National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Surface Coating of Automobiles and Light-Duty Trucks

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 63, 264 and 265

[OAR-2002-0093; FRL-7630-9]

RIN 2060-AG99

National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Surface Coating of Automobiles and Light-Duty Trucks

AGENCY:

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

This action promulgates national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP) for automobile and light-duty truck surface coating operations located at major sources of hazardous air pollutants (HAP). The final rule implements 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 final rule will protect air quality and promote the public health by reducing emissions of HAP from facilities in the automobile and light-duty truck surface coating source category. The primary HAP emitted by these operations are toluene, xylene, glycol ethers, methyl ethyl ketone (MEK), methyl isobutyl ketone (MIBK), ethylbenzene, and methanol. The final standards are expected to reduce nationwide organic HAP emissions from major sources in this source category by approximately 60 percent.

This action also amends the Surface Coating of Miscellaneous Metal Parts and Products NESHAP (40 CFR part 63, subpart MMMM) and the Surface Coating of Plastic Parts and Products NESHAP (40 CFR part 63, subpart PPPP) to clarify the interaction between these rules and the Surface Coating of Automobiles and Light-Duty Trucks NESHAP (40 CFR part 63, subpart IIII).

Additionally, this action amends the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Air Emission Standards for Equipment Leaks at 40 CFR parts 264 and 265, subparts BB, for owners and operators of hazardous waste treatment, storage, and disposal facilities to exempt air emissions from certain activities covered by the final NESHAP from these RCRA standards.

DATES:

The final rule is effective June 25, 2004. The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in the final rule is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of June 25, 2004.

ADDRESSES:

Docket.

Docket ID No. OAR-2002-0093 and Docket ID No. A-2001-22 are located at the EPA Docket Center, EPA West (6102T), 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW., Room B-102, Washington, DC 20460.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Mr. David Salman, Coatings and Consumer Products Group, Emission Standards Division (C539-03), U.S. EPA, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711; telephone number (919) 541-0859; facsimile number (919) 541-5689; electronic mail address:

salman.dave@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Regulated Entities.

Categories and entities potentially regulated by this action are listed by North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes listed in Table 1.

Table 1.—Categories and Entities Potentially Regulated by the Final Standards

Category

NAICS

Examples of potentially regulated entities

Industry

336111, 336112, 336211

Automobile and light-duty truck assembly plants, producers of automobile and light-duty truck bodies.

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 § 63.3081 of the final rule.

Docket.

The EPA has established an official public docket for this action under Docket ID No. OAR-2002-0093 and Docket ID No. A-2001-22. The official public docket consists of the documents specifically referenced in this action, any public comments received, and other information related to this action. All items may not be listed under both docket numbers, so interested parties should inspect both docket numbers to ensure that they have received all materials relevant to the final rule. Although a part of the official docket, the public docket does not include Confidential Business Information or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. The official public docket is the collection of materials that is available for public viewing at the EPA Docket Center, EPA West, Room B-102, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460. The EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the Docket is (202) 566-1742. A reasonable fee may be charged for copying docket materials.

Electronic Docket Access.

You may access this

Federal Register

document electronically through the EPA Internet under the “

Federal Register

” listings at

http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr.

An electronic version of the public docket is available through EPA's electronic public docket and comment system, EPA Dockets. You may use EPA Dockets at

http://www.epa.gov/edocket/

to view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the official public docket, and to access those documents in the public docket that are available electronically. Although not all docket materials may be available electronically, you may still access any of the publicly available docket materials through the docket facility identified above. Once in the system, select “search,” then key in the appropriate docket identification number.

WorldWide Web (WWW)

. In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of the final rule will be available on the WWW. Following the Administrator's signature, a copy of the final rule will be posted at

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg

on EPA's Technology Transfer Network (TTN) policy and guidance page for newly proposed or promulgated rules. 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.

Judicial Review

. Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, judicial review of the final rule is available only by the filing of a petition for review in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit by June 25, 2004. Under section 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA, only an objection to the rule that was

raised with reasonable specificity during the period for public comment can be raised during judicial review. Under section 307(b)(2) of the CAA, the requirements established by the final rule may not be challenged separately in any civil or criminal proceedings brought by EPA to enforce these requirements.

Outline:

The following outline is provided to aid in reading the preamble to the final rule:

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 Primary Sources of Emissions and What are the Emissions?

D. What are the Health Effects Associated with Organic HAP Emissions from the Surface Coating of Automobiles and Light-duty Trucks?

II. Summary of the Final Rule

A. What Source Categories are Affected by the Final Rule?

B. What is the Relationship to Other Rules?

C. What is the Affected Source?

D. What are the Emission Limits, Operating Limits, and Other Standards?

E. What are the Testing and Initial Compliance Requirements?

F. What are the Continuous Compliance Provisions?

G. What are the Notification, Recordkeeping, and Reporting Requirements?

III. What are the Significant Changes Since Proposal?

A. Applicability

B. Compliance Demonstration and Monitoring

C. Analytical Methods

D. Notifications and Recordkeeping

E. Definitions

IV. What are the Responses to Significant Comments?

A. Applicability

B. Compliance Demonstration, Monitoring, and Emission Limits

C. Analytical Methods

D. Notifications, Reports, and Recordkeeping

E. Definitions

F. Amendment of RCRA Rule

G. Risk Based Approaches

V. 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?

VI. How Will the Amendments to 40 CFR parts 264 and 265, Subparts BB, of the Hazardous Waste Regulations be Implemented in the States?

A. Applicability of Federal Rules in Authorized States

B. Authorization of States for Today's Amendments

VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks

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

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

J. Congressional Review 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 surface coating of automobiles and light-duty trucks category of major sources was listed on July 16, 1992 (57 FR 31576). 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(c)(2) of the CAA requires that we establish NESHAP for the control of HAP from both new and existing major sources, based upon the criteria set out in section 112(d). The CAA requires the NESHAP to reflect the maximum degree of reduction in emissions of HAP that is achievable, taking into consideration the cost of achieving the emission reduction, any non-air quality health and environmental impacts, and energy requirements. This level of control is commonly referred to as 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 the final NESHAP, we considered control options that are more stringent than the MACT floor, taking into account consideration of the cost of achieving the emission reduction, any non-air quality health and environmental impacts, and energy requirements. In the final rule, EPA is promulgating standards for both existing and new sources consistent with these statutory requirements.

C. What Are the Primary Sources of Emissions and What Are the Emissions?

HAP emission sources.

Emissions from coating application, drying, and curing account for most of the HAP emissions from automobile and light-duty truck surface coating operations. The remaining emissions are primarily from cleaning of booths and application equipment and purging of spray equipment. Mixing and storage are other sources of emissions. Organic HAP emissions can occur from displacement of organic vapor-laden air in containers used to store organic HAP solvents or to mix coatings containing organic 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. In most cases, HAP emissions from surface preparation and waste/wastewater operations are relatively small.

Organic HAP

. The final NESHAP regulate emissions of organic HAP. Available emission data collected during the development of the NESHAP show that the primary organic HAP emitted from automobile and light-duty truck surface coating operations are toluene, xylene, glycol ethers, MEK, MIBK, ethylbenzene, and methanol. These compounds account for over 95 percent of the nationwide HAP emissions from this source category.

Inorganic HAP

. Based on information reported during the development of the NESHAP, lead, manganese, and chromium may be contained in some of the coatings used by this source category but are not likely to be emitted due to the coating application techniques used. No inorganic HAP were reported in thinners or cleaning materials. The only use of lead in coatings in this source category is in electrodeposition primers. None of this lead is emitted because these primers are applied by dip coating. Lead is being

phased out of electrodeposition primers. For spray applied coatings, most of the inorganic HAP components remain as solids in the dry coating film on the parts being coated, are collected by the circulating water under the spray booth floor grates, or are deposited on the walls, floor, and grates of the spray booths and other equipment in which they are applied. Therefore, inorganic HAP emission levels are expected to be very low and have not been quantified.

D. What Are the Health Effects Associated With Organic HAP Emissions From the Surface Coating of Automobiles and Light-Duty Trucks?

The HAP to be controlled with the final rule are associated with a variety of adverse health effects. Some of the potential toxic effects include effects to the central nervous system, such as fatigue, nausea, tremors, and lack of coordination; adverse effects on the liver, kidneys, and blood; respiratory effects; and developmental effects.

The degree of adverse effects to human health from exposure to HAP can range from mild to severe. The extent and degree to which the human health effects may be experienced are dependent upon (1) The ambient concentration observed in the area (as influenced by emission rates, meteorological conditions, and terrain); (2) the frequency and duration of exposures; (3) characteristics of exposed individuals (genetics, age, preexisting health conditions, and lifestyle), which vary significantly with the population; and (4) pollutant-specific characteristics (toxicity, half-life in the environment, bioaccumulation, and persistence).

We do not have the type of current detailed data on each of the facilities covered by these emission standards for this source category, and the people living around the facilities, that would be necessary to conduct a detailed analysis to determine the actual population exposures to the organic HAP emitted from these facilities and potential for resultant health effects. We did conduct a rough risk assessment which indicated that both the baseline level of adverse health effects and the effect of the final rule on human health are small. This rough risk assessment is discussed further later in this preamble and is available in the docket.

II. Summary of the Final Rule

A. What Source Categories Are Affected by the Final Rule?

The final rule applies to you if you own or operate a new, reconstructed, or existing affected source, as defined in § 63.3082, that is located at a facility which applies topcoat to new automobile or new light-duty truck bodies or body parts for new automobiles or new light-duty trucks, and that is a major source, is located at a major source, or is part of a major source of emissions of HAP. Body part is defined in the final rule to mean exterior parts such as hoods, fenders, doors, roof, quarter panels, decklids, tail gates, and cargo beds. Body parts were traditionally made of sheet metal, but now are also made of plastic. Bumpers, fascia, and cladding are not body parts. Coating operations included in this source category include, but are not limited to, the application of electrodeposition primer, primer-surfacer, topcoat (including basecoat and clear coat), final repair, glass bonding primer, glass bonding adhesive, sealer, adhesive, and deadener. The application of blackout and anti-chip materials is included in these coating operations, as is the cleaning and purging of equipment associated with the coating operations. If you are subject to the final rule and also coat parts intended for use in new automobiles or new light-duty trucks or as aftermarket repair or replacement parts for automobiles or light-duty trucks which would otherwise be subject to the Surface Coating of Miscellaneous Metal Parts and Products NESHAP (40 CFR part 63, subpart MMMM) or the Surface Coating of Plastic Parts and Products NESHAP (40 CFR part 63, subpart PPPP), you have the option to include these operations under the final rule. Alternately, you may choose to have such collocated coating operations remain subject to either the Surface Coating of Miscellaneous Metal Parts and Products NESHAP (40 CFR part 63, subpart MMMM) or the Surface Coating of Plastic Parts and Products NESHAP (40 CFR part 63, subpart PPPP). You may not include collocated operations that apply surface coatings to parts that are not intended for use in automobiles and light-duty trucks in your affected source under the final rule. We are also amending the Surface Coating of Miscellaneous Metal Parts and Products NESHAP (40 CFR part 63, subpart MMMM) and the Surface Coating of Plastic Parts and Products NESHAP (40 CFR part 63, subpart PPPP) to clarify the interaction between these rules and the Surface Coating of Automobiles and Light-Duty Trucks NESHAP (40 CFR part 63, subpart IIII). Automobile customizers, body shops, and refinishers are excluded from this source category.

You are not subject to the final rule if your coating operation is located at an area source. An area source is any stationary source of HAP that is not a major source.

You may establish area source status prior to the compliance date of the final rule by limiting the source's potential to emit HAP through appropriate mechanisms available through the permitting authority.

This source category does not include research or laboratory operations or janitorial, building, and facility maintenance operations.

We are also amending the RCRA Air Emissions Standards for Equipment Leaks at 40 CFR parts 264 and 265, subparts BB. The amendments exempt air emissions from the collection and transmission of captured purge material which would otherwise be subject to requirements of subparts BB of 40 CFR parts 264 and 265 if they are subject to the requirements of the final NESHAP. Generally, subparts BB of 40 CFR parts 264 and 265 apply to equipment that contains or contacts RCRA hazardous wastes with organic concentrations of at least 10 percent by weight. Subparts BB apply to large quantity generators as well as to RCRA treatment, storage, and disposal facilities. Subparts BB were designed to minimize air emissions from leaks from equipment such as pumps, valves, flanges, and connections.

The work practice standards in § 63.3094 of the final NESHAP address emissions from purging of coating applicators, the collection and transmission of purged paint and solvent in a purge capture system, and the storage of captured purge material. The collection and transmission systems would potentially be subject to the requirements of subparts BB. The potential for air releases once purged materials are captured is relatively small. The HAP emissions from captured purge materials are very small in comparison with the coating application, drying, and curing. Measurements made by industry indicate that emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOC) would be at least one to two orders of magnitude less than concentrations that would meet the definition of a leak under subparts BB of 40 CFR parts 264 and 265. Additionally, the collected mixture is usually shipped off-site to a solvent recycler and the automobile and light-duty truck facility typically receives a credit from the off-site solvent recycler for the solvent recovered from the mixture. This provides an additional incentive for the industry to retain as much of the captured purge material as possible, and therefore to repair any leaks as quickly as possible. For these

reasons and to avoid duplication, if such a collection and transmission system is subject to the final NESHAP then it is exempt from the requirements of subparts BB of 40 CFR parts 264 and 265.

If a facility chooses to include under the NESHAP operations which coat parts intended for use in new automobiles or new light-duty trucks or as aftermarket repair or replacement parts for automobiles or light-duty trucks which would otherwise be subject to the NESHAP for surface coating of miscellaneous metal parts and products (40 CFR part 63, subpart MMMM) or surface coating of plastic parts and products (40 CFR part 63, subpart PPPP), then the captured purge material from these operations are also exempt from the requirements of subparts BB of 40 CFR parts 264 and 265. Many of the coatings applied at facilities subject to the final NESHAP to separate, non-body plastic parts and separate, non-body metal parts for automobiles and light-duty trucks are similar in composition to those applied to automobile and light-duty truck bodies and body parts. The captured purge materials are conveyed to waste tanks in the same fashion as the purged materials from automobile and light-duty truck body coating operations.

B. What Is the Relationship to Other Rules?

Affected sources subject to the final rule may also be subject to other rules. Automobile and light-duty truck surface coating operations that began construction, reconstruction, or modification after October 5, 1979 are subject to new source performance standards (NSPS) under 40 CFR part 60, subpart MM. That rule limits emissions of VOC. The EPA has also published control techniques guidelines which establish reasonably available control technologies for limiting VOC emissions from automobile and light-duty truck surface coating operations. Additional VOC emission limitations may also apply to these facilities through conditions incorporated in State operating permits and permits issued under authority of title V of the CAA. Facilities in this subcategory may also be subject to various emission limitations pursuant to State air toxics rules.

An automobile and light-duty truck surface coating facility may be subject to other NESHAP. Subparts MMMM (for surface coating of miscellaneous metal parts and products) and PPPP (for surface coating of plastic parts and products) of 40 CFR part 63, limit emissions from coating operations conducted on separate, non-body parts. To decrease the burden of complying with multiple surface coating emission limits, the final rule provides that collocated operations that apply surface coating to any automobile and light-duty truck part may be optionally included under the final rule. Surface coating of metal and plastic parts not intended for attachment to automobiles and light-duty trucks remain covered under the relevant subpart, 40 CFR part 63, subpart MMMM for metal parts and 40 CFR part 63, subpart PPPP for plastic parts. We are also amending 40 CFR part 63, subparts MMMM and PPPP to clarify the interaction between these rules and the final rule. Facilities may also be subject to other rules relating to collocated equipment such as foundries and boilers.

The transmission and storage of captured purge materials from coating equipment may also be subject to the RCRA tank system requirements under subparts J of 40 CFR parts 264 and 265, and the Air Emission Standards for Equipment Leaks under subparts BB of of 40 CFR parts 264 and 265. The tank system rules under subparts J apply to hazardous waste storage tanks, all ancillary equipment used to convey hazardous waste to such tanks, and secondary containment systems. The requirements of subparts J are designed to prevent releases from hazardous waste tank systems and to detect and respond to releases from hazardous waste tank systems, thereby ensuring minimal risk of hazardous waste reaching ground water, surface waters, or soils.

The air emission standards for equipment leaks under subparts BB of 40 CFR parts 264 and 265 apply to equipment that contains or contacts RCRA hazardous waste with organic concentrations of at least 10 percent by weight. Subparts BB were designed to minimize air emissions from leaks from equipment such as pumps, valves, flanges, and connections. To avoid duplication between subparts BB and the final NESHAP, we are exempting equipment from subparts BB if it is subject to the Surface Coating of Automobiles and Light-Duty Trucks NESHAP.

C. What Is the Affected Source?

We define an affected source as a stationary source, group of stationary sources, or part of a stationary source to which a specific emission standard applies. The final rule defines the affected source as all of the equipment used to apply coating to new automobile or new light-duty truck bodies or body parts for new automobiles or new light-duty trucks and to dry or cure the coating after application; all storage containers and mixing vessels in which vehicle body coatings, thinners, and cleaning materials are stored or mixed; all manual and automated equipment and containers used for conveying vehicle body coatings, thinners, and cleaning materials; and all storage containers and all manual and automated equipment and containers used for conveying waste materials generated by an automobile and light-duty truck surface coating operation. Operations that apply surface coating to other automobile and light-duty truck parts may be optionally included in the affected source.

The affected source does not include research or laboratory operations or janitorial, building, and facility maintenance operations.

D. What Are the Emission Limits, Operating Limits, and Other Standards?

Emission limits.

The final rule limits organic HAP emissions from each new or reconstructed automobile and light-duty truck surface coating facility using the emission limits in Table 2 of this preamble.

Table 2.—Emission Limits for New or Reconstructed Affected Sources (monthly average)

Operation

Limit

Combined electrodeposition primer, primer-surfacer, topcoat, final repair, glass bonding primer, and glass bonding adhesive operation plus all coatings and thinners, except for deadener materials and for adhesive and sealer materials that are not components of glass bonding systems, used in coating operations added to the affected source pursuant to § 63.3082(c)

0.036 kilogram (kg) (0.30 pound (lb)) organic HAP/liter (HAP/gallon (gal)) of coating solids deposited).

Combined primer-surfacer, topcoat, final repair, glass bonding primer, and glass bonding adhesive operation plus all coatings and thinners, except for deadener materials and for adhesive and sealer materials that are not components of glass bonding systems, used in coating operations added to the affected source pursuant to § 63.3082(c) (for sources meeting the operating limits of § 63.3092(a) or (b))

0.060 kg (0.50 lb organic HAP/1iter (HAP/gal) of coating solids deposited).

Adhesives and sealers, other than glass bonding adhesive

0.010 kg/kg (lb/lb) of material used.

Deadener

0.010 kg/kg (lb/lb) of material used.

We are limiting organic HAP emissions from each existing automobile and light-duty truck surface coating facility using the emission limits in Table 3 of this preamble.

Table 3.—Emission Limits for Existing Affected Sources (monthly average)

Operation

Limit

Combined electrodeposition primer, primer-surfacer, topcoat, final repair, glass bonding primer, and glass bonding adhesive operation plus all coatings and thinners, except for deadener materials and for adhesive and sealer materials that are not components of glass bonding systems, used in coating operations added to the affected source pursuant to § 63.3082(c)

0.072 kg (0.60 lb) organic HAP/liter (HAP/gal) of coating solids deposited.

Combined primer-surfacer, topcoat, final repair, glass bonding primer, and glass bonding adhesive operation plus all coatings and thinners, except for deadener materials and for adhesive and sealer materials that are not components of glass bonding systems, used in coating operations added to the affected source pursuant to § 63.3082(c) (for sources meeting the operating limits of § 63.3092(a) or (b))

0.132 kg (1.10 lb) organic HAP/liter (HAP/gal) of coating solids deposited.

Adhesives and sealers other than glass bonding adhesive

0.010 kg/kg (lb/lb) of material used.

Deadener

0.010 lb/lb (kg/kg) of material used.

You must calculate emissions from: (1) The combined electrodeposition primer, primer-surfacer, topcoat, final repair, glass bonding primer, and glass bonding adhesive operations plus all coatings and thinners, except for deadener materials and for adhesive and sealer materials that are not components of glass bonding systems, used in coating operations added to the affected source pursuant to § 63.3082(c); or (2) the combined primer-surfacer, topcoat, final repair, glass bonding primer, and glass bonding adhesive operations (electrodeposition primer considered separately per §§ 63.3091(b) and 63.3092(b)) plus all coatings and thinners, except for deadener materials and for adhesive and sealer materials that are not components of glass bonding systems, used in coating operations added to the affected source pursuant to § 63.3082(c) using the procedures in the final rule, which account for the organic HAP contents of the materials applied in each month, as well as transfer efficiency and overall efficiencies of any capture systems and control devices in use. The monthly average emission rate for the combined group of operations (either grouping type (1) or grouping type (2) above) is calculated and compared to the applicable emission limit. Some facilities have multiple paint lines (

e.g.

, a facility with two or more totally distinct paint lines, each serving a distinct assembly line, or a facility with two or more paint lines sharing the same paint kitchen or mix room). The owner or operator may choose to group all of the operations from two or more paint lines together, or to make a separate grouping of the operations from individual paint lines. These options would, for example, allow a facility with two paint lines to use a grouping with electrodeposition primer (grouping type (1) above) for one paint line and a grouping with electrodeposition primer considered separately (grouping type (2) above) for the other paint line. They would also, for example, allow a facility with three paint lines to use one grouping for two of the paint lines and a separate grouping of the same type or of the other type for the third paint line. You must average organic HAP contents of other materials used on a monthly basis to determine separately those emissions from sealers and adhesives (other than glass bonding adhesive), and deadeners.

Operating limits.

If you use an emission capture and control system to reduce emissions, the operating limits may apply to you. These operating limits are site-specific parameter limits you determine during the initial performance test of the system. For capture systems that are not capturing emissions from a downdraft spray booth or from a flash-off area or bake oven associated with a downdraft spray booth, you must identify the parameter(s) to monitor and establish the limits and monitoring procedures. For thermal and catalytic oxidizers, you must establish temperature limits. For solvent recovery systems, you must monitor the outlet concentration or carbon bed temperature and the amount of steam or nitrogen used to desorb the bed. All operating limits must reflect operation of the capture and control system during a performance test that demonstrates achievement of the emission limit during representative operating conditions.

Work practice standards.

You must develop and implement a work practice plan to minimize organic HAP emissions from the storage, mixing, and conveying of coatings, thinners, and cleaning materials used in and waste

materials generated by all coating operations for which emission limits are established. The plan must specify practices and procedures to ensure that, at a minimum, the following elements are implemented:

• All organic-HAP-containing coatings, thinners, cleaning materials, and waste materials must be stored in closed containers. The risk of spills of organic-HAP-containing coatings, thinners, cleaning materials, and waste materials must be minimized.

• Organic-HAP-containing coatings, thinners, cleaning materials, and waste materials must be conveyed from one location to another in closed containers or pipes.

• Mixing vessels, other than day tanks equipped with continuous agitation systems, which contain organic-HAP-containing coatings and other materials must be closed except when adding to, removing, or mixing the contents.

• Emissions of organic HAP must be minimized during cleaning of storage, mixing, and conveying equipment.

You must also develop and implement a work practice plan to minimize organic HAP emissions from cleaning and from purging of equipment associated with all coating operations for which emission limits are established. The plan must specify practices and procedures to ensure that emissions of HAP from the following operations are minimized:

• Vehicle body wiping;

• Coating line purging;

• Flushing of coating systems;

• Cleaning of spray booth grates;

• Cleaning of spray booth walls;

• Cleaning of spray booth equipment;

• Cleaning external spray booth areas; and

• Other housekeeping measures (

e.g.

, keeping solvent-laden rags in closed containers.)

General Provisions.

The General Provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart A) also apply to you as outlined in Table 2 of the final rule. The General Provisions codify certain procedures and criteria for all 40 CFR part 63 NESHAP. The General Provisions contain administrative procedures, preconstruction review procedures for new sources, and procedures for conducting compliance-related activities such as notifications, recordkeeping and reporting, performance testing, and monitoring. The final rule refers to individual sections of the General Provisions to emphasize key sections that you should be aware of. However, unless specifically overridden in Table 2 of the final rule, all of the applicable General Provisions requirements would apply to you.

E. What Are the Testing and Initial Compliance Requirements?

Existing affected sources must be in compliance with the final rule no later than April 26, 2007. New and reconstructed sources must be in compliance upon initial startup of the affected source or by June 25, 2004, whichever is later. However, affected sources are not required to demonstrate compliance until the end of the initial compliance period when they will have accumulated the necessary records to document the monthly organic HAP emission rate.

Compliance with the emission limits is based on a monthly organic HAP emission rate. The initial compliance period, therefore, is the 1-month period beginning on the compliance date. If the compliance date occurs on any day other than the first day of a month, then the initial compliance period begins on the compliance date and extends through the end of that month plus the following month. 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 all the requirements of the final rule to achieve the emission limit(s) and operating limits by the end of the initial compliance period, and that the facility is operated in accordance with the approved work practice plans. At the end of the initial compliance period, the owner or operator must use the data and records generated to determine whether or not the affected source is in compliance for that period. If it does not meet the applicable limit(s), then it is out of compliance for the entire initial compliance period.

Emission limits.

Compliance with the emission limit for combined electrodeposition primer, primer-surfacer, topcoat, final repair, glass bonding primer, and glass bonding adhesive plus all coatings and thinners, except for deadener materials and for adhesive and sealer materials that are not components of glass bonding systems, used in coating operations added to the affected source pursuant to § 63.3082(c), or the emission limit for combined primer-surfacer, topcoat, final repair, glass bonding primer, and glass bonding adhesive plus all coatings and thinners, except for deadener materials and for adhesive and sealer materials that are not components of glass bonding systems, used in coating operations added to the affected source pursuant to § 63.3082(c) is based on mass organic HAP emissions per volume of applied coating solids as calculated monthly using the procedures in the final rule. Compliance with the emission limits for adhesives and sealers (other than glass bonding adhesive) and deadener is based on mass average organic HAP content of materials used each month.

Electrodeposition primer, primer-surfacer, topcoat, final repair, glass bonding primer, and glass bonding adhesive plus all coatings and thinners, except for deadener materials and for adhesive and sealer materials that are not components of glass bonding systems, used in coating operations added to the affected source pursuant to § 63.3082(c).

Compliance with this emission limit, or if eligible, with the emission limit for combined primer-surfacer, topcoat, final repair, glass bonding primer, and glass bonding adhesive plus all coatings and thinners, except for deadener materials and for adhesive and sealer materials that are not components of glass bonding systems, used in coating operations added to the affected source pursuant to § 63.3082(c), is based on calculations detailed in the final rule. You may also use the guidelines presented in the “Protocol for Determining the Daily Volatile Organic Compound Emission Rate of Automobile and Light-Duty Truck Topcoat Operations” (EPA-450/3-88-018) (Auto Protocol).

To determine the organic HAP content, the volume solids, and the density of the coatings and thinners, you may rely on manufacturer's data, results from the test methods listed below, or alternative test methods for which you get EPA approval on a case-by-case basis according to the NESHAP General Provisions in 40 CFR 63.7(f). However, if there is any inconsistency between the test results and manufacturer's data, the test results will prevail for compliance and enforcement purposes unless after consultation, you demonstrate to the satisfaction of the enforcement authority that the manufacturer's data are correct.

• For organic HAP content, use Method 311 of 40 CFR part 63, appendix A.

• You may use nonaqueous volatile matter as a surrogate for organic HAP. If you choose this option, then use Method 24 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A.

• For volume fraction of coating solids, use either ASTM Method D2697-86 (1998) or ASTM Method D6093-97.

• For density, use ASTM Method D1475-98 or information from the

supplier or manufacturer of the material.

For each emission capture and control system that you use, you must:

• Conduct an initial performance test to determine the overall control efficiency of the equipment (described below) and to establish operating limits to be achieved on a continuous basis (also described below). The performance test must be completed no later than the compliance date. You also must schedule it in time to obtain the results for use in completing your initial compliance determination for the initial compliance period.

You are not required to conduct an initial performance test to determine capture efficiency or destruction efficiency of a capture system or control device if you receive approval to use the results of a performance test that has been previously conducted on that capture system (either a previous stack test or a previous panel test) or control device. You are not required to conduct an initial test to determine transfer efficiency if you receive approval to use the results of a test that has been previously conducted.

The overall control efficiency for a capture and control system must be demonstrated based on emission capture and reduction efficiency. To determine the capture efficiency, you must either verify the presence of a permanent total enclosure using EPA Method 204 of 40 CFR part 51; measure the capture efficiency using either EPA Method 204A through F of 40 CFR part 51 or appendix A of 40 CFR part 63, subpart KK; or use the panel test procedures in ASTM Method D5087-91 (1994), ASTM Method D6266-00a, or the guidelines presented in the Auto Protocol as described in § 63.3165(e) and (g), and appendix A of the final rule. If you have a permanent total enclosure and you route all exhaust gases from the enclosure to a control device, then you may assume 100 percent capture. For panel testing, the coatings used may be grouped based on similar appearance characteristics (

e.g.

, solid color or metallic), processing sequences, and dry film thicknesses. One coating from each group can be tested to represent all of the coatings in that group.

To determine the emission reduction efficiency of the control device, you must conduct measurements of the inlet and outlet gas streams. The test consists 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, may be used.

You are required to determine the transfer efficiency for primer-surfacer and topcoat materials and for all coatings, except for deadener and for adhesive and sealer that are not components of glass bonding systems, used in coating operations added to the affected source pursuant to § 63.3082(c) using ASTM Method D5066-91 (2001) or the guidelines presented in the Auto Protocol. Transfer efficiency testing may be performed for representative coatings and representative spray booths as described in the Auto Protocol, rather than for every coating and every spray booth. For example, one basecoat may be tested from a group of basecoats that are applied or processed in the same manner and the test result may be used for all of the coatings in the group and one spray booth may be tested from a group of identical parallel spray booths. Typical basecoat groupings are metallic colors and non-metallic colors. You may assume 100 percent transfer efficiency for electrodeposition primer coatings, glass bonding primers, and glass bonding adhesives. For final repair coatings, you may assume 40 percent transfer efficiency for air atomized spray and 55 percent transfer efficiency for electrostatic spray and high volume, low pressure spray.

The monthly emission rate, in terms of mass of organic HAP emitted per volume of coating solids deposited, is determined in accordance with the procedures in the final rule. These procedures incorporate the volume, organic HAP content, and volume solids content of each coating applied, as well as the transfer efficiency for the coatings and spray equipment used, and the overall control efficiency for controlled booths or bake ovens and other controlled emission points.

Adhesives and sealers, and deadener.

Compliance with emissions limits for adhesives and sealers (other than windshield materials) is based on the monthly mass average organic HAP content of all materials of this type used during the compliance period. Compliance with emission limits for deadener is based on the monthly mass average organic HAP content of all materials of this type used during the compliance period.

Operating limits.

As mentioned above, you must establish the required operating limits during the initial performance test of an emission capture and control system. The operating limit is defined as the minimum or maximum (as applicable) value achieved for a control device or process parameter during the most recent performance test that demonstrated compliance with the emission limit.

The final rule specifies the parameters to monitor for the types of control systems commonly used in the industry. You are 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 § 63.3168 of the final rule. If you use control devices other than those identified in the final rule, you must 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 must continuously monitor temperature and record it at evenly spaced intervals 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 for thermal oxidizers is the average temperature, based on all valid data, measured during the performance test. For each 3-hour period thereafter, the average temperature must be at or above this limit. As an alternative, if the latest operating permit issued before April 26, 2007 for the thermal oxidizer at your facility contains recordkeeping and reporting requirements for the combustion temperature that are consistent with the requirements for thermal oxidizers in 40 CFR 60.395(c), then you may set the minimum operating limit for the combustion temperature for each such thermal oxidizer at your affected source at 28 degrees Celsius (50 degrees Fahrenheit) below the average combustion temperature during the performance test of that thermal oxidizer. If you do not have an operating permit for the thermal oxidizer at your facility and the latest construction permit issued before April 26, 2007 for the thermal oxidizer at your facility contains recordkeeping and reporting requirements for the

combustion temperature that are consistent with the requirements for thermal oxidizers in 40 CFR 60.395(c), then you may set the minimum operating limit for the combustion temperature for each such thermal oxidizer at your affected source at 28 degrees Celsius (50 degrees Fahrenheit) below the average combustion temperature during the performance test of that thermal oxidizer. If you use this as the minimum operating limit for a thermal oxidizer, then you must keep the combustion temperature set point on that thermal oxidizer no lower than 14 degrees Celsius (25 degrees Fahrenheit) below the lower of that set point during the performance test for that thermal oxidizer and the average combustion temperature maintained during the performance test for that thermal oxidizer.

For catalytic oxidizers, temperature monitors are placed immediately before and after the catalyst bed. The operating limits for catalytic oxidizers are the average temperature just before the catalyst bed maintained during the performance test and 80 percent of the average temperature difference across the catalyst bed maintained during the performance test, except during periods of low production the latter minimum operating limit is to maintain a positive temperature gradient across the catalyst bed. A low production period is when production is less than 80 percent of production rate during the performance test. As an alternative, if the latest operating permit issued before April 26, 2007 for the catalytic oxidizer at your facility contains recordkeeping and reporting requirements for the temperature before the catalyst bed that are consistent with the requirements for catalytic oxidizers in 40 CFR 60.395(c), then you may set the minimum operating limit for the temperature just before the catalyst bed for each such catalytic oxidizer at your affected source at 28 degrees Celsius (50 degrees Fahrenheit) below the average temperature just before the catalyst bed during the performance test of that catalytic oxidizer. If you do not have an operating permit for the catalytic oxidizer at your facility and the latest construction permit issued before April 26, 2007 for the catalytic oxidizer at your facility contains recordkeeping and reporting requirements for the temperature before the catalyst bed that are consistent with the requirements for catalytic oxidizers in 40 CFR 60.395(c), then you may set the minimum operating limit for the temperature just before the catalyst bed for each such catalytic oxidizer at your affected source at 28 degrees Celsius (50 degrees Fahrenheit) below the average temperature just before the catalyst bed during the performance test of that catalytic oxidizer. If you use this as the minimum operating limit for the temperature just before the catalyst bed for a catalytic oxidizer, then you must keep the set point for the temperature just before the catalyst bed for that catalytic oxidizer no lower than 14 degrees Celsius (25 degrees Fahrenheit) below the lower of that set point during the performance test for that catalytic oxidizer and the average temperature just before the catalyst bed maintained during the performance test for that catalytic oxidizer. Also, as an alternative for catalytic oxidizers, you may monitor the temperature immediately before the catalyst bed and develop and implement an inspection and maintenance plan.

If you use a solvent recovery system, then you must either: (1) Continuously monitor the outlet concentration of organic compounds, and the operating limit is the average organic compound outlet concentration during the performance test (for each 3-hour period, the average concentration would have to be below this limit); or (2) monitor the carbon bed temperature after each regeneration and the total amount of steam or nitrogen used to desorb the bed for each regeneration, in which case 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 capture system that is not part of a PTE that meets the criteria of 40 CFR 63.3165(a) and is not capturing emissions from a downdraft spray booth or from a flash-off area or bake oven associated with a downdraft spray booth to meet the final standards, you must meet operating limits for each capture device in that capture system. If the emission capture system is a permanent total enclosure, you are required to establish that the direction of flow is into the enclosure at all times. In addition, you must meet an operating limit of either an average facial velocity of at least 3,600 meters per hour (200 feet per minute) through all natural draft openings in the enclosure, or a minimum pressure drop across the enclosure of at least 0.18 millimeter water (0.007 inch water), as established by Method 204 of appendix M to 40 CFR part 51.

If the emission capture system is not a permanent total enclosure, you must establish either the average volumetric flow rate or the duct static pressure in each duct between the capture device and the add-on control device inlet during the performance test. Either the average volumetric flow rate must be maintained above the operating limit for each 3-hour period or the average duct static pressure must be maintained above the operating limit for each 3-hour period.

Work practice standards.

You must develop and implement two site-specific work practice plans. One plan must address practices to minimize organic HAP emissions from storage, mixing, and conveying of coatings, thinners, and cleaning materials used in operations for which emission limits are established, as well as the waste materials generated from these operations. A second site-specific work practice plan must address practices to minimize emissions from cleaning operations and purging of coating equipment.

The plans must address specific types of potential organic HAP emission points and are subject to approval of the Administrator. Deviations from approved work practice plans must be reported semiannually.

F. What Are the Continuous Compliance Provisions?

Emission limits.

Continuous compliance with the emission limit for combined electrodeposition primer, primer-surfacer, topcoat, final repair, glass bonding primer, and glass bonding adhesive plus all coatings and thinners, except for deadener materials and for adhesive and sealer materials that are not components of glass bonding systems, used in coating operations added to the affected source pursuant to § 63.3082(c) of the final rule, or if eligible, the emission limit for combined primer-surfacer, topcoat, final repair, glass bonding primer, and glass bonding adhesive plus all coatings and thinners, except for deadener materials and for adhesive and sealer materials that are not components of glass bonding systems, used in coating operations added to the affected source pursuant to § 63.3082(c), is based on monthly calculations following the procedures detailed in the final rule. These procedures take into account the amount of each coating used, the organic HAP and volume solids content of each coating used, the transfer efficiency of each coating application system, and the organic HAP abatement from each capture and control system, and provide for calculating monthly mass organic HAP emissions per volume of coating solids deposited.

Continuous compliance with the emission limits for adhesives and sealers (other than components of the windshield adhesive system), and

deadener is based on the monthly average mass organic HAP concentration of all materials applied in each category.

Operating limits.

If you use an emission capture and control system, the final rule requires you to achieve on a continuous basis the operating limits you establish during the performance test. If the continuous monitoring shows that the system is operating outside the range of values established during the performance test, then you have deviated from the established operating limits.

If you operate a capture and control system that allows emissions to bypass the control device, you must 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:

(1) Flow control position indicator to provide a record of whether the exhaust stream is directed to the control device;

(2) Car-seal or lock-and-key valve closures to secure the bypass line valve in the closed position when the control device is operating;

(3) Valve closure continuous monitoring to ensure any bypass line valve or damper is closed when the control device is operating; or

(4) Automatic shutdown system to stop the coating operation when flow is diverted from the control device.

If the continuous control device bypass monitoring shows that the control device is bypassed, then you have deviated from the established operating limits.

Operations during startup, shutdown, and malfunction.

When using an emission capture and control system for compliance, you are required to develop and operate according to a startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan (SSMP) during periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction of the capture and control system.

Work practice standards.

You are required to operate your facility in accordance with your approved site-specific work practice plans at all times.

G. 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 final 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 you own or operate an existing affected source, 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 April 26, 2005. For new and reconstructed sources, you must send the notification within 120 days after the date of initial startup or October 25, 2004, whichever is later. That report notifies us and your State agency that you have an existing affected source that is subject to the final standards or that you have constructed a new affected source. Thus, it allows you and the permitting authority to plan for compliance activities. You also need to send a notification of planned construction or reconstruction of a source that would be subject to the final rule and apply for approval to construct or reconstruct. If you have already submitted a notification in accordance with section 112(j) of the CAA, you are not required to submit another initial notification except to identify and describe all additions to the affected source made pursuant to § 63.3082(c) of the final rule.

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 must conduct a performance test. The performance test is required no later than the compliance date for an existing affected source. For a new or reconstructed affected source, the performance test is required no later than 180 days after startup or 180 days after the effective date of the final rule, whichever is later. You must notify EPA (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.

Notification of Compliance Status.

You must submit a Notification of Compliance Status within 60 days after the end of the initial compliance period. In the notification, you must certify whether the affected source has complied with the final standards; summarize the data and calculations supporting the compliance demonstration; describe how you will determine continuous compliance; and for capture and control systems for which you conduct performance tests, provide the results of the tests. Your notification must also include the measured range of each monitored parameter and the operating limits established during the performance test, and information showing whether you have achieved your operating limits during the initial compliance period.

Recordkeeping Requirements.

The final rule requires you to collect and keep records according to certain minimum data requirements for the CPMS. Failure to collect and keep the specified minimum data is a deviation that is separate from any emission limit, operating limit, or work practice requirement. You are required to keep records of reported information and all other information necessary to document compliance with the final 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.

You are required to keep the following records:

• A current copy of information provided by materials suppliers such as manufacturer's formulation data or test data used to determine organic HAP or VOC content, solids content, and quantity of the coatings and thinners applied.

• All documentation supporting initial notifications and notifications of compliance status. This includes a record of all raw data, protocol input data, algorithms, and intermediate calculations. If calculations are computerized, data, calculations, and intermediate and final results must also be maintained in electronic form.

• The occurrence and duration of each startup, shutdown, or malfunction of the emission capture and control system.

• All maintenance performed on the emission capture and control system.

• Actions taken during startup, shutdown, and malfunction that are different from the procedures specified in your SSMP.

• All information necessary to demonstrate conformance with your SSMP when the plan procedures are followed.

• 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.

• All results of performance tests.

• Data and documentation used to determine and capture system efficiency or to support a determination that the system is a permanent total enclosure.

• Required work practice plans and documentation to support compliance with the provisions of these plans.

Deviations, as determined from these records, must be recorded and also reported. A deviation is any instance when any requirement or obligation established by the final 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 organic HAP emissions, you must make your SSMP available for inspection if the Administrator requests to see it. The plan must stay in your records for the life of your affected source or until the source is no longer subject to the final standards. If you revise the plan, you must 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 must submit a semiannual report stating that the affected source has been in continuous compliance. If deviations occur, you must include them in the report as follows:

• Report each deviation from the emission limit.

• Report each deviation from the work practice plan.

• If you are complying by using a thermal oxidizer, report all times when a 3-hour average temperature is below the operating limit.

• If you are complying by using a catalytic oxidizer, report all times when a 3-hour average temperature increase across the catalyst bed is below the operating limit.

• If you are complying by using oxidizers or solvent recovery systems, report all times when the value of the site-specific operating parameter used to monitor the capture system performance was greater than or less than (as appropriate) the operating limit established for the capture system.

• Report other specific information on the periods of time the deviations occurred.

You must also send us explanations in each semiannual report if a change occurs that might affect your compliance status.

Other Reports.

You are required to submit reports for periods of startup, shutdown, or malfunction of the capture system and control device. If the procedures you follow during any startup, shutdown, or malfunction are inconsistent with your SSMP, you report those procedures with your semiannual reports in addition to immediate reports required by 40 CFR 63.10(d)(5)(ii).

III. What Are the Significant Changes Since Proposal?

A. Applicability

We have provided an option permitting facilities subject to the final rule to include collocated operations involved in surface coating of parts for automobiles and light-duty trucks that would not otherwise be subject to the rule. Surface coating of these non-body parts, such as bumpers, fascias, and brackets at a time when they are not attached to (or otherwise simultaneously coated with) a new automobile or light-duty truck body or body parts would otherwise be subject to the Surface Coating of Miscellaneous Metal Parts and Products NESHAP, 40 CFR part 63, subpart MMMM, and/or the Surface Coating of Plastic Parts and Products NESHAP, 40 CFR part 63, subpart PPPP. Facilities opting to include operations of this type are responsible for obtaining all of the information necessary to determine compliance with the provisions of the final rule. Cleaning and purging operations associated with optionally included collocated surface coating operations would also be covered by the final rule. Collocated operations involved in surface coating of parts that are not related to automobiles and light-duty trucks may not be included, and continue to be regulated under the Surface Coating of Miscellaneous Metal Parts and Products NESHAP, 40 CFR part 63, subpart MMMM, and/or the Surface Coating of Plastic Parts and Products NESHAP, 40 CFR part 63, subpart PPPP. We are also amending subparts MMMM and PPPP to clarify the interaction between these rules and the surface coating automobiles and light-duty trucks rule. We were unable to include these changes in subparts MMMM and PPPP until the final rule was published since the changes to subparts MMMM and PPPP reference the final rule.

The final rule excludes “travel waxes” and other temporary coatings designed to be removed before vehicles are sold, as well as materials applied from touchup bottles.

B. Compliance Demonstration and Monitoring

As an alternative to the temperature monitoring provisions for thermal and catalytic oxidizers in the proposed rule, the final rule allows certain facilities which have been following the temperature monitoring provisions in 40 CFR 60.395(c) to continue to follow those provisions and to set the minimum operating limit for each such oxidizer at the same level as in 40 CFR 60.395(c).

The proposed rule used the average temperature rise across the catalyst during the performance test as one of the minimum operating limits for catalytic oxidizers. The final rule uses 80 percent of the average temperature rise across the catalyst during the performance test as one of the minimum operating limits for catalytic oxidizers, except during periods of low production this minimum operating limit is to maintain a positive temperature gradient across the catalyst bed.

The proposed rule contained operating parameter requirements for all capture systems. The final rule states that such monitoring is not required for downdraft spray booths or for flash-off areas or bake ovens associated with downdraft spray booths.

The proposed rule stated that if your add-on control system deviates from the operating limit specified in Table 1 to subpart IV of 40 CFR part 63, then you must assume that the emission capture system and add-on control device were achieving zero efficiency during the time period of the deviation. We have written the final rule to allow the use of other data to indicate the actual efficiency of the emission capture system and add-on control device, as long as the use of these data is approved by the Administrator.

The proposed rule provided the option of using panel testing to determine bake oven capture efficiency. The final rule maintains this option and provides more detail on the calculations necessary to convert the results of such panel tests into the format needed for the final rule. The final rule also provides an option of using panel tests to determine spray booth capture efficiency.

C. Analytical Methods

The specification of analytical procedures to be employed in compliance demonstration is unchanged. A provision has been added to the final rule providing, in the event of a disagreement between the specified methods and the facility's data, an opportunity for the facility to consult with the enforcement authority and demonstrate to the satisfaction of the enforcement authority that formulation data or data obtained by other means are correct.

D. Notifications and Recordkeeping

In the final rule, we have provided that facilities that have previously submitted initial notifications under section 112(j) of the CAA are not required to submit the initial notifications otherwise required by this subpart except to identify and describe all additions to the affected source made pursuant to § 63.3082(c) of the final rule. In addition, we have extended the deadline for submission of compliance status from 30 days to 60 days following the end of the initial compliance period to allow additional time for data reduction and calculations.

The final rule provides that you must maintain a record of the calculations used to demonstrate compliance with the “Combined Electrodeposition Primer, Primer-Surfacer, Topcoat, Inline and Final Repair, Glass Bonding Primer, and Glass Bonding Adhesive Emission Rates” or “Combined Primer-Surfacer, Topcoat, Inline and Final Repair, Glass Bonding Primer, and Glass Bonding Adhesive Emission Rates.” This record must include all raw data, algorithms, and intermediate calculations. If the guidelines presented in the Auto Protocol are used, you must keep records of all data input to this Auto Protocol. If these data are maintained as electronic files, the electronic files, as well as any paper copies must be maintained. These data must be provided to the permitting authority on request on paper, and in (if calculations are done electronically) electronic form.

E. Definitions

We have added definitions of bake oven air seal, body part, containers, paint line, sealers, spray booth air seal, and touchup bottles to the final rule. We have revised the definitions of deviation, final repair, in-line repair, and paint shop in the final rule.

IV. What Are the Responses to Significant Comments?

For the full set of comment summaries and responses, refer to the Response to Comment document which contains EPA's responses to each public comment and is available in Docket ID No. OAR-2002-0093 and Docket ID No. A-2001-22.

A. Applicability

Comment:

A commenter was concerned that complying with the final rule by means of add-on control and equipment changes would trigger other regulatory requirements (new source review (NSR), prevention of significant deterioration (PSD), or NSPS) and requested a “safe harbor” be included in the final rule.

Response:

We are not including in the final rule an exemption from NSR, PSD, and NSPS for those coating operations that are modified or upgraded in order to comply with the final rule. It would be inappropriate to include language in a NESHAP that could affect the applicability of these other programs since these are better handled on a case-by-case basis by the States and Regions implementing these other rules.

We do not expect compliance with the final rule to require changes to existing coating operations that would trigger major NSR or PSD permitting requirements. The steps taken to reduce organic HAP emissions to comply with the final rule are not expected to result in increased VOC emissions. Facilities that install oxidizers to reduce organic HAP may have a concurrent increase in nitrogen oxide emissions. We expect such facilities will be eligible for the pollution control project exclusion in the NSR regulations (67 FR 80186) since regenerative thermal oxidzers, thermal oxidizers, and catalytic oxidizers are presumed to be environmentally beneficial under the pollution control project exclusion. In addition, in order for the pollution control project exclusion to apply, the emissions increases from the project must not cause or contribute to a violation of any national ambient air quality standard or PSD increment, or adversely impact an air quality related value (such as visibility) that has been identified for a Federal Class I area by a Federal Land Manager and for which information is available to the general public.

Most, if not all, of the current automobile and light-duty truck surface coating facilities are already subject to the NSPS for automobile and light-duty truck surface coating. If there are any current facilities not already subject to the NSPS, we do not expect that the NSPS would be triggered by the changes necessary to comply with the final rule. The steps taken to reduce organic HAP emissions to comply with the final rule are not expected to result in increased VOC emissions. Increases in nitrogen oxide emissions resulting from the installation of oxidizers would not trigger the NSPS because nitrogen oxides are not a regulated pollutant under the NSPS.

Comment:

A commenter recommended a broadening of the applicability of the proposed rule to allow those coating operations for metal and plastic parts conducted at facilities subject to the final rule to be considered part of the automobile and light-duty truck surface coating rule. This approach would provide affected sources with the greatest degree of flexibility for future changes in vehicle coating processes,

e.g.

, coating doors separately on another line rather than coating automobiles and light-duty trucks with the doors attached to the frame. This approach would also significantly reduce reporting, recordkeeping, and monitoring requirements, while assuring significant emissions reductions.

Response:

We agree that providing this flexibility to operators of automobile assembly plants may reduce the burden associated with complying with multiple rules without increasing HAP emissions. Allowing the specified collocated coatings operations to be included under the final rule may simplify the tracking of coatings inventory and reduce the reporting and recordkeeping requirements associated with complying with multiple rules. The final rule provides operators of automobile assembly plants the option to include all collocated plastic and metal parts coating operations related to automobiles and light-duty trucks under the rule. This includes coating of replacement parts for attachment outside the facility, and coating of non-body parts (such as fascia cladding, brackets, fuel tanks, and radiators) for automobiles or light-duty trucks. Off-line coating of body parts, such as doors, for attachment to automobiles and light-duty trucks coated at the facility remain (as proposed) in the affected source under the final rule. Operators choosing to include such operations are required to obtain the necessary information (including transfer efficiency and capture efficiency) to demonstrate compliance. Coating of non-automotive parts, vehicles other than automobiles and light-duty trucks (such as motorcycles, all-terrain vehicles, or watercraft), or parts for such vehicles, may not be included. We are also amending 40 CFR part 63, subparts MMMM and PPPP, to clarify the interaction between those rules and the surface coating for automobiles and light-duty trucks final rule.

Comment:

A commenter noted that the definition of the term “coating” excludes certain decorative, protective, or functional coatings that consist only of protective oils. The commenter stated that automobile and light-duty truck assembly plants also apply several different types of temporary coatings,

e.g.

, travel wax and blackout coatings. These coatings serve a cosmetic purpose and are not designed to remain on the vehicle for a long time. The commenter stated that these “cosmetic coatings” should not be included in the definition of coating for the purposes of the MACT

standards given their temporary nature and the fact that emissions from these coatings are minimal.

Response:

We agree that temporary coatings are applied differently and serve a different function than the coatings intended to be regulated. In addition, the data collected and used in the determination of MACT, did not include temporary coatings. The definition of coating operation has been written to exclude the application of temporary materials such as protective oils and “travel waxes” that are designed to be removed from the vehicle before the vehicle is delivered to the retail purchaser.

Comment:

A commenter recommended a minimum threshold cutoff for purposes of applicability of the final rule and suggested that EPA provide an exemption of 250 gal per year, similar to the usage cutoffs in other MACT standards.

Response:

The commenter did not provide any data to support the inclusion of this type of exemption in the final rule. The MACT determination took into account emissions and solids from “special colors.” These materials are not exempt from the NSPS, and reporting systems to account for them are presently in place at most, if not all, assembly plants. The definition of coating operation in the final rule has been revised to exclude “touchup bottles,” which will exempt some materials used in very small quantities.

Comment:

Approximately ten automobile and light-duty truck facilities have received permits with case-by-case MACT determinations under 40 CFR 63.40 and section 112(g) of the CAA. One commenter questioned whether the final NESHAP would apply to such facilities or if these facilities will continue to be subject to limits established in their permits under section 112(g). Another commenter stated that the section 112(g) permit requirements are more stringent than the proposed MACT limits for existing sources. This commenter suggested that EPA state in the final rule that the section 112(g) permits are equivalent to the MACT limits for existing sources and provide these facilities with the choice of keeping their section 112(g) permits or having 8 years to comply with the MACT limits for existing sources.

Response:

Based upon the process used for making section 112(g) determinations and a brief review of some of the section 112(g) determinations made for facilities in this industry, we expect that the result of a thorough review would be that most or all of the section 112(g) determinations made for facilities in this industry are equivalent to MACT. These reviews and equivalency determinations are best done on a case-by-case basis by the permitting authority.

In accordance with 40 CFR 63.44(c), if the level of control required by the emission standard issued under section 112(d) is less stringent than the level of control required by a prior case-by-case section 112(g) MACT determination pursuant to 40 CFR 63.43, the permitting authority is not required to incorporate any less stringent terms of the promulgated standard in the title V operating permit applicable to the facility. In such a case, the permitting authority may choose to have the section 112(g) MACT determination remain in effect. Alternatively, the permitting authority may choose to have the NESHAP come into effect for the facility in place of the section 112(g) MACT determination. In this case, the facility may be given up to 8 years from the promulgation date of the NESHAP to comply with the NESHAP. The changes in equipment, materials, monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting necessary to demonstrate compliance with the NESHAP rather than with the section 112(g) determination and the fact that the NESHAP are less stringent than the section 112(g) determination should be taken into account in determining how much time the facility is given to comply with the NESHAP.

In the less likely event that the level of control required by the emission standard issued under section 112(d) is not found to be less stringent than the level of control required by a prior case-by-case section 112(g) MACT determination, then the facility must comply with the NESHAP. In this case, the facility may be given up to 8 years from the promulgation date of the NESHAP to comply with the NESHAP. The changes in equipment, materials, monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting necessary to demonstrate compliance with the NESHAP rather than with the section 112(g) determination and the fact that the NESHAP are not less stringent than the section 112(g) determination should be taken into account in determining how much time the facility is given to comply with the NESHAP.

As an alternative, if the level of control required by the emission standard issued under section 112(d) is not found to be less stringent than the level of control required by a prior case-by-case section 112(g) MACT determination and the difference in stringency is small, then the permitting authority could amend the facility's operating permit to make it equivalent to the NESHAP and have the section 112(g) MACT determination remain in effect. This approach may be less burdensome on both the facility and the permitting authority than having the NESHAP come into effect for the facility while achieving the same environmental results.

B. Compliance Demonstration, Monitoring, and Emission Limits

Comment:

The commenter stated that the CAA, EPA rules, and EPA policy all authorize adoption of a Compliance Assurance Monitoring (CAM) protocol as MACT monitoring for coating sources at automobile and light-duty truck surface coating facilities. The commenter noted that the proposed rule allows the use of the CAM protocol as an option for compliance with certain aspects of the rule, but not for others, such as control equipment effectiveness and monitoring. The commenter stated that it is critical that the compliance provisions for the separate coating MACT standards that are applicable be harmonized, not only with each other, but also with the other coating standards that apply under State Implementation Plan requirements (including reasonably available control technology and best available control technology/lowest achievable emission rate).

Response:

The proposed rule referred to the Auto Protocol as an option for compliance demonstration. This Auto Protocol does not include CAM provisions and does not include any guidance for control device efficiency monitoring. A CAM guidance document for automobile and light-duty truck coating is under development, but has not been completed. As described earlier in this preamble, we have provided an option for certain facilities to continue using the thermal and catalytic oxidizer temperature monitoring operating limits in 40 CFR 60.395(c). We have also removed the operating parameter requirements for capture systems which capture emissions from downdraft spray booths or from flash-off areas or bake ovens associated with downdraft spray booths.

Comment:

The commenter stated that, for the performance tests required in proposed § 63.3160(a) and (b), EPA should allow prior performance tests,

e.g.

, transfer efficiency, removal efficiency, capture efficiency, destruction efficiency, oven solvent loading, to satisfy the performance tests required by the standards. Since EPA has agreed that HAP emitted from these operations behave in the same way as VOC, there is no reason for redundant

testing. The commenter recommended that the scope and frequency of testing for transfer efficiency, oven solvent loading, and spraybooth capture efficiency be determined by the Auto Protocol.

According to the Auto Protocol, retesting of transfer efficiency is required if there are significant product, processing, material, or application equipment changes. Where parallel spraybooths are used, testing is required for only one booth. Oven solvent loading is determined with an initial compliance test followed by annual review of system operating conditions. The most recent test result remains valid as long as no significant changes have occurred in the coating technology or processing. The commenter feels that annual variations in color pallette or routine solvent blend adjustments are not significant changes, and that a similar trigger should apply for spraybooth capture efficiency testing. The affected source would maintain records documenting the annual reevaluation and the basis for the decision on whether retesting was required.

Response:

We agree that the most recent test data can be used to demonstrate compliance and to establish the operating limits required by the final rule, provided that (1) the test was conducted using the same methods and conditions specified in this subpart, (2) no equipment changes have been made since the previous test (or you can demonstrate the results are reliable despite the changes), and (3) the required operating parameters were determined or sufficient data were collected to establish them. The Auto Protocol includes guidance for scope and frequency of testing for transfer efficiency and oven solvent loading panel testing.

Comment:

The commenter noted that proposed § 63.3161(j), covering the calculation of HAP emissions reduction for controlled coating operations not using a liquid-liquid material balance, assumes zero efficiency for the emission capture system and add-on control device for periods of operating parameter or bypass line deviations, including startup, shutdown, or malfunction. The commenter claims that this approach is unrealistic and unduly penalizes facilities that may have a minor parameter reporting problem,

e.g.

, an automatic temperature readout malfunction. The commenter requested that § 63.3161 be written so that there is a generic way to calculate a facility's destruction credit when a deviation has occurred. The commenter suggested that facilities have the option to calculate an appropriate destruction credit for the hours of the excursion based on other available information.

Response:

If a source has manually collected parameter data indicating that an emission capture system or control device was operating normally during a parameter monitoring system malfunction, these data could be used to support and document that the source was achieving the same overall control efficiency and the source would not have to assume zero-percent efficiency. If a source has data indicating the actual performance of an add-on emission capture system and control device (

e.g.

, percent capture measured at a reduced flow rate or percent destruction efficiency measured at reduced thermal oxidizer temperatures) during a deviation from operating limits or during a malfunction of the monitoring system, then the source may use the actual performance in determining compliance, provided the use of these data are approved by the Administrator. The final rule has been written to clarify that such data may be used rather than assuming that the efficiency is zero.

Comment:

A commenter asserted that establishing a MACT floor (and monthly emission limits) based on the highest monthly average emission rates at the best (as determined on an annual basis) performing facilities would result in higher annual HAP emissions than the annual average emissions of the best performing plants. The commenter cited as an example the proposed MACT floor (and monthly emission limit) for the combined electrodeposition primer, primer-surfacer, topcoat, final repair, glass bonding primer, and glass bonding adhesive application operations of 0.60 lbs/gal of applied coating solids, which the commenter asserted is substantially higher (reflective of a less stringent limit) than the annual average of the eight lowest emitting plants (0.48 lbs/gal of applied coating solids).

The commenter asserted that the same deficiencies affect EPA's proposed MACT floor for new and reconstructed sources, and noted that EPA used the peak monthly emissions of the lowest annual emitting source to establish a monthly average that is well above the actual annual emission level of the lowest emitting source. The commenter urged EPA to establish a MACT floor for new and existing sources that has both monthly and annual emission limits.

Response:

The automobiles and light-duty trucks coated at each facility are coated in a variety of colors. This color variety is present not only among the topcoats, but also among the primer-surfacers. The make-up and content of each color varies. Each color, for example, has its own unique organic HAP content, VOC content, and volume solids content. The coating application system, and therefore transfer efficiency, may also vary among the families of coatings (

e.g.

, solid color basecoats and metallic color basecoats) used at a facility. The specific color mix produced varies from month-to-month. As a result of this variation in color mix, the organic HAP emission rate at a facility also varies from month-to-month.

We had monthly emission data upon which to base the standards. A monthly emission limit is appropriate and has been promulgated. Establishing a monthly emission limit based on annual emission rates would result in the best performing plants being out of compliance approximately 6 months per year. Such an emission limit would not appropriately account for monthly variation in color mix. The final standards reflect what is consistently achievable considering the typical variation in demand for particular colors of vehicles. Having both a monthly and an annual emission limit would be redundant and burdensome (on both facilities and enforcement agencies), and would not lead to additional emissions reductions. Actual annual emission rates associated with consistent achievement of the final monthly standards will be substantially lower than the monthly emission limits. Establishing a standard of 0.48 lb/gal of applied coating solids and requiring it to be met on an annual basis would not result in lower emissions than a standard of 0.60 lb/gal of applied coating solids which must be met each and every month.

Comment:

A commenter noted the proposed NESHAP set limits of 0.01 lb of HAP per lb of material used for adhesive and sealer application and 0.01 lb of HAP per lb of material used for deadener. Based on the review of three permits, the commenter has determined the CAA section 112(g) value for adhesives and sealer application and the deadener operations is that none of the materials used shall contain any volatile HAP as defined by the suppliers' material safety data sheets (MSDS). It does not appear to the commenter that these facilities were included in the floor analysis.

The commenter encouraged EPA to ensure that these facilities were included in the database if they were operating 18 months prior to the proposal and they were operating during the base year for the floor database.

Response:

The base year of the database used to determine the MACT

floors for new and existing sources was 1997. These limits are based, in part, on the detection limits (and the precision and accuracy achievable at low concentrations) of available approved chemical analytical methods. The MSDS typically report concentrations of less than 0.01 lb noncarcinogenic HAP per lb material (less than 0.001 lb carcinogenic HAP per lb material) as zero, indicating that the limits suggested by the commenter are equivalent to those of the final rule. The final rule provides that Method 311 is presumed (subject to rebuttal) to take precedence over MSDS or other formulation data. Facilities may be unable to reliably demonstrate that coatings contain “no volatile HAP” by this method.

Comment:

A commenter stated that regulations under section 112 of the CAA must include emission standards for each HAP that a category emits and that the proposed regulations failed to comply with that mandate. The commenter stated that even though the EPA states that automobile coating sources emit many different HAP, including metals such as lead, manganese, and chromium compounds, the Agency has proposed standards for only organic HAP.

Response:

Most of the coatings used in this subcategory do not contain inorganic HAP. The only use of lead in coatings in this source category is in electrodeposition primers. None of this lead is emitted because these primers are applied by dip coating. Lead is being phased out of electrodeposition primers. For spray applied coatings, most of the inorganic HAP components of these coatings remain as solids in the dry coating film on the parts being coated, are collected by the circulating water under the spray booth floor grates, or are deposited on the walls, floor, and grates of the spray booths and other equipment in which they are applied. The waterwash systems which are present in all primer-surfacer and topcoat spraybooths reduce the amount of coating droplets, and thus inorganic HAP, emitted to the air. These controls have been in place for many years. Facilities cannot operate without these controls. Therefore, inorganic HAP emission levels are expected to be very low and have not been quantified. The EPA has no basis upon which to establish MACT for inorganic HAP, and the commenter has supplied no data in support of an emission limit. Including control requirements for waterwash systems in the final rule would not be expected to result in additional emission reductions and would only add to the regulatory burden on the industry.

Comment:

A commenter claimed that the requirement to document that a source is in continuous compliance with work practices is confusing and should be modified and streamlined. Continuous documentation of compliance with the work practice plan could be difficult, at best, and appears to be unnecessary. Under the commenter's recommended language, continuous compliance with the work practices would be confirmed by the presence of the work practice plan and the documents used to verify performance of the work practice activities, (

i.e.

, operational or maintenance records, documented inspections or internal audits, third party certifications or similar practices).

Response:

Continuous documentation is not required, rather the recordkeeping requirements of § 63.3130(n) call for documentation that you are implementing the plan on a continuous basis. The records cited by the commenter (

i.e.

, operational or maintenance records, documented inspections or internal audits) have been added to § 63.3130(n) of the final rule as examples of documentation that demonstrate you are implementing the plan on a continuous basis.

Comment:

A commenter noted that the proposed NESHAP covered fewer operations within the source category than the CAA section 112(g) determinations completed to date. Additional operations covered by section 112(g) determinations include purge and cleanup operations for three facilities, foam and maintenance painting for two facilities, and sound dampening application. The commenter encouraged EPA to include these facilities in the database if they were operating 18 months prior to proposal and were operating during the base year for the floor database. The commenter feels that purge and cleanup operations, foam, and maintenance painting operations should be identified individually in the final rule or identified as part of a grouping of operations with an overall emission limit.

Response:

While facilities provided extensive data on purge material usage to EPA in response to information collection requests (ICR), estimates of recovery of these materials were extremely variable, with facilities of similar operation estimating very different recoveries. These data were not reliable enough to establish MACT on a numerical basis. The EPA chose to limit emissions from these operations through work practices. Cleaning material usage data were also provided, however since (a) emissions from these materials are rarely controlled, (b) EPA has no reliable data on the controllability of cleaning operations, and (c) cleaning material usage is not well correlated with vehicle production, EPA chose to limit emissions from these operations through work practices. Foam is injected into body panel cavities primarily for sound deadening and is subject to the emission limit for deadeners. Industry representatives have indicated in recent discussions that, as far as they know there are no HAP emissions associated with foam. Deadener application (for sound control) is subject to a standard based on the reliably demonstratable composition of very low-HAP material. One facility reported the use of cavity wax (no HAP content data were available and the facility assumed that it resulted in essentially zero HAP emissions). We have excluded maintenance coating from the final rule. No data were available upon which to base a MACT floor for this operation.

Comment:

A commenter stated that waterwash controls for paint spray booths that are designed for particulate control are being evaluated for VOC control. The commenter also stated that HAP are typically found in large quantities in water-based coatings. With the increased use of water-based coatings, and the requirement for site-specific parameter limits, facilities may want to use the waterwash control as the primary control for HAP. The commenter stated that no EPA test protocol has been designed to address field testing of a waterwash control system and requested that EPA provide industry and the regulatory agencies with either an approved testing protocol or a technical guidance document.

The commenter also stated that if this will be addressed as an “alternate test method,” it should be explicitly stated in the final rule and asked what parameter limits EPA envisions for a facility to monitor HAP removed by waterwash systems if capture credit is claimed.

Response:

No facilities are presently using the spray booth waterwash as a VOC or organic HAP control device and no specific method for testing has been developed. If a facility wanted to use a device of this type to control HAP, the same methods in 40 CFR part 60, appendix A, presently used for oxidizers and adsorbers might be adapted for this purpose. Alternately, the test methods and operating parameter monitoring applicable to wet scrubbers or wastewater treatment might be adapted for this purpose. A source would be required to obtain approval of an alternate test procedure and

monitoring approach of their choice under the General Provisions, if these data were to be used to demonstrate compliance.

Comment:

A commenter stated that in the “Rationale for Selecting the Proposed Standards” portion of the preamble, EPA stated that five formats were considered for the allowable organic HAP emission limits from the affected sources. A limit of organic HAP emissions per unit of surface area was rejected based on the inconsistent basis of the surface area coated estimates by the different manufacturers. The commenter noted that EPA further stated that “The data that we received were incomplete, and the methods of estimating vehicle surface areas varied widely.” The commenter noted that all United States automobile manufacturers currently demonstrate compliance with their lbs of VOC per gal of applied coating solids limits by using the Auto Protocol. One of the essential components of the Auto Protocol is the surface area coated. The commenter submitted that, if EPA feels that the data are inconsistent and incomplete, then the Auto Protocol should be revised to correct this deficiency or disregarded altogether. Otherwise, the commenter recommends that the limits be re-evaluated using the most current, statistically acceptable data for surface area where appropriate.

Response:

The Auto Protocol requires that surface areas of different vehicle types be determined in a manner that is consistent within the facility (so that material usage may be allocated to specific days and specific spray booths). A consistent approach has not been required from facility to facility, and it was not possible to reliably compare reported surface area data between different facilities.

C. Analytical Methods

Comment:

A commenter noted that §§ 63.3151 and 63.3171(e) rely on Method 311 as one of the ways to determine the mass fraction of HAP for demonstrating initial compliance. The proposed rule also stipulated that if there is a “disagreement” between supplier or manufacturer information and the results from test methods, then the test method results take precedence. The commenter disagrees with the presumption that the test results are correct, and pointed out that there is considerable variability in the analytical test results even when Method 311 is run carefully. The commenter cited technical causes of variability including thermal stability, sample handling, reactivity of some coatings, gas chromatograph (GC) column selection, and the oven/column temperature profile. The commenter recommended that EPA establish a “confidence limit” of ±50 percent for analyses conducted in accordance with Method 311.

The commenter noted that in past MACT standards, such as the MACT for wood furniture, EPA has permitted sources to rebut test results. The commenter also recommended that EPA allow the use of formulation data for methanol, because in a coating with melamine resins, methanol may be generated by the temperature in the injection column of the GC. This methanol by-product would be recorded even though it is not present in the coating.

Response:

We agree that a variety of analytical techniques (different columns, detectors, temperature programming, etc.) allowable within the broad framework of Method 311 may lead to inconsistent results if not optimized for the specific target analyte and background interferences specific to a particular coating. The final rule provides that in the event of any inconsistency between the Method 311 data obtained by the permitting agency and the formulation data used by the facility, or, between the Method 311 data obtained by the permitting agency and analytical data obtained by the facility, the Method 311 data obtained by the permitting agency shall govern (excluding HAP produced by chemical reaction in the analytical process), unless, after consultation, the facility demonstrates to the satisfaction of the enforcement authority that the facility's data are correct. Analyses of known formulations by Method 311 have been demonstrated to be far less variable than a ±50 percent confidence interval would imply. We have not set a specific tolerance level for this analysis. Facilities that experience problems with specific applications of Method 311 may choose to obtain statistical variance data to support an explanation of a discrepancy between Method 311 data and compositions obtained from formulation data or other sources.

Comment:

The commenter recommended additional procedures to assure consistency when using Method 311 for purposes of complying with the final rule. The commenter suggested the following procedures to help assure that the testing performed by the enforcement agency is consistent with those tests run by the source (or coatings manufacturer): (1) The facility would provide to the applicable agency the determination of the proper test parameters to be used and the temperature at which the analysis should be performed, (2) the facility should have the option to divide any sample collected by the agency that implements and enforces the MACT standards, and (3) both the applicable control agency and the facility should be authorized to be present while sampling and/or testing under Method 311 is being conducted.

Response:

The facility has the opportunity to provide any guidance to the permitting agency to assist in the chemical analysis of the coating, however, the final rule does not require the permitting agency to follow the guidance of the facility in cases where it disagrees. The facility has the opportunity to conduct parallel sampling of any coating material that the permitting agency samples; no change to the rule is necessary to permit this. It is not feasible to guarantee that a representative of the facility may witness the chemical analysis. Permitting agencies may use testing laboratories where scheduling is uncertain and samples may be split for different analyses which may take place in different labs (perhaps simultaneously).

D. Notifications, Reports, and Recordkeeping

Comment:

A commenter noted that according to proposed § 63.3110(c), notification of compliance status is due within 30 days following the end of the initial compliance period. The commenter requested the 60-day time period specified in the General Provisions, § 63.9(h) for submittal of the compliance notification.

Response:

The final rule has been written to allow 60 days from the end of the initial compliance period for submission of the notification of compliance status. We recognize that additional time may be necessary to confirm the accuracy of the methodology for calculating the emission rate in the initial compliance period.

Comment:

A commenter noted that EPA has historically differentiated exceedences or excursions (now called deviations) from startup, shutdown, and malfunction events and has used this terminology in other MACT standards. Also, the recognition that they are different events is further evidenced by requiring two separate reports in previous standards: The periodic compliance report and the periodic startup, shutdown, malfunction report. The commenter acknowledged that filing a combined report saves time and resources and agrees with this as long as the deviation reporting section is distinct from the startup, shutdown, malfunction reporting section. The

commenter recommended that EPA write the final rule to reflect that operations in accordance with SSMP are not deviations and are not reported as such.

Response:

Proposed § 63.3163(h) provided that consistent with §§ 63.6(e) and 63.7(e)(1), deviations that occur during a period of startup, shutdown, or malfunction of the emission capture system, add-on control device, or coating operation that may affect emission capture or control device efficiency are not violations if you demonstrate to the Administrator's satisfaction that you were operating in accordance with the SSMP. The Administrator will determine whether deviations that occur during a period you identify as a startup, shutdown, or malfunction are violations according to the provisions in § 63.6(e). According to § 63.6(e), any affected source must at all times meet the emission standard or comply with the SSMP.

E. Definitions

Comment:

Commenter submits that the definition of “initial startup” does not accurately describe what constitutes the startup of a new source and recommended that the phrase “the first time equipment is brought online in a facility” in the proposed definition be written to “the first time a salable product is produced.” Otherwise the term would include periods that are not representative of normal operation.

Response:

We agree with the commenter that periods of equipment testing and calibration prior to the time that production is commenced may not be representative of the emissions reductions and control device performance achievable in normal operation. The definition of “initial startup” in the final rule has been written to refer to the first time a salable product is coated.

Comment:

The commenter stated that the term “container” is used repeatedly throughout the proposed rule and that the rule covers “all storage containers and mixing vessels in which coatings, thinners, and cleaning materials are stored and mixed.” It is not clear whether the term container would include tanks used to store certain solvents and coatings.

Response:

A definition of container has been added to the final rule, covering coatings, solvents, and cleaning materials.

F. Amendment of RCRA Rule

Comment:

A commenter noted that EPA states that currently air emissions from the collection, transmission, and storage of purged paint and solvent at these sources are regulated under RCRA. However, in its proposed rule, EPA exempts these wastes from RCRA and transfers the regulation under the CAA. The EPA further explains that “this exemption is considered to be less stringent than existing RCRA regulations.” The EPA also proposes to establish work practice standards to control these emissions rather than numeric emission standards.

The commenter submits that the CAA mandates floors that reflect “the average emission limitation achieved by the best performing 12 percent of the existing sources (for which the Administrator has emissions information). “Also, EPA may only propose a work practice standard MACT if the Agency demonstrates that it is “not feasible to prescribe or enforce an emission standard.” The commenter asserts that EPA does not demonstrate it is infeasible to prescribe or enforce an emissions standard for the collection, transmission, and storage of purged paint and solvent and thus, the proposed rule is unlawful. Also, EPA fails to explain whether existing sources subject to RCRA are reducing their HAP emissions and, if so, whether the existing RCRA requirements could serve as the basis for establishing a MACT floor. Finally, the commenter claims the Agency's proposal is arbitrary and capricious because it fails to explain the consequences of transferring regulatory authority from RCRA to CAA, how the shift in regulatory authority results in less stringency, or identify the Agency's legal authority to exempt HAP emissions from RCRA.

The commenter urges EPA to establish a MACT floor that considers the emissions reductions at those sources currently subject to RCRA and properly determine whether an emission standard, instead of work practice standard, is appropriate for these sources.

Response:

The NESHAP address both the capture of purged materials and the transport and storage of purged materials after they have been captured. This is more comprehensive than the existing RCRA rule being amended which only addresses the transport and storage of purged materials after they have been captured. The requirements of the final NESHAP are, therefore, at least as effective as the requirements of the existing RCRA rule. The language in the preamble to the proposed rule cited by the commenter was not an assessment of the effect of the proposed NESHAP on activities covered by the existing RCRA rule, nor was it a comparison of the proposed NESHAP and the existing RCRA rule.

The language cited by the commenter was characterizing the proposed revision to the RCRA rule as less stringent than the existing RCRA rule. This comparison was made in the context of discussing whether States would be required to adopt the revised RCRA rule. We consider an exemption from RCRA rules to be less stringent than the retention of those rules. Since it would be less stringent, States would not be required to adopt the revised rule in their RCRA programs (RCRA section 3009). If we had considered the revision to be more stringent, States then would be required to adopt and seek authorization for those provisions (section 3006 of RCRA).

G. Risk Based Approaches

The preamble to the proposed rule requested comment on whether there might be further ways to structure the final rule to focus on the facilities which pose significant risks and avoid the imposition of high costs on facilities that pose little risk to public health and the environment. Specifically, we requested comment on the technical and legal viability of two risk-based approaches: (1) an applicability cutoff for threshold pollutants under the authority of CAA section 112(d)(4); and (2) subcategorization and delisting under the authority of CAA sections 112(c)(1) and 112(c)(9). We indicated that we would evaluate all comments before determining whether either approach would be included in the final rule. Numerous commenters submitted detailed comments on these risk-based approaches. These comments are summarized in the Response-to-Comments document.

Based on our consideration of the comments received and other factors, we have decided not to include the risk-based approaches in today's final rule. The risk-based approaches described in the proposed rule and addressed in the comments we received raise a number of complex issues. In addition, we are under time pressure to complete the final rule, because the statutory deadline for promulgation has passed and a deadline suit has been filed against EPA. (See Sierra Club v. Whitman, Civil Action No. 1:01CV01537 (D.D.C.).) Given the range of issues raised by the risk-based approaches and the need to promulgate a final rule expeditiously, we feel that it is appropriate not to include any risk-based approaches in today's final rule. Nonetheless, we expect to continue to consider risk-based approaches in connection with other NESHAP where we have described and solicited comment on such approaches. This

determination does not preclude future consideration of similar or other risk-based approaches for this source category in the future.

V. Summary of Environmental, Energy, and Economic Impacts

A. What Are the Air Impacts?

The final rule will decrease HAP emissions from automobile and light-duty truck surface coating facilities from an estimated 10,000 tpy to 4,000 tpy. This represents a decrease of 6,000 tpy or 60 percent. The final rule will also decrease VOC by approximately 12,000 tpy to 18,000 tpy. These values were calculated in comparison to baseline emissions reported to EPA by individual facilities for 1996 or 1997.

B. What Are the Cost Impacts?

The estimated total capital costs of compliance, including the costs of monitors, is $670 million. This will result in an additional annualized capital cost of $75 million.

The projected total annual costs, including capital recovery, operating costs, monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting is $154 million per year.

The cost analysis assumed that each existing facility will use, in the order presented, as many of the following four steps as necessary to meet the emission limit. First, if needed, facilities that do not already control their electrodeposition primer bake oven exhaust will install and operate such control at an average cost of $8,200 per ton of HAP controlled. Next, if needed, facilities will reduce the HAP-to-VOC ratio of their primer-surfacer and topcoat materials to 0.3 from 1.0 at an average cost of $540 per ton of HAP controlled. Finally, if needed, facilities will control the necessary volume of primer-surfacer and topcoat spray booth exhaust gas at an average cost of $40,000 per ton of HAP controlled. For all four steps combined, the average cost is about $25,000 per ton of HAP controlled.

New facilities and new paint shops will incur little additional cost to meet the emission limit. These facilities will already include bake oven controls and partial spray booth exhaust controls for VOC control purposes. New facilities may need to make some downward adjustment in the HAP content of their materials to meet the emission limit.

We received no detailed information on these cost elements in the public comments. Therefore, we have not changed the cost estimates since proposal.

C. What Are the Economic Impacts?

We prepared an economic impact analysis (EIA) to evaluate the primary and secondary impacts the proposed rule would have on the producers and consumers of automobiles and light-duty trucks, and society as a whole. The analysis was conducted to determine the economic impacts associated with the proposed rule at both the market and industry levels. Overall, the analysis indicated a minimal change in vehicle prices and production quantities. None of the changes made since proposal have resulted in changes in costs, so the EIA prepared for the proposed rule has not been updated for the final rule.

Based on the estimated compliance costs associated with the final rule and the predicted changes in prices and production in the affected industry, the estimated annual social cost of the rule is projected to be $161 million (1999 dollars). The social costs take into account changes in behavior by producers and consumers due to the imposition of compliance costs. For this reason the estimated annual social costs differ from the estimated annual engineering costs of $154 million. Producers, in aggregate, are expected to bear $152 million annually in costs while the consumers are expected to incur the remaining $10 million in social costs associated with the final rule.

The economic model projects an aggregate price increase for the modeled vehicle classes of automobiles and light-duty trucks to be less than 1/100th of 1 percent as a result of the final standards. This represents at most an increase in price of $3.00 per vehicle. The model also projects that directly affected producers will reduce total production by approximately 1,400 vehicles per year. This represents approximately 0.01 percent of the 12.7 million vehicles produced by the potentially affected plants in 1999, the baseline year of analysis.

In terms of industry impacts, the automobile and light-duty truck manufacturers are projected to experience a decrease in pre-tax earnings of about 1 percent or $152 million. In comparison, total pre-tax earnings for the affected plants included in the analysis exceeded $14 billion in 1999. The reduction in pre-tax earnings of 1 percent reflects an increase in production costs and a decline in revenues earned from a reduction in the quantity of vehicles sold. Through the market and industry impacts described above, the final rule will lead to a redistribution of profits within the industry. Some facilities (28 percent) are projected to experience a profit increase under the final rule; however, the majority (72 percent) that continue operating are projected to lose profits. No facilities are projected to close due to the final rule.

D. What Are the Non-Air Health, Environmental, and Energy Impacts?

Solid waste and water impacts of the final rule are expected to be negligible. Capture of additional organic HAP-laden streams and control of these streams with regenerative thermal oxidizers is expected to require an additional 180 million kilowatt hours per year and an additional 4.9 billion standard cubic feet per year of natural gas.

VI. How Will the Amendments to 40 CFR Parts 264 and 265, Subparts BB, of the Hazardous Waste Regulations Be Implemented in the States?

A. Applicability of Federal Rules in Authorized States

Under section 3006 of the RCRA, EPA may authorize a qualified State to administer and enforce a hazardous waste program within the State in lieu of the Federal program and to issue and enforce permits in the State. A State may receive authorization by following the approval process described under 40 CFR 271.21. See 40 CFR part 271 for the overall standards and requirements for authorization. The EPA continues to have independent authority to bring enforcement actions under RCRA sections 3007, 3008, 3013, and 7003. An authorized State also continues to have independent authority to bring enforcement actions under State law.

After a State receives initial authorization, new Federal requirements promulgated under RCRA authority existing prior to the 1984 Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA) do not apply in that State until the State adopts and receives authorization for equivalent State requirements. In contrast, under RCRA section 3006(g) (42 U.S.C. 6926(g)), new Federal requirements and prohibitions promulgated pursuant to HSWA provisions take effect in authorized States at the same time that they take effect in unauthorized States. As such, EPA carries out HSWA requirements and prohibitions in authorized States, including the issuance of new permits implementing those requirements, until EPA authorizes the State to do so.

Authorized States are required to modify their programs when EPA promulgates Federal requirements that

are more stringent or broader in scope than existing Federal requirements. The RCRA section 3009 allows the States to impose standards more stringent than those in the Federal program. (See also 40 CFR 271.1(i)). Therefore, authorized States are not required to adopt Federal regulations, both HSWA and non-HSWA, that are considered less stringent than existing Federal requirements.

B. Authorization of States for Today's Amendments

Currently, the air emissions from the collection, transmission, and storage of captured purged paint and solvent at automobile and light-duty truck assembly plants are regulated under the authority of RCRA (see 40 CFR parts 264 and 265, subparts BB). Today's amendments will exempt these wastes from regulation under RCRA and defer regulation to the final NESHAP. This exemption is considered to be less stringent than the existing RCRA regulations and, therefore, States are not required to adopt and seek authorization for today's exemption. However, EPA strongly encourages States to adopt today's amended RCRA provisions and seek authorization for them to prevent duplication with the NESHAP.

VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), the Agency must determine whether the regulatory action is “significant” and, therefore, subject to Office of Management and Budget (OMB) review 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 obligations 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 final rule is a “significant regulatory action,” because it could have an annual impact on the economy of over $100 million. As such, this action was submitted to OMB for review. Changes made in response to OMB suggestions or recommendations will be documented in the public record.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

The information collection requirements in the final rule have been submitted for approval to OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501,

et seq.

The information collection requirements are not enforceable until OMB approves them.

The information requirements are based on notification, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements in the General Provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart A), which are mandatory for all operators subject to national emission standards. These recordkeeping and reporting requirements are specifically authorized by section 114 of the CAA (42 U.S.C. 7414). All information submitted to EPA pursuant to the recordkeeping and reporting requirements for which a claim of confidentiality is made is safeguarded according to EPA policies set forth in 40 CFR part 2, subpart B.

The final standards do not require any notifications or reports beyond those required by the General Provisions. The recordkeeping requirements require only the specific information needed to determine compliance.

The annual monitoring, reporting, and recordkeeping burden for this collection (averaged over the first 3 years after the effective date of the final rule) is estimated to be 33,436 labor hours per year at a total annual cost of $982,742. This estimate includes a one-time performance test and report (with repeat tests where needed) for those affected sources that choose to comply through the installation of new capture systems and control devices; one-time purchase and installation of CPMS for those affected sources that choose to comply through the installation of new capture systems and control devices; preparation and submission of work practice plans; one-time submission of a SSMP with semiannual reports for any event when the procedures in the plan were not followed; semiannual excess emission reports; maintenance inspections; notifications; and recordkeeping. There are no additional capital/startup costs associated with the monitoring requirements over the 3-year period of the ICR. The monitoring related operation and maintenance costs over this same period are estimated at $7,000.

Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.

An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9. When this ICR is approved by OMB, the Agency will publish a technical amendment to 40 CFR part 9 in the

Federal Register

to display the OMB control number for the approved information collection requirements contained in the final rule.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

The EPA has determined that it is not necessary to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis in connection with the final rule. For purposes of assessing the impacts of today's rule on small entities for the automobile and light-duty truck surface coating industry, a small entity is defined as: (1) A small business according to Small Business Administration size standards for companies identified by NAICS codes 33611 (automobile manufacturing) and 33621 (light-duty truck and utility vehicle manufacturing) with 1,000 or fewer employees; (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a city, county, town, school district, or special district with a population of less than 50,000; and (3) a small organization that is any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field. Based on the above definition, there are no small entities presently engaged in automobile and light-duty truck surface coating.

After considering the economic impacts of the final rule on small entities, EPA has concluded that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This is based

on the observation that the final rule affects no small entities since none are engaged in the surface coating of automobiles and light-duty trucks.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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 the aggregate, or to 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 final rule contains a Federal mandate that may result in expenditures of $100 million or more for State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the private sector in any 1 year. Specifically, the final rule may result in such expenditures by the private sector. Accordingly, EPA has prepared under section 202 of the UMRA a written statement (titled Unfunded Mandates Reform Act Analysis for the Automobiles and Light-Duty Trucks Coating NESHAP) which is summarized below.

Statutory Authority

The statutory authority for the final rule is section 112 of the CAA, enacted to reduce nationwide air toxics emissions. In compliance with UMRA section 205(a), we identified and considered a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives. Additional information on the costs and environmental impacts of these regulatory alternatives is presented in the docket. The regulatory alternative upon which the final rule is based represents the MACT floor for automobile and light-duty truck coating operations and, as a result, is the least costly and least burdensome alternative.

Social Costs and Benefits

The regulatory impact analysis prepared for the final rule, including EPA's assessment of costs and benefits, is detailed in the “Regulatory Impact Analysis for the Automobiles and Light-Duty Trucks Coating NESHAP” in the docket. Based on the estimated compliance costs associated with the rule and the predicted changes in prices and production in the affected industry, the estimated annual social costs of the final rule is projected to be $161 million (1999 dollars).

It is estimated that 5 years after implementation of the final rule, HAP will be reduced from 10,000 tpy to 4,000 tpy. This represents a 60 percent reduction (6,000 tpy) of toluene, xylene, glycol ethers, MEK, MIBK, ethylbenzene, and methanol. Exposure to HAP can result in the incidence of respiratory irritation, chest constriction, gastric irritation, eye, nose, and throat irritation, as well as neurological and blood effects, including fatigue, nausea, tremor, and anemia. Based on scientific studies conducted over the past 20 years, EPA has classified EGBE as a “possible human carcinogen,” while ethylbenzene, MEK, toluene, and xylenes are considered by the Agency as “not classifiable as to human carcinogenicity.” The studies upon which these classifications are based have worked toward the determination of a relationship between exposure to these HAP and the onset of cancer.

Monetization of the benefits of reductions in cancer incidences requires several important inputs, including central estimates of cancer risks, estimates of exposure to carcinogenic HAP, and estimates of the value of an avoided case of cancer (fatal and non-fatal). Currently, EPA relies on unit risk factors (URF) developed through risk assessment procedures. The unit risk factor is a quantitative estimate of the carcinogenic potency of a pollutant, often expressed as the probability of contracting cancer from a 70-year lifetime continuous exposure to a concentration of one μg/m

3

of a pollutant. These URF are designed to be conservative, and as such, are more likely to represent the high end of the distribution of risk rather than a best or most likely estimate of risk.

In a typical analysis of the expected health benefits of a regulation (

e.g.

, “Regulatory Impact Analysis: Heavy-Duty Engine and Highway Diesel Fuel Sulfur Control Requirements”, December 2000, EPA420-R-00-026), health effects are estimated by applying changes in pollutant concentrations to best estimates of risk obtained from epidemiological studies. As the purpose of a benefit analysis is to describe the benefits most likely to occur from a reduction in pollution, use of high-end, conservative risk estimates will lead to a biased estimate of the expected benefits of the final rule. While we used high-end risk estimates in past analyses, recent advice from the EPA Science Advisory Board (SAB) and internal methods reviews have suggested that we avoid using high-end estimates in current analyses. For these reasons, we will not attempt to quantify the health benefits of reductions in HAP unless best estimates of risks are available. Also, limited input data on noncancer effects associated with exposure to these HAP do not allow us to quantify the benefits from risk reductions of these effects. Thus, we are unable to provide a monetized estimate of the benefits of HAP reduced by the final rule at this time. The EPA is working with the SAB to develop better methods for analyzing the benefits of reductions in HAP.

We conducted a rough risk assessment which indicated that both the baseline level of adverse health effects and the effects of the final rule on human health are small. This rough risk assessment is available in the docket. The risk estimates from this rough assessment were based on typical facility configurations (

i.e.

, model plants) and are subject to significant uncertainties.

The rough risk assessment indicated that currently there may be up to 100 people exposed to HAP above reference concentration (RfC) levels as a result of emissions from these facilities. The emission reductions required by the final rule would bring all, or almost all, of these people to exposures below the RfC. The rough risk assessment also indicated that currently no one would be exposed to a lifetime cancer risk above 10 in a million and perhaps 6,000

people are exposed to a lifetime cancer risk above 1 in a million as a result of emissions from these facilities. The final rule is not expected to have any significant impact on cancer risk. A more refined risk assessment will be performed as part of the residual risk analysis which is required to occur within 8 years after promulgation of the final rule.

The control technology to reduce the level of HAP emitted from automobile and light-duty truck coating operations is also expected to reduce emissions of criteria pollutants, particularly VOC. Specifically, the final rule achieves a 12,000 to 18,000 tpy reduction in VOC. This represents a significant reduction of VOC emissions from these sources, but less than 1 percent of national VOC emissions. The VOC is a precursor to tropospheric (ground-level) ozone and a small percentage also precipitate in the atmosphere to form particulate matter (PM).

Although we were not able to estimate the monetary value associated with VOC reductions, the health and welfare effects from exposure to ground-level ozone are well documented. Elevated concentrations of ground-level ozone primarily may result in acute respiratory-related impacts such as coughing and difficulty breathing. Chronic exposure to ground-level ozone may lead to structural damage to the lungs, alterations in lung capacity and breathing frequency, increased sensitivity of airways, eye, nose, and throat irritation, malaise, and nausea. Adverse ozone welfare effects include damage to agricultural crops, ornamental plants, and materials damage. Though only a small fraction of VOC forms PM, exposure to PM can result in human health and welfare effects, including excess deaths, morbidity, soiling and materials damage, as well as reduced visibility.

To the extent that reduced exposure to HAP and VOC reduces the instances of the above described health effects, benefits from the final rule will be realized by society through an improvement in environmental quality.

Future and Disproportionate Costs

The UMRA requires that we estimate, where accurate estimation is reasonably feasible, future compliance costs imposed by the final rule and any disproportionate budgetary effects. We do not feel that there will be any disproportionate budgetary effects of the final rule on any particular areas of the country, State, or local governments, types of communities (

e.g.

, urban, rural), or particular industry segments.

Effects on the National Economy

The UMRA requires that we estimate the effect of the rule on the national economy. To the extent feasible, we must estimate the effect on productivity, economic growth, full employment, creation of productive jobs, and international competitiveness of United States goods and services if we determine that accurate estimates are reasonably feasible and that such effect is relevant and material.

The nationwide economic impact of the final rule is presented in the EIA. That analysis provides estimates of the effect of the rule on some of the categories mentioned above.

The estimated direct cost to the automobile and light-duty truck manufacturing industry of compliance with the final rule is approximately $154 million (1999 dollars) annually. Indirect costs of the final rule to industries other than the automobile and light-duty truck manufacturing industry, governments, tribes, and other affected entities are expected to be minor. The final rule is expected to have little impact on domestic productivity, economic growth, full employment, energy markets, creation of productive jobs, and the international competitiveness of United States goods and services.

Consultation With Government Officials

Although the final rule does not affect any State, local, or tribal governments, we have consulted with State and local air pollution control officials. The EPA has held meetings on the final rule with many of the stakeholders from numerous individual companies, environmental groups, consultants and vendors, and other interested parties. The EPA has added materials to the docket to document these meetings.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

Executive Order 13132 (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” are 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.”

The final 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 final rule does not have “federalism implications” because it does not meet the necessary criteria. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to the final rule.

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments

Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 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.” The final rule does not have tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175. The EPA is not aware of tribal governments that own or operate automobile and light-duty truck surface coating facilities. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to the final rule.

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks

Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies to any rule that: (1) Is determined to be “economically significant” as defined under Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns an environmental health or safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may have a disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets both criteria, EPA must evaluate the environmental health or safety effects of the planned rule on children, and explain why the planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the Agency.

The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those regulatory actions that are based on health or safety risks, such that the analysis required under section 5-501 of the Executive Order has the potential to influence the regulation. The final rule is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is based on technology performance and not on health or safety risks.

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

The final rule is not a “significant energy action” as defined in Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22,

2001) because it is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy.

The final rule affects the automobile and light-duty truck manufacturing industries. There is no crude oil, fuel, or coal production from these industries, therefore there is no direct effect on such energy production related to implementation of the final rule. In addition, the cost of energy distribution will not be affected by the final rule since the rule does not affect energy distribution facilities.

The final rule is projected to trigger an increase in energy use due to the installation and operation of additional pollution control equipment. The estimated increase in energy consumption is 4.9 billion standard cubic feet per year of natural gas and 180 million kilowatt hours per year of electricity nationwide. The nationwide cost of this increased energy consumption is estimated at $26 million per year.

The increase in energy costs does not reflect changes in energy prices, but rather an increase in the quantity of electricity and natural gas demanded. Given that the existing electricity generation capacity in the United States was 785,990 megawatts in 1999

1

and that 23,755 billion cubic feet of natural gas was produced domestically in the same year,

2

the final rule is not likely to have any significant adverse impact on energy prices, distribution, availability, or use.

1

U.S. Department of Energy. 1999. Electric Power Annual, Volume I. Table A2: Industry Capability by Fuel Source and Industry Sector, 1999 and 1998 (Megawatts).

2

U.S. Department of Energy. 1999. Natural Gas Annual. Table 1: Summary Statistics for Natural Gas in the United States, 1995-1999.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

As noted in the proposed rule, Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104-113; section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272

note

) directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS) in its regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. The VCS are technical standards (

e.g.

, materials specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, and business practices) that are developed or adopted by VCS bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not to use available and applicable VCS.

The final rule involves technical standards. The EPA cites the following standards in the final rule: EPA Methods 1, 1A, 2, 2A, 2C, 2D, 2F, 2G, 3, 3A, 3B, 4, 24, 25, 25A, 204, 204A-F, and 311. Consistent with the NTTAA, EPA conducted searches to identify VCS in addition to these EPA methods. No applicable VCS were identified for EPA Methods 1A, 2A, 2D, 2F, 2G, 204, 204A through 204F and 311. The search and review results have been documented and are placed in Docket ID No. OAR-2002-0093 and Docket ID No. A-2001-22).

The eight VCS described below were identified as acceptable alternatives to EPA test methods for the purposes of the final rule.

The VCS ANSI/ASME PTC 19.10-1981, “Flue and Exhaust Gas Analyses [Part 10, Instruments and Apparatus],” is cited in the final rule for its manual method for measuring the oxygen, carbon dioxide, and carbon monoxide content of exhaust gas. This part of ANSI/ASME PTC 19.10-1981, Part 10, is an acceptable alternative to Method 3B.

The two VCS, ASTM D2697-86 (Reapproved 1998), “Standard Test Method for Volume Nonvolatile Matter in Clear or Pigmented Coatings,” and ASTM D6093-97 (Reapproved 2003), “Standard Test Method for Percent Volume Nonvolatile Matter in Clear or Pigmented Coatings Using a Helium Gas Pycnometer,” are cited in the final rule as acceptable alternatives to EPA Method 24 to determine the volume solids content of coatings. Currently, EPA Method 24 does not have a procedure for determining the volume of solids in coatings. The two VCS augment the procedures in Method 24, which currently states that volume solids content be calculated from the coating manufacturer's formulation. In addition, we are separately specifying the use of ASTM D1475-98 (Reapproved 2003) for measuring the density of each coating, thinner and/or additive, and cleaning material.

The VCS, ASTM D5066-91 (Reapproved 2001), “Standard Test Method for Determination of the Transfer Efficiency Under Production Conditions for Spray Application of Automotive Paints-Weight Basis,” is cited in the final rule as an acceptable procedure to measure transfer efficiency of spray coatings. Currently, no EPA method is available to measure transfer efficiency.

The two VCS, ASTM D6266-00a, “Test Method for Determining the Amount of Volatile Organic Compound (VOC) Released from Waterborne Automotive Coatings and Available for Removal in a VOC Control Device (Abatement),” and ASTM D5087-02 (Reapproved 1994), “Standard Test Method for Determining Amount of Volatile Organic Compound (VOC) Released from Solventborne Automotive Coatings and Available for Removal in a VOC Control Device (Abatement),” are cited in the final rule as acceptable procedures to measure solvent loading (related to capture efficiency) for the heated flash zone for waterborne basecoats and for bake ovens. Currently, no EPA method is available to measure solvent loading for automobile and light-duty truck coatings. In addition, ASTM D5965-02, “Standard Test Methods for Specific Gravity of Coating Powders,” is specified in the rule as a method to determine the volume solids of powder coatings.

Six VCS: ASTM D1475-90, ASTM D2369-95, ASTM D3792-91, ASTM D4017-96a, ASTM D4457-85 (Reapproved 1991), and ASTM D5403-93 are already incorporated by reference (IBR) in EPA Method 24. Five VCS: ASTM D1979-91, ASTM D3432-89, ASTM D4747-87, ASTM D4827-93, and ASTM PS9-94 are IBR in EPA Method 311.

In addition to the VCS included in the final rule, the search for emissions measurement procedures identified 14 other VCS. The EPA determined that 11 of these 14 standards identified for measuring emissions of the HAP or surrogates subject to emission standards in the final rule were impractical alternatives to EPA test methods. Therefore, EPA did not adopt these standards for this purpose. (See Docket ID No. OAR-2002-0093 and Docket ID No. A-2001-22 for further information on the methods.)

Sections 63.3161 and 63.3166 of the final rule list the EPA testing methods included in the final rule. Under § 63.7(f) of subpart A of the General Provisions, a source may apply to EPA for permission to use alternative test methods in place of any of the EPA testing methods.

J. Congressional Review Act

The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801,

et seq.

, as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. The EPA will submit a report containing the final rule and other required information to the United States Senate, the United States House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the final

rule in the

Federal Register

. A major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the

Federal Register

. This action is a major rule as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). The final rule will be effective 60 days after April 26, 2004.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63

Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Air pollution control, Hazardous substances, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

Dated: February 26, 2004.

Michael O. Leavitt,

Administrator.

For the reasons stated in the preamble, title 40, chapter I, parts 63, 264, and 265 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:

PART 63—[AMENDED]

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

Authority:

42 U.S.C. 7401,

et seq.

Subpart A—[Amended]

2. Section 63.14 is amended by adding and reserving new paragraph (b)(35), adding new paragraphs (b)(36), (37), and (38), and revising paragraphs (b)(24), (25), (26), and (32), and (i)(3) to read as follows:

§ 63.14

Incorporations by reference

(b) * * *

(24) ASTM D2697-86 (Reapproved 1998), “Standard Test Method for Volume Nonvolatile Matter in Clear or Pigmented Coatings,” IBR approved for §§ 63.3161(f)(1), 63.3521(b)(1), 63.3941(b)(1), 63.4141(b)(1), 63.4741(b)(1), 63.4941(b)(1), and 63.5160(c).

(25) ASTM D6093-97 (Reapproved 2003), “Standard Test Method for Percent Volume Nonvolatile Matter in Clear or Pigmented Coatings Using a Helium Gas Pycnometer,” IBR approved for §§ 63.3161(f)(1), 63.3521(b)(1), 63.3941(b)(1), 63.4141(b)(1), 63.4741(b)(1), 63.4941(b)(1), and 63.5160(c).

(26) ASTM D1475-98 (Reapproved 2003), “Standard Test Method for Density of Liquid Coatings, Inks, and Related Products,” IBR approved for §§ 63.3151(b), 63.3941(b)(4), 63.3941(c), 63.3951(c), 63.4141(b)(3), 63.4141(c), and 63.4551(c).

(32) ASTM D5965-02, “Standard Test Methods for Specific Gravity of Coating Powders,” IBR approved for §§ 63.3151(b) and 63.3951(c).

(35) [Reserved]

(36) ASTM D5066-91 (Reapproved 2001), “Standard Test Method for Determination of the Transfer Efficiency Under Production Conditions for Spray Application of Automotive Paints-Weight Basis,” IBR approved for § 63.3161(g).

(37) ASTM D5087-02, “Standard Test Method for Determining Amount of Volatile Organic Compound (VOC) Released from Solventborne Automotive Coatings and Available for Removal in a VOC Control Device (Abatement),” IBR approved for §§ 63.3165(e) and 63.3176, appendix A.

(38) ASTM D6266-00a, “Test Method for Determining the Amount of Volatile Organic Compound (VOC) Released from Waterborne Automotive Coatings and Available for Removal in a VOC Control Device (Abatement),” IBR approved for § 63.3165(e).

(i) * * *

(3) ANSI/ASME PTC 19.10-1981, “Flue and Exhaust Gas Analyses [Part 10, Instruments and Apparatus],” IBR approved for §§ 63.865(b), 63.3166(a)(3), 63.3360(e)(1)(iii), 63.3545(a)(3), 63.3555(a)(3), 63.4166(a)(3), 63.4362(a)(3), 63.4766(a)(3), 63.4965(a)(3), 63.5160(d)(1)(iii), 63.9307(c)(2), and 63.9323(a)(3).

3. Part 63 is amended by adding subpart IIII to read as follows:

Subpart IIII—National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Surface Coating of Automobiles and Light-Duty Trucks

Sec.

What This Subpart Covers

63.3080 What is the purpose of this subpart?

63.3081

Am I subject to this subpart?

63.3082

What parts of my plant does this subpart cover?

63.3083

When do I have to comply with this subpart?

Emission Limitations

63.3090

What emission limits must I meet for a new or reconstructed affected source?

63.3091

What emission limits must I meet for an existing affected source?

63.3092

How must I control emissions from my electrodeposition primer system if I want to comply with the combined primer-surfacer, topcoat, final repair, glass bonding primer, and glass bonding adhesive emission limit?

63.3093

What operating limits must I meet?

63.3094

What work practice standards must I meet?

General Compliance Requirements

63.3100

What are my general requirements for complying with this subpart?

63.3101

What parts of the General Provisions apply to me?

Notifications, Reports, and Records

63.3110

What notifications must I submit?

63.3120

What reports must I submit?

63.3130

What records must I keep?

63.3131

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

Compliance Requirements for Adhesive, Sealer, and Deadener

63.3150

By what date must I conduct the initial compliance demonstration?

63.3151

How do I demonstrate initial compliance with the emission limitations?

63.3152

How do I demonstrate continuous compliance with the emission limitations?

Compliance Requirements for the Combined Electrodeposition Primer, Primer-Surfacer, Topcoat, Final Repair, Glass Bonding Primer, and Glass Bonding Adhesive Emission Limitations

63.3160

By what date must I conduct performance tests and other initial compliance demonstrations?

63.3161

How do I demonstrate initial compliance?

63.3162

[Reserved]

63.3163

How do I demonstrate continuous compliance with the emission limitations?

63.3164

What are the general requirements for performance tests?

63.3165

How do I determine the emission capture system efficiency?

63.3166

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

63.3167

How do I establish the add-on control device operating limits during the performance test?

63.3168

What are the requirements for continuous parameter monitoring system installation, operation, and maintenance?

Compliance Requirements for the Combined Primer-Surfacer, Topcoat, Final Repair, Glass Bonding Primer, and Glass Bonding Adhesive Emission Limitations and the Separate Electrodeposition Primer Emission Limitations

63.3170

By what date must I conduct performance tests and other initial compliance demonstrations?

63.3171

How do I demonstrate initial compliance?

63.3172

[Reserved]

63.3173

How do I demonstrate continuous compliance with the emission limitations?

Other Requirements and Information

63.3175

Who implements and enforces this subpart?

63.3176

What definitions apply to this subpart?

Tables to Subpart IIII of Part 63

Table 1 to Subpart IIII of Part 63. Operating Limits for Capture Systems and Add-On Control Devices

Table 2 to Subpart IIII of Part 63. Applicability of General Provisions to Subpart IIII of Part 63

Table 3 to Subpart IIII of Part 63. Default Organic HAP Mass Fraction for Solvents and Solvent Blends

Table 4 to Subpart IIII of Part 63. Default Organic HAP Mass Fraction for Petroleum Solvent Groups

Appendix A to Subpart IIII of Part 63—Determination of Capture Efficiency of Automobile and Light-Duty Truck Spray Booth Emissions from Solvent-borne Coatings Using Panel Testing

Subpart IIII—National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Surface Coating of Automobiles and Light-Duty Trucks

What This Subpart Covers

§ 63.3080

What is the purpose of this subpart?

This subpart establishes national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP) for facilities which surface coat new automobile or new light-duty truck bodies or body parts for new automobiles or new light-duty trucks. This subpart also establishes requirements to demonstrate initial and continuous compliance with the emission limitations.

§ 63.3081

Am I subject to this subpart?

(a) Except as provided in paragraph (c) of this section, the source category to which this subpart applies is automobile and light-duty truck surface coating.

(b) You are subject to this subpart if you own or operate a new, reconstructed, or existing affected source, as defined in § 63.3082, that is located at a facility which applies topcoat to new automobile or new light-duty truck bodies or body parts for new automobiles or new light-duty trucks, and that is a major source, is located at a major source, or is part of a major source of emissions of hazardous air pollutants (HAP). A major source of HAP emissions is any stationary source or group of stationary sources located within a contiguous area and under common control that emits or has the potential to emit any single HAP at a rate of 9.07 megagrams (Mg) (10 tons) or more per year or any combination of HAP at a rate of 22.68 Mg (25 tons) or more per year.

(c) This subpart does not apply to surface coating, surface preparation, or cleaning activities that meet the criteria of paragraph (c)(1) or (2) of this section.

(1) Surface coating subject to any other NESHAP in this part as of June 25, 2004 except as provided in § 63.3082(c).

(2) Surface coating that occurs during research or laboratory activities or that is part of janitorial, building, and facility maintenance operations, including maintenance spray booths used for painting production equipment, furniture, signage, etc., for use within the plant.

§ 63.3082

What parts of my plant does this subpart cover?

(a) This subpart applies to each new, reconstructed, and existing affected source.

(b) The affected source is the collection of all of the items listed in paragraphs (b)(1) through (4) of this section that are used for surface coating of new automobile

This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.