 kg HAP/liter coating solids). These values include a factor of 0.27 lb HAP/gal coating solids (0.03 kg HAP/liter coating solids) to account for emissions from cleaning operations. This factor was necessary because the emissions from most cleaning operations that employ solvents containing HAP are not captured and controlled by the ovens. 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 are the use of powder coatings as an alternative to HAP-containing liquid coatings; the use of liquid coatings that have a very low, or no, organic HAP content as an alternative to higher HAP content liquid coatings; and use of add-on capture systems and control devices. Information indicates that several miscellaneous metal parts and products surface coating facilities have converted to using only powder coatings. Such facilities typically produce a single type of product (such as lawn and garden equipment), do not require unusual finishes, and use a small number of colors. Many miscellaneous metal parts and products 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 miscellaneous metal parts and products industry and was, therefore, rejected as a beyond-the-floor option for existing or new sources. 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 many other industries 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 existing or new sources. 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. However, the estimated cost of a permanent total enclosure and a control device, such as an oxidizer, for facilities in this source category could be as much as $1 million. Without having information on the benefits that would be achieved by further reducing emissions beyond-the-floor, we determined that the additional emissions reductions that could be achieved do not warrant the costs that each existing and new source could incur by using add-on controls. Therefore, we are not requiring beyond-the-floor levels of emissions reductions at this time. After implementation of these standards, we will evaluate the health and environmental risks that may be posed as a result of exposure to emissions from the miscellaneous metal parts and products surface coating source category. At that time, we will determine whether the additional costs are warranted, in light of the available risk information. 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 either not technically feasible or economically justified 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 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 this practice may not be common within the industry. We recognize, however, that some 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. Because it is expected that some facilities in the general use subcategory may use both general use and high performance coating types, an equation was developed in the proposed NESHAP that allows a facility-specific emission limit to be calculated based on the relative amounts of each of the coating types used. The emission limit for each facility is a weighted average calculated using the MACT limit and the percentage of solids for each coating type. For example, if an existing facility applies 10,000 gal of solids of general use coatings and 5,000 gal of solids of high performance coatings, the facility's emission limit would be calculated as follows: Limit = EP13AU02.000 For facilities that use only general use or only high performance coatings, the MACT floor emission limit for the entire affected facility is the value specified for that coating type. E. How Did We Select the Format of the Proposed 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 the owners and operators of miscellaneous metal parts and products coating operations flexibility in choosing any combination of means to comply with the emission limits. Options for complying with the standards include coating reformulation, use of lower-HAP or non-HAP materials, solvent elimination, work practices, and add-on control devices. 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 miscellaneous metal parts and products is generally consistent) and, therefore, provides an equitable basis for all coatings, regardless of differences in coating densities. Other choices for the format of the proposed 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 the 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 of 40 CFR part 63, appendix A, 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 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A, 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 nonaqueous 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 obtaining the information for each coating from the supplier (or manufacturer) 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 mass of organic HAP in the coatings and other materials used to calculate the compliance period HAP emission rate in kilograms (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 applicable emission limitations, 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 during each compliance period. 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 MMMM. 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 miscellaneous metal parts and products surface coating operations. Five 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 expected to use a combination of powder coatings, 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 five 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 1,500 existing major source facilities nationwide, and that an additional 45 new facilities would become affected sources each year. 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 25,822 tpy. This represents a reduction of about 48 percent from the baseline organic HAP emissions of 53,869 tpy. For the purpose of estimating the impacts of the proposed standards on new sources, we estimated the percentage of new facilities that would, in the absence of the standards, emit HAP at levels that would exceed the proposed standards. For new sources, we believe that many will use coating technologies that are considered to be “state-of-the-art” coatings ( e.g., powder coatings and low-HAP liquid coatings). However, we assumed for the impacts estimation that the same percentage of both new and existing facilities would be noncomplying at baseline conditions. The baseline emission rate for these noncomplying facilities was assumed to be the same as that determined for the existing source model plants. Using these assumptions, we have estimated the nationwide HAP reductions resulting from new facilities complying with the proposed standards would be about 803 tpy from the 45 new sources that would become subject to the rule each year. 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 five 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 $2,635 for model plant 1, representing the segment of industry with the lowest coating solids usage, to $114,540 for model plant 5, representing the segment of industry that uses over 75,000 gal 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 five industry segments. In addition, we included estimates for monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting costs for all 1,500 existing affected sources. We estimate total nationwide annual costs in the fifth year to comply with the proposed emission limits to be $47.5 million for existing sources. These costs include approximately $8.9 million for direct costs associated with material usage and $38.6 million for recordkeeping and reporting. New Sources We estimate the number of new major sources to be 45 per year, based on an average growth rate of 3 percent per year. Applying the same assumptions for estimating costs that were used for existing sources results in an estimate of the fifth year costs for new sources of about $9.8 million. Of this total, $3.6 million represents the incremental costs of low-HAP materials, and $6.2 million represents the costs for recordkeeping and reporting. C. What Are The Economic Impacts? We performed an economic impact analysis (EIA) to provide an estimate of the impacts on facilities, firms, and markets within this source category. Given the wide diversity of products that will be affected by the proposed standards, EPA relied upon estimated compliance costs and publicly available financial data on affected firms to determine these impacts. In general, we expect the economic impacts of the proposed standards to be minimal, with little or no change in market prices or production. Therefore, no adverse impact will occur for those industries that consume coated metal parts such as building and construction, transportation equipment and vehicle parts, and other industrial and consumer products. Based on the industry survey responses, EPA was able to identify 176 companies that owned 321 potentially affected facilities within this source category. Of this total, we obtained sales data for 147 companies and net income data for 76 companies. For those companies with sales data, the EIA indicates that these regulatory costs average less than 0.1 percent of company sales with a range from zero to 1.25 percent. For those companies with net income data, these regulatory costs average 0.2 percent of company net income with a range from zero to 3.6 percent. This analysis indicates that the cost of the proposed standards should not cause producers to cease or significantly alter their current operations. Hence, no firms or facilities are expected to be at risk of closure because of the proposed standards. For more information, consult the docket for this project. 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 the proposed 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. The 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 the proposed 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 the proposed rule. Although Section 6 of Executive Order 13132 does not apply to the proposed rule, EPA did consult with State and local officials to enable them to provide timely input in the development of the proposed rule. C. Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments Executive Order 13175, entitled “Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments” (65 FR 67249, November 6, 2000), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure “meaningful and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory policies that have tribal implications.” “Policies that have tribal implications” is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations that have “substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal government and the Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal government and Indian tribes.” The proposed rule does not have tribal implications. It will not have substantial direct effects on tribal governments, on the relationship between the Federal government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal government and Indian tribes, as specified in Executive Order 13175. No tribal governments own or operate miscellaneous metal parts and products surface coating facilities. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to the proposed rule. D. Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks Executive Order 13045, “Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks” (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. The proposed rule is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it does not establish environmental standards 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, the proposed rule has been determined not to be “economically significant” as defined under Executive Order 12866. E. Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use The proposed rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866. F. 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 to 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 the proposed rule does not contain a Federal mandate that may result in expenditures of $100 million or more to State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the private sector in any 1 year. The maximum total annual cost of the proposed rule for any 1 year has been estimated to be about $57.5 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 the 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. G. 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 Procedure 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 purposes of assessing the impacts of today's proposed rule on small entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business according to Small Business Administration (SBA) size standards ranging from 100-1,000 employees or less than $5 million in annual sales; (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a city, town, county, 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. It should be noted that companies affected by this proposed rule, and the small business definition applied to each industry by NAICS code is that listed in the Small Business Administration size standards (13 CFR part 121). For purposes of assessing the impacts of today's proposed rule on small entities, EPA conducted an assessment of the proposed standards on small businesses within the miscellaneous metal parts source category. Based on SBA size definitions and reported sales and employment data, EPA's survey identified 29 of the 147 companies owning major source facilities as small businesses. The average (median) total annual compliance cost is projected to be $59,000 ($36,000) per small company. Under the proposed standards, the average (median) annual compliance cost share of sales for small busines [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%3A02-14759. Public record. Not legal advice.