National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Surface Coating of Plastic Parts and Products

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 63

[OAR-2002-0074; FRL-7554-4]

RIN 2060-AG57

National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Surface Coating of Plastic Parts and Products

AGENCY:

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

This action promulgates national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP) for plastic parts and products 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 plastic parts and products surface coating source category. The organic HAP emitted by these operations include methyl ethyl ketone (MEK), methyl isobutyl ketone (MIBK), toluene, ethylene glycol monobutyl ether (EGBE) and other glycol ethers, and xylenes. Exposure to these substances has been demonstrated to cause adverse health effects such as irritation of the lung, skin, and mucous membranes, and effects on the central nervous system, liver, and heart. In general, these findings have only been shown with concentrations higher than those typically in the ambient air. The final standards are expected to reduce nationwide organic HAP emissions from major sources in this source category by approximately 80 percent.

DATES:

The final rule is effective April 19, 2004. The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in the final rule is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of April 19, 2004.

ADDRESSES:

Docket.

Docket ID No. OAR-2002-0074 (formerly Docket No. A-99-12) is located at the EPA Docket Center, EPA West (6102T), 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW., Room B-102, Washington, DC 20460.

Background Information Document.

A background information document (BID) for the promulgated NESHAP may be obtained from the docket; the U.S. EPA Library (C267-01), Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, telephone (919) 541-2777; or from the National Technical Information Service, 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, VA 22161, telephone (703) 487-4650. Refer to “National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP): Surface Coating of Plastic Parts and Products-Summary of Public Comments and Responses on Proposed Rule” (EPA-453/R-03-007).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Ms. Kim Teal, Coatings and Consumer Products Group, Emission Standards Division (C539-03), U.S. EPA, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711; telephone number (919) 541-5580; facsimile number (919) 541-5689; electronic mail address:

teal.kim@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Regulated Entities.

The source category definition includes facilities that apply coatings to plastic parts and products. In general, facilities that coat plastic parts and products are covered under the North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes listed in Table 1. However, facilities classified under other NAICS codes may be subject to the final standards if they meet the applicability criteria. Not all facilities classified under the NAICS codes in the following table will be subject to the final standards because some of the classifications cover products outside the scope of the NESHAP for plastic parts and products.

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

Category

NAICS

Examples of potentially regulated entities

Industrial

337214

Office furniture, except wood.

32614, 32615

Plastic foam products (

e.g.

, pool floats, wrestling mats, life jackets).

326199

Plastic products not elsewhere classified (

e.g.

, name plates, coin holders, storage boxes, license plate housings, cosmetic caps, cup holders).

333313

Office machines.

33422

Radio and television broadcasting and communications equipment (

e.g.

, cellular telephones).

336211

Motor Vehicle Body Manufacturing.

336399

Motor vehicle parts and accessories.

336212

Truck Trailer Manufacturing.

336213

Motor Home Manufacturing.

336214

Travel Trailer and Camper Manufacturing.

336999

Transportation equipment not elsewhere classified (

e.g.

, snowmobile hoods, running boards, tractor body panels, personal watercraft parts).

339111, 339112

Medical equipment and supplies.

33992

Sporting and athletic goods.

33995

Signs and advertising specialties.

339999

Manufacturing industries not elsewhere classified (

e.g.

, bezels, consoles, panels, lenses).

Federal, State, and Local Governments

Government owned or operated facilities that perform plastic parts and products surface coating.

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 § 63.4481 of the final rule.

Docket.

The EPA has established an official public docket for this action under Docket ID No. OAR-2002-0074 (formerly docket No. A-99-12). The official public docket consists of the documents specifically referenced in this action, any public comments received, and other information related to this action. 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 18, 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 Plastic Parts and Products?

II. Summary of the Final Rule

A. What Source Categories and Subcategories 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. Scope of Category

C. Emission Limits

D. Method for Determining HAP Content

E. Deviations from Operating Parameters

F. New Alternatives to Facilitate Compliance with Multiple Coating NESHAP and Multiple Emission Limits

IV. What are the Responses to Significant Comments?

A. Applicability and Scope of Source Category

B. Overlap with Rules for Other Source Categories

C. The MACT Floor Approach and Database

D. Compliance Options for Meeting the Emission Limits

E. Methods for Determining HAP Content of Coatings

F. Notification Requirements

G. Compliance Requirements for Sources with Add-on Controls

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. 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 Plastic Parts and Products (Surface Coating) category of major sources was listed on July 16, 1992 (57 FR 31576), under the Surface Coating Processes industry group. Major sources of HAP are those that emit or have the potential to emit considering controls 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?

The final NESHAP regulate emissions of organic HAP. Available emission data collected during the development of the final NESHAP show that the primary organic HAP emitted from the surface coating of plastic parts and products operations include MEK, MIBK, toluene, and xylenes. These compounds account for over 85 percent of this category's nationwide organic HAP emissions. Other organic HAP emissions identified include EGBE and other glycol ethers.

The majority of organic HAP emissions from a facility engaged in plastic parts and products surface coating operations can be attributed to the application, drying, and curing of coatings. The remaining emissions are primarily from cleaning operations. In most cases, organic HAP emissions from mixing, storage, and waste handling are relatively small.

The organic HAP emissions associated with coatings (the term “coatings” includes protective and decorative coatings as well as adhesives) occur at several points. Coatings are most often applied either by using a spray gun in a spray booth or by dipping the substrate in a tank containing the coating. In a spray booth, volatile components evaporate from the coating as it is applied to the part and from the overspray. The coated part then passes through an open (flash-off) area where additional volatiles evaporate from the coating. Finally, the coated part passes through a drying/curing oven, or is allowed to air dry, where the remaining volatiles are evaporated.

Organic HAP emissions also occur from the activities undertaken during cleaning operations where solvent is used to remove coating residue or other unwanted materials. Cleaning in this industry includes cleaning of spray guns and transfer lines (

e.g.

, tubing or piping), tanks, and the interior of spray booths. Cleaning also includes applying solvents to manufactured parts prior to coating application and to equipment (

e.g.

, cleaning rollers, pumps, conveyors, etc.).

Mixing and storage 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.

D. What Are the Health Effects Associated With Organic HAP Emissions From the Surface Coating of Plastic Parts and Products?

The HAP to be controlled with the final rule are associated with a variety of adverse health effects. These adverse health effects include chronic health disorders (

e.g.

, birth defects and effects on the central nervous system, liver, and heart), and acute health disorders (

e.g.

, irritation of the lung, skin, and mucous membranes, and effects on the central nervous system).

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 an analysis to determine the actual population exposures to the organic HAP emitted from these facilities and potential for resultant health effects. Therefore, we do not know the extent to which the adverse health effects described above occur in the populations surrounding these facilities. However, to the extent the adverse effects do occur, the final rule will reduce emissions and subsequent exposures.

II. Summary of the Final Rule

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

The final rule applies to you if you own or operate a plastic parts and products surface coating facility that is a major source, or is located at a major source, or is part of a major source of HAP emissions. We define a plastic parts and products surface coating facility as any facility engaged in the surface coating of any plastic part or product. If application of coating to a substrate occurs, then surface coating also includes associated activities, such as surface preparation, cleaning, mixing, and storage. However, these associated activities do not comprise surface coating if the application of coating does not occur. Coating application with handheld, non-refillable aerosol containers, touch-up markers, marking pens, or the application of paper film or plastic film which may be pre-coated with an adhesive by the manufacturer is not a coating operation for the purposes of the final rule.

You will not be subject to the final rule if your plastic parts and products surface coating facility is located at an area source. An area source of HAP is any facility that has the potential to emit HAP but is not a major source. You may establish area source status by limiting the source's potential to emit HAP through appropriate mechanisms available through your permitting authority.

The final rule does not apply to surface coating or a coating operation that meets any of the criteria listed below:

• A coating operation conducted at a source where the source uses only coatings, thinners and/or other additives, and cleaning materials that contain no organic HAP, as determined according to the procedures in the final rule.

• Surface coating that occurs at research or laboratory facilities, or is part of janitorial, building, and facility maintenance operations, or that occurs at hobby shops operated for noncommercial purposes.

• Surface coating of plastic performed on-site at installations owned or operated by the Armed Forces of the United States (including the Coast Guard and the National Guard of any such State) or the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), or the surface coating of military munitions manufactured by or for the Armed Forces of the United States (including the Coast Guard and the National Guard of any such State).

• Surface coating where plastic is extruded onto plastic parts or products to form a coating.

• Surface coating of magnet wire.

• In-mold coating or gel coating operations in manufacturing of reinforced plastic composites that meet the applicability criteria of the Reinforced Plastic Composites Production NESHAP (40 CFR part 63, subpart WWWW, 68 FR 19375, April 21, 2003).

• Surface coating of plastic components of wood furniture that meet the applicability criteria for Wood Furniture Manufacturing NESHAP (40 CFR part 63, subpart JJ).

• Surface coating of plastic components of large appliances that meet the applicability criteria for large appliance surface coating (40 CFR part 63, subpart NNNN).

• Surface coating of plastic components of metal furniture that meet the applicability criteria for Metal Furniture Surface Coating NESHAP (40 CFR part 63, subpart RRRR; 68 FR 28606, May 23, 2003).

• Surface coating of plastic components of wood building products that meet the applicability criteria for Wood Building Products Surface

Coating NESHAP (40 CFR part 63, subpart QQQQ; 68 FR 31746, May 28, 2003).

• Surface coating of plastic components of aerospace vehicles that meet the applicability criteria for Aerospace Manufacturing and Rework NESHAP (40 CFR part 63, subpart GG).

• The application of specialty coatings defined in appendix A to 40 CFR part 63, subpart GG to a plastic aerospace vehicle or component.

• Surface coating of plastic components of ships that meet the applicability criteria for Shipbuilding and Ship Repair NESHAP (40 CFR part 63, subpart II).

• Surface coating of plastic using a web coating process that meets the applicability criteria for Paper and Other Web Coating NESHAP (40 CFR part 63, subpart JJJJ).

• Surface coating of fiberglass boats or parts of fiberglass boats (including, but not limited to, the use of assembly adhesives) where the facility meets the applicability criteria for Boat Manufacturing NESHAP (40 CFR part 63, subpart VVVV), except where the surface coating of the boat is a post-mold coating operation performed on personal watercraft or parts of personal watercraft.

• Surface coating of plastic components of automobiles and light-duty trucks that meet the applicability criteria for Automobiles and Light-Duty Trucks Surface Coating NESHAP (40 CFR part 63, subpart IIII (under development)).

If you perform surface coating of plastic parts or products that meet the applicability criteria for both the Automobiles and Light-Duty Trucks NESHAP (40 CFR part 63, subpart IIII (under development)) and these NESHAP, then you may comply with the requirements of the Automobiles and Light-Duty Trucks NESHAP for the surface coating of all your plastic parts used in automobile or light-duty truck manufacturing in lieu of complying with each subpart separately.

The final rule contains four subcategories: general use coating, thermoplastic olefin (TPO) coating, automotive lamp coating, and assembled on-road vehicle coating. The general use subcategory includes all surface coating operations in the plastic parts and products source category that are not included in the other four subcategories. This includes operations that coat a wide variety of substrates, surfaces, and types of plastic parts, as well as more specialized coating scenarios. The TPO subcategory encompasses all materials used in the surface coating of TPO substrates for automotive applications. The TPO subcategory requires the use of solvents to facilitate proper adhesion of coatings. The automotive lamp subcategory addresses the unique requirements for surface coating of exterior automotive lamps (

e.g.

, headlamps, tail lamps, etc.). Automotive lamps are subject to regulatory requirements established by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration resulting in the use of specific coatings to achieve required performance specifications. The assembled on-road vehicle subcategory addresses surface coating of fully-assembled vehicles that are physically larger than the other plastic parts and products coated in this source category and that may contain heat-sensitive parts. The large size and presence of heat-sensitive parts make certain lower-HAP technologies, such as heat-cured waterborne coatings, infeasible for assembled on-road vehicles. The assembled on-road vehicle subcategory will affect primarily recreational vehicle manufacture and automobile body refinishing.

Each subcategory consists of all coating operations, including associated surface preparation, equipment cleaning, mixing, storage, and waste handling.

B. What Is the Relationship to Other Rules?

The new source performance standards (NSPS) that could potentially apply to sources also subject to the final rule are the Standards of Performance for Industrial Surface Coating: Surface Coating of Plastic Parts for Business Machines (40 CFR part 60, subpart TTT). The NSPS apply to facilities that apply coatings to plastic parts for use in business machines if the facility began construction, reconstruction, or modification after January 8, 1986. The pollutants regulated are volatile organic compounds. Because of the differences between the NSPS and the NESHAP, compliance with either rule cannot be deemed compliance with the other. A plastic parts and products surface coating operation that meets the applicability requirements of both the NSPS and the NESHAP must comply with both.

Affected sources that meet the applicability criteria in the final plastic parts and products rule may also meet the applicability criteria of other coating NESHAP. For example, some facilities that coat plastic and metal parts using the same or different coatings, coating application processes, and conveyance equipment, either simultaneously or at alternative times could be subject to both the Plastic Parts and Products Surface Coating NESHAP and the Miscellaneous Metal Parts and Products Surface Coating NESHAP (40 CFR part 63, subpart MMMM).

In the final rule, we have minimized the burden of complying with multiple surface coating emission limits by offering two alternatives to complying separately with each applicable emission limit. The first alternative allows a facility to have all applicable surface coating operations comply with the emission limit that represents the predominant type of coating activity at that facility. Predominant activity means the coating activity that represents 90 percent or more of the surface coating activities at a facility. For example, if a facility is subject to both the Plastic Parts and Miscellaneous Metal Parts NESHAP and the activities subject to the Miscellaneous Metal Parts NESHAP account for 90 percent or more of the surface coating activity at the facility, then the facility may comply with the emission limitations for miscellaneous metal parts and products for both types of surface coating operations.

The predominant activity alternative may be applied if 90 percent or more of the surface coating is in the general use or TPO coating subcategory; however, this alternative is not available where assembled on-road vehicle, or automotive lamp coating represents the predominant activity. The emission limits for those two subcategories reflect specialized performance requirements and the need for higher-HAP-containing materials. It would not be appropriate to apply emission limits specifically developed for unique performance characteristics to other types of coatings.

You must include all surface coating activities that meet the applicability criteria of a subcategory in a surface coating NESHAP and constitute more than 1 percent of total coating activities. Coating activities that meet the applicability criteria of a subcategory in a surface coating NESHAP but comprise less than 1 percent of total coating activities need not be included in the determination of predominant activity but they must be included in the compliance calculations.

The second alternative allows a facility to calculate and comply with a facility-specific emission limit for each 12-month rolling average compliance period. The facility would use the relative amount of coating activity subject to each emission limit in each NESHAP to calculate a weighted, or composite, emission limit for that facility. Compliance with that facility-specific emission limit for all surface coating activities included in the

facility-specific emission limit constitutes compliance with the emission limits in the Plastic Parts NESHAP, as well as other applicable NESHAP.

As with the predominant activity alternative, you must include all surface coating activities that meet the applicability criteria of a subcategory in a surface coating NESHAP and constitute more than 1 percent of total coating activities. Coating activities that meet the applicability criteria of a subcategory in a surface coating NESHAP but comprise less than 1 percent of total coating activities need not be included in the facility-specific emission limit calculation, but they must be included in the compliance calculations.

C. What Is the Affected Source?

We define an affected source as a stationary source, a group of stationary sources, or part of a stationary source to which a specific emission standard applies. The final rule defines the affected source as the collection of all operations associated with the surface coating of plastic parts and products within each of the four subcategories (TPO, automotive lamps, assembled on-road vehicle, and general use). If application to a substrate occurs, these operations include preparation of a coating for application (

e.g.

, mixing with thinners and/or other additives); surface preparation of the plastic parts and products (including the use of a cleaning material to remove dried coating); coating application and flash-off; drying and/or curing of applied coatings; cleaning of equipment used in surface coating; storage of coatings, thinners and/or other additives, and cleaning materials; and handling and conveyance of waste materials from the surface coating operations. The coating operation does not include the application of coatings using hand-held nonrefillable aerosol containers, touch-up markers, marking pens, or the application of paper film or plastic film that may be pre-coated with an adhesive by the manufacturer.

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

Emission Limits.

We are limiting organic HAP emissions from each existing affected source using the emission limits in Table 2 of this preamble. For each new or reconstructed affected source, the final emission limits are given in Table 3 of this preamble. For each of the subcategories, the emission limit is expressed as the mass of organic HAP emissions per mass of coating solids used during each 12-month compliance period.

Table 2.—Emission Limits for Existing Affected Sources

For any affected source applying coating to . . .

The organic HAP emission limit you must meet, in kilograms (kg) organic HAP emitted/kg coating solids used. (Same number applies to lb organic HAP emitted/lb coating solids used)

TPO substrates

0.26

Automotive lamps

0.45

Assembled on-road vehicles

1.34

Other (general use) plastic parts and products

0.16

Table 3.—Emission Limits for New or Reconstructed Affected Sources

For any affected source applying coating to . . .

The organic HAP emission limit you must meet, in kg organic HAP emitted/kg coating solids used (Same number applies to lb organic HAP emitted/lb coating solids used)

TPO substrates

0.22

Automotive lamps

0.26

Assembled on-road vehicles

1.34

Other (general use) plastic parts and products

0.16

You may choose from several compliance options in the final rule to achieve the emission limits. You could comply by applying materials (coatings, thinners and/or other additives, and cleaning materials) that meet the emission limits, either individually or collectively, during each compliance period. You could also use a capture system and add-on control device to meet the emission limits. You could also comply by using a combination of both approaches.

Operating Limits.

If you reduce emissions by using a capture system and add-on control device (other than a solvent recovery system for which you conduct a liquid-liquid material balance), the operating limits apply to you. These limits are site-specific parameter limits that you determine during the initial performance test of the system. For capture systems that are not permanent total enclosures, you establish average volumetric flow rates or duct static pressure limits for each capture device (or enclosure) in each capture system. For capture systems that are permanent total enclosures, you establish limits on average facial velocity or pressure drop across openings in the enclosure.

For thermal oxidizers, you monitor the combustion temperature. For catalytic oxidizers, you monitor the temperature immediately before and after the catalyst bed, or you monitor the temperature before or after the catalyst bed and implement a site-specific

inspection and maintenance plan for the catalytic oxidizer. For regenerative carbon adsorbers for which you do not conduct a liquid-liquid material balance, you monitor the carbon bed temperature and the amount of steam or nitrogen used to desorb the bed. For condensers, you monitor the outlet gas temperature from the condenser. For concentrators, you monitor the temperature of the desorption gas stream and the pressure drop across the concentrator.

The site-specific parameter limits that you establish must reflect operation of the capture system and control devices during a performance test that demonstrates achievement of the emission limits during representative operating conditions.

Work Practice Standards.

If you use an emission capture system and control device for compliance, you must develop and implement a work practice plan to minimize organic HAP emissions from mixing operations; storage tanks and other containers; and handling operations for coatings, thinners and/or other additives, cleaning materials, and waste materials. If your affected source has an existing documented plan that incorporates steps taken to minimize emissions from the aforementioned sources, you may be able to use your existing plan to satisfy the requirement for a work practice plan.

If you use a capture system and control device for compliance, you are required to develop and operate according to a startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan (SSMP) during periods of startup, shutdown, or malfunction of the capture system and control device.

The NESHAP General Provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart A) codify certain procedures and criteria for all 40 CFR part 63 NESHAP and apply to you as indicated in the final rule. The General Provisions contain administrative procedures, preconstruction review procedures for new sources, and procedures for conducting compliance-related activities such as notifications, reporting and recordkeeping, performance testing, and monitoring. The final rule refers to individual sections of the General Provisions to emphasize key sections that are relevant. However, unless specifically overridden in the final rule, all of the applicable General Provisions requirements 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 19, 2007. New and reconstructed sources must be in compliance upon initial startup of the affected source or by April 19, 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 rolling 12-month organic HAP emission rate.

Compliance with the emission limits is based on a rolling 12-month organic HAP emission rate determined each month. Each 12-month period is a compliance period. The initial compliance period, therefore, is the 12-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 12 months. In other words, the initial compliance period could be almost 13 months long, but all subsequent compliance periods will be 12 months long. We have defined “month” as a calendar month or a pre-specified period of 28 to 35 days to allow for flexibility at sources where data are based on a business accounting period.

Being “in compliance” means that the owner or operator of the affected source meets the requirements to achieve the final emission limitations during the initial compliance period. However, they will not have accumulated the records for the rolling 12-month organic HAP emission rate until the end of the initial compliance period. At the end of the initial compliance period, the owner or operator uses the data and records generated to determine whether or not the affected source is in compliance with the organic HAP emission limit and other applicable requirements for that period. If the affected source does not meet the applicable limit and other requirements, it is out of compliance for the entire compliance period.

Emission Limits.

There are three options for complying with the final emission limits, and the testing and initial compliance requirements vary accordingly. You may choose to use one compliance option for the entire affected source, or you may use different compliance options for different coating operations within the affected source. You may also use different compliance options for the same coating operation at different times, different compliance options when different coatings are applied to the same part, or when the same coating is applied to different parts. However, you may not use different compliance options at the same time on the same coating operation.

Option 1: Compliant materials.

This option is a pollution prevention option that allows you to easily demonstrate compliance by using low-HAP or non-HAP coatings and other materials. If you use coatings that, based on their organic HAP content, individually meet the kilogram (kg) (lb) organic HAP emitted per kg (lb) coating solids used levels in the applicable emission limits and you use non-HAP thinners and other additives and cleaning materials, this compliance option is available to you. For this option, we have minimized recordkeeping and reporting requirements. You may demonstrate compliance by using manufacturer's formulation data and readily available purchase records to determine the organic HAP content of each coating or other material and the amount of each material used. You do not need to perform any detailed emission rate calculations.

If you demonstrate compliance based on the coatings and other materials used, you demonstrate that the organic HAP content of each coating meets the emission limits for the appropriate subcategory as shown in Tables 2 and 3 of this preamble, and that you used no organic HAP-containing thinners and/or other additives, or cleaning materials. For example, if you are using the compliant materials option and your existing source has TPO coating operations, automotive lamp coating operations, assembled on-road vehicle coating operations, and general use coating operations, you demonstrate that: (1) Each coating used in the TPO coating operation has an organic HAP content no greater than 0.26 kg (0.26 lb) organic HAP emitted per kg (lb) coating solids used; (2) each coating used in the automotive lamp coating operations has an organic HAP content no greater than 0.45 kg (0.45 lb) organic HAP emitted per kg (lb) coating solids used; (3) each coating used in the assembled on-road vehicle coating operations has an organic HAP content no greater than 1.34 kg (1.34 lb) organic HAP emitted per kg (lb) coating solids used; (4) each general use coating has an organic HAP content no greater than 0.16 kg (0.16 lb) organic HAP emitted per kg (lb) coating solids used; and (5) that you used no organic HAP-containing thinners and/or other additives, or cleaning materials. Note that “no organic HAP” is not intended to mean absolute zero. Materials that contain “no organic HAP” means materials that contain organic HAP levels below the levels specified in § 63.4541(a) of the final rule, which are typical Occupational Safety and Health

Administration (OSHA) reporting levels for material safety data sheets. These typical reporting levels only count organic HAP that are present at 0.1 percent or more by mass for OSHA-defined carcinogens and at 1.0 percent or more by mass for other compounds.

To determine the mass of organic HAP in coatings, thinners and/or other additives, and cleaning materials and the mass fraction of coating solids, you may rely on manufacturer's formulation data. You are not required to perform tests or analysis of the material if formulation data are available. Alternatively, you could use results from the test methods listed below. You may also use alternative test methods provided you get EPA approval in accordance with the NESHAP General Provisions, 40 CFR 63.7(f). However, if there is any inconsistency between the test method results (either EPA's or an approved alternative) and manufacturer's data, the test method results prevail for compliance and enforcement purposes, unless, after consultation you demonstrate to the satisfaction of the enforcement agency that the formulation data are correct.

The following test methods are used to determine HAP content. For organic HAP content, use Method 311 of 40 CFR part 63, appendix A. You may also use nonaqueous volatile matter as a surrogate for organic HAP, which includes all organic HAP plus all other organic compounds, excluding water. If you choose this option, use Method 24 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A. If you are determining HAP content for reactive adhesives (that is, adhesives in which some of the HAP react to form solids and are not emitted to the atmosphere), you may use the alternative to Method 24 that is included in appendix A of the final rule. For determining mass fraction of coating solids, use Method 24.

Option 2: Compliance based on the emission rate without add-on controls.

This option is a pollution prevention option that allows you to demonstrate compliance based on the organic HAP contained in the mix of coatings, thinners and/or other additives, and cleaning materials you use. This option offers the flexibility to use some individual coatings that do not, by themselves, meet the kg (lb) organic HAP emitted per kg (lb) coating solids used levels in the applicable emission limits if you use other low-HAP or non-HAP coatings such that overall emissions from the affected source over a 12-month period meet the emission limits. You must use this option if you use HAP-containing thinners and/or other additives, and cleaning materials and do not have add-on controls. You keep track of the mass of organic HAP in each coating, thinner or other additive, and cleaning material, and the amount of each material you use in your affected source each month of the compliance period. You use this information to determine the total mass of organic HAP in all coatings, thinners and/or other additives, and cleaning materials divided by the total mass of coating solids used during the compliance period. You demonstrate that your emission rate (in kg (lb) organic HAP emitted per kg (lb) coating solids used) meets the applicable emission limit. You may use readily available purchase records and manufacturer's formulation data to determine the amount of each coating or other material you used and the organic HAP in each material. The final rule contains equations that show you how to perform the calculations to demonstrate compliance.

If you demonstrate compliance using Option 2, you are required to:

• Determine the quantity of each coating, thinner and/or other additive, and cleaning material used.

• Determine the mass of organic HAP in each coating, thinner and other additive, and cleaning material using the same types of data and methods previously described for Option 1, including the alternative methods for reactive coatings. You may rely on manufacturer's formulation data or you may choose to use test results as described under Option 1.

• Determine the mass fraction of coating solids for each coating using the same types of data or methods described under Option 1. In this option, you may include the solids from powder coatings in the compliance calculations.

• Calculate the total mass of organic HAP in all materials and total mass of coating solids used each month. You may subtract from the total mass of organic HAP the amount contained in waste materials you send to a hazardous waste treatment, storage, and disposal facility regulated under 40 CFR part 262, 264, 265, or 266.

• Calculate the total mass of organic HAP emissions and total mass of coating solids used for the initial compliance period by adding together all the monthly values for mass of organic HAP and for mass of coating solids used for the 12 months of the initial compliance period.

• Calculate the ratio of the total mass of organic HAP emitted for the materials used to the total mass of coating solids used (kg (lb) organic HAP emitted per kg (lb) of coating solids used) for the initial compliance period.

• Record the calculations and results and include them in your Notification of Compliance Status.

Note that if you choose to use this option for a particular coating operation rather than for all coating operations at the source, you calculate the organic HAP emission rate using just the materials used in that operation. Similarly, if your facility has multiple coating operations using this option (

e.g.

, a TPO coating operation, an automotive lamp coating operation, an assembled on-road vehicle coating operation, and a general use coating operation), you do a separate calculation for each coating operation to show that each coating operation meets its emission limit. If you are complying with a facility-specific emission limit, you include all coating operations that are subject to the facility-specific emission limit in the compliance calculations.

Option 3: Compliance based on using a capture system and add-on controls device.

This option allows sources to use a capture system and an add-on pollution control device, such as a combustion device or a recovery device, to meet the emission limits. While we believe that, based on typical emission characteristics, most sources will not use control devices, we are providing this option for sources that use control devices. Fewer than 10 percent of the existing sources for which we have data use control devices. Under this option, testing is required to demonstrate the capture system and control device efficiencies. Alternatively, you may conduct a liquid-liquid material balance to demonstrate the amount of organic HAP collected by your recovery device. The final rule provides equations showing you how to use records of materials usage, organic HAP contents of each material, capture and control efficiencies, and coating solids content to calculate your emission rate during the compliance period.

If you demonstrate compliance based on this option, you demonstrate that your emission rate considering controls (in kg (lb) organic HAP emitted per kg (lb) of coating solids used) is less than the applicable emission limit. For a capture system and add-on control device, other than a solvent recovery system for which you conduct a liquid-liquid material balance, your testing and initial compliance requirements are as follows:

• Conduct an initial performance test to determine the capture and control efficiencies of the equipment and to establish operating limits to be achieved on a continuous basis. The performance test must be completed no later than the

compliance date for existing sources and 180 days after the compliance date for new and reconstructed sources.

• Calculate the mass of organic HAP in each coating and other material, and the mass fraction of coating solids for each coating used during each month of the initial compliance period.

• Calculate the total mass of organic HAP in all coatings and other materials, and total mass of coating solids used each month in the controlled operation or group of coating operations. You may subtract from the total mass of organic HAP the amount contained in waste materials you send to a hazardous waste treatment, storage, and disposal facility regulated under 40 CFR part 262, 264, 265, or 266.

• Calculate the organic HAP emissions from the controlled coating operations each month using the capture and control efficiencies determined during the performance test, and the total mass of organic HAP in materials used in controlled coating operations that month.

• Calculate the total mass of organic HAP emissions and total mass of coating solids used for the initial compliance period by adding together all the monthly values for mass of organic HAP emissions and for mass of coating solids for the 12 months in the initial compliance period.

• Calculate the ratio of the total mass of organic HAP emissions to the total mass of coating solids used during the initial compliance period.

• Record the calculations and results and include them in your Notification of Compliance Status.

• Develop and implement a work practice plan to minimize emissions from storage, mixing, and handling of organic HAP-containing materials.

Note that if you choose to use this option for a particular coating operation rather than for the entire affected source, you calculate the organic HAP emission rate using just the materials used in that operation. Similarly, if your facility has multiple coating operations using this option (

e.g.

, a TPO coating operation, an automotive lamp coating operation, an assembled on-road vehicle coating operation, and a general use coating operation), you do a separate calculation for each coating operation to show that each coating operation meets its emission limit. If you are complying with a facility-specific emission limit, you would include all coating operations that are subject to the facility-specific emission limit in the compliance calculations.

If you use a capture system and add-on control device, other than a solvent recovery system for which you conduct liquid-liquid material balances, you use specified test methods to determine both the efficiency of the capture system and the emission reduction efficiency of the control device. To determine the capture efficiency, you would either verify the presence of a permanent total enclosure using EPA Method 204 of 40 CFR part 51, appendix M (and all materials must be applied and dried within the enclosure); or use one of three protocols in § 63.4565 of the final rule to measure capture efficiency. If you have a permanent total enclosure and all materials are applied and dried within the enclosure and you route all exhaust gases from the enclosure to a control device, you assume 100 percent capture.

To determine the emission reduction efficiency of the control device, you 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, could be used.

If you use a solvent recovery system, you could choose to determine the overall control efficiency using a liquid-liquid material balance instead of conducting an initial performance test. If you use the material balance alternative, you are required to measure the amount of all materials used in the controlled coating operations served by the solvent recovery system during each month of the initial compliance period, and to determine the total volatile matter contained in these materials. You also measure the amount of volatile matter recovered by the solvent recovery system during each month of the initial compliance period. Then you compare the amount recovered to the amount used to determine the overall control efficiency each month and apply this efficiency to the total mass of organic HAP in the materials used to determine total organic HAP emissions for the month. You total these 12 monthly organic HAP emission values and divide by the total of the 12 monthly values for coating solids used to calculate the emission rate for the 12-month initial compliance period. You record the calculations and results and include them in your Notification of Compliance Status.

Operating Limits.

As mentioned above, you establish operating limits as part of the initial performance test of a capture system and control device, other than a solvent recovery system for which you conduct liquid-liquid material balances. The operating limits are the minimum or maximum (as applicable) values achieved for capture systems and control devices during the most recent performance test, conducted under representative conditions, that demonstrated compliance with the emission limits.

The final rule specifies the parameters to monitor for the types of emission 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 § 63.4568 of the final rule. If you use control devices other than those identified in the final rule, you 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 continuously monitor the appropriate temperature and record it at least every 15 minutes. For thermal oxidizers, the temperature monitor is placed in the firebox or in the duct immediately downstream of the firebox before any substantial heat exchange occurs. The operating limit is the average temperature measured during the performance test and for each consecutive 3-hour period; the average temperature has to be at or above this limit. For catalytic oxidizers, temperature monitors are placed immediately before and after the catalyst bed. The operating limits are the average temperature just before the catalyst bed and the average temperature difference across the catalyst bed during the performance test. For each 3-hour period, the average temperature and the average temperature difference must be at or above these limits. Alternatively, if you develop and implement an inspection and maintenance plan for the catalytic oxidizer, then you are allowed to monitor only the temperature before the catalyst bed and meet only the temperature operating limit before the

catalyst bed and are not required to monitor the difference across the bed.

If you use a regenerative carbon adsorber and do not conduct liquid-liquid material balances to demonstrate compliance, you monitor the carbon bed temperature after each regeneration and the total amount of steam or nitrogen used to desorb the bed for each regeneration. The operating limits are the carbon bed temperature at the time the carbon bed is returned to service (not to be exceeded) and the amount of steam or nitrogen used for desorption (to be met as a minimum).

If you use a condenser and do not conduct liquid-liquid material balances to demonstrate compliance, you monitor the outlet gas temperature to ensure that the air stream is being cooled to a low enough temperature. The operating limit is the average condenser outlet gas temperature measured during the performance test and for each consecutive 3-hour period, the average temperature must be at or below this limit.

If you use a concentrator, you monitor the temperature of the desorption concentrate stream and the pressure drop across the concentrator. These values must be recorded at least once every 15 minutes. The operating limits must be the 3-hour average temperature (to be met as a minimum) and the 3-hour average pressure drop (to be met as a minimum) measured during the performance test.

For each capture system that is not a permanent total enclosure, you establish operating limits for gas volumetric flow rate or duct static pressure for each enclosure or capture device. The operating limit is the average volumetric flow rate or duct static pressure during the performance test, to be met as a minimum. For each capture system that is a permanent total enclosure, the operating limit requires the average facial velocity of air through all natural draft openings to be at least 200 feet per minute or the pressure drop across the enclosure to be at least 0.007 inches water.

Work Practices.

If you use a capture system and control device for compliance, you are required to develop and implement on an ongoing basis a work practice plan for minimizing organic HAP emissions from storage, mixing, material handling, and waste handling operations. This plan must include a description of all steps taken to minimize emissions from these sources (

e.g.

, using closed storage containers, practices to minimize emissions during filling and transfer of contents from containers, using spill minimization techniques, placing solvent-laden cloths in closed containers immediately after use, etc.). You must make the plan available for inspection if the Administrator requests to see it.

If you use a capture system and control device for compliance, you are required to develop and operate according to a SSMP during periods of startup, shutdown, or malfunction of the capture system and control device.

F. What Are the Continuous Compliance Provisions?

Emission Limits.

If you use the compliant materials option (Option 1), you demonstrate continuous compliance if each coating meets the applicable emission limit and you use no organic HAP-containing thinners and/or other additives, or cleaning materials. If you use the emission rate without add-on controls option (Option 2), you demonstrate continuous compliance if, for each 12-month compliance period, the ratio of kg (lb) organic HAP emitted to kg (lb) coating solids used is less than or equal to the applicable emission limit. You follow the same procedures for calculating the organic HAP emitted to coating solids used ratio that you used for the initial compliance period.

For each coating operation on which you use a capture system and control device (Option 3), other than a solvent recovery system for which you conduct a liquid-liquid material balance, you use the continuous parameter monitoring results for the month as part of the determination of the mass of organic HAP emissions. If the monitoring results indicate no deviations from the operating limits and there were no bypasses of the control device, you assume the capture system and control device are achieving the same percent emission reduction efficiency as they did during the most recent performance test in which compliance was demonstrated. You then apply this percent reduction to the total mass of organic HAP in materials used in the controlled coating operations to determine the emissions from those operations during the month. If there were any deviations from the operating limits during the month or any bypasses of the control device, you account for them in the calculation of the monthly emissions by assuming the capture system and control device were achieving zero emission reduction during the periods of deviation, unless you have other data indicating the actual efficiency of the emission capture system and add-on control device, and the use of these data is approved by your permitting authority. Determine the organic HAP emission rate by dividing the total mass of organic HAP emissions for the 12-month compliance period by the total mass of coating solids used during the 12-month compliance period. Every month, you calculate the emission rate for the previous 12-month period.

For each coating operation on which you use a solvent recovery system and conduct a liquid-liquid material balance each month, you use the liquid-liquid material balance to determine control efficiency. To determine the overall control efficiency, you must measure the amount of all materials used during each month and determine the volatile matter content of these materials. You must also measure the amount of volatile matter recovered by the solvent recovery system during the month, calculate the overall control efficiency, and apply it to the total mass of organic HAP in the materials used to determine total organic HAP emissions each month. Then you determine the 12-month organic HAP emission rate in the same manner described above.

Operating Limits.

If you use a capture system and control device, 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 capture system and control device are operating outside the range of values established during the performance test, you have deviated from the established operating limits.

If you operate a capture system and control device with bypass lines that could allow emissions to bypass the control device, you demonstrate that captured organic HAP emissions 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 five monitoring procedures:

• Flow control position indicator to provide a record of whether the exhaust stream is directed to the control device.

• Car-seal or lock-and-key valve closures to secure the bypass line valve in the closed position when the control device is operating.

• Valve closure monitoring to ensure any bypass line valve or damper is closed when the control device is operating.

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

• Flow direction indicator to provide a record of whether the exhaust stream is flowing toward the control device.

A deviation would occur for any period of time the bypass monitoring

indicates that emissions are not routed to the control device.

Work Practices.

If you use an emission capture system and control device for compliance, you are required to implement, on an ongoing basis, the work practice plan you developed during the initial compliance period. If you did not develop a plan for reducing organic HAP emissions or you do not implement the plan, this would be a deviation from the work practice standard.

If you use a capture system and control device for compliance, you are required to operate according to your SSMP during periods of startup, shutdown, or malfunction of the capture system and control device.

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 1 year after publication of the final rule in the

Federal Register

. For new and reconstructed sources, you must send the notification within 120 days after the date of initial startup or 120 days after publication of the final rule, whichever is later. That report notifies us and your State agency that you have an existing 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.

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

Federal Register

publication 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 30 days after the end of the initial 12-month compliance period. In the notification, you must certify whether each affected source has complied with the final standards; identify the option(s) you used to demonstrate initial compliance; summarize the data and calculations supporting the compliance demonstration; and provide information on any deviations from the emission limits, operating limits, or other requirements.

If you elect to comply by using a capture system and control device for which you conduct performance tests, you must provide the results of the tests. Your notification must also include the measured range of each monitored parameter, the operating limits established during the performance test, and information showing whether the source has complied with its operating limits during the initial compliance period.

If you are complying with a single emission limit representing the predominant surface coating activity under § 63.4490(c)(1) of the final rule, include all calculations and supporting documentation for the predominant activity determination. If you are complying with a facility-specific emission limit under § 63.4490(c)(2) of the final rule, include the calculation of the facility-specific emission limit and any supporting information.

Recordkeeping Requirements.

You must 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 or be readily accessible from the site (for example, by a computer network); the other 3 years' records may be kept off-site. Records pertaining to the design and operation of the control and monitoring equipment must be kept for the life of the equipment.

Depending on the compliance option that you choose, you may need to keep records of the following:

• Organic HAP content or volatile organic matter content and coating solids content (for all compliance options).

• Quantity of the coatings, thinners and/or other additives, and cleaning materials used during each compliance period. If you are using the compliant material option for all coatings at the source, you may maintain purchase records for each material used rather than a record of the volume used.

• For the emission rate (with or without add-on controls) compliance options, calculations of your emission rate for each 12-month compliance period.

• All documentation supporting initial notifications and notifications of compliance status.

If you demonstrate compliance by using a capture system and control device, you must keep records of the following:

• All required measurements, calculations, and supporting documentation needed to demonstrate compliance with the standards.

• All results of performance tests and parameter monitoring.

• All information necessary to demonstrate conformance with your plan for minimizing emissions from mixing, storage, and waste handling operations.

• All information necessary to demonstrate conformance with the affected source's SSMP when the plan procedures are followed.

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

• Actions taken during startup, shutdown, and malfunction that are different from the procedures specified in the affected source's SSMP.

• Each period during which a CPMS is malfunctioning or inoperative (including out-of-control periods). 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 would be a deviation that is separate from any emission limits, operating limits, or work practice standards.

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 stays in your records for the life of the 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.

If you are using the predominant activity or facility-specific emission limit alternative, you must keep the records of the data and calculations needed to determine the predominant activity or to calculate the facility-specific emission limit for your facility.

Periodic Reports.

Each reporting year is divided into two semiannual reporting periods. If no deviations occur during a semiannual reporting period, you submit a semiannual report stating that the affected source has been in continuous compliance. If deviations occur, you include them in the report as follows:

• Report each deviation from the emission limit.

• Report each deviation from the work practice standards if you use an emission capture system and control device.

• If you use an emission capture system and control device, other than a solvent recovery system for which you conduct liquid-liquid material balances, report each deviation from an operating limit and each time a bypass line diverts emissions from the control device to the atmosphere.

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

You also have to include in each semiannual report an identification of the compliance option(s) you used for each affected source and any time periods when you changed to another compliance option.

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 revised the applicability section to clarify who is subject to the final rule. Specifically, the section includes activities associated with coating operations such as surface preparation, cleaning, mixing, and storage as long as these activities are associated with coating application at the facility.

We revised the scope of the assembled on-road vehicle subcategory to include the surface coating of fully assembled motor vehicles and trailers, including the coating of any metal substrate on the vehicle. In addition, we amended the assembled on-road vehicle subcategory to include the concurrent coating of parts such as radiator grills that are removed from the fully assembled on-road vehicle to prevent overspray of sensitive systems or equipment and to facilitate full coverage.

We have clarified that when determining whether your facility is below the applicability threshold, you may exclude coatings that meet the definition of non-HAP coating when determining whether you use 378 liters (100 gal) per year, or more, of coatings in the surface coating of plastic parts and products (§ 63.4481(b) of the final rule). Thus, a facility using mostly non-HAP coatings and less than 100 gal per year of HAP-containing coatings will not be subject to the final rule. In addition, we have included a definition of “non-HAP coating” in the final rule.

B. Scope of Category

We have clarified the scope of the final rule to exclude surface coating operations using only coatings, thinners and other additives, and cleaning materials that contain no organic HAP. We also excluded surface coating of plastic that is subject to several other NESHAP. In addition, we included a provision that allows sources that meet the applicability criteria of both the final rule and the Automobiles and Light-Duty Trucks NESHAP to comply with the Automobiles and Light-Duty Trucks NESHAP for all their surface coating operations associated with the manufacturing of automobiles or light-duty trucks in lieu of complying with each subpart separately.

C. Emission Limits

The emission limits remain as proposed, except for the TPO subcategory. The new source TPO limit increased from 0.17 to 0.22 kg (lb) organic HAP emitted per kg (lb) coating solids used during each 12-month compliance period (see § 63.4490(a)(3)). The existing source TPO limit increased from 0.23 to 0.26 kg (lb) organic HAP emitted per kg (lb) coating solids used during each 12-month compliance period (see § 63.4490(b)(3)). The changes were the result of additional data and information from commenters resulting in revised emission rate estimates for some sources in the TPO subcategory.

D. Method for Determining HAP Content

In the final rule, we have included a method for determining the HAP content for reactive adhesives based on the HAP actually emitted, rather than determining the mass fraction of organic HAP in the coatings using Method 311 or Method 24. Facilities may use the alternative method for reactive adhesives contained in appendix A to the final rule. In addition, we included a provision for reactive adhesives to allow facilities to rely on manufacturer's data that expressly states the organic HAP mass fraction emitted.

E. Deviations From Operating Parameters

The proposed rule stated that if your add-on control system deviates from the operating limit specified in Table 1 to subpart PPPP 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 respective permitting authority.

F. New Alternatives To Facilitate Compliance With Multiple Coating NESHAP and Multiple Emission Limits

The final rule allows facilities subject to more than one surface coating emission limit to comply with each applicable emission limit separately or to adopt one of two alternatives. The first alternative allows all coating operations to comply with the emission limit representing the predominant surface coating activity at the facility (the predominant activity means the surface coating activity representing 90 percent or more of the total surface coating activity).

The predominant activity approach is also available for sources that are subject to more than one subcategory emission limit. That is, a source may determine which subcategory represents 90 percent or more of the coating activities that take place at the facility, and then have all coating operations at the facility comply with the emission limit that represents the predominant activity.

The second alternative allows a facility to comply with a facility-specific emission limit calculated from the relative amount of coating activity that is subject to individual emission limits. The facility-specific emission limit may

include separate emission limits from one or more applicable NESHAP.

You must include all surface coating activities that meet the applicability criteria of a subcategory in a surface coating NESHAP and constitute more than 1 percent of total coating activities. Coating activities that meet the applicability criteria of a subcategory in a surface coating NESHAP but comprise less than 1 percent of total coating activities need not be included in the facility-specific emission limit calculation but they must be included in the compliance calculations.

Another approach that you may use is the equivalency by permit option in 40 CFR part 63, subpart E (§ 63.94). Under this approach, you may design an emissions control program that is suited for your process or plant as long as you can demonstrate that your program will achieve the same emissions reductions as the NESHAP. You must then work with your State, local, or tribal air pollution control agency to submit an equivalency demonstration. This equivalency demonstration will be reviewed by the appropriate EPA Regional Office. The equivalency demonstration is approved as part of the operating permit approval process. For more information, please see the section 112(l) Web site at

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/112(l)/112-lpg.html.

IV. What Are the Responses to Significant Comments?

For the full set of comment summaries and responses, refer to the BID (National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Surface Coating of Plastic Parts and Products, August 2003, EPA-453/R-03-007), which contains EPA's responses to each public comment and is available in Docket ID No. OAR-2002-0074 (formerly Docket No. A-99-12).

A. Applicability and Scope of Source Category

Comment:

Several commenters requested that the applicability threshold be increased from 100 gal per year to 250 gal per year to be consistent with the applicability threshold in the miscellaneous metal parts and products rule. One commenter believes uniformity is necessary for facilities subject to both rules. One commenter further requested that use of HAP-free materials should not count toward the applicability threshold level.

Several commenters also requested that coatings used in volumes of less than 50 gal per year (not to exceed a total of 100 gal per year) be exempt from the final rule and noted that a similar exemption is part of the proposed NESHAP for miscellaneous metal parts and products. Another commenter requested the same exemption, but asked that a total of up to 250 gal per year be eligible because that is the level in the Miscellaneous Metal Parts and Products NESHAP. Another commenter requested that the allowed facility total be 500 gal per year.

Response:

The applicability threshold of 100 gal or more per year has not been revised, and the final rule does not contain the suggested provision that coatings used in small volumes (less than 50 gal per year, not to exceed 100 gal per year) should be exempt from the emission limits.

The applicability threshold of 100 gal or more per year of coating was selected based on an analysis of the data provided to the EPA through the plastic parts and products industry survey. These data indicate that sources using 100 gal or more per year of plastic part surface coating materials were engaged in surface coating as part of their primary activity and those using less than this amount were not. Moreover, facilities using 100 gal or more per year apply coatings using similar processes and control techniques, making the emission limits and emission reduction requirements relevant to all sources of this size or larger. Since the threshold is based on an analysis of data from the actual facilities that will be subject to the rule, the final rule does not revise the threshold.

In response to comment, we have changed the rule to clearly state that the use of non-HAP materials (as defined in the rule) does not count towards the 100 gal applicability threshold in the final rule. This would avoid a situation where a source would be subject to the final rule even though it was using mostly non-HAP coatings and less than 100 gal per year of HAP-containing coatings. Because the purpose of the final rule is to control HAP, we agree that it is appropriate to consider only HAP-containing coating in determining whether a source meets the applicability threshold.

The final rule does not include the exemption for small volumes of individual coatings (less than 50 gal per year). In determining MACT, EPA included all reported coatings, even those used in small volumes, in the emission rate for each source. Since small volume coatings were included in the emission rate for each source, the emission limits should be achievable for sources that include all coatings in their compliance demonstrations.

Comment

: One commenter suggested including all lamps that are subject to National Highway and Traffic Safety Administration regulations for vehicle lamps (49 CFR 571.108) in the headlamp subcategory. The commenter noted that all vehicle exterior lamps must meet the same Federal safety standards and technical requirements for coatings that warranted the separate subcategory for headlamps. The reflective finishes on tail lamps and other lamps, therefore, require the use of the same argent reflective coatings and HAP-containing solvents that are used on headlamps.

Response

: We agree with the commenter and have revised the scope of the headlamp coating subcategory to include coating operations on all exterior automotive lamps (headlamps, tail lamps, turn signals, brake lights, and side marker lights). To reflect the broader content of this subcategory, we have also changed the name of the subcategory to “automotive lamp coating.” This change in the scope of this subcategory, however, has not affected the results of the MACT analysis that are the basis for the emission limits for this subcategory.

B. Overlap With Rules for Other Source Categories

Department of Defense Coatings

Comment

: One commenter stated that EPA should establish a separate source category for DoD surface coating operations not covered by the Aerospace or the Shipbuilding and Ship Repair NESHAP (40 CFR part 63, subparts GG and II, respectively) and exempt these coating operations from the final rule for plastic parts. The commenter described the unique material requirements and operating conditions for military coating operations that are different from commercial operations. The commenter claimed that the proposed compliance options would be impractical and extremely costly for DoD facilities because of the complexity of military coating operations, the number of coatings and solvents used, and the number of different items and substrates coated. Many DoD installations (especially those that service or remanufacture artillery, armored vehicles, weapons systems, and support equipment) use thousands of different coatings, and each material is subject to its own military specification.

Because DoD facilities use HAP-containing solvents, the commenter claimed they could not use the proposed compliant materials option. Reformulating solvents or coatings requires extensive field testing before they may be approved for use in tactical field equipment and weapons systems. In addition, updating the coatings for

which there is a military specification requires updating the documentation applicable to military specifications and the documentation for the relevant equipment and weapons systems that adopt those military specifications.

The proposed emission rate option and the add-on controls option are not feasible because they would require DoD to be able to accurately track the amount of coating or cleaning solvent used on each item or substrate. As noted above, DoD installations may use thousands of different coatings on a variety of substrates, including metal, plastic, ceramics, rubber, fabric, wood, and composites.

The commenter requested a separate source category so that emission limits and a regulatory format could be developed that would be most appropriate for military coating needs. The commenter claimed that a separate rule also would ensure that all DoD coatings could comply with emission limits using the same units of measure. The commenter noted that DoD facilities use many of the same high performance coatings on plastic and metal items and substrates, and they could be potentially regulated by both the NESHAP for plastic parts and products and the NESHAP for miscellaneous metal parts and products.

Response

: After several visits to DoD surface coating operations and meetings with DoD stakeholders, EPA agrees that a separate source category for DoD surface coating operations is warranted. One factor that we considered in this decision is the unique military specifications for coatings used on tactical and other military equipment. Further data collection and analysis are required to determine what emission limits are achievable for these coating operations. Another factor that we considered is the issue that military facilities may use thousands of different coatings, and that the types of equipment that are coated and the types of coatings used in a given time period are unpredictable and often influenced by world events. Further analysis is needed to determine what emission limit formats, compliance demonstration, and recordkeeping requirements are practical for this type of situation. Another consideration was the high probability that these sources would be subject to multiple NESHAP.

The EPA will be developing separate NESHAP for “Defense Land Systems and Miscellaneous Equipment” surface coating operations. Those NESHAP will include operations that do not meet the applicability criteria of the Aerospace NESHAP or the Shipbuilding and Ship Repair NESHAP. The comments pertaining to the format of the standards and appropriate compliance options will be taken into consideration in the development of those NESHAP.

Exclusion of Activities Subject to Other Surface Coating NESHAP

Comment

: One commenter requested that surface coating of plastic subject to the Paper and Other Web Coating NESHAP (40 CFR part 63, subpart JJJJ) be included in the list of coating operations that are exempt from the final rule.

Response

: The final rule specifically exempts the surface coating of plastic web substrates. The EPA agrees that the coating of plastic web substrates that is already subject to the Paper and Other Web Coating NESHAP should not be subject to additional regulation under the final rule. This change will clarify the applicability of both NESHAP.

Comment

: One commenter strongly recommended that one rule, either the final rule or 40 CFR part 63, subpart MMMM, apply to all assembled on-road vehicles. According to the commenter, motor home manufacturers offer customers numerous options that determine the surfaces of each vehicle. The commenter claimed that a substrate tracking program would need to be broken down to individual work orders to meet the requirements for calculating and demonstrating compliance with both subparts.

Response

: The EPA agrees with the commenter. Both the final rule and 40 CFR part 63, subpart MMMM state that the surface coating of all assembled on-road vehicles, including the coating of any metal substrate on the assembled vehicle, will be subject to only the emission limits of the assembled on-road vehicle subcategory in the final rule. This is consistent with the data and methodology used to set the MACT emission limit for the assembled on-road vehicle subcategory. A separate assembled on-road vehicle subcategory was established because of the large size of assembled on-road vehicles and the fact that assembled vehicles frequently contain heat-sensitive parts that prevent the use of curing ovens and various low-HAP coating technologies. However, the coating of metal parts prior to the assembly of the vehicle, such as a motor home chassis, will still be subject to 40 CFR part 63, subpart MMMM. Likewise, the surface coating of plastic parts prior to the final assembly of the motor home will be subject to either the general use, automotive lamp, or TPO emission limit in the final rule, as appropriate for the type of coating operation.

Comment:

One commenter requested that EPA clarify that the Aerospace NESHAP (40 CFR part 63, subpart GG), rather than the Plastic Parts NESHAP, cover parts necessary for the proper functioning of aircraft. Another commenter requested the final rule clarify that all aerospace coating, cleaning, and depainting activities are subject to the Aerospace NESHAP and exempt from subpart PPPP. The commenter stated that the proposal preamble indicated that coating activity exempted from the Aerospace NESHAP would be subject to the NESHAP. The commenter argued that the Aerospace NESHAP found that MACT controls were not warranted for certain aerospace surface coating operations and that regulating these operations under the final rule would be an unexplained change in policy. Another commenter maintained that EPA has not demonstrated that the aerospace rework industry can cost-effectively achieve the general use emission limit. The commenter noted that many coatings for plastic surfaces and parts associated with the interior of aircraft must meet Federal Aviation Administration or Original Equipment Manufacturer specifications.

Another commenter suggested that the final rule include an alternative compliance option for facilities subject to the final NESHAP under development for the surface coating of automobiles and light-duty trucks that also coat plastic parts that would not be subject to the Automobiles and Light-Duty Trucks NESHAP. The commenter noted that some automobile and light-duty truck facilities will be subject to the final rule for plastic parts coating, the NESHAP for the surface coating of automobiles and light-duty trucks, and the Miscellaneous Metal Parts and Products NESHAP. The commenter suggested that a source be allowed to comply with the final NESHAP for automobiles and light-duty trucks for all coating operations if the principle activity is the surface coating of automobiles and light-duty truck bodies. The commenter noted that the plastic and metal parts coating operations are often integrated with the body coating operations, since all three coating operations may share common coating supplies, application equipment, cleaning solvents, and emission controls. The shared equipment and materials could make tracking separate compliance for each NESHAP overly burdensome and would reduce the certainty of compliance.

One commenter requested that EPA clarify that shipbuilding or ship repair surface coating operations are subject to only the Shipbuilding and Ship Repair NESHAP (40 CFR part 63, subpart II).

The commenter noted that the Shipbuilding and Ship Repair NESHAP covers only paints and thinners, and does not cover caulks, sealants, and adhesives. Since the plastic parts rule covers all coating materials, the commenter was concerned that it would cover those materials that were not specifically addressed by the Shipbuilding and Ship Repair NESHAP and will make shipbuilding and ship repair sources subject to multiple NESHAP.

Response:

We agree with the commenter that coating operations that are addressed in the Aerospace NESHAP, and for which EPA determined that MACT controls were not needed, are not intended to be regulated under the Plastic Parts and Products NESHAP. To clarify this intent, the final plastic parts rule includes a provision that specifies that the final rule does not apply to coatings that meet the applicability criteria for the Aerospace NESHAP (40 CFR part 63, subpart GG). In addition, the final rule excludes the application of specialty coatings, as defined in appendix A to subpart GG, to metal parts of aerospace vehicles or components.

The coating of plastic parts that would not meet the applicability of the Aerospace NESHAP or that would not require any of the specialty coatings defined in appendix A to 40 CFR part 63, subpart GG would be subject to the plastic parts final rule. Information provided during the comment period indicates that any plastic coating activities would comprise less than 5 percent of total coating activities at an aerospace facility. Consequently, the facility could elect to comply with the predominant activity compliance alternative to reduce its recordkeeping and reporting burden.

We agree that the final rule for the surface coating of plastic parts is not intended to apply to coating operations that meet the applicability criteria of the Shipbuilding and Ship Repair NESHAP. Although the Shipbuilding and Ship Repair NESHAP did not establish emission limits for sealants, caulks, and adhesives used in shipbuilding or ship repair, such types of coatings used for shipbuilding or ship repair operations are more appropriately addressed under the Shipbuilding and Ship Repair NESHAP. The review of the Shipbuilding and Ship Repair NESHAP, required by section 112(d)(6)of the CAA, is an appropriate mechanism for evaluating whether emission limits are needed for sealants, caulks, and adhesives used in shipbuilding or ship repair.

For sources that will be subject to the final Automobiles and Light-Duty Trucks NESHAP, the final plastic parts and products rule includes a provision to mitigate the overlap at these facilities. For these plastic part surface coating operations, a facility has the option to comply with the requirements of the final Automobiles and Light-Duty Trucks NESHAP as long as the plastic parts are for use in automobiles or light-duty trucks.

Complying With the Rule Representing the Majority of the Substrate (Plastic or Metal) on Pre-Assembled Parts

Comment:

Several commenters supported this option in the proposed rule. However, one commenter requested that this option be revised to include facilities that coat both metal and plastic components separately, as well as those that coat multi-substrate parts. The commenter noted that this would prevent a source from having to track the amount of coating applied to individual parts in a coating operation when a source coats separate plastic and metal parts and preassembled parts that contain plastic and metal on the same line.

Several other commenters did not support the proposed option. One commenter claimed that the proposed rule is unclear and overly burdensome for facilities that coat both metal and plastic parts (which may not be pre-assembled) and that this compliance option would help few, if any, facilities. One commenter noted that because the same cleaning solvents are used for multiple substrates and coating operations, it would be extremely difficult to determine the quantity used for plastic parts and products versus other substrates. Another commenter noted that the relative amount of plastic and metal coated at a facility could change over time and a facility could potentially fluctuate between applicable NESHAP.

Response:

We recognize and appreciate some of the problems that were identified with this approach by the commenters. Although some commenters supported this approach, it is not included in the final rule. The final rule instead offers more practical compliance approaches, including a predominant activity and a facility-specific emission limit alternative, as described in this preamble.

Comply With the Most Stringent NESHAP

Comment:

Several commenters supported this provision. One commenter agreed that complying with only one NESHAP would prevent excessive monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting. One commenter suggested that this option would require less recordkeeping than tracking and determining which substrate represents the greatest coating activity.

However, several commenters stated that different units of measure (

e.g.

, lb organic HAP per lb solids versus lb organic HAP per gal solids) make it difficult to determine which surface coating NESHAP among several is more stringent. Additionally, one commenter noted that case-by-case demonstrations of relative stringency based on total estimated annual emissions are difficult because of the different standards and units of measure in the various NESHAP. One commenter noted that when different NESHAP have different methods of compliance demonstration, sources must track and allocate material usage differently for different parts. Cleaning solvents in particular are a problem, since some NESHAP emission limits include cleaning solvents while others impose work practices instead.

One commenter noted that the rule as proposed places the burden on the source to determine the most stringent limit, and that the different units used for different surface coating rules may cause a source to mistakenly fall out of compliance through miscalculation or misunderstanding.

Several commenters suggested options so that sources would not have to determine which rule is most stringent on a case-by-case basis. Some commenters suggested that the relative stringency of different NESHAP should be stated in each rulemaking so that facilities subject to more than one NESHAP do not need to perform a case-by-case determination of which applicable rule is most stringent. Another commenter suggested that the different surface coating rules contain factors or equations so a source could convert emission limits from one unit to another (

e.g.

, lb organic HAP/lb solids to lb organic HAP/gal solids).

One commenter recommended that EPA allow facilities subject to both the Plastic Parts and Products NESHAP and the Miscellaneous Metal Parts and Products NESHAP the option of complying with the standards of their choice since both NESHAP will significantly reduce organic HAP emissions.

Response:

Through clarification of the applicability provisions of the final rule, as described in this preamble, we have significantly reduced the potential for sources to be subject to multiple surface coating NESHAP. However, we recognize that some sources may be subject to both the final rule and the

miscellaneous metal parts rule, and possibly other NESHAP. We agree with the commenters who argued that demonstrating compliance with the most stringent NESHAP is complicated by the fact that it is hard to determine which NESHAP is most stringent because of differences in units, the affected source targeted (

e.g.

, whether cleaning is included in the emission limits), and compliance periods. Therefore, the option of complying with the most stringent NESHAP is not included in the final rule. Instead, the final rule provides the predominant activity and facility-specific emission limit compliance alternatives, as described in this preamble.

Predominant Activity Compliance Option

Comment:

Several commenters supported the predominant activity compliance option. One of the commenters preferred the “predominant activity” compliance option only if it is based on estimates of surface area coated. The commenter provided as an example a truck manufacturing facility that could estimate the total surface area coated by using truck part design information for each truck and tracking the number of trucks manufactured each year.

Several commenters recommended that the predominant activity demonstration be made only at the time a source applies for or renews its operating permit under title V or when the source becomes subject to regulations applicable to new source review or prevention of significant deterioration. The commenters noted that a “one-time” or periodic demonstration would reduce the recordkeeping burden and avoid the potential for some facilities to fluctuate back and forth between two applicable NESHAP if predominant activity was tracked over a short time frame.

Response:

The final rule provides two alternatives for reducing the burden associated with complying with more than one coating NESHAP or with more than one subcategory emission limit. The first alternative allows a facility to identify its predominant type of coating activity and comply with the NESHAP or the subcategory emission limit that applies to that activity for all coating operations. The predominant activity is defined as the activity that represents 90 percent or more of the surface coating that occurs at a facility. The second alternative allows a facility to calculate and comply with a facility-specific emission limit.

We have analyzed the relative differences in emission limits that are included in the predominant activity compliance option, as it would apply to the NESHAP for plastic parts and products and the NESHAP for miscellaneous metal parts and products. We have determined, for certain subcategories, that the environmental benefit of complying with the emission limit for the predominant activity is essentially equivalent to complying separately with each emission limit. For subcategories where the environmental benefit would not be substantially equivalent to complying with each standard separately, the predominant activity alternative is not provided. The predominant activity alternative does not apply to coating operations that are subject to the assembled on-road vehicle or automotive lamp emission limits in the final rule. These emission limits reflect the need for specialized performance requirements that can currently be accomplished only with materials that contain substantially higher HAP than materials used at other types of coating operations. It would be inappropriate to allow coating operations that can be performed with lower-HAP materials to comply with substantially higher-HAP emission limits than would otherwise be applicable.

Under the predominant activity alternative, if all coating operations comply with the emission limit applicable to the predominant activity, the facility will be considered in compliance with the emission limits otherwise applicable to the minority surface coating operations (

i.e

, those that amount to less than 10 percent of the coating activity).

The predominant activity determination could be based on representative coating data from the prior 1 to 5 years of operation for existing sources, or it could be based on reliable projections for future operations. For new sources, the determination would be based on projections of coating activity for the next 1 to 5 years or other period that is believed to represent future coating operations.

We believe the most appropriate basis for the predominant activity determination is the percentage of coating solids that is applied to parts subject to different emission limits. A facility would not need to measure the amount of coating solids used on different parts and products to determine the relative amount of coating activity subject to different emission limits. Instead, a facility could use other reliable and verifiable information including, but not limited to, product design, volume of coatings used, or the number of different parts and products coated during a representative period as long as it is approved by the permitting authority.

Create a Subcategory for Overlap Sources or Job Shops

Comment:

One commenter suggested that developing subcategories for facilities subject to multiple NESHAP would not be feasible because EPA might need to create several subcategories to address different combinations of NESHAP. Another commenter stated that a subcategory for mixed coating operations could not be considered as an option without a proposed numerical emission limit. The same commenter claimed that emission limits for this option can not be developed based on the current MACT database.

Response:

We agree with the commenters that this option is not feasible for several reasons. First, as stated in the proposal preamble (67 FR 72280, December 4, 2002), this option may not afford as much operating flexibility as other options being considered. Second, we did not have sufficient data to develop emission limits since most sources responding to the plastic parts and miscellaneous metal parts industry surveys tended to provide only data relevant to those surveys and the surveys were completed by sources that were more or less dedicated to one substrate or another. As a result, we did not have representative or accurate data from those sources most likely to be subject to this type of emission limit. Finally, as one commenter alluded to, even if useful data became available, an emission limit for these “job shop” sources would need to be proposed for public comment.

Expand the Definition of the Source Category and Subcategories To Include Incidental Surface Coating Operations

Comment:

One commenter stated that an approach for “incidental” surface coating operations, would not be useful for sources such as truck manufacturers because neither plastic nor metal coating is incidental to their operations. Another commenter claimed that the incidental surface coating operations option may provide some relief.

Response:

The final rule does not expand the definition of the plastic parts and products or miscellaneous metal parts and products source categories or subcategories to include incidental surface coating operations. However, as described previously, under the predominant activity compliance alternative in the final rule,

a source may comply with the emission limit that represents 90 percent or more of the coating activity at a source. For both the predominant activity and facility-specific emission limit alternatives, you may exclude coating activities that meet the applicability criteria of other surface coating NESHAP as long as these coating activities do not constitute more than 1 percent of total coating activities. Although these incidental coating activities can be excluded from the emission limit calculation or predominant activity determination, the coating activities must be included in the facility-wide compliance calculation.

Comments on the Proposal To Establish a Multi-Component Emission Limit

Comment:

One commenter disagreed with EPA's suggestion of setting a multi-component emission limit for several reasons. The commenter did not think it would reduce recordkeeping because in both cases (separate compliance and a multi-component emission limit) a source would have to track the amount of each coating applied to each substrate in each subcategory. The commenter also contended that this approach would likely increase emissions compared to compliance with the individual limits, but did not provide any supporting explanation. The commenter was also concerned that some facilities could operate out of compliance if the emission limit does not accurately reflect the mix of substrates that they coat. Finally, the commenter believed that this option would amount to emissions averaging across subcategory boundaries and would contradict CAA section 112(d)(3), which mandates that standards for a subcategory cannot be less stringent than the MACT floor for the subcategory.

Several other commenters, however, supported this approach. One commenter argued that restricting emission averaging among coating operations discourages innovative and environmentally beneficial approaches to low-HAP coatings. The commenter argued that allowing averaging would promote more cost-effective regulation of HAP emissions while achieving an overall environmental benefit. The commenter also argued that the same flexible approach should be incorporated for meeting the requirements of multiple NESHAP at the same facility, as well as meeting multiple emission limits within a single NESHAP.

One commenter supported the idea of a source subject to two or more subcategory limits (

e.g.

, TPO and general use) to calculate a source-specific multi-component emission limit based on the relative amount of coating solids used on each plastic substrate. However, the commenter recommended that EPA not require a facility to calculate the limit each month and instead be allowed to calculate it annually or when renewing its permit.

While not commenting directly on this option, many commenters also expressed concern that many sources coat both plastic and metal parts, often using the same coatings and cleaning solvents. According to these commenters, requiring a facility to demonstrate compliance with separate emission limits in two or more surface coating NESHAP would be difficult and burdensome. These comments have been summarized earlier in this section.

Response:

Through clarification of the applicability provisions of the final rule, as described in this preamble, we have significantly reduced the potential for sources to be subject to multiple surface coating NESHAP. In addition, EPA is providing in the final rule, the opportunity for a source to determine and comply with a facility-specific weighted emission limit for all coating operations that take place at the source. The emission limit would be weighted according to the relative amount of coatings used that would be subject to separate emission limits. This alternative emission limit may include applicable emission limits from two or more NESHAP.

In calculating the facility-specific emission limit, the basis for the weighting of the individual emission limits must be the mass of coating solids used in each subcategory. The mass coating solids used in the different coating operations may be calculated by a variety of methods, as long as it is accepted by the permitting authority. For example, in some cases a facility that uses the same coating for plastic and metal parts may be able to use the design specifications of the parts coated and the numbers of each type of part coated to calculate the weight of coating solids used for metal and plastic surfaces subject to the individual emission limits. In other situations, actual records of coating usage for each operation may be needed to provide a valid calculation.

In calculating a facility-specific emission limit for operations subject to NESHAP with emission limits in different formats, you will need to convert emission limits to the same format. To do so, you must use a default value for solids density of 12.5 lbs solids per gal solids (1.50 kg solids/liter solids) to convert emission limits in the Miscellaneous Metal Parts and Products NESHAP that are in “HAP per volume solids” to the “HAP per mass solids” units of the Plastic Parts and Products NESHAP. This default value was calculated from the weighted-average solids density of coatings in the metal parts survey database and represents the average solids density of metal parts coatings.

The following example illustrates how the facility-specific emission limit may be used. Assume a facility has three coating operations subject to the following emission limits:

• Plastic parts general use (0.16 lb organic HAP/lb solids);

• Plastic parts TPO (0.26 lb HAP/lb solids); and

• Miscellaneous metal parts general use (2.6 lb organic HAP/gal solids).

The three coating operations used the following pounds of coating solids in the 12 months of the compliance period:

• Plastic parts general use: 30,000 lbs;

• Plastic parts TPO: 30,000 lbs; and

• Miscellaneous metal parts general use: 40,000 lbs.

First, the miscellaneous metal parts general use emission limit must be converted to lb organic HAP/lb solids units as in the plastic parts rule. For this example, we will use the default solids density of 12.5 lb solids per gal solids:

ER19AP04.000

Next, the facility-specific emission limit is calculated using Equation 1 in § 63.4490 of the final rule:

ER19AP04.001

If all coating operations comply with an emission limit of 0.21 lb organic HAP/lb solids and with the other compliance provisions of the final rule, the facility will be in compliance with the final rule for that compliance

period. The calculation must be repeated for each 12-month compliance period. In this example, compliance will also constitute compliance with the Miscellaneous Metal Parts and Products NESHAP for the metal parts coating operations. The facility may use either the compliant materials option, the emission rate without add-on controls option, or the emission rate with add-on controls option to demonstrate compliance with the facility-specific emission limit.

This approach is consistent with the CAA because the emission limits from which the facility-specific emission limit would be calculated are based on the MACT emission limits for each applicable coating operation. We believe that overall emissions would be essentially the same as if each coating operation were complying separately with each applicable emission limit. The facility-specific emission limit needs to be calculated each month of the 12 month compliance period because of the wide differences in the various emission limits available for inclusion. A relatively small change in the mix of coating operations conducted during a compliance period may have a significant effect on the weighted emission limit. Thus, it would not be appropriate for a facility to establish and maintain a fixed facility-specific emission limit based on historical data or long term projections.

In the final rule, the facility-specific emission limit and predominant activity alternatives provide sources with comprehensive and flexible approaches that will reduce the recordkeeping associated with sources that coat multiple substrates and whose workload could fluctuate over time. These alternatives reduce the likelihood of overlap among multiple surface coating NESHAP.

C. The MACT Floor Approach and Database

Comment:

Several commenters requested that the rule be revised to either exempt solvent blends from HAP limits or change the MACT floors to reflect the default HAP contents. One commenter noted that when sources provided EPA with coating data they were not aware that solvent blends contained HAP, and therefore did not report any HAP content in these materials. Therefore, according to the commenters, using the default HAP contents in the rule, as proposed, to determine compliance is not consistent with the MACT floor. Other commenters requested that EPA verify that the manner in which solvent blends were accounted for in the database is consistent with the default HAP fractions in Tables 3 and 4 of this preamble.

Response:

When we analyzed the data provided to us in establishing the MACT floor for the general use, automotive lamp, and TPO subcategories, we accounted for the HAP in solvent blends, consistent with Tables 3 and 4 of this preamble. Therefore, no adjustments to the proposed limits are necessary to account for the HAP in solvent blends.

For the assembled on-road vehicle subcategory, the proposed limits are based on data provided to EPA that, according to the commenters, did not account for the HAP in solvent blends. We have reviewed more detailed HAP data from EPA surveys for sources in this subcategory. Based on these data, the HAP from solvent blends accounts for only about 0.1 percent of all HAP emitted from the coating operations at these sources. Therefore, we believe that no adjustment in the emission limit for the assembled on-road vehicle subcategory is needed to account for the HAP in solvent blends that will be included in the compliance calculations.

Comment:

Several commenters provided additional data that resulted in revised emission rates for some of the MACT floor facilities in the TPO subcategory. Two commenters expressed concern that the MACT floor database could contain errors that were still undetected. The commenters were also concerned that some coating materials could not be accurately linked to specific subcategories at several sources that had coating operations in more than one subcategory. The commenters recommended adding a 20-percent correction factor to the proposed emission limits to account for potential errors that had not yet been identified and to account for materials that were not linked to specific subcategory coating operations.

Two commenters also questioned EPA's assumptions about capture efficiency and the approach for dividing HAP emissions among the spray booth, flash-off, and curing ovens for those facilities that did not supply specific information when estimating emission rates for sources with add-on controls. The commenters questioned whether EPA should have assumed 100 percent capture efficiency for total enclosures when data for some sources indicated only about 65 percent capture efficiency. The commenters also argued that the majority of emissions (about 80 percent) occur in the spray booth and that it is inappropriate to divide emissions evenly among the spray booth, flash-off area, and the oven and drying area. Both commenters stated that these estimates affect the estimated HAP emissions from the floor facilities.

One commenter requested that EPA modify the emission limits for TPO because the proposed limits are not practically achievable for solventborne systems, or the final rule should include a predominant activity option for TPO surface coating sources that are also subject to the automobile and light-duty truck NESHAP. The commenter argued that because the floor facilities for existing sources in the TPO category include both waterborne and solventborne technologies, solventborne facilities are faced with disadvantages in meeting the standards. The commenter stated that problems arise because it is not economically feasible to convert to waterborne coatings and waterborne coatings do not meet all customer needs. The commenter also noted that some operations could not meet the emission limit even with add-on controls. The commenter noted that in the proposal preamble, EPA concluded that waterborne coatings and add-on controls were not feasible as options more stringent than the MACT floor for existing TPO surface coating operations.

Response:

We have evaluated the additional data provided on the sources in the TPO subcategory and have corrected the emission rates for these sources where appropriate, and recalculated the MACT floor (the average emission rate of the best-performing five sources for existing sources). The final emission limits reflect those changes, and are higher than the proposed emission limits for new and existing sources. In addition, the data and analysis for each of the MACT floor facilities for each subcategory were checked against the original survey response for each facility and no other corrections were identified that would warrant additional changes to the limits. Since we have adopted the specific data corrections noted by the commenters and have confirmed the other data used in establishing the emission limits for each subcategory, we see no need to increase the limits by 20 percent as suggested by the commenters.

We disagree with the commenter that the TPO emission limits should be revised to exclude sources using waterborne coatings or add-on controls. The commenter provided no data or information that would indicate that these sources should be put into a separate subcategory or subject to a separate emission limit from those that are using solventborne coatings. The products being coated by the lower-emitting “MACT floor” facilities are

similar to those being coated by the rest of the sources in the subcategory. Therefore, these sources need to be included in the MACT analysis for TPO coating and the emission limit for existing TPO sources can be no less stringent than the average emission limit of the five best controlled sources. Existing facilities have the flexibility to meet these limits in a variety of ways, including use of waterborne coatings, use of other low-HAP coating or cleaning materials, add-on controls, or a combination of these. In addition, the final rule includes a compliance alternative for sources subject to the Automobile and Light-Duty Truck NESHAP where compliance with that NESHAP for all plastic part coating operations constitutes compliance with this rule. Also, the final rule includes a predominant activity compliance alternative suggested by commenters as an alternative for TPO sources that are located at sources that are also subject to other surface coating NESHAP, and also includes the facility-specific emission limit alternative. These three alternatives that were not included in the proposed rule will increase the compliance flexibility for sources that are potentially subject to the TPO emission limit.

Comment:

One commenter requested the final rule move marine engine plastic part coatings from the general use category to either a separate category or a category that more accurately reflects performance and durability requirements for marine engine parts. Another commenter believes that the general use emission limits are more stringent than the miscellaneous metal parts emission limits and believes the plastic parts rule will be difficult and expensive to meet. The commenter noted that coating of the large plastic cover on a stern drive or inboard marine engine enhances the appearance of the engine and protects it in a harsh marine environment.

Another commenter stated that it is not technically feasible for coatings used on personal water craft (PWC) to meet the emission limits from the general use category. The commenter believes PWC coatings need a separate category that more accurately reflects PWC's performance and durability requirements. The PWC are consumer products and the product is judged by its ability to maintain appearance in a harsh marine environment. In this respect, the coating serves as a protective coating for the fiberglass laminate of the PWC hull and deck. The commenter argued that compliant coatings and alternative coating technology, such as electro-deposition coating and powder coating, are not acceptable because they do not have a high-quality finish for high-visibility products. To resolve this issue, one commenter requested the general use emission limits be harmonized and suggested that PWC could meet a limit based on combined compliance with the plastic parts and miscellaneous metal parts general use emission limits. The commenter indicated that compliance would be facilitated if they could offset higher emissions from the plastic part coating operations.

Response:

The commenters did not provide data to support the claim that the coatings used on PWC or marine engine covers could not meet the proposed emission limits, or to support the development of alternative emission limits. Therefore, the final rule does not contain a separate category or emission limit for PWC or marine engine cover coating operations. However, a source coating both metal and plastic parts will be allowed to calculate a facility-specific emission limit based on the relative amount of coating performed on each substrate. This approach will allow facilities that coat PWC or engine covers more flexibility in complying with the limits for their plastic part surface coating operations.

D. Compliance Options for Meeting the Emission Limits

Comment:

One commenter stated that the emission rate without add-on controls option allows sources to take credit for HAP included in materials recycled off-site and argued that sources that recycle on-site should receive the same credit. Language in §§ 63.4541, 63.4551, and 63.4561(a) led the commenter to expect that sources with add-on control also receive credit for recycled coatings, thinners, or cleaning materials in the compliance calculations and that EPA should clarify this in the final rule. Another commenter also questioned whether sources that recycle materials off-site need to determine the HAP content of the materials received back from the recycler. The commenter noted that sources that recycle on-site do not need to determine the HAP content of the recycled material.

Response:

In the compliance calculations in both the emission rate without add-on controls option and the emission rate with add-on controls option, you only need to include the HAP and solids from those materials that are actually consumed in a coating operation for which you are calculating the emission rate. If the unused portion of a material is recovered on-site and used in a second (different) coating operation for which you are separately calculating the emission rate, you do not need to include the amount of HAP and solids contained in the recovered material in the emission rate calculation for the first coating operation. However, you do need to include the HAP and solids from the recovered material in the second coating operation for which you are calculating the emission rate.

If you are calculating a single facility-wide emission rate for all coating operations, you do not need to account for materials that are recovered in one operation and used in another on-site operation. Instead, you would only need to account for materials that are actually consumed by the whole facility. For example, you would use the assumption that all HAP in the purchased coating materials are emitted on-site (either during their first use or during re-use on site). If you send HAP-containing materials off-site for recycling or disposal, such that a portion of the HAP is not emitted on-site, you can subtract this from the facility-wide emission calculation.

If you recycle materials on-site, you do not need to determine the HAP content of the materials after recycling for use in compliance calculations. Similarly, we have clarified the final rule to specify that if you send materials off-site for recycling, you do not need to determine the HAP content after recycling if you have documentation from the recycler that the material you received back is the exact same material you sent to the recycler. The purpose of the requirements is to show that the recycled materials are not inadvertently amounting to a net increase in HAP emissions from the source.

E. Methods for Determining HAP Content of Coatings

Comment:

Two commenters stated that if a facility uses Material Safety Data Sheets to demonstrate compliance, a facility should be allowed to use the average of a reported range for an ingredient in determining compliance. This would avoid a facility having to determine the actual composition and would be consistent with toxics release inventory reporting, according to the commenter. A requirement to use the upper limit of a range would lead to a gross overstatement of the HAP content of materials, according to the commenter. Another commenter argued that to reduce the recordkeeping burden of calculating HAP emissions from hundreds of paints, the HAP emissions for groups of coating materials that are covered in a single Material Safety Data Sheet (such as, paints that differ only in color) should be calculated based on the average composition of the group

normalized to a total of 100 percent. The level for each HAP component should be based on the midpoint between the high and low end of the range shown on the Material Safety Data Sheets.

Response:

If a range of HAP is presented, it is up to the user to determine the appropriate value that best represents the actual HAP content. The final rule does not specify whether you must use the upper limit of a range or whether you may use the average or mid-point of a range. It is important to remember, however, that in the event of any inconsistency between formulation data, such as that found on Material Safety Data Sheets, and Method 311 analyses, the Method 311 data will be used in any compliance determinations.

Comment:

Several commenters stated that the final rule should allow sources or materials suppliers to use alternatives to EPA Method 24 to determine the amount of HAP that is actually emitted from reactive coatings as they are used. The proposed rule and associated test methods (specifically EPA Method 24) assumed that all HAP contained in coatings or additives are emitted. However, in reactive coatings, some of the HAP species react with other ingredients in the coating to form solids and are not emitted to the atmosphere. Therefore, the amount of HAP emitted can be significantly less than the amount of HAP present in the liquid coating.

Response:

An alternative method for determining the fraction of HAP emitted from reactive coatings has been included as an appendix to the final rule. Sources using reactive coatings may use this method for demonstrating compliance based on the HAP actually emitted, rather than using Method 311, Method 24, or composition data.

F. Notification Requirements

Comment:

Two commenters stated that § 63.4510 should be revised to exempt sources from the requirement to submit an initial notification if they have already submitted a CAA section 112(j) Part 1 Application to States regarding the Plastic Parts and Products Surface Coating NESHAP.

Response:

Sources that have submitted a CAA section 112(j) Part 1 Application to their State permitting agency are still required to submit an initial notification as required by § 63.4510. The General Provisions specified in 40 CFR part 63, subpart A, apply to all NESHAP source categories in part 63. Under § 63.9(b) of subpart A, the owner or operator of a facility subject to a NESHAP for a given source category must submit an initial, written notification to the EPA within the applicable time period identifying the facility and the specific NESHAP subpart to which the facility is subject. In this case, the owner or operator of a facility with plastic parts and products surface coating operations subject to the NESHAP is required to prepare and submit an initial notification. Section 112(j) of the CAA requires owners and operators of major sources within a source category to apply for a title V permit should the EPA fail to promulgate emission standards for that source category by the date specified in the regulatory schedule established through section 112(e) of the CAA. The application requirements are specified under 40 CFR part 63, subpart B. Although the subpart B application requirements include some of the same information required for the subpart A initial notification (

e.g.

, facility name, address, brief description of source), the two documents serve different administrative purposes under the NESHAP program. Therefore, it is not appropriate to provide an exemption as requested by the commenter and the final rule requires all sources subject to the rule to submit an initial notification.

G. Compliance Requirements for Sources With Add-on Controls

Comment:

Several commenters stated that the compliance calculations in § 63.4561(h) should not use an assumption of zero-efficiency when deviations occur. According to the commenter, this approach is burdensome and penalizes facilities for minor parameter reporting problems, such as temperature read-out malfunctions. The commenter suggested that a facility should be allowed to rebut the presumed zero-efficiency with other available data, such as fuel consumption or manual temperature recordings.

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 demonstrate compliance with the operating limits 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.

, data from previous tests measuring percent capture at reduced flow rates or percent destruction efficiency at reduced thermal oxidizer temperatures) during a deviation from operating limits, then the source may use the actual performance in determining compliance, provided that these data were collected during performance tests meeting the applicable requirements for performance tests specified in § 63.7 of the General Provisions. The final rule has been revised to clarify that the actual performance of the add-on control system during a deviation may be used provided the performance testing criteria have been met. The final rule does not allow a source to otherwise estimate the efficiency of a capture system or control device during a deviation because this would provide no assurance of the quality of the data used in the compliance calculation.

V. Summary of Environmental, Energy, and Economic Impacts

For the purpose of assessing potential cost and emission reduction impacts, we assumed that all existing sources would convert to liquid coatings, thinners and/or other additives with lower-HAP content than presently used and would convert to lower-HAP or no-HAP cleaning materials rather than using add-on control devices, except for those already using add-on control devices. We assumed that new sources would use low-HAP coatings and non-HAP cleaning materials.

A. What Are the Air Impacts?

The 1997 nationwide baseline organic HAP emissions for the 202 major source plastic parts and products surface coating facilities of which EPA is aware are estimated to be 9,820 tpy. Implementation of the final emission limitations would reduce these emissions by approximately 80 percent to 2260 tpy. In addition, the emission limitations will not result in any significant secondary air impacts. We expect that the majority of facilities will switch to lower- or non-organic-HAP-containing materials to comply with the standards, rather than installing add-on control devices. Thus, increases in electricity consumption (which could lead to increases in emissions of nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, carbon monoxide, and carbon dioxide from electric utilities) will be minimal.

B. What Are the Cost Impacts?

The total capital cost (including monitoring costs) for existing sources is estimated to be approximately $804,000. The nationwide annual cost (including monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting costs) for existing sources is approximately $10.7 million per year. Costs for new sources are based on an estimate of six new sources being constructed within 5 years after promulgation of the final standards. The total capital cost (including monitoring costs) for new sources is $28,000. The

total annual cost (including monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting costs) for new sources is estimated to be approximately $194,000 per year.

Cost estimates are based on information available to the Administrator and presented in the economic analysis of the final rule. The costs are calculated assuming that the majority of sources would comply by using lower-HAP-containing or non-HAP coatings and cleaning materials because such materials are generally available and becoming more widely available each year. We assumed that facilities presently equipped with add-on controls would continue to operate those control devices and capture systems and would perform the required performance tests and parameter monitoring.

During development of the proposed emission limitations, limited information was available on the costs associated with the switch to low-HAP or non-HAP coatings and cleaning materials. At proposal, we specifically requested comment on the assumptions and methodology used to determine these costs (67 FR 72295, December 4, 2002), including detailed information on the coatings and cleaning materials (and associated costs) currently being used and the coatings and cleaning materials (and associated costs) that would be used to comply with the proposed emission limitations, as well as the basis for the cost information. 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 provide an estimate of the impacts the proposed rule would have on the plastic parts and products surface coating industry, consumers, and society. Economic impacts were calculated on a facility-specific basis, as well as on a market segment basis (

e.g.

, automobile manufacturing, sporting goods, electronics equipment, etc.). Economic impact indicators examined included price, output, and employment impacts. 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.

The EIA showed that the expected price increase for affected plastic parts and products would be less than 0.1 percent as a result of the final standards. Therefore, we do not expect any adverse impact to occur for those industries that produce or consume plastic parts and products such as home appliances, computer hardware producers, motor vehicle manufacturers, and recreational vehicle manufacturers.

The distribution of costs across plastic parts and products production facilities is slanted toward the lower impact levels with many facilities incurring costs related only to annually recurring monitoring, reporting, and recordkeeping activities. The EIA indicates that these regulatory costs are expected to represent about 0.25 percent of the value of coating services, which should not cause producers to cease or significantly alter their current operations. Hence, no firms or facilities are expected to be at risk of closure because of the final rule. For more information, consult Docket ID No. OAR-2002-0074 (formerly Docket No. A-99-12).

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

Based on information from the industry survey responses, we found no indication that the use of lower-HAP or non-HAP content coatings, thinners and other additives, and cleaning materials at existing sources would result in any increase or decrease in non-air health, environmental, and energy impacts. There would be no change in the utility requirements associated with the use of these materials, so there would be no change in the amount of energy consumed as a result of the material conversion. Because new sources are expected to comply with the final rule through the use of lower-HAP or non-HAP coating technologies rather than add-on control devices, there would be no significant change in energy usage.

We estimate that the emission limitations will have a minimal impact on water quality because only a few facilities are expected to comply by making process modifications or by using add-on control devices that would generate wastewater. However, because many lower-HAP and non-HAP materials are waterborne, an increase in wastewater generation from cleaning activities may result. Although additional wastewater may be generated by facilities switching to waterborne coatings, the amount of wastewater generated by these facilities is not expected to increase significantly. We also estimate that the emission limitations will result in a decrease in the amount of both solid and hazardous waste from facilities, as the majority of facilities will be using lower-organic-HAP-containing materials which will result in a decrease in the amount of waste materials that will have to be disposed of as hazardous. In addition, we expect that the majority of facilities will comply by using low-HAP or non-HAP materials rather than add-on control devices. Thus, there will be little or no increase in energy usage caused by the operation of add-on controls.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866:

Regulatory Planning and Review

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), EPA must determine whether the regulatory action is “significant” and therefore subject to the 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 obligation of recipients thereof; or

(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in the Executive Order.

Pursuant to the terms of Executive Order 12866, it has been determined that the final rule is a “significant regulatory action,” due to its potential impact on small businesses. The Small Business Administration (SBA) was specifically interested in how the final rule would address the potential for sources to be subject to multiple coating NESHAP. 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 rule requires maintaining records of all coatings, thinners and/or other additives, and cleaning materials data and calculations used to determine compliance. This information includes the amount (kg) used during each 12-month compliance period, mass fraction of organic HAP, density, and mass fraction of coating solids.

If an add-on control device is used, records must be kept of the capture efficiency of the capture system, destruction or removal efficiency of the add-on control device, and the monitored operating parameters. In addition, records must be kept of each calculation of the affected sourcewide emissions for each 12-month compliance period and all data, calculations, test results, and other supporting information used to determine this value.

The monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting burden in the third year after the effective date of the promulgated rule is estimated to be 119,000 labor hours at a cost of $5.4 million for new and existing sources. This estimate includes the cost of determining and recording organic HAP content, solids content, and density, as needed, of the regulated materials, and developing a system for determining and recording the amount of each material used and performing the calculations needed for demonstrating compliance. Additionally, for affected sources with existing or newly-installed add-on control systems, the costs also include a one-time performance test and report (with repeat tests where needed) of the add-on control device, one-time purchase and installation of a CPMS, one-time submission of a SSMP with semiannual reports for any event when the procedures in the plan were not followed, semiannual compliance status reports, and recordkeeping. Total capital/startup costs associated with the monitoring requirements over the 3-year period of the information collection request (ICR) are estimated at $133,000, with operation and maintenance costs of $655 per year.

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 impact of the final rule on small entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business according to SBA size standards by NAICS code ranging from 100 to 1,000 employees or less than $5 million in annual sales; (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a city, county, town, school district, or special district with a population of less than 50,000; or (3) a small organization that is any not-for-profit enterprise that is independently operated and is not dominant in its field. It should be noted that companies affected by the final rule and the small business definition applied to each industry by NAICS code is that listed in the SBA size standards (13 CFR part 121).

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. We have determined that 67 of the 130 firms, or 51 percent of the total, affected by the final rule may be small entities. While the number of small firms appears to be a large proportion of the total number of affected firms, the small firms experience 21 percent of the total national compliance cost of $11 million (1997 $). Of the 67 affected small firms, three firms are estimated to have compliance costs that exceed 1 percent of their revenues. The maximum impact on any affected small entity is a compliance cost of 1.8 percent of its sales. Finally, there is a difference between the median compliance cost-to-sales estimates for the affected small and large firms (0.08 percent compared to 0.01 percent for the large firms, and 0.03 percent across all affected firms).

Although the final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, EPA nonetheless has worked aggressively to minimize the impact of the final rule on small entities. We solicited input from small entities during the data-gathering phase of the rulemaking. We are promulgating compliance options that give small entities flexibility in choosing the most cost-effective and least burdensome alternative for their operation. For example, a facility could purchase and use lower-or non-HAP coatings, thinners, and cleaning materials (

i.e.

, pollution prevention) that meet the final rule rather than being required to purchase add-on control systems. The lower-or non-HAP option can be demonstrated with minimum burden by using already-maintained purchase and usage records. No testing of materials would be required as the facility owner could show that their coatings meet the emission limits by providing formulation data supplied by the manufacturer.

We are also providing one option that allows compliance demonstrations to be conducted on a rolling 12-month basis, meaning that the facility would each month calculate a 12-month organic HAP emission rate for the previous 12 months to determine compliance. This will give affected small entities extra flexibility in complying with the emission limits since small entities are more likely to use lower monthly volumes and/or a limited number of materials. Furthermore, we are promulgating the minimum monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements needed for enforcement and compliance assurance.

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 does not contain a Federal mandate that may result in expenditures of $100 million or more to State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the private sector in any 1 year. The maximum total annual cost of the final rule for any 1 year has been estimated to be about $11 million. Thus, the final rule is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA. In addition, EPA has determined that the final rule contains no regulatory requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small governments because it contains no requirements that apply to such governments or impose obligations upon them. Therefore, the final rule is not subject to the requirements of Section 203 of the UMRA.

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 plastic parts and products 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 does not establish environmental standards based on an assessment of health or safety risks.

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

The final rule is not subject to 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. Further, we have concluded that the final rule is not likely to have any adverse energy effects. The vast majority of affected sources are expected to comply with the final rule through pollution prevention rather than add on controls, and therefore, there would be, at most, a nominal impact on energy usage.

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; § 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, 311, and an alternative method to determine weight volatile matter content and weight solids content for reactive adhesives. Consistent with the NTTAA, EPA conducted searches to identify VCS in addition to these EPA methods/performance specifications. No applicable VCS were identified for EPA Methods 1A, 2A, 2D, 2F, 2G, 204, 204A through 204F, 311, and an alternative method to determine weight volatile matter content and weight solids content for reactive adhesives. The search and review results have been documented and are placed in Docket ID No. OAR-2002-0074 (formerly Docket No. A-99-12).

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. In addition, we are separately specifying the use of ASTM D1475-98, “Standard Test Method for Density of Liquid Coatings, Inks, and Related Products,” for measuring the density of each coating, thinner and/or additive, and cleaning material. 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 EPA uses in the final rule, the search for emissions measurement procedures identified 14 other VCS. The EPA determined that 11 of these 14 VCS identified for measuring emissions of the HAP or surrogates subject to emission standards in the final rule are impractical alternatives to EPA test methods for the purposes of the final rule. Therefore, EPA does not intend to adopt the VCS for this purpose.

Three of the 14 VCS identified in this search were not available at the time the review was conducted for the purposes of the final rule because they are under development by a VCS body: ASME/BSR MFC 13M, “Flow Measurement by Velocity Traverse,” for EPA Method 2 (and possibly 1); ASME/BSR MFC 12M, “Flow in Closed Conduits Using Multiport Averaging Pitot Primary Flowmeters,” for EPA Method 2; and ISO/CD 17895, “Paints and Varnishes—Determination of the Volatile Organic Compound Content of Water-based Emulsion Paints,” for EPA Method 24.

The EPA requested comment on the compliance demonstration requirements in the proposed rule and specifically invited the public to identify potentially-applicable VCS. We received several comments suggesting the use of an alternative method to Method 24 for measuring emissions from reactive adhesives. This alternative method has been included in appendix A to the final rule. No other comments were received with respect to potentially applicable VCS.

Sections 63.4541, 63.4551, 63.4561, 63.4565, 63.4566, and appendix A of the final standards list the EPA testing methods and performance specifications included in the final standards. Under 40 CFR 63.7(f) and 63.8(f) of subpart A of the General Provisions, a source may apply to EPA for permission to use alternative test methods or alternative monitoring requirements in place of any of the EPA testing methods, performance specifications, or procedures.

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 rul

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